Santee Print Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1362 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
companies are conceived and formulated by C. A. Jessup, an officer
in all of the companies. Though Jessup depends in part on local
managers for the execution of the policies, it is clear that he does not
hesitate actively to intervene; and that he has the final word on all
matters of importance. This, together with the common ownership
and control of the component companies by the Jessups, is sufficient to
establish that Safeway Transit is not operated as an independent
enterprise.3
Accordingly, I find in disagreement with the majority that Safeway
't'ransit and the other companies named above constitute a single em-
ployer for purposes of determining the question of the Board' s juris-
diction herein. That being true, this case should be remanded to the
Regional Director for purposes of reopening the hearing in order to
ascertain whether considered as a single Employer the Board's present
jurisdictional standards are met. It is quite possible that the amount
of revenue derived from the interstate operations of the Virginia Stage
Lines, Inc., might itself be sufficient to meet the Rollo Transit test.4
3 Cf Ito Ito P) ausit CO poi ation, 110 NLRB 1623 , llodci it Linen cC Laundry Service, 110
NLRB 1305, Youngstown Tent S Awning Co, 110 NLRB 850
4 Though the pi esent i ecord does not show that the Employer's operations considered
separately meet the Board's new jurisdictional standards for either a local or an interstate
transpoitation enterprise , announced in Greenwich Gas Co., Charleston Transit, and Rollo
Transit, I would nevertheless be disposed to assert jui isdiction herein, for the reason set
forth in my dissenting opinions in these cases
SANTEE PRINT WORKS and MACHINE PRINTERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER . Case No. 11-RUi-648. March
31,1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of 10 machine printers and
their apprentices (Hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to ag
printers) from an existing unit of the Employer's production and
111 NLRB No. 209.
SANTEE PRINT WORKS 1363
maintenance employees.' The Employer contends that the proposed
unit is inappropriate because: (1) A previous Board decision is
dispositive of the matter; 2 and (2) it is not a true craft unit. The
Employer further contends that four of the printers are supervisors
and should be excluded from the unit.
The Employer is engaged in printing and finishing cotton goods,
Its plant is divided into 5 departments, 1 of which is the printing
department. The printing department operates on a 2-shift basis,
and utilizes 5 complex printing machines each of which costs in excess
of $50,000. Each of the printers is employed to operate 1 of these
machines. Working with a printer in the operation of a machine
are a group of employees known as back help composed usually of a
back tender, a greige tender, and a color dipper.3
In addition to operating a printing machine, the printers set it up
and adjust it. Each is in full charge of the machine to which he is
assigned and is responsible for the quality and quantity of the cloth
that it prints. Their rate of pay runs as high as $3.121/2 per hour.
Although the Employer contends that the nature of the product it
processes-mostly cheap bagging material-does not require the ex-
ercise of craft skill in printing it, the record shows that its printing
machines and the duties of its printers are substantially the same as
those in the rest of the industry.
The Employer does not have a formal apprenticeship or other train-
ing program in its plant. However, 2 of the printers completed a
7-year apprenticeship before coming to the Employer. Of the other
8 individuals, all but 1 had prior experience as a back tender at the
Employer's plant before being brought around to the front of the
machine to become a printer, their pay is in correlation with the time
they have spent as printers, and the supervision that is exercised over
them decreases with the increase in their experience. The Petitioner
contends that the 2 printers who have completed their apprenticeship
are journeymen, and that the other 8 individuals are apprentice
machine printers.
' At the hearing , Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, the certified bargaining repre-
sentative for the production and maintenance unit, disavowed any interest in the em-
ployees sought to be represented herein.
2 Santee Print Works, 105 NLRB No 83 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Deci-
sions and Orders ). Although this case established the appropriateness of a production
and maintenance unit, including the machine printers and their apprentices , no labor
organization sought to represent them separately, and the question of their separate rep-
resentation as craft employees was not in issue. Accordingly , we find this contention of
the Employer to be without merit
3 The back help care for the back of the machine. Their duties include procuring,
checking , and placing the cloth on the machine , putting color in the color boxes , putting
the color boxes in place, getting sample patches and taking them to the colorist to be
checked, and washing rollers . Occasionally they may be called upon to operate a machine
during the temporary absence of a printer.
344056-55-vol. 111-87
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner is a labor organization devoted exclusively to the
representation of machine printers and their apprentices in the textile
industry. It is presently the bargaining representative for approxi-
mately 90 percent of the textile printing machine operators in this
country. Its constitution and bylaws require a 7-year apprenticeship
to attain journeyman status.
The Board has previously held that machine printers and their ap-
prentices constitute an identifiable, homogeneous, highly skilled craft
capable of constituting a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining.' On the basis of the record herein, we find that
the Employer's printers constitute a true craft group composed of
skilled journeymen craftsmen, working as such, together with their
apprentices, and that the Petitioner is a labor organization which his-
torically and traditionally represents this craft. Accordingly, we find
that the Employer's machine printers and their apprentices may con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire.'
As stated above, the Employer contends that four of the printers,
all of whom have been included in the production and maintenance
unit as nonsupervisory employees, are now supervisors and should be
excluded from any unit of printers.
The Petitioner filed its petition on July 15, 1954. After several
postponements, the Regional Director on November 9, 1954, noticed
the case for hearing on December 20, 1954. On November 18, 1954,
about a week after the issuance of the notice of hearing, the Employ-
er's production superintendent called into his office the four printers
in question and had them sign a document which designated them as
assistant foremen and set forth a list of supervisory responsibilities
which they were henceforward to exercises Thereafter, too, at the Em-
ployer's request, each of them submitted a sheet of paper upon which
he rated the back help working on his machine, and 3 of them attended
1 alleged supervisors' meeting. In further support of the contention
that the 4 printers are now supervisors, an official of the Employer
testified that within 30 to 60 days of the hearing, the Employer planned
to hire 10 or 12 additional employees for the printing department, and
that it expected its assistant foremen to spend 50 percent of their time
performing supervisory duties.
As set forth above, there are 5 printing machines which are operated
on 2 shifts. There are 5 printers on each shift plus approximately 15
back help. The 20 printing employees and 3 or 4 other employees on
4 Riegel Textile Corporation, 87 NLRB 637 at 640; American Finishing Company, 86
NLRB 412 at 418.
6 Amertican Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418 at 7.
6 1. addition to making the assistant foremen responsible for the operation and pro-
duction of their respective machines , the document recites that they have authority to
perform such supervisory duties as recommending the hiring , firing, transfer , promotion,
.and demotion of the workers on their machines.
SANTEE PRINT WORKS 1365
each shift are separately supervised by a foreman who is admittedly a
supervisor. The machines operated by the printers are standard in
the industry, and the normal duties and responsibilities of a machine
printer, as the Board has found, are not supervisory.?
Because of the timing of the alleged delegation of supervisory au-
thority to 4 of the 10 printers, the Board is compelled to scrutinize
carefully all the circumstances to determine whether the delegation
was genuine.' At the outset it is to be noted that there is a spread of
more than $1 between the hourly rate of pay of the highest and the
lowest paid alleged assistant foremen. Also 2 of the nonsupervisory
printers receive a higher rate of pay than 2 of the alleged assistant
foremen. All 10 of the printers operate in the same way. All 10 are
assisted by approximately the same number of back help. Except for
the preparation of the rating sheets and the attendance at 1 alleged
supervisors' meeting, the duties of the 4 alleged assistant foremen have
not changed from those which they had before November 18, 1954.
The four alleged assistant foremen submitted scratch pad ratings of
their back help on December 3, 1954. The rating system is an inno-
vation and is confined to the printing department. There is no pre-
scribed form for these ratings, and there is no showing that they are
to be submitted at regular intervals. Nor is there any evidence that
the Employer accords any weight to these recommendations. As to
the supervisors' meeting attended by the alleged assistant foremen,
only 3 of the 4 individuals in dispute and the Employer's production
superintendent participated therein. Neither of the printing depart-
ment foremen nor other representatives of management were present.
Finally, as to the prospective supervisory duties which the Employer
expects will require 50 percent of the alleged assistant foremen's time,
the Employer was unable to explain what the supervisory authority
would include, what type of employees it expected to hire, or how the
assistant foremen could continue to operate a printing machine, which
requires the constant attention of the printer while the machine is in
operation, and supervise at the same time.' In view of the above cir-
cumstances, we find that the alleged assistant foremen have not been
entrusted with real supervisory authority. Accordingly, we find that
they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and include
them in the unit.
We shall at this time direct an election in the following voting
group :
All machine printers and their apprentices employed at the Em-
ployer's Sumter, South Carolina, plant, including assistant foremen,
7 American Finishing Company, supra at 416.
8 Cherokee Brick and Tile Company, 100 NLRB 612 at 615.
9 The Employer's only witness , its personnel manager, testified that the additional super-
visory duties are just a thought that has not yet materialized, and that its plans in this
respect are still in the stage of contemplation.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but excluding all other emloyees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in this voting group select the Peti-
tioner to represent them, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, in
these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. If, however, a majority of the employees in this
voting group do not vote for the Petitioner, the employees in the group
will continue to be included in the production and maintenance unit
of which they are now a part and the Regional Director will issue a
certificate of results to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
C. A. GLASS COMPANY, INC., COACHELLA VALLEY DIVISION ' and UNITED
PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 78, CIO,2 PETITIONER.
Case No. 21-RC-3177. March 31,1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Fred. W. Davis, hearing offi-
cer. Subsequently, a reopened hearing was held before Leo Fischer,
hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby confirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, but contends that it will not effectuate the policies
of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein.
The Employer is engaged in the harvesting, packing, and selling
of carrots and corn for individual farmers. It charges the farmers
only the actual cost of the materials and labor of the harvesting and
packing operations. It receives a 10-percent commission of the gross
sale of the corn and carrots sold by it. Title to the corn and carrots
1 As amended at the hearing
2 By Order, dated November 9, 1954, the Board granted the Petitioner 's motion to correct
name of Petitioner , by substituting the name appearing herein, for the name, United Fresh
Fruit & Vegetable Workers, LIU No. 78.
9 The Employer' s motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner's
showing of interest was not based on cards signed by individuals employed by the Em-
ployer at the time of the hearing, was referred to the Board The motion is denied. A
petitioner's showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and is not
litigable at a hearing. Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner
has made a sufficient showing of interest to support its petition In any event , the ques-
tion concerning representation which exists among the Employer 's employees , as herein-
after found , can best be resolved by an election.
111 NLRB No. 208.