The Stickless Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2202 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

2202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not designated in the statute.' Accordingly, where it is not affirma-
tively shown that a smaller unit is the more appropriate, the Board
will not refuse to grant the broader unit requested by the petitioning
labor organization.'
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em-
ployees of the Employer at its Beaumont, Texas, plant, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : I
All production and maintenance employees, but excluding all office
clerical employees, engineers, draftsmen, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors I as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841, at 848
'Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 98 NLRB 1018, at 1032.
s Except as to W R Dennis and Louis Palombo, the unit is agreed upon by the parties.
e As noted above we find W. R Dennis to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Likewise , we find Louis Palombo, foreman of the machine shop, and having authority and
duties analogous to those of Dennis , to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly , W. R. Dennis and Louis Palombo are excluded from the production and
maintenance unit
THE STICKLESS CORPORATION and NEW YORK PRINTING PRESSMEN'S
UNION No. 51, NEW YORK PRESS ASSISTANTS UNION No. 23, PAPER
CUTTERS LOCAL UNION AND BOOKBINDERS , LOCAL 119, IBB, AND
BINDERY WOMEN'S UNION No. 43, AFL , PETITIONERS . Case No.
2-RC-7067. December 31,1954
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 H. E. Knowlton, 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 Employer's contention that the Petitioners are not labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of the Act is not borne out by the
record. We find that the labor organizations 1 involved claim to rep-
resent 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.
:'Local 148 , Production & Sales Employees Union, AFL , hereinafter referred to as Inter-
venor, was properly permitted to intervene herein, all the parties stipulated to its status
as a labor organization
110 NLRB No. 273.
THE STICKLESS CORPORATION 2203
4. The Petitioners jointly seek to represent a unit of all employees
of the Employer excluding executives, office clerical employees, com-
positors, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The In-
tervenor and the Employer contend that the compositors should be
included in the unit.
The Employer manufactures advertising specialties, advertising
booklets and toys. It employs approximately 60 employees, who all
work in one large room. The manufacturing processes require the
operation of various types of printing presses, paper cutting ma-
chines, and stitching machines. The Employer also employs composi-
tors who set type, make forms, and line up sheets to the proper posi-
tion for all printing work involved in the manufacture of the Employ-
er's products. All employees are paid on an hourly basis. They all
receive the same insurance benefits and vacations. The Employer
maintains no particular job classifications, and employees perform
different operations as the need arises. Sixty percent of the employees
are unskilled.
The Petitioners advance no reason warranting the exclusion of the
compositors, and it is clear on the basis of the record that the com-
positors have the same community of interests as the other more
highly skilled employees whom the Petitioners are willing to repre-
sent. We shall therefore include the compositors in the unit herein-
after found appropriate.
We find that all employees of the Employer including compositors,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
executives, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioners herein filed a joint petition. The Employer
contends that because the Petitioners' constitutions and bylaws restrict
membership in the various organizations to certain classifications of
employees involved herein, (1) the Petitioners are disqualified from
acting as the representative of all the employees in the unit and (2)
that such factor indicates that each of the Petitioners, although pur-
portedly acting as a joint Petitioner is in reality seeking to represent
only these employees over whom it has jurisdiction, and in fact is
incapable of representing any other. We find these contentions to be
without merit. As to (1) the Board has consistently held that the
willingness of a Petitioner to represent employees is controlling under
the Act, not the eligibility of employees to membership, nor the exact
extent of the Petitioners' constitutional jurisdiction.' As to (2) the
names of the Petitioners will appear jointly on the ballot, and if
they are successful in the election hereinafter directed, they will be
certified jointly as the bargaining representative of the employees in
2 Buzza-Cardozo Company, 99 NLRB 40, p. 42; ausdorf & Son, 107 NLRB 998.
2204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the entire appropriate unit. The Employer may then insist that they
do in fact bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit'
We further find no merit in the Employer's contention that to enter-
tain this petition will result in a denial to employees of their right
to join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing as guar-
anteed by Section 7. We fail to perceive how the holding of an elec-
tion in which employees are given the opportunity of voting for either
of two possible representatives or for neither can possibly have the
result claimed by the Employer.
6. Although the unit found to be appropriate is broader than that
sought by the Petitioners, it appears that their showing of interest is
sufficient to enable them to participate in the election hereinafter
ordered. Accordingly, we shall direct such an election, and place
the Petitioners on the ballot, subject to the right to withdraw their
names by notice to the Regional Director to that effect within 5 days
from the date of the issuance of this Decision and Direction of
Election.4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Gusdorf & Son, supra, J. J. Moreau & Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999.
4 Lewis & Bowman, Inc., 109 NLRB 772.
TIIE RANSOM AND RANDOLPH COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL CHEM-
ICAL WORKERS UNION , LOCAL No. it, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
21-RC-3578. December 31, 1954
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
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 an Ohio corporation engaged in the manu-
facture of dental supplies. Its principal manufacturing plant is
located in Toledo, Ohio. It operates branch plants in Indiana, Michi-
gan, and California. The Petitioner seeks to represent only the
employees of the California plant. The record discloses that the
California plant was established because the Employer considered
that it could thereby capture a larger share of the West Coast market
in is industry. It is under the overall direction of the Employer's
factory manager, who is also in charge of the Employer's Toledo
plant..
i As amended at the hearing.
110 NLRB No. 271.