Standard Printing & Lithographing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1439 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

STANDARD PRINTING & LITHOGRAPHING CO. 1-439
that the election be set aside and direct a new election in this
proceeding.
[The Board set aside the election held herein on August 2, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
Mmrnius RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
Standard Printing & Lithographing Co. and Tulsa Printing
Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 226, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner.
Case No. 16-RC 1732. December 21, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon an amended petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Marvin
L. Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
Upon the entire record 3 in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
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 a production unit composed in general of
all pressmen, including letterpressmen and offset pressmen, all other
lithographic employees, and bindery employees. The Intervenor
seeks a separate unit of employees engaged in lithographic production
work which would include offset pressmen (lithographic) but exclude
letterpressmen (nonlithographic). The Employer contends that only
a single production unit is appropriate.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any employees in-
volved here. All production employees have a common supervisor.
The offset pressmen do not work in a separate area; they perform their
rThe AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions.
a Local ' 81, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on
the basis of a card-showing of interest-
4 Motions of the Petitioner and the Intervenor to correct the transcript of testimony
are hereby denied as the parties have not agreed upon the corrections to be made. The
Employer's motion for a new hearing , on the ground that the transcript is inaccurate, and
Its request for oral argument are also hereby denied as the record as made is sufficiently
elear, reliable, and adequate for present purposes.
114 NLRB No. 221.
1440 DECISIONS " OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job in a large open area where the Employer's lithographing and non-
lithographing presses are mixed.
Absent unusual circumstances, the Board has frequently held that
all employees engaged in the lithographic process form a cohesive
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' How-
ever, the Board did make an exception in the Pacific Press case,' where
it found a combined unit of offset and letterpressmen appropriate.
Relying on the exception expressed in that case, the Petitioner and
the Employer contend that the facts in this case are substantially
similar in that there allegedly is regular and continued interchange
between letterpress and offset press employees, a factor relied upon
by the Board in the Pacific Press case. The record shows, however,
although some of the Employer's press employees are, on occasion,
subject to assignment to either the offset or letterpress, that, in the
instant case-in contrast to the Pacific Press case where there was a
substantial interchange of employees between the offset presses and
the letterpresses-the general practice has been to assign a basic crew
to work on the offset presses and another on the letterpresses. Where
there is lacking, as here, the substantial interchange between litho-
graphic and letterpress operators, the Board has held that the excep-
tion expressed in Pacific Press is inapplicable' The facts found, that
lithographic pressmen are not segregated from other pressmen and
that both groups share the same immediate supervision, do not con-
stitute a sufficient basis to preclude the establishment of a separate
unit of lithographic employee.'
We find, therefore, that the lithographic employees whom the In-
tervenor seeks to represent may, if they so desire, constitute a sepa-
rate appropriate unit. We shall not, however, make any final unit
determination at this time but shall first ascertain the desires of these
employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
In accord with the foregoing, we shall direct that separate elections
be held among the following groups of employees of the Employer at its
Tulsa, Oklahoma, printing establishment:
A. All lithographic employees, including lithographic press op-
erators, multilith press operators, employees engaged in camera and
platemaking work, and their apprentices and assistants, but excluding
all other employees, composing room employees, all office personnel,
guards, managerial personnel, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All nonlithographic employees in the pressroom, folding machine
and cutting machine operators, and their apprentices and assistants, ex-
cluding all other.employees, the employees voting in voting group A,
4 See, for example , McKay Press, 113 NLRB 683.
s 66 NLRB 458.
e Danner Press of Canton, Inc., 91 NLRB 237 ; McKay Press, supra.
7 McKay Press, supra.
MILHAM PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 1441
all office personnel, guards, managerial personnel, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group A select the union
seeking to represent them separately, these employees will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit
and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in that
voting group which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a
majority of the employees in voting group A do not vote for the union
which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, employees in that
group will appropriately be included in an overall production unit and
their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group B,8 and the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the employees
in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds
to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Elections.
"If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner* The votes for
the union seeking a separate lithographic unit shall be counted as valid votes, but neither
for nor against the union seeking the more comprehensive unit, all other votes are to be
accorded their face value whether for representation by the union seeking the compre-
hensive unit or for no union. American Potash if Chemical corporation, 107 NLRB 1418,
1427 ; Holden Business Forms Company, 114 NLRB 668.
Milham Products Company, Inc. and International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO.1 Case No. 1-CA-1842. Decem-
ber 2,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 12, 1955, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Union submitted a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Inter-
mediate Report.
3 The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Union.
114 NLRB No. 226.