The Rainbow Lithographing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1383 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE RAINBow LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOOKBINDERS, LOCAL No. 19,
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-R-2105.-Decided August 12, 1946
Mr. 0. T. Jenkins, of Cincinnati, Ohio, appearing for the Employer.
Mr. Joseph 0. Case, of Cincinnati, Ohio, appearing for the Peti-
tioner.
Mr. Benjamin M. Robinson, of New York City, and Mr. Wilfred
Porter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, appearing for the Intervenor.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cincin=
nati, Ohio, on June 4, 1946, before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Ex-
aminer. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 8, C. I. 0., herein called
the Intervenor, moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds.
For reasons stated in Sections III and IV, supra, the motion is hereby
denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Rainbow Lithographing Company, an Ohio corporation with
its principal office and place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged
in the lithographing business. During the year 1945, it purchased for
use at its plant raw materials exceeding $100,000 in value, of which
more than 50 percent was received from points outside the State of
Ohio. During the same period, the Employer manufactured mate-
rials exceeding $100,000 in value, of which more than 25 percent was
shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 178.
1383
1384 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
The Intervenor is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Petitioner, a few days prior to the filing of its petition on
March 22, 1946, requested that the Company recognize it as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of employees within an alleged
appropriate bargaining unit. The Employer replied that it could
not accord the Petitioner the recognition sought because of its present
contract with the Intervenor.
For 10 years previous to May 1, 1945, the Employer and the Inter-
venor entered into successive 1-year collective bargaining agreements
covering a plant-wide unit. On May 1, 1945, the two contracting
-parties executed a new.contract for a 3-year period. It is this contract
which the Intervenor urges as a bar. We have frequently held that
it contract for an unreasonable length of time which has been in effect
for 1 year or more does not constitute a bar to a new petition for in-
vestigation and certification of represeDtatives.1 We have also held
that a contract for a period of 3 years is of unreasonable duration.'
Inasmuch as the 1945 contract has been in effect for more than 1 year,
we find that it is not a bar to a present determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of paper cutters, including the apprentice,
and the working foreman. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose
the establishment of a separate unit of paper.cutters.
The Employer employs five paper cutters, one apprentice, and one
working foreman. Paper cutters are a highly skilled craft group
who may unquestionably constitute a separate bargaining unit. The
Intervenor argues, however, that the inclusion of the paper cutters
I See Matter of Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 N. L. R. B. 369.
2 See Matter of The A. S. Abell Company, 62 N. L. It. B. 1414; Matter of Wichita Union
Stockyards Company, supra.
THE RAINBOW LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY 1385
in a plant-wide unit for 10 years of bargaining history precludes the
establishment of a craft unit at this time.
We are of the opinion that this bargaining history, in view of the
paper cutters' nonacquiescence therein and the special treatment given
the paper cutters by the Intervenor and the Employer, is not decisive.
In 1937 and again in 1942, the Petitioner filed petitions with the
Board seeking a separate unit of paper cutters. Both petitions were
administratively dismissed by the Regional Director because the
controversy involved a jurisdictional dispute between two unions
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.' In addition, three
of the paper cutters with the concurrence of the Intervenor and the
Employer have retained their membership in the Petitioner and have
not joined the Intervenor despite union-shop clauses in the contracts.'
Further, on the demand of the Intervenor, the paper cutters are paid
the wage scale established by the Petitioner in this area to keep them
satisfied. Under all the circumstances, we believe that the paper cut-
ters may at this time be established in a separate bargaining unit or
be included in the plant-wide unit.
Accordingly, we shall not make a present finding as to the appro-
priate unit, but shall determine the desires of the paper cutters
themselves by directing an election among them. Upon the results
of the election will depend, in part, our determination of the appro-
priate unit. If the paper cutters select the Petitioner as their
bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated a
desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit; if they select the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be
bargained for as part of the plant-wide unit presently represented
by the Intervenor.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the
following employees, subject, to the limitations and additions set
forth in the Direction :
All paper cutters at the Employer's Cincinnati plant, including
the apprentice and the working foreman, but excluding all other
employees.5
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Rainbow Lithographing
Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be
8 The Intervenor severed its affiliation with the American Federation of Labor in 1945
and has been affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations since May 1, 1946.
4 This understanding was the result of the admitted inability of the Intervenor to replace
these paper cutters.
5 This voting group does not include the girls who sort the finished labels and place them
in shipping containers.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees
in the voting group described in Section IV, above, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 19, A. F. of L., or by
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 8, C. I..O., for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. JOHN M. HouSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.