Thos. de la Rue, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 234 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Make whole the following named individuals for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth in the
section herein entitled "The Remedy":
John Amos Harry Campbell Donald Gordon Jesse Lee
Garnett Baker Cecil Colburn Ora Ice Roland McLain
Ernest Blythe Garland Edwards Richard Kratzer John Newman
William Blythe Rachel Garchson Donald Lancaster Virgil Phillips
Walter Brackett Clifford Gordon William Lancaster Leslie Tinsley
James Vincent
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary for determination
'of the amount of backpay due.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Decision and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to James Nugent, Sr.,
and James L. Nugent, Jr., as individuals , and Evansville Materials , Inc., Henderson
Materials, Inc., and Arnold W. Mulzer, Roland P. Mulzer, and Edgar C. Mulzer, a
partnership , d/b/a Mulzer Brothers ; and insofar as it alleges violations of the Act by
' Bedford-Nugent Corp. other than these specifically found herein.
26 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing , within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
Thos. de la Rue , Inc. and Local 49, Amalgamated Lithographers
of America , Petitioner . Case No. 23-RC-2f290. February 23,
1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On October 26, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 23 issued
a Decision and Direction of Elections 1 in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
filed with the National Labor Relations Board a timely request
for review 2 of such Decision on the ground that the Regional
Director erred in finding a single-employer unit of the Employer's
lithographic production employees appropriate and directing an
election confined to such unit. On November 19, 1964, the Board
granted the request for review and postponed the election pend-
ing review. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a brief with the Board.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with
respect to the issues under review, including the Petitioner's
brief on review, and makes the following findings :
'An election was also directed in May Printing & Lithographing , Inc., Case No. 23-
RC-2291, a case which had been consolidated with the instant matter for purposes of
hearing. No request for review thereof was filed.
2 The request for review included a motion for reconsideration of the Decision which was
thereafter denied by the Regional Director.
'' ' 151 NLRB No. 27.
THOS. DE LA RUE, INC. 235
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of lithographic employees
of the Employer. Based on the undisputed facts, it is clear that
during the period from 1953 until near the end of 1961, the
Employer's predecessor, Sorg Printing Company of Texas, herein
called Sorg, as a member of Printing Industry Association of
Houston, Inc., herein called the Association, bargained with the
Intervenor, Houston Offset Workers Printing Pressmen and Assis-
tants' Union Local No. 71, concerning its lithographic and letter-
press employees on the basis of a multiemployer unit .3 In December
1961, Sorg, apparently because of differences it had with other
association members, withdrew from membership in the Associa-
tion. However, it continued to contribute to the Association's
pension fund, and there is no indication in the record that its
withdrawal from membership in the Association affected its con-
tinued adherence to all other terms of the contract then in effect
and not scheduled to terminate until October 1, 1962. Upon
termination of this contract, Sorg did not insist upon bargaining
with the Intervenor on an individual-employer basis, and on
October 1, 1962, it signed a new 2-year contract identical to that
negotiated by the Intervenor and the Association. In February
1963, Sorg again became a member of the Association. Shortly
thereafter, Sorg's vice president became chairman of the Associa-
tion's negotiating committee and as such actively participated in
joint bargaining. In August 1963, the Employer acquired owner-
ship of Sorg and adhered to the existing contract with the Inter-
venor. On July 31, 1964, the Petitioner filed its petition herein.
On October 1, 1964, the Employer executed multiemployer agree-
ments with the Typographers and Bookbinders covering the non-
lithographic employees which they represent.
Upon the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we
are unable to conclude that the Employer's predecessor, Sorg, by
its conduct during the lapse in its membership in the Association,
unequivocally manifested an intention to withdraw from the estab-
lished mulitemployer unit and henceforth to pursue a course of
dealing with the Intervenor on a single-employer basis. Further-
more, at the time the Employer acquired ownership of Sorg the
latter had rejoined the Association, was actively participating in
its bargaining activities, and had the same conditions in existence
as all other members since the contract then in effect was identical
in all - respects to the multiemployer contract. Accordingly, we
find that, the Employer's lithographic employees are part of an
3 On July 22, 19G0, the Board certified the Intervenor as representative of such unit.
During this same period, and to date, Sorg and the Employer also have bargained through
the Association with Houston Typographical Union and Houston Bookbinders Local
Union No. 110, herein called Typographers and Bookbinders, respectively, on the basis of
multiemployer units of other employees.
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
established multiemployer unit and that the requested unit limited
in scope to the Employer is inappropriate .4 We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
* The A. B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc ., 140 NLRB 212. The case of U.S. Pillow Corporation,
137 NLRB 584, relied upon by the Regional Director , is distinguishable on its facts, as
there the antecedent bargaining history prior to the pending multiemployer contract was
single employer in scope whereas here we find that no single -employer bargaining history
exists.
The Lord Baltimore Press , Inc. and Local 90, Amalgamated
Lithographers of America . Case No. 38-CA-14 (formerly 18-
CA-18f35-2). February 24, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 8, 1964, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
An answering brief was filed by the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
'Following a Board-directed election ( 144 NLRB 1376 ), the Regional Director overruled
Respondent's objections to the election and certified the Union ( decision not published in
NLRB volumes ). In the course of the instant hearing , Respondent attempted to elicit
testimony and to introduce evidence pertaining to Respondent 's objections in the prior
representation proceeding , including the transcript of the record of that case . The Trial
Examiner correctly refused to receive such evidence , which Respondent 's counsel con-
ceded was neither newly discovered nor previously unavailable . National Van Lines,
123 NLRB 1272 , 1273. Moreover , as was found in the representation case , even if the
union officials made the alleged preelection statements to the effect that the Company
had bribed the Board agent in a prior unfair labor practice case, this campaign propaganda,
although not condoned by us, is not of such a nature as to require that the election be set
aside. See F. H. Snow Canning Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 714 (re objection No. 1).
151 NLRB No. 30.