The Wilson H. Lee Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE WILSON H. LEE COMPANY 1023
basis of the circumstances detailed in paragraph numbered 1, above,
we have found that the parent Company and the subsidiary constitute
a single Employer. For similar reasons, including integrated opera-
tions, common control, and determination of labor policies, same
physical location, and interchange of personnel, we find that a unit
embracing both Companies is appropriate. Because the parent Com-
pany has been in operation at Elkhart only since May 1951, we believe
that the bargaining history prior to that date for the subsidiary alone
does not militate against our unit finding 13
We find that the following employees of both the parent Company
and its subsidiary constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, excluding office shop
and clerical employees, engineering employees, toolroom employees,
experimental technical employees , draftsmen , professional employees,
guards,14 and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. At the time of the hearing some of the employees who had been
laid off following the temporary shut-down referred to above had
not yet been recalled. However, the parties agreed at the hearing
that there was "every possibility" that all laid-off employees would be
recalled by early December 1951, when the Employer expected to be
in full production. Therefore, we find that the laid-off employees have
a reasonable expectation of employment and are entitled to participate
in the selection of a bargaining agent unless they have obtained perma-
nent employment elsewhere or have failed to respond to an offer of
reemployment by theEmployer.l6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
1s Glass Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289, As noted above , footnote 12, the latest contract
with the Petitioner covering the employees of the subsidiary does not bar a present
determination of representatives for those employees.
is As It appears from the record that certain watchmen employed by the Employer do
not spend as much as 50 percent of their time in guard duty , we find In agreement with
the stipulation of the parties that they are not guards.
15 Leland Shank and Joseph Kolb, a partnership, d/b/a Metal Trim Company, 96
NLRB No. 131.
THE WILSON H. LEE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESS-
MEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 1 RC 2467 and 1-RC-2468. January 14, 1959
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
97 NLRB No. 167.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joseph Lepie, hearing officer." The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section (3) (b) of the 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 meaning of-the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tives of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, in Case No..1-RC-2467, seeks a unit of all em-
ployees in the photo offset department of the Employer's Orange,
Connecticut, plant. In Case No. 1-RC-2468, the Petitioner requests
a unit of all employees of the Employer, including copy holders, mes-
sengers , and clerks in the proofroom, proof boys, galley boys, cut boys,
copy runners, smelter employees, lunkers, and wrappers in the com-
posing room, but excluding those composing room employees cur-
rently represented by the ITU, the bindery room employees currently
represented by New Haven Local No. 134, International Brotherhood
of Bookbinders, hereinafter called the Bookbinders, the pressmen,
assistant pressmen and the apprentices currently represented by the
New Haven Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 74, herein-
after called the Pressmen, and also excluding truck drivers, guards,
watchmen, office and clerical employees, professional employees, photo
offset department employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
In effect, this latter unit comprises the remainder of the Employer's
unrepresented production and maintenance employees.
The Employer contends that both the proposed photo offset unit
and the proposed residual unit are inappropriate for the reason that
each unit contains employees who come within the "traditional juris-
diction" of the ITU. The Employer asserts also that the composing
room and proofroom employees, who are part of the residual unit,
comprise a unit from which candidates for apprenticeships in the
composing department are selected. Those employees so selected are
required to become members of the ITU. As a further argument
against the appropriateness of the residual unit, the Employer states
1 The above cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing by an, order of the Regional
Director, dated October 23, 1951.
s we find that the hearing officer properly denied the motion made by the New Haven
Typographical Union No 47 , herein called the ITU , to intervene in Case No . 1-RC-2468,
in view cf the fact that the ITU's collective bargaining agreement with the Employer does
not cover any of the employees in the unit requested and the further fact that the
ITU made no other showing of interest among these employees.
THE WILSON H. LEE COMPANY 1025
that the unit comprises a heterogeneous group of employees without
any common community of interest.
The Employer is engaged in commercial printing, doing both letter-
press and lithographic work. The production departments at the Em-
ployer's plant consist of the composing department, which has a com-
posing room and proofroom, the pressroom, the bindery room, and
the photo offset department. As noted above, the journeymen and
apprentices in the composing department are represented by the ITU ;
the printing pressmen, assistants and apprentices, by the Pressmen;
and the employees in the bindery, the shipping and receiving employ-
ees, by the Bookbinders.
The employees of the photo offset department (lithographic) and
the employees comprising the residual unit are not represented by
any union. Moreover, the current contract of the ITU specifically
exempts from its coverage the work performed by those composing
room and proofroom employees in the residual unit. We find no merit„
therefore, in the Employer's contention relating to the "traditional
jurisdiction" of the ITU. We note that despite its contention as to.
such jurisdiction, the Employer has refused to recognize the ITU as
bargaining agent for the photo offset employees.
The unit of offset department employees sought by the Petitioner is
the traditional unit of lithographic employees customarily recognized
by the Board as appropriate in combination shops which do both letter-
press and lithograph printing.3 Accordingly, we shall grant the Peti-
tioner's unit request in Case No. 1-RC-2467.
As noted above, the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner
in Case No. 1-RC-2468 comprise the remainder of the Employer's
unrepresented employees. We have frequently found such residual
units appropriate where no other union seeks to represent them on a
more comprehensive basis.4 It is true that apprentices for the com-
posing department are selected from those composing department
employees whom the Petitioner seeks to include in the residual unit.
The record shows, however, that such a selection is made only when
an apprentice opening occurs. An employee eligible for an apprentice
,position may be required to wait from 18 months to 4 years. During
this waiting period, the employee performs work in one or more of
the job classifications not covered by any burrent collective bargaining
agreement. In these circumstances we do not regard the fact that
certain employees in the proposed residual unit may ultimately become
'apprentices in the composing department as sufficient to warrant
denying such a residual unit.
a Court Square Press Inc., 92 NLRB 1516.
The Madison Company, 94 NLRB No. 107; The A. G. Stafford Co ., 96 NLRB No. 97.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Orange,
Connecticut, plant constitute units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All employees in the photo offset department, excluding all
other employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) All employees including copy holders , messengers and clerks
in the proofroom, proof boys, galley boys, cut boys, copy runners,
smelter employees, lunkers, and wrappers in the composing room, but
excluding all other composing room employees currently represented
by Typographical Union No. 47, all bindery room employees cur-
rently represented by New Haven Local No. 134, pressmen, assistant
pressmen, and apprentices, currently represented by New Haven
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 74, truck drivers, guards,
watchmen,' office and clerical employees, professional employees, photo
offset department employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 This does not include the janitors, all of whom, according to the record, spend more
than 50 percent of their time performing general janitorial work.
GLOBE-UNION, INCORPORATED and LUCILLE EVERSON BROWN, AND INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
322, AFL. Case No.13 CA-525. • January 14,1952
Decision and Order
On April 5, 1951, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter, the
Respondent and the Union filed exceptions, with supporting briefs,
to the Intermediate Report; and the Respondent filed an additional
brief in support of that part of the Intermediate Report which dis-
missed other allegations in the complaint.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error has been committed.
1 The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act by refusing to rehire Lucille Everson Brown . As no exceptions have been filed
to this finding cf the Trial Examiner , we adopt this finding , without passing upon the
merits of the matter, and shall dismiss the complaint as to Brown.
97 NLRB N 'o. 158.