The Post Printing & Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
short of showing an intention by the parties to establish a
multiplant unit, for the 2 Locals were still recognized as
parties, the local committees signed as separate groups, and
the contract contained separate provisions for each plant. 2
The equivocal character of this short-lived and ambiguous
multiplant bargaining history is also shown by the fact that
later negotiations were conducted separately for the Kansas
City plant. On the entire record, therefore, we conclude that
the 1951 contract is insufficient reason to disturb the long
existing single-plant units.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance
employees employed at the Employer's Kansas City plant,
including clerks, timekeepers, and mill clerks, but excluding
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. S
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2Cf. Hy-Grade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841.
S The composition of the unit is in accord with the Petitioner's request. As set forth in the
Employer's last contract with the Intervenor, and as described by the Intervenor at the hearing,
the unit would also exclude clerks, timekeepers, and mill clerks. As this apparent disagree-
ment was not explored during the hearing, it may be that the parties have agreed to include
these fringe categories In any event, as the Petitioner desires to represent them, and as there
is now a question concerning representation to be resolved in the overall unit, we have in-
cluded them. The Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
THE POST PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY and DEN-
VER NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL NO. 74, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 30-RC-874. April 22, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clyde
F. Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to include full-time and regular
part-time copyholders in its existing unit consisting of "all
104 NLRB No. 46.
THE POST PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY 317
employees of the news and editorial, circulation, display and
classified advertising, duplicating multigraph, P. B. X., stock
clerks, maintenance mechanics, maintenance mechanics'
helpers, accounting and bookkeeping, stenographic, insurance,
and janitorial departments." The Employer opposes the
Petitioner's request on the ground that the interests of the
copyholders are more closely related to those of the composing
room employees represented by International Typographical
Union, Local No. 49, AFL, herein called the ITU.
There are 5 full-time and 5 regular part-time copyholders.1
Copyholders work as a team with and under the direction of
proofreaders in the Employer's composing room. Both are
under the supervision of the composing room foreman. Metal
cast copy is held by the copyholder while the skilled proof-
reading operation is performed by the proofreader, who is a
journeyman and is represented by the ITU. The position of
copyholder, however, is not skilled or apprenticeable. The
Employer fills vacancies in the job of proofreader with
composing room journeymen, rather than with copyholders.
While the ITU does not represent copyholders in grievances,
the Employer extends to the copyholders certain employment
conditions and fringe benefits provided in the ITU contract.
The copyholders are not presently represented by any labor
organization. In addition to the copyholders, only 2 papercutters
engaged in salvaging work and 2 metal melters remain un-
represented among the employees of the Employer. The ITU,
which was served with notice of hearing, did not appear at
the hearing. The ITU has not sought to represent the copy-
holders. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the closer relationship of the copyholders with the composing
room employees represented by the ITU does not preclude the
finding, which we make, that they may appropriately be merged
in the existing unit of the Petitioner.'
We shall direct an election to determine the desires of the
copyholders. If a majority of the employees inquestion vote for
the Petitioner, they shall be deemed to constitute a part of the
Petitioner's existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue
a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication].
I There is no dispute that the part - time copyholders are regularly employed and have
a reasonable expectancy of continued employment.
'See Triangle Publications, Inc., 69 NLRB 760.