Stafford-Lowdon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Stafford-l,owdon Company, an American-Standard
Company, Employer-Petitioner and Local 342,
Graphic Arts International Union, AFI,-CIO-
CLC. Case 16-UC-104
November 12, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MUMBIRS
JLNKINS ANI) ZIMMIRMAN
On March 26, 1980, the Employer filed a unit
clarification petition with respect to a two-plant
lithographic production unit which the Regional
Director dismissed on the ground that it was incon-
sistent with his Decision in Case 16-RC-8097,
dated March 19, 1980, wherein it was found that a
residual group of unrepresented production and
maintenance employees were entitled to vote as to
whether they wished to be included in the forego-
ing two-plant unit. Upon the Employer's request
for review, the Board on May 5, 1980, reinstated
the petition because "the issues raised by [said] pe-
tition were not directly addressed or decided in
Case 16-RC-8097." A hearing was held regarding
the clarification issue on May 30 and June 10-11,
1980, before Hearing Officer Norman W. Eckhardt
who transferred the case by direction of the Re-
gional Director to the Board for decision. Thereaf-
ter, the Union and the Employer filed briefs. The
Employer also filed a motion to correct the tran-
script, in response to which the Union filed its ob-
jections.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the record in the case,' the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Stafford-Lowdon Company, 2 a commer-
cial printing firm based in Fort Worth, Texas,
about 1947 voluntarily recognized the Union with
which it entered into a series of collective-bargain-
ing agreements for the lithographic production em-
ployees at the West Daggett Street facility (Plant
I). However, in 1958 their coverage was extended
to the newly opened Lubbock Street facility (Plant
I The Employer's moltior to correct the transcript is herehy granted as
the Union has offered no persuasive reason in opposition thereto
As indicated below, the Stafford-l.oulidon Cornpan s was acquired hy
the American-Standard Company in Septtmhber 1979
253 NLRB No. 31
2) whose lithographic production employees oper-
ated web presses in contrast to the sheet-fed presses
in Plant 1. The last such contract executed by the
Union and Stafford-Lowdon before the latter's ac-
quisition by American-Standard in September 1979
was for the period from April 1, 1977, to March
29, 1980.
On February 27, 1980, and in subsequent bar-
gaining sessions, American-Standard made, and the
Union rejected, a proposal that there be separate 3-
year contracts for Plants I and 2. On March 26,
American-Standard informed the Union that it had
filed a unit clarification petition. According to the
uncontradicted testimony of William Eidson, a re-
gional manager of industrial relations, R. G.
Kahler, American-Standard's chici negotiator, told
the Union that, if it continued to object to the Em-
ployer's proposal, the latter would agree to a single
contract for the two-plant unit subject to the
Board's disposition of the unit clarification petition,
and that Murray McKenzie, the Union's chief ne-
gotiator, indicated his assent by responding with an
"OK." At the final session on March 28, 1980, the
Employer offered, and the Union rejected, a pro-
posal for a 10-cent hourly increase for web press
employees in exchange for the Union's acceptance
of separate 3-year contracts for the two plants. The
Employer and the Union thereupon executed a
single two-plant contract on April 2, 1980, for a 1-
year period ending March 31, 1981.
The Employer contends that the Board should
entertain the petition herein because the Union
agreed that the contract executed on April 2, 1980,
would be subject to the outcome of the unit clarifi-
cation proceeding. The Employer further contends
that Plants I and 2 no longer constitute a single ap-
propriate unit for the following reasons: the sub-
stantial and material change in ownership and man-
agement; the financial reorganization of the Em-
ployer; separate management, supervision, control
of labor relations policies, and geographic locations
of the plants; absence of interchange of employees
between the plants; a significant difference in the
skills of the employees operating sheet-fed versus
web presses; and a lack of community of interests
between those employees.
The Union takes the position that it did not
agree to the instant proceeding and that it was pre-
sented with a fait accompli as the petition had al-
ready been filed by the Employer before the Union
was told about it. The Union therefore argues that
the current contract constitutes a bar to the peti-
tion. In the event the Board does entertain the peti-
tion, the Union requests its dismissal on the follow-
ing grounds: There have been no changes in the
operations of the two plants since 1958 and the
270
STAt:ORI)-l.()V"')()N C()
September 1979 acquisition of Stafford-Lowdon by
American-Standard has not resulted in any mean-
ingful change. Although the two plants were given
separate managers instead of one overall manager,
the job duties and terms of employment of the lith-
ographic production employees at the two plants
remained unchanged. The operations of the two
plants are totally integrated: their financial, sales,
and bookkeeping matters are handled in common:
and the employees therein have had identical terms
and conditions of employment throughout the two
decades of collective bargaining.
It is clear from the uncontradicted testimony of
Eidson, a management official, that, when the Eni-
ployer informed the Union during the course of ne-
gotiations that it had filed a unit clarification peti-
tion and indicated its willingness to sign a new
contract subject to the outcome of the unit clarifi-
cation proceeding, the Union acknowledged these
statements with the phrase "OK." We therefore
find that the subsequent execution of the current -
year collective-bargaining agreement did not
render said petition moot or unnecessary. In view
of the foregoing, we shall entertain the Employer's
request for clarification of the existing unit.
Although the Employer argues that there are nu-
merous differences in employee skills, terms and
conditionls of employment, and operations in the
two plants. the record shows that they prevailed
during the 21-year period of collective bargaining
on the basis of a single two-plant contractual unit.
The only change. which is pertinent to the unit
issue herein, that occurred since Stafford-Lowdon
was taken over by American-Standard in Septem-
ber 1979 was the assignment of a separate manager
for each plant instead of an overall manager for
both. We find that this change is not sufficiently
consequential or substantial to negate the signifi-
cance of a long-established bargaining history. We
therefore conclude that the two-plant unit contin-
ues to be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall dis-
miss the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 16-
UC-104 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
271