Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1381 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1381
sentatives of his employees " and thereby through indirection provides a labor or-
ganization with rights as the agent of such employees-is not invoked by General
Counsel. That is, there is no claim that by the action in question the Respondent
has failed to bargain in good faith with the Charging Union . Obvious reasons
exist for the lack of such claim . Both the unit and the majority elements are
-still before the Board , and in the investigation stage.
So far as the record before the Trial Examiner is concerned , there is no evidence
that any employee has been interfered with , restrained , or coerced in his right
to join or not to join any labor organization , or to select as his bargaining agent
any labor organization , or that individually or collectively employees have been
discriminated against in fact or for the purpose of discouraging or encouraging
membership in any labor organization.
Brooks' affidavit makes it clear that the Respondent does not relish the idea of
splitting off its lithographers from the rest of its printing department , and that as
an economic move it has effected a reorganization . And unless it be held that a
labor organization acquires some proprietary control over an employer 's way of
conducting his business merely by asking to 'bargain for a specific group of his
employees , the Trial Examiner fails to perceive how any section of the Act has
been violated.
It would appear that General Counsel is anticipating a possible right which the
-Charging Union may acquire, at some future time , as the bargaining agent of the
lithographers only. But until that right has been certified , by the Board, it does not
exist and can hardly be violated. And until that right is violated , there can be
no derivative violation of Section 8(a)(1).
It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local No. 4, Petitioner
Weyerhaeuser Company and Printing Specialties & Paper Prod-
ucts Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168. Decem-
ber 19, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, consolidated hearings were held before Rush F. Hall,
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 these cases,' the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within ^the meaning of the
Act.2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain.
employees of the Employer.
' The Employer 's request for oral argument Is hereby denied , as the record in this pro-
ceeding, including the briefs of the parties, adequately presents the Issues and positions
of the parties.
2 The parties stipulated that the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of folding
cartons and paper boxes at its Chicago , Illinois , plant and produces and ships goods
directly outside the State of Illinois in.value exceeding $400,000 per annum.
134 NLRB No. 151.
1382 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) andSection2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In Case No. 13-RC-7069 Lithographers petitioned for a unit of
"all lithographic production employees" at the Employer's Chicago
plant. In Case No. 13-RC-7168 Printing Pressmen petitioned for a
unit of "all -production and maintenance employees of the Company,
including plant clerical [s]" excluding truckdrivers and classifications
normally excluded. On May 11, 1960, the petitions were consolidated
for hearing. The Employer contends that a unit confined to litho-
graphic production employees is inappropriate, and that only a plant-
wide unit is pfroper; it contends further that no smaller unit may be
appropriate than one comprising the entire printing department, in-
cluding both letterpress and lithographic employees.
The Employer operates a factory in Chicago, Illinois, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of paper boxes and folding cartons. Some
of the products are "decorated" either by letterpress or by lithographic
printing in the printing department of the plant. The Employer
operates two lithographic presses, a two-color Harris press and a
larger five-color Miehle press, which are located, together with certain
letterpress equipment, in the printing department of the Employer's
Chicago plant. Prior to the events hereinafter set forth, lithographic
production employees included first pressmen, second pressmen, ap-
prentice pressmen, feeders, helpers, and floormen or stock handlers.
These employees, 16 in number and working under the separate im-
mediate supervision of a lithographic foreman, were carried by the
Employer on a separate "offset" payroll and were trained on the job
by the Employer specifically for lithographic work. Feeders, helpers,
and floormen apparently interchanged with other employees in the
plant during times of slack work to prevent layoff or to provide addi-
tional help for overloaded departments, but lithographic pressmen
were never interchanged. The lithographic employees in the Em-
ployer's plant had the same responsibilities and performed the same
duties as lithographers in regular commercial lithographic plants.
The on-the-job training received by lithographic employees extended
over a period of '4 years, beginning as floorman and progressing
through the categories of helper, feeder, apprentice pressman, and
second pressman, to first pressman. One section of the Employer's
printing area was designated as the "offset department." It was
stipulated by the parties that there was no history of collective bar-
gaining at the Chicago plant affecting the employees involved herein
with the exception of the Employer's truckdrivers who are not in-
volved in either petition.
The Board has held, in similar situations, that lithographic em-
ployees may constitute an appropriate unit separate from other
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1383
employees.' However, a plantwide unit including lithographic
employees may also be appropriate. On the basis of the record as of
the close of the hearing herein, we find that each requested unit may
be appropriate; namely, the lithographic unit sought by Lithog-
raphers (including the following lithographic production employees:
first pressmen, second pressmen, apprentice pressmen, feeders, helpers,
and floormen) and the plantwide unit requested by Printing Pressmen.
On June 17,1960, the Employer filed a motion to remand these cases
for further hearing.4 It alleged in a supporting affidavit that since
the termination of the hearing on June 1, 1960, it had instituted a
program of additional training and interchanging of the lithographic
and letterpress employees so that each would be qualified to do the
work of the other, and that as a result of such additional training the
distinctions in skills which previously existed between them was being
eliminated. The Employer contends therefore, that in view of the
changed situation, the uniform duties and skills, and the interchange
of lithographic and letterpress employees, a unit of lithographic
production employees was no longer appropriate.
In our decision in Case No. 13-CA-3750, issued this day, and re-
ported' at 134 NL'RB 1371, in which -the' legality of the Employer's
aforementioned conduct was in issue, a majority of the Board found
that, by reorganizing and retraining its lithographic production em-
ployees, the Employer had engaged in conduct which violated Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. As part of the remedy devised to fit
the unusual circumstances of the case, the Board ordered that the
Employer cease and desist from engaging in conduct which deprives
its employees of their right to organize and select a bargaining repre-
sentative of their own choosing; and, in order to restore to the litho-
graphic employees the right of which the Employer had sought to
deprive them, the Board directed that the lithographic employees, if
fouiid'to constitute a separate appropriate unit, be given an oppor-
tunity to decide in this representation proceeding, whether'they de-
sired to be separately represented by the Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, Local *4, the labor organization which had filed a peti-
tion on their behalf. In view, however, of the commission of such
unfair labor practices and the probability that their effects have not
been dissipated, we shall not direct immediate elections, but shall
authorize the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region to conduct
the elections at such time as he is satisfied that the effects of the unfair
labor practices have been dissipated or at such earlier time as the
Lithographers may request him to proceed.
s Weyerhaeuser Company, 129 NLRB 998, 999; Printing Industry of Delaware, 131
NLRB 1100 ; Lord Baltimore Press , Incorporated , 128 NLRB 334, 337. NL.R.B. v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, successor to Ace Folding Box Corporation, 276 F. 2d 865
(C.A. 7), cert. denied 864 U.S. 879.
'In view of our determination herein , the Employer's motion to remand is hereby
denied.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In directing the elections herein, we shall not, however, make any
final unit determination until we have ascertained the desires of the
employees as expressed in the elections. We shall direct that separate
elections be held among the following voting groups of employees at
the Employer's Chicago plant :
A. All those who functioned as lithographic, production employees
on June 1, 1960,'including those who worked as first pressmen , second
pressmen, apprentice pressmen, feeders, helpers, and floormen orstock-
handlers or their replacements, but excluding all other employees,
watchmen and guards, and all supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
B. All production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees, but excluding those employees designated in voting
group "A," truckdrivers, office clericals, professionals, guards and
watchmen, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
Since Printing Pressmen has petitioned for a unit of production
and maintenance employees, apparently including lithographic pro-
duction employees, we shall place them on the ballot in the voting
group of lithographic production employees.
5. If a majority of the employees in voting group "A" vote for
Lithographers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire for
separate representation, and the Regional Director conducting the
election is instructed to issue a certification of representative to the
Lithographers for a separate unit of lithographic production em-
ployees which the Board, in these circumstances, finds to be appropri-
ate for collective-bargaining purposes. The certification by the Re-
gional Director shall be as follows : "All lithographic production
employees at the Employer's plant at Chicago, Illinois, including first
pressmen, second pressmen, apprentice pressmen, feeders, helpers, and
floormen or stock-handlers but excluding all other employees, watch-
men and guards, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act";
and, in such event, should a majority of the employees in voting group
"B" vote for the Printing Pressmen as their bargaining representa-
tive, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of rep-
resentative to such bargaining representative for a unit of production
and maintenance employees (specifically excluding the above litho-
graphic production employees), which the Board in these circum-
stances finds to be appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.
However, if a majority in voting group "A" does not select Lithogra-
phers, the ballots of the employees in that voting group will be pooled
with those of the employees in voting group "B" and if a majority of
the employees in the pooled group select the Printing Pressmen as
their bargaining representative, the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a -certification of representative to such bargaining repre-
sentative for a unit of production and maintenance employees includ-
FOLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1385
ing lithographic production employees, which the Board in such
circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining
purposes .5
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
If the votes are pooled they shall be tallied in the following manner: the votes for
Lithographers shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Printing
Pressmen; votes are to be afforded their face value whether for or against representation
by the Printing Pressmen.
Foley Construction Company and Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs and
Helpers Union Local 100, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
The W. L. Harper Company and Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs and
Helpers Union Local 100 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Chas. F. McCurdy, Inc.' and Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs and Help-
ers Union Local 100, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases
Nos. 9-CA-1906, 9-CA-1907, and 9-CA-1908. December 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 15, 1960, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together
with supporting briefs.
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
Intermediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, to the extent consistent
with our decision herein.
The Respondents, who are engaged in the heavy construction in-
dustry, maintain offices in Cincinnati, Ohio, and work primarily in
Ohio and Kentucky. Since 1953, the labor relations division of the
1 The name of this Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
134 NLRB No. 147.