U.S. Banknote Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 450 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Security-Columbian Banknote Company , A Division
of U.S. Banknote Corporation and Philadelphia
Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers'
Union No. 4. Case 4-CA-6541
December 10, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On June 28, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, Philadelphia Printing
Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4
(herein Pressmen) filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, Respondent filed exceptions and an answering
brief, and Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L (herein Graphic Arts) filed exceptions and a brief
in support of its exceptions and in opposition to the
General Counsel's and Pressmen's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
amended, and to adopt his recommended Order as
modified herein.
We find merit in General Counsel's and Pressmen's
exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's conclu-
sion that Respondent is not a successor employer to
Federated Banknote Company (herein Federated). It is
well established that an enterprise which continues the
"employing industry" of a predecessor employer is
properly regarded as a successor employer whenever it
uses substantially the same facilities and work force to
produce the same basic products for essentially the
same customers in the same geographic area.' Utiliz-
ing these guidelines, Respondent fits the definition of a
successor employer to Federated.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respond-
ent, after purchasing Federated's Caroline Road plant,
fixed assets, inventory, and existing contracts, con-
tinued operating this plant. Respondent completed
Federated's work, without interruption, utilizing its
equipment and employing its former employees and
supervisors. The Administrative Law Judge also found
that "these factors are sufficient to establish a successor
relationship with respect to the acquisition of the
I Valley Nitrogen Producers, Inc, 207 NLRB 208 (1973), Ranch-Way,
Inc, 183 NLRB 1168 (1970)
facility itself." Nevertheless, he concluded that Re-
spondent was not a successor employer and did not
violate the Act when it withdrew recognition from and
refused to bargain with the Pressmen because the unit
in issue had not remained intact or retained its separate
identity. We disagree.
The record indicates that under Federated the letter-
press and offset employees who comprised the subject
bargaining unit worked in a combined department, un-,
der the same supervision, and performed both letter-
press and offset functions. However, after Respon-
dent's takeover, the employees performed either
letterpress or offset work, were assigned to different
departments, and performed their functions separately.
Notwithstanding these changes, we find the Respond-
ent to be the successor employer to Federated. All of
the factors mentioned to substantiate the change in the
unit's identity are directly attributable to the Respon-
dent's unlawful recognition of Graphic Arts as the bar-
gaining representative of the offset employees. But for
this recognition and the subsequent changes which re-
sulted, the department would have remained intact,
retaining its original identity, with its employees func-
tioning in the same manner as under Federated.
Moreover, the Respondent continued essentially the
same operation, with substantially the same employees
and equipment and in the same location. Respondent
employed no employees who had not previously
worked for Federated. Additionally, in the specific unit
in question all eight of the employees hired2 by Re-
spondent had been employees of the predecessor
Federated.'
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we find
that the Respondent is the successor employer of
Federated and therefore violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act by withdrawing recognition from, and by
refusing to bargain with, Pressmen, the statutory
representative of Federated's employees.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Security-Columbian Banknote Company, a Divi-
sion of U.S. Banknote Corporation, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Philadelphia Printing Pressmen , Assistants and
Offset Workers' Union No. 4 and Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union, Local 14L, are each labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. For the purposes of the Act, at times' pertinent,
Security-Columbian Banknote Company, a Division of
2 Federated had employed 12 offset and letterpress operators of whom
Respondent hired 8, 4 in letterpress and 4 in offset
3 See Howard Johnson Co. v Detroit Local Joint Executive Board Hotel
& Restaurant Employees, 94 S Ct 2236 (1974), N.L.R B v Burns Interna-
tional Security Services, Inc, 406 U S 272 (1972)
215 NLRB No. 85
SECURITY-COLUMBIAN BANKNOTE COMPANY 451
U.S. Banknote Corporation, is the successor of Fed-
erated Banknote Company.
4. By recognizing Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 14L, as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees performing "offset" functions at the Caroline
Road plant without any lawful basis and when it did
not lawfully represent a majority of the employees, and
by applying and enforcing Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 14L' s union-security collective-bargain-
ing agreement to those employees , Respondent has
rendered unlawful assistance and support to Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 14L, and thereby has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
5. By applying Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 14L's union-security collective-bargaining agree-
ment to the employees performing "offset" functions at
the Caroline Road plant, Respondent has dis-
criminated with respect to the hire, tenure, and terms
and conditions of employment of its employees,
thereby discouraging membership in Philadelphia
Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers'
Union No. 4 and encouraging membership in
Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L, and
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
6. By withdrawing recognition from, and refusing to
bargain with , Philadelphia Printing Pressmen, As-
sistants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4, as the
bargaining representative of the employees per-
forming "offset" functions at the Caroline Road
plant , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
7. Respondent, by engaging in such conduct set forth
above , has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Security-Columbian
Banknote Company, A Division of U.S. Banknote Cor-
poration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as modified
herein:
1. Insert the following as paragraphs 1(e) and 2(b),
respectively, and reletter the existing paragraphs ac-
cordingly:
"(e) Failing and refusing to recognize , meet , or bar-
gain collectively with Philadelphia Pressmen Assis-
tants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees per-
forming ` offset ' functions at the Caroline Plant.
"(b) Upon request, recognize Philadelphia Printing
Pressmen, Assistants, and Offset Workers' Union No.
4 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees performing `offset' functions at the Caroline
Plant, and bargain or consult with the Union at its
request concerning the wages, rates of pay, hours, and
working conditions of such employees."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Administra-
tive Law Judge's notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL withhold and withdraw recognition
from Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L, as the collective-bargaining representative of
our employees performing "offset" functions at
the Caroline Plant unless and until it has been
certified as the bargaining representative by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to our col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the above-
named union , or any modification, extension,
renewal , or supplement thereto insofar as it per-
tains to the employees performing "offset" func-
tions at the Caroline Plant. We will not, however,
abandon any benefits which have been established
for them under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment.
WE WILL NOT give any unlawful assistance or
support to the above-named labor organization or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully encourage membership
in the Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L, or discourage membership in the Phila-
delphia Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset
Workers' Union No. 4, or in any other labor or-
ganization with respect to hire, tenure , and terms
and conditions of employment.
WE WILL bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment with Philadelphia Printing Press-
men, Assistants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4,
as, the exclusive representative of the employees
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performing "offset" functions at the Caroline
Plant. '
WE WILL NOT in any like or related' manner, in-
terfere with, 'restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent such
right is affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse those employees who per-
formed "offset" functions at the Caroline Plant for
all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by
them or withheld from their pay as a result of the
illegal application and enforcement beginning on
May 21, 1973, of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment to them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any
labor organization, except to the extent such right may
be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
SECURITY-COLUMBIAN BANKNOTE
COMPANY, A DIVISION OF U.S.
BANKNOTE CORPORATION
DECISION
The issues involved are whether Respondent was a succes-
sor employer to Federated; and whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act by withdrawing
recognition from and refusing to bargain with the Pressmen
Local as the bargaining representative of certain employees
performing "offset" functions and by instead recognizing the
Graphic Arts Local as their bargaining representative and
applying and enforcing their collective-bargaining agreement
containing the union-security provision to them.
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the parties, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Virginia corporation with a plant located at
55th and Sansom Street and another plant located at 11600
Caroline Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the
business of designing, engraving, and printing stocks, bonds,
foreign currency, foreign stamps, and other matter. During
the 12-month period preceding February 12, 1974, Respond-
ent in the course of its operations at its Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, plants made sales, in excess of $50,000, to customers
located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 25
and 26, 1974, pursuant to a charge filed on August 14,
1973,1 by the Philadelphia Printing Pressmen, Assistants
and Offset Workers' Union No. 4 (herein referred to as Press-
men Local) and a complaint issued on February 12, 1974.
The complaint alleged that Security-Columbian Banknote
Company, a Division of the U.S. Banknote Corporation
(herein referred to as the Respondent) was a successor em-
ployer to the Federated Banknote Company (herein referred
to as Federated) and that the Respondent by withdrawing
recognition from and refusing to bargain with the Pressmen
Local as the bargaining representative of employees perform-
ing "offset" functions which it had represented while they
were employed at Federated and by recognizing the Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 14L (herein referred to as
Graphic Arts Local),' as the bargaining representative of
said employees and by applying and enforcing a collective-
bargaining agreement between them containing a union-
security provision to those employees violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (herein referred to as the Act).
Respondent in its answer filed on February 19, 1974, de-
nied having violated the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Philadelphia Print-
ing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4
and the Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L, are
each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Since about 1968 Federated had operated a plant (herein
referred to as the Caroline Plant) located at 11600 Caroline
Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Previously its plant had
been located on North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania.
Federated's employees, except for some who were unrepre-
sented, were represented by various labor organizations' in-
cluding the Pressmen Local. According to Frederick Day
who is the secretary-treasurer and business representative of
the Pressmen Local, his union had had written collective-
bargaining agreements with Federated at least'as far back as
1967 when he took office and since Federated was then con-
tributing to the union's welfare fund this meant they would
have had written collective-bargaining agreements prior to
All dates referred to are in 1973 unless otherwise stated 3 These other labor organizations were the Philadelphia Typographic No
2 The Graphic Arts International Union was formerly named the Lithog- 2, Teamsters Local 470, Bookbinders and Bindery Womens' Union Local
raphers and Photoengravers International Union No 2, International Plate Printers, and the Engravers Union
SECURITY-COLUMBIAN BANKNOTE COMPANY 453
that time. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement
between Federated and the Pressmen Local which covered
the period from May 1, 1970, to April 13, 1973, and was
extended by agreement of the parties until May 18, 1973,
described the bargaining unit, in part, as follows:
The Company recognizes that the Union is the exclusive
and sole collective bargaining agent for all employees in
the pressrooms operated by the Company and that the
jurisdiction of this contract extends over all printing
presses operated by the Company, including but not
limited to gravure, offset and letter presses and as-
sociated devices.
It is understood, also, that the jurisdiction of this con-
tract extends over all work in connection with offset
platemaking , including camera operation, all darkroom
work, stripping layout, opaquing and press lineup.'
Respondent operated a plant (herein referred to as the
Sansom Plant) located at 55th and Sansom Street, 'Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, where it employed 150 production
employees, including 12 offset employees and 8 letterpress
employees This plant was located approximately 20 miles
from the Caroline Plant.
Its employees, except for some who were unrepresented,
were represented by various labor organizations including the
Pressmen Local and Graphic Arts Local.
The current collective-bargaining agreement covering the
Respondent and the Graphic Arts Locals was effective from
May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1975. Article 5 of the agreement
defined the Union's jurisdiction, in part, as "all work, pro-
cesses , operations and products directly associated with or
related to Lithography, Offset (including dry or wet), Photo-
engraving, Itaglio , Gravure, and all other methods or tech-
niques of printing, or otherwise reproducing images of all
kinds, or any other purpose, including without limitations
any technological or other change, evolution of or substitu-
tion for any work, process, operation of product now or
hereinafter utilized in any of the methods or for any of the
purposes described above."
Section 2 of the agreement provided in part as follows:
"This contract shall be binding on all members of the As-
sociation, for their plants or departments in the Philadelphia
area....
Article 6 of the agreement contained union-security provi-
sions requiring as a condition of employment that those em-
ployees who were members of the Union on the effective date
of the agreement to remain members and those employees
who were not members of the Union to become and remain
members in good standing after the 30-day period.
Respondent and the Pressmen Union for many years have
had collective-bargaining agreements covering the letterpress
employees employed at the Sansom Plant .6 While the cur-
4 While the agreement includes gravure presses and associated devices
neither Federated nor Respondent , after taking over the plant as discussed
,nfm employed such employees
5 The agreement is between the Graphic Arts Local and the Lithographers
Association of Philadelphia, A Division of Graphic Arts Association of
Delaware Valley , Inc., of which the Respondent is a member
rent collective bargaining agreement effective from May 1,
1973, to April 30, 1976, contained under paragraph 4 of the
recognition clause language that would include employees
performing "Offset" functions, Business Representative Day
acknowledged this language did not mean the Respondent
had agreed to recognize the Pressmen Local as a representa-
tive of such ` employees. The clause itself made exceptions
where an employer as at the Sansom Plant had already
granted jurisdiction of work to other unions.
On May 18, 1973, Respondent's parent corporation,
United States Banknote Corporation, purchased the Caroline
Plant from Federated's owners, namely, Thomas De La Rue,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the De La Rue Company
Limited.' The purchase with certain exceptions included the
seller's rights to the land and building, fixed assets,
machinery, equipment, inventories , copyrights, contracts,
orders, and work-in-process.
Albert D'Orazio, an employee of Federated, testified em-
ployees were first notified of the proposed sale by memoran-
dum distributed about March 19 and a newspaper article
which appeared in the March 19 edition of the Evening Bulle-
tin. Meetings of employees were also held about April 1 and
April 15 to discuss the sale and on April 13 the employees
were issued a notice informing them of the sale and that
United States Banknote Corporation would be meeting with
certain employees and their unions to discuss `offering them
jobs.
On May 18 Federated terminated its employees paying
them their accrued vacation pay, gave them notice of cancel-
lation of their insurance, and with the exception of those
employees who were to be hired by Respondent paid them
severance pay, That same day Federated by letter notified
Business Representative Day that United States Banknote
was taking possession of the plant, Federated's employees
were being terminated that day and it considered their collec-
tive-bargaining agreement terminated.
B. Respondent 's Operation of the Caroline Plant
On May 21 Respondent began operating the Caroline Plant
employing a total of 45 production employees who had been
employed by Federated when it ceased operations.' No new
production employees were hired at least up until September
20.9 Based on the testimony of Plant Superintendent Robert
Christophersen, who was over both the Sansom Plant and the
Caroline Plant where he spent approximately 35 to 40 percent
of his time, those supervisors employed directly at the Caro-
line Plant included Production Manager Richard Di
Lorenzo, Assistant Foreman John Gedeon, Assistant Fore-
man Daniel Acker and Assistant Foreman Norman Hale.
Other persons with supervisory authority over the Caroline
Plant included Winfield Korn, who was the foreman over the
6 The collective -bargammg' agreement is between the Pressmen Local and
the Allied Printing Employers Association, a Division of Graphic Arts
Association of Delaware Valley, inc , of which Respondent is a member
7 Plant Manager Chrstophersen stated the plant was purchased in hopes
of obtaining a portion of the Federal food coupon contract however these
hopes never materialized %
8 Plant Manager Chnstophersen testified by May 17 it had completed
offering jobs to Federated 's employees
9 Federated at the time it ceased operations employed 66 production
employees and 7 production foremen
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finishing department for both plants; Mike Gerace, who was
the foreman over the DP department for both plants; and
John Cerak who was the foreman over the offset or litho
department and Frank Widdowson, who was the foreman
over the letterpress department. Estimates of the times spent
by these foremen at the Caroline Plant during the period
following its takeover by Respondent established Korn spent
less than 50 percent; Gerace between 2 to 5 hours a week;
Cerak about 5 hours a week; and Widdowson none. Produc-
tion Manager Di Lorenzo, Assistant Foremen Gedeon,
Acker, and Hale, and Foreman Korn had held supervisory
positions with Federated at the time it ceased operations.
The equipment purchased from Federated10 included four
offset presses, five letterpresses, three rotary steel presses, two
die stamping presses, engraving equipment (ruling machine,
geometric lathe, and four to five transfer presses), two guillo-
tine cutters, material handling equipment such as lift trucks,
two photosetters, a Ludlow casting machine, cameras, a Klu-
gie press, a Heidelberg press, two Miller presses, and three
verticle presses. According to Plant Manager Christophersen,
approximately 70 percent of the equipment purchased from
Federated was utilized by Respondent and the remaining 30
percent which was either junked or transferred elsewhere
included one offset press, engraving equipment, material han-
dling equipment, and the photosetters.
Plant Manager Christophersen stated about 65 percent of
the work which was in process by Federated and more than
half of its new orders on which no work had been performed
were completed by the Respondent. The remaining orders
were not completed because of such reasons as customers
canceling them or going out of business.
Christophersen stated immediately following the takeover
possibly all of the security printing work performed utilized
Federated's plates. While Albert D'Orazio who had formerly
worked at Federated and was employed as a pressman by the
Respondent at the Caroline Plant testified they continued to
perform the same kind of work for the same customers except
for two new jobs, Christophersen stated the work for new
customers included printing for 90 percent of the new engrav-
ing performed at the Sansom Plant.
Upon taking over the Caroline Plant, Christopherson
stated the composing room which had been operated by
Federated was closed and a single stonehand was there-
after used at the Caroline Plant. Other changes included
moving the engraving , gluing, and shingling work from the
Caroline Plant to the Sansom Plant and moving most of
the push-up of serial wing bonds from the Caroline Plant
to Respondent's Chicago facility.''
According to Plant Manager Christophersen the skills and
functions of those employees in both the Caroline Plant and
the Sansom Plant were essentially the same. While Christo-
phersen testified there were interchanges of employees be-
tween the two plants as the necessity arose, and both plants
10 Plant Manager Christophersen stated the purchase included all except
three or four pieces of equipment.
11 The contention that other changes in the operations of the Caroline
Plant were delayed as a result of a strike by the Pressmen Local during the
period June 5, 1973, until July 23 was refuted by Plant Manager Christo-
phersen's testimony under cross-examination in which he acknowledged he
wasn't sure whether Respondent's plans to use new or different equipment
or planned changes in the supervision at the Caroline Plant were delayed
or effected by the strike.
were used interchangeably to perform certain jobs, no figures
were given to show the extent of such interchanges of em-
ployees and products.
The only evidence relating to the transfer of employees
between the two plants occurred in late summer or early fall
when employees were transferred from the litho department
of the Sansom Plant to the Caroline Plant to run the Webb
press which had been moved from the Sansom Plant to the
Caroline Plant. Although Albert D'Orazio who worked at
the Caroline Plant stated after being laid off from work in
February 1974 he was assigned to the Sansom Plant, upon his
recall he stated it was not customary to assign employees of
the Caroline Plant to work at the Sansom Plant.
Christophersen acknowledged during the period May 21
through June 6 he did not know whether there had been any
transfers between the two plants or if the employees of the
Caroline Plant had worked at the Sansom Plant.
The only other equipment moved from the Sansom Plant
to the Caroline Plant was an Ashton offset "press which was
also moved in the late summer or early fall. About June a
Vacuumatic electronic counter was moved from the Caroline
Plant to the Sansom Plant. A multilith offset press and a
paging press were moved to the Caroline Plant from New
York in late summer or early fall and a Klugie-Webbflow
letterpress was purchased about the same time. Some moving
equipment was also sent to the Caroline Plant from Respon-
dent's G Street facility.
Certain items common to both plants such as rolls, dies,
plates, inventory borders and paper have been transferred
between the plants, and Christophersen who is responsible for
recommending purchases of equipment for both plants makes
all purchases.
According to Christophersen all sales for both plants
which are made by the same sales force are funneled through
him and he determines based on the differences in the press
equipment which plant gets the work.
Plant Manager Christophersen testified personnel records
for both plants are kept at the Sansome Plant and new hires
are referred there for approval. He was also responsible for
setting the personnel policies for both plants and except for
those collective-barganing agreements negotiated by the as-
sociations of which Respondent is a member he was responsi-
ble for negotiations for those plants. Insofar as grievances
which might go to arbitration are concerned, he reports to his
supervisor for determining company policy.
C. Respondent's Recognition of the Graphic Arts Local
rather than the Pressmen Local for those Employees
Performing "Offset" Functions at the Caroline Plant
Business Representative Day of the Pressmen Local, after
receiving a copy of the April 13 notice of the impending sale
of the Caroline Plant from Federated's President
Bahmer ,12 on April 18, informed Fred Esty, who is the
Chairman of the Board of United States Banknote Corpora-
tion, by letter that he had received the notice and informed
Esty his Union represented a bargaining unit of pressmen at
the Caroline Plant and had an agreement with Federated and
12 Business Representative Day stated he had heard rumors as early as
March about the possible sale of the plant.
SECURITY-COLUMBIAN BANKNOTE COMPANY 455
stated if the negotiations resulted in the purchase of the plant
and its asserts he assumed Esty's Company would fulfill its
legal obligation to grant recognition to his Union as the bar-
gaining agent for the unit he represented.
On May 4 a meeting was held between Business Represen-
tative Day and Respondent's Plant Manager Christophersen
at the Union's office. Day testified Christophersen informed
him of the impending sale stating they were going to take the
plant over and offer employment to some of the employees
including 7 of the 13 employees who Day represented. Chris-
tophersen informed him three of the employees would be in
letterpress and four of them in offset, however, those em-
ployees in offset would have to be members of the Graphic
Arts Local. Day objected stating they had a bargaining unit
there and would be entitled to have the Respondent recognize
them for the employees they represented. Chnstophersen ac-
knowledged he was aware of the letter Day had set to Chair-
man Esty. Christophersen did not deny Day's version of the
conversation.
On May 7, 1973, Plant Manager Christophersen by letter
informed Day since they viewed Federated's facility and as-
sets as an accretion to the Sansom Plant they could only
recognize Day's jurisdiction over those letterpress employees
to whom Respondent would be offering employment. Chris-
tophersen mentioned Respondent had a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Graphic Arts Local which covered their
present location and all future locations and that the offset
portion which was being purchased must come under the
jurisdiction of their collective-bargaining agreement with the
Graphic Arts Local. The letter also stated Respondent was
interested in offering employment to three of four individuals
who would only be concerned with letterpress.
On May 17, 1973, Plant Manager Christophersen by letter
notified Day that Respondent would offer letterpress employ-
ment to Norman Hale, Albert D'Orazio," Emil Korn-
berger, and Earl Eppes. It also informed Day Respondent
would offer offset employment to other employees the Press-
men Local represented, namely, Daniel Acker, George Rob-
erts, Horace Hale, and Anthony Di Lorenzo14 who would
come under Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement
with the Graphic Arts Local. Besides these eight employees
named who were all hired by the Respondent to work at the
Caroline Plant the Pressmen Local represented four other
employees in the litho and letterpress department and the
litho platemaking department who were not hired.
Plant Manager Chnstophersen testified about the latter
part of April during a telephone conversation with Walter
Buczko , who was the secretary of the Graphic Arts Local,
that he, explained to Buczko they were in negotiations to
purchase the plant and assets of Federated and would offer
jobs to certain employees whose primary function was offset
and offset preparation, i.e., camera, stripping , and opaquing.
Christophersen stated since he had a contract he asked if
13 Albert D'Orazio testified about May 15 Respondent 's Plant Manager
Chnstophersen offered him and Earl Eppes jobs as letterpressmen which he
accepted This meant he would no longer perform offset work and in addi-
tion would give up his job as a working night foreman
10 Daniel Acker was a foreman in the litho platemaking department and
George Roberts was a platemaker in the same department . Horace Hale
worked in the litho and letterpress department operating both the offset and
letterpress and Anthony Di Lorenzo worked in the same department on
offset
there would be any problem in offering jobs to those em-
ployees who were not members of the Graphic Arts Local.
According to Christophersen, Buczko did not object and it
was his conclusion their collective-bargaining agreement
would be extended to cover those employees.
On May 17, 1973, Plant Manager Chnstophersen by letter
confirmed his early conversation with Secretary Buczko stat-
ing he had offered employment with Respondent at the Caro-
line Plant to Daniel Acker, George Roberts, Horace Hale,
and Anthony Di Lorenzo.
Respondent since taking over the operation of the Caroline
Plant on May 21 has recognized the Graphic Arts Local as
the bargaining representative of those employees at the Caro-
line Plant who are engaged in operating offset printing
presses and associated devices and employees engaged in off-
set platemaking, including camera operations, darkroom
work, strapping layout, opaquing, and press lineup and has
applied its collective-bargaining agreement with the Graphic
Arts Local covering those employees at the Sansom Plant to
those employees at the Caroline Plant. Respondent's recogni-
tion of the Graphic Arts Local for the Caroline Plant em-
ployees was based on its conclusion, it was bound to be so
under their collective-bargaining agreement and that it was
an accretion to the existing unit rather than upon any evi-
dence or conclusion, those offset employees at the Caroline
Plant had independently chose or authorized the Graphic
Arts Local to represent them.
Since taking over the Caroline Plant and at all times
material herein Respondent has recognized the Pressmen Lo-
cal as the bargaining representative of those employees
operating the letterpress printing presses and associated
devices. 15
Following acquisition of the Caroline Plant by the Re-
spondent those unions representing the employees of the
Caroline Plant have included the Engravers Union, Photo
Printers, Steel Plate Printers Union, Graphic Arts Local,
Pressmen Local, and Teamsters Local 107 These unions also
represented employees at the Sansom Plant.
D. Conclusions and Analysis
The General Counsel contends while Respondent denies
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5)
of the Act16 by withdrawing recognition from and refusing
to bargain with the Pressmen Local as the bargaining re-
presentative of employees performing "offset" functions at
the Caroline Plant while instead recognizing the Graphic
Arts Local as their bargaining representative and by applying
and enforcing their collective-bargaining agreement, which
contained union-security provisions to them.
15 Respondent does not have any employees engaged in operating as-
sociated devices to the letterpresses
16 Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Sec 7 of the Act Sec 8(a)(2) of the Act prohibits an employer from
dominating or interfering with the formation of any labor organization or
contributing financial or other support to it Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act provides
in pertinent part "it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer
by discrimination in regard to hire or ; tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization "Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act prohibits an employer from
refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the General Counsel and the Pressmen Local con-
tend Respondent was a successor to Federated and therefore
legally obligated to recognize and bargain with the Pressmen
Union as the representative of the "offset" employees which
it had represented at Federated, both Respondent and the
Graphic Arts Local assert such employees constituted an
accretion to their existing bargaining unit at the Sansom
Plant and therefore recognition of the Graphic Arts Local as
their bargaining representative and application of their col-
lective-bargaining agreement to them was lawful.
Where there is a substantial continuity in the identity of the
employing enterprise the purchasing employer is required to
recognize and bargain with the incumbent union, Northwest
Galvanizing Co., 168 NLRB 26, 28 (1967).
A determination whether a new group of employees at a
new facility operated by the same employer constitutes an
accretion to an existing unit must be determined in the light
of the circumstances of each individual case. Haag Drug
Company, Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877 (1968). Certain fac-
tors to which weight has been given by the Board in determin-
ing whether an accretion exists include the integration of
operations , centralization of management and administrative
control, geographic proximity, similarity of working condi-
tions, skills, functions, common control over labor relations,
collective-bargaining history , and the interchange of em-
ployees . Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 208 NLRB 853 (1974).
The Board in its Melbet Decision" stated:
We will not, however, under the guise of accretion, com-
pel a group of employees, who may constitute a separate
appropriate unit, to be included in an overall unit with-
out allowing those employees the opportunity of express-
ing their preference in a secret election or by some other
evidence that they wish to authorize the Union to repre-
sent them.
When an employer upon being confronted with conflicting
representational claims by two unions negotiates a collective-
bargaining agreement with one of them before its right to be
recognized as the collective -bargaining representative has
been finally determined under the procedures set forth under
the Act, such conduct constitutes unlawful assistance.
Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
Upon considering the findings supra, the evidence estab-
lished that the Respondent after purchasing Federated's
plant, fixed assets, inventories, and existing contracts, con-
tinued operating the Caroline Plant, without interruption,
completing such work along with similar work utilizing
Federated's equipment and employing its former employees
and supervisors.
While these factors are sufficient to establish a successor
relationship with respect to the acquisition of the facility
itself, Federated's employees were separated into a number of
different bargaining units and represented by various labor
organizations . With respect to the bargaining unit in issue
here because of certain changes made in the operations of the
Caroline Plant upon Respondent's takeover this unit did not
remain intact or retain its separate identity. Under Federated
the letterpress and offset employees comprising the bargain-
17 Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc., and I.D.S.-Orchard Park, Inc., 180 NLRB 107,
110 (1969).
ing unit worked in the same departments, under the same
supervision, and performed both letterpress and offset func-
tions. However, following Respondent's takeover those em-
ployees, who were formerly employed in the bargaining unit
and were offered and accepted employment with the under-
standing they would perform either letterpress or offset work,
were assigned to different departments, worked under differ-
ent supervision, and performed these functions separately
and to some extent the offset work was performed in conjunc-
tion with employees of the Sansom Plant. Moreover, there
was a substantial reduction in the number of those employees
hired. Such changes in operations as previously noted were
not limited to these employees alone but also involved em-
ployees affected by closing the composing room and moving
the engraving, gluing, and shingling work from the Caroline
Plant to the Sansom Plant.
However, Respondent did recognize the Pressmen Local as
the bargaining representative of the letterpress employees
which it had previously represented and although the former
unit description included employees performing gravure
work and work on associated devices neither Federated nor
the Respondent had employed such employees at the Caro-
line Plant.
Under these circumstances , inasmuch as the bargaining
unit in issue here did not remain intact or retain its separate
identity following the takeover of the Caroline Plant, I find
that the Respondent by withdrawing recognition from and
refusing to bargain with the Pressmen Local as the bargaining
representative of these employees performing "offset" func-
tions at the Caroline Plant1e did not violate Section 8(a)(1),
(2), (3), or (5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
The remaining issue is whether Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act as alleged by granting
recognition to the Graphic Arts Local as the bargaining re-
presentatives of those employees performing "offset" func-
tions at the Caroline Plant and by applying and enforcing
their collective-bargaining agreement, which contains union-
security provisions, to those employees.
Respondent and the Graphic Arts Local in asserting their
accretion defense rely both on the recognition language in
their collective-bargaining agreement and certain factors ap-
plicable to both plants.
Insofar as the recognition clause is concerned such reliance
is misplaced since their agreement was executed prior to the
acquisition of the Caroline Plant and its language makes no
specific provisions for newly acquired facilities such as here.
While a consideration of the evidence pertaining to those
factors applicable to both plants disclosed centralized man-
agement ; common control over labor relations and personnel
policies; central personnel records keeping; common sales
force; common purchasing; similar working conditions;
possession of similar work skills and functions; and an inter-
change of items commonly used in the production process,
such evidence failed to establish that the interchange of em-
ployees and work products and the transfer of employees
between the two plants were other than minimal or that the
operation of the Caroline Plant was not substantially autono-
mous. Upon considering these factors in their entirety and in
18 Respondent at no time had ever recognized the Pressmen Local as the
bargaining representative of these employees.
SECURITY-COLUMBIAN BANKNOTE COMPANY 457
view of the geographic separation of the two plants and prior
bargaining history, I find that those employees performing
"offset" functions at the Caroline Plant were not an accretion
to the existing bargaining unit of offset employees at the
Sansom Plant.
Having found those employees were not an accretion to the
existing bargaining unit which was the sole basis for granting
recognition, I find that Respondent by granting recognition
to the Graphic Arts Local as the bargaining representative of
the employees performing "offset" functions at the Caroline
Plant and applying and enforcing their union-security collec-
tive-bargaining agreement to them with knowledge of the
Pressmen Local's claim to represent them and that a real
question concerning representation existed, thereby rendered
unlawful assistance and support to the Graphic Arts Local in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Further I find
since the collective-bargaining agreement with the Graphic
Arts Local which Respondent unlawfully applied to those
employees contained union-security provisions Respondent
discriminated against them with respect to hire and tenure of
employment thereby discouraging membership in the Press-
men Local in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Union No. 4 and encouraging membership in the Graphic
Arts International Union , Local 14L, and engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
5. Respondent , by engaging in such conduct set forth above
has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By withdrawing recognition from and refusing to bar-
gain with the Philadelphia Printing Pressmen , Assistants and
Offset Workers ' Union No. 4 as the bargaining representative
of the employees performing "offset" functions at the Caro-
line Plant, Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3),
or (5) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices effect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Security-Columbian Banknote Company, a Division of
U.S. Banknote Corporation , is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Philadelphia Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset
Workers' Union No. 4 and the Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 14L, are each labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing the Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 14L, as the bargaining representative of the employees
performing "offset" functions at the Caroline Plant without
any lawful basis and at a time when a real question concern-
ing representation existed with respect to those employees
and by applying and enforcing Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 14L' s union-security collective-bargaining
`agreement to those employees, Respondent has rendered un-
lawful assistance and support to Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 14L, and thereby has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By applying Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L's union-security collective-bargaining agreement to the
employees performing "offset" functions at the Caroline
Plant, Respondent has discriminated with respect to the hire,
tenure, and terms and conditions of employment of its em-
ployees, thereby discouraging membership in the Phila-
delphia Printing Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers'
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act by
recognizing Graphic Arts Local as the bargaining representa-
tive of the employees performing "offset" functions at the
Caroline Plant and by applying and enforcing the union-
secunty collective-bargaining agreement to those employees,
I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to with-
draw and withhold recognition from the Graphic Arts Local
as the representative of those employees unless and until the
Board shall certify it as the bargaining representative. It shall
also be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease
giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Graphic Arts Local or to any modification, extension,
renewal, or supplement thereto, insofar as its applies to those
employees performing "offset" functions at the Caroline
Plant However, this recommended Order shall not be con-
strued to require Respondent to vary any of the substantive
terms, conditions, and benefits presently in effect for these
employees.
Further, since the collective-bargaining agreement con-
tained union-security and checkoff provisions, it shall be
recommended that Respondent be ordered to restore to pre-
sent or former employees performing "offset" functions at the
Caroline Plant since May 21, 1973, when the collective-bar-
gaining agreement was first applied to them any fees, dues,
or other payments by them to the Graphic Arts Local or
which were unlawfully deducted from their pay including in
additton`to the reimbursements the payment of interest on
such amounts at the rate of 6 percent per annum. See Bisso
Towboat Company, Inc., 192 NLRB 885 (1971)
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER'9
Respondent, Security- Columbian Banknote Company, a
Division of U.S. Banknote Corporation, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving unlawful assistance or support to the Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 14L, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Recognizing the Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 14L, as the representative of its employees performing
"offset" functions at the Caroline Plant for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
(c) Giving any force or effect to the collective- bargaining
agreement with the Graphic Arts International Union, Local
14L, or to any modification, extension, renewal, or supple-
ment thereto, insofar as it applies to those employees per-
forming "offset" functions at the Caroline Plant, provided,
however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent to
vary any of the substantive terms, conditions, and benefits
presently enjoyed by those employees, which have been estab-
lished in the performance of this collective- bargaining agree-
ment.
(d) Encouraging memebership in the Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union, Local 14L, or any other labor organization
and discouraging membership in the Philadelphia Printing
Pressmen, Assistants and Offset Workers' Union No. 4 or
any other labor organization by discriminating with respect
to the employees' hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of
employment.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self- organization , to form, join , or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
'y In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
extent that such right may be affected by the provisos of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the Graphic
Arts International Union, Local 14L, as the collective- bar-
gaining representative of those employees performing "off-
set" functions at the Caroline Plant for the purpose of dealing
with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or
conditions of employment, unless and until the Board shall
certify said labor organization as their bargaining representa-
tive.
(b) Reimburse all present and former employees perform-
ing "offset" functions at the Caroline Plant except those who
joined the Graphic Arts International Union, Local 14L,
prior to the unlawful enforcement and application of the
union- security collective- bargaining agreement on May 21,
1973, for all initiation fees, dues, and any other moneys, if
any, paid by or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of
'the collective- bargaining agreement in the manner provided
for in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at both its Caroline Plant and Sansom Plant
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take rea-
sonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, be, and it
hereby is dismissed insofar as it alleged unfair labor practices
not specifically found herein.
20 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."