Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local No. 4, Petitioner.. Case No. 13-RC-7069.1 Janu-
ary 21, 1961.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFI-
CATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the
Board on December 19,1961,2 elections were conducted on February 8,
1962, at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant, among employees in
voting group A, consisting of all those who functioned as lithographic
production employees on June 1, 1960, and those in voting group B,
consisting of -all production and maintenance employees excluding
those in voting group A. The tally of ballots in voting group A, which
was the unit sought by the Petitioner in Case No. 13-RC-7069, herein
called the Lithographers, showed that of the 18 valid votes cast, 9
were for the Lithographers, 0 were for the Petitioner in Case No.
13-RC-7168 (the Printing Pressmen), 3 were against the participat-
ing labor organizations, and 6 ballots were challenged., On Febru-
ary 15, 1962, the Employer filed timely objections to the election held
in voting group A. On March 21, 1962, the Regional Director issued
his report, in which he recommended that a hearing on objection No. 1
be held, that objections Nos. 2 through 6 be overruled, that the chal-
lenges to 2 ballots be sustained, and that it was unnecessary to rule
on the remaining 4 challenges. On June 19, 1962, the Board issued a
Supplemental Decision, in which it adopted the Regional Director's
report and recommendations. Thereafter, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Gerard C. Smetana, who, on December 10, 1962, issued
a report sustaining objection No. 1, and recommending that a new
election be held. On December 21, 1962, the Lithographers filed ex-
ceptions to the Hearing Officer's report on objections.
As a, result of the Board's failure to obtain court enforcement of
its decision in Case No. 13-CA-3750 that the Employer committed
unfair labor practices by changing its lithographic and letterpress
operations,' the Board on March 8, 1963, issued a notice to show cause
as to whether or not the petition in Case No. 13-RC-7069 should be
dismissed in view of the court's decision in the above-mentioned un-
The decision herein is limited to Case No . 13-RC-7069 , and for that purpose the said
case is hereby severed from Cases Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 13-RC-9441 . A separate decision
in the latter cases will issue simultaneously with the instant decision as 146 NLRB 6.
2 Weyerhaeuser Company, 134 NLRB 1381.
8 Weyerhaeuser Company, 134 NLRB 1371 , enforcement denied 311 F. 2d 19 (C.A. 7).
146 NLRB No. 47. 1
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fair labor practice proceeding. Pursuant to the responses to the said
notice, the Board on April 23, 1963, ordered that a hearing be held to
determine whether there presently exists a lithographic production
unit as described in voting group A mentioned above.
On May 23 and June 20, 1963, a hearing was held with respect to
Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069, 13-RC-7168, and 13-RC-9441, before Hear-
ing Officer James Miller.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The appropriate unit
The first issue to be resolved is whether the unit of lithographic
production employees, which the Board on December 19, 1961, found
might be appropriate, has been eliminated by changes in opera-
tions made by the Employer since the original hearing in the instant
proceeding.
In briefs filed in connection with the 1963 hearing, the Employer
and the Petitioner in Cases Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 13-RC-9441, herein
called the Printing Pressmen, contend, in effect, that as the inter-
change of employees between the offset and the letterpress sections
of the Employer's printing department at its Chicago plant meets the
test of Pacific Press, Inc., 66 NLRB 458, and of other related cases,
there is no present lithographic production unit. The Lithographers
takes the position that the purported interchange is not equivalent
in kind or degree to that. involved in the Pacific Press case and related
cases, and that there continues to be an appropriate lithographic pro-
duction unit. We find merit in the Lithographer's position.
The Employer's printing operations are described in the Board's
original representation decision. Basically, the present operations ap-
pear to be the same except for the addition of the interchange program
begun in June 1960.5 Under it, employees were to be trained to op-
erate both lithographic and letterpress equipment so that they could
be used interchangeably on both types of presses.
Pursuant to the program, four to eight employees in the printing
department, who .retained their "home" section designation of "off-
4 On June 25 , 1963, Case No. 13-RC-9441 was consolidated with Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069
and 13-RC-7168.
5 Physical changes include the substitution of the new No. 8A letterpress for the old
No. 8 letterpress . Hours also have been changed. ' Before, offset employees worked from
7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and letterpress employees from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Now, all work
from 8 a .m. to 4:30 p.m . In addition , at the time of the Board's original Decision, offset
feeders, -helpers , and floormen were interchanged during times of slack work to prevent
layoff and to provide help where the workload was heavy.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 3
set" (herein used interchangeably with "lithographic") or "letter-
press," were given assignments called "semipermanent transfers" to
the opposite section at first for 4-week (occasionally 5-week)' pe-
riods. Thus, certain letterpress employees- were given 'assignments
in the offset process, and certain. offset employees were given assign-
ments in the letterpress operation. In June 1962, the length of the
assignment was extended to 8 weeks. The.choice of persons to be
moved to the opposite type of work, the extent of which is noted
below, was based on the personnel requirements of the respective off-
set and letterpress equipment during any given period and, especially
in the initial stages, was designed to give the employees training and
experience on the machines they were being assigned to.
The record evidence, which includes the hours worked by each em-
ployee in each section during 1962 and the first 4 months of 1963,
shows that out of 37 letterpress employees, 10 (of whom 8 are press-
men and 2 are feeders) do not participate at all in the interchange
program. According to the Employer, this is due in 8 cases to medical
reasons, in one case to temperament, and in another case to "domestic
situation"; 24 of the 37 letterpress employees (the 24 including 7
pressmen, a pressman trainee, 5 feeders, and 11 floormen) do par-
ticipate in the interchange program to varying degrees. Of 11 litho-
graphic employees, 4 of the 5 pressmen, all of whom are the most
skilled individuals in the printing department, interchange little or
not at all. The fifth lithographic. pressman, interchanges substan-
tially, while the remaining lithographic employees,. composed of two
feeders, three helpers, and one floorman, interchange varying amounts
of time.6
The Employer relies on seniority and ability in filling vacancies
caused by discharge or quitting. The Employer stated that it had
no formal progression program and that all employees in the printing
department are under the same seniority plan. The record evidence
shows that, except in the case of Cleveland Thomas, who was promoted
from two-color offset helper to 'a letterpress 'feeder, all promotions
have been within an individual's original. section, classification. Thus,
for example, Colby was promoted from floorman, letterpress, to B
feeder, letterpress, to A feeder, letterpress; Cross, from five-color
helper, offset, to five-color feeder, offset; Dunn, from two-color press-
man, offset, to five-color pressman, offset; Dziwak, from apprentice
pressman, letterpress, to B pressman, letterpress; Lambert; from floor-
man, letterpress, to B feeder, letterpress, to A feeder, letterpress;
Robert Mucha, from apprentice pressman, letterpress, .to A pressman,
letterpress; and Rapinchuk, from apprentice two-color pressman, off-
set, to five-color pressman,,offset.. .
The Employer expects to interchange in the future two new transfers in offset and
two new hires in letterpress.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's new interchange program, upon analysis, appears
to result in a period of temporary or "semipermanent" assignment
with no break in the basic identification of the employees with their
"home" section. During the relatively short time an employee is
temporarily assigned outside of his regular section, he works ex-
clusively in the assigned department and is not engaged in any in-
determinate back and forth movement. With respect to the litho-
graphic employees, we note, as was generally true at the. time of the
Board's original Decision, that the highly skilled lithographic press-
men, except one, work virtually exclusively on the five-color offset,
press, with interchange limited to the feeders, helpers, and floormen.
While it is undeniably true that the Employer's interchange pro-
gram reflects an attempt to erase the respective skills and duties of
lithographic and letterpress employees, we do not believe, on the
basis of the entire record, that such a result in fact has been accom-
plished. On the contrary, we are satisfied and find that there still
exists a separate lithographic production operation, and that the
employees engaged therein may constitute a separate appropriate unit.
Among the circumstances which support this view are : (1) the
Employer's administrative organization continues to recognize and
operate two separate sections (lithographic and letterpress) in its
printing department, with each having separate supervision and
employees clearly identified with their respective sections; (2) a sub-
stantial number of employees of both sections do not interchange-
indeed, the five-color offset press, which is the most important litho-
graphic operation, is manned for the most part by four highly -skilled-
lithographic-pressmen, who engage in virtually no interchange; and
(3) transfers to the offset section are limited to the less skilled func-
tions and are for a fixed temporary period of relatively short duration.
We have considered the cases relied upon by the Employer and
the Printing Pressmen in support of their common position, and we
are of the opinion that they are distinguishable on their facts.' Since
we recently denied a lithographic production unit in another plant
of the Employer,' we deem it appropriate to point out certain basic
factual differences. Thus, in the last case, cited in. footnote 8, and
unlike the instant case, there was a special combination of factors,
including the use of both the offset and letterpress operations on
the same product, the use of the letterset process employing the letter-
press printing technique on an offset press, a single promotional se-
quence from a classification in letterpress to a comparable or higher
classification in offset, interchange which was held under the circum-
stances to bg substantial, and common immediate supervision of the
7Including Pacific Press, Inc., 66 NLRB 458; Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and
Paper Manufacturers , 130 NLRB 1031.
8 Weyerhaeuser Company, 142 NLRB 1169.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 5
entire printing department, all of which resulted in the merger of
the letterpress and offset operations into a single- printing department,
in effect, without craft distinctions between the two printing functions.
Accordingly, on the basis of the record as a whole, we reaffirm our
prior determination that the lithographic production employees (vot-
ing group A) may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
2. The objection to the election
As indicated above , after a hearing on Employer 's objection No. 1,
the Hearing Officer found that the Lithographers , within the meaning
of Lobue Bros.,' interfered with the employees ' freedom of choice
in the election by an offer to reduce initiation fees, and he recom-
mended that the election be set aside . We do not agree.
The record evidence shows that the union representatives at the
February 4, 1962 , union meeting, 4 days prior to the election, told
employees , in effect, that in the past the Union had reduced the initia-
tion fee, subject to the approval of the executive board , if all em-
ployees came. in as a group , and that if all the Employer 's employees
came in as a group the initiation fee would be $25 (as opposed to $75).
In addition , a similar statement was made to employee Robert Mucha
at his home on January 18, 1962, and similar statements were made
at the two union meetings in 1960. On the facts , the Hearing Officer
concluded that the reduction of the initiation fee would occur in the
event the Union won the election , and this impaired the employees'
freedom of choice in the election.
In the recent Gilmore case ,10V in which the Board distinguished the
Lobue case, the Board held that a union 's offer to waive the initiation
fee in the event the union won the election , where it was clear that
the waiver would apply , to all employees as a group , regardless of
how they voted , and'was not contingent on how individual employees
voted, did not impair the employees ' freedom of choice. In accordance
with the Gilmore case, we And that the alleged objectionable conduct
in the instant case does not constitute interference with the election.
As the tally of ballots shows that the Lithographers received a
majority of the votes cast in voting group A, including the unresolved
challenged ballots, we find that employees in said voting group con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.li
Accordingly , as all objections to the election have been overruled,
we shall certify the Lithographers as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the Employer 's lithographic production employees found
herein to constitute an appropriate unit.
9 109 NLRB 1182. -
10 Gilmore Industries , Inc., 140 NLRB 100, reaffirmed at 142 NLRB 781.
n In the original Decision, the lithographic production employees , designated as voting
group A, were given a self-determination election as to whether they desired to constitute
a separate unit or be included in the overall unit.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board certified Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
Local No. 4, as the designated collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the unit found appropriate herein.]
Weyerhaeuser Company and Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union No. 415, affiliated with International Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO,' Petitioner
Weyerhaeuser Company and Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union No. 415, affiliated with International Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 13-R'C-9441. Janu-
ary 21, 1964
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On this date the Board has issued a Second Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative in Case No. 13-RC-7069, as 146
NLRB 1, which, for the purposes of decision, was severed from Cases
Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 13-RC-9441. The instant decision relates to
Cases Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 13-RC-94412
Case No. 13-RC-7168
On May 6, 1963, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
issued a tally of ballots for voting group B in case No. 13-RC-7168.
Of 178 eligible voters, 165 cast valid ballots, of which 65 votes were
cast for the Printing Pressmen, 84 were cast against the participating
labor organization, and 16 ballots were challenged. The challenged
ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the elec-
tion. No objections have been filed to the conduct of the election in
voting group B. Accordingly, as the tally shows that a majority of
the valid votes has not been cast for the Printing Pressmen, we shall
certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No. 415, affiliated
with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
1 Herein called Printing Pressmen.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
146 NLRB No. 48.