A. B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1068 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer bases its contention that a majority of its employees 7
should be excluded from the unit as temporary on- the -ground that
they were hired for the special job on the 2 Government contracts
which it had obtained in April 1951, and on the assertion that when
these contracts are completed it will revert to its original labor com-
plement of between 7 and 11 employees. The Employer is not certain
that it may not receive further contracts from the Defense Depart-
ment, but is unwilling to concede that it might continue to get similar
work from Government agencies and others. The Employer neverthe-
less did not inform any of its employees at the time they were hired
that there was to be any limitation on the duration of their employ-
ment." Under all the circumstances, we find that all the production
and maintenance employees of the Employer should be included in
the unit herein found appropriate 9 and are eligible to vote in the
election. -
We find that all production and maintenance employees 'at the Em-
ployer's Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 At the time of the hearing , the Employer had about 25 employees.
8 The Employer 's counsel stated , however , that after the filing of the petition in this"
case, the employees were informed that their employment was temporary.
8 Cf. Lone Star Boat Mfg. Co ., 94 NLRB 19 , and cases cited therein.
A. B. HIRSCHFELD PRESS, INC. and, AMALGAMATED LITOGRAFI-IERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 15, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No . 30-RC-470.
October 06, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing
Officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
96 NLRB No. 170.
A. B. HIRSCHFELD PRESS, INC. 1069
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following rea-
sons:
At the close of the hearing the hearing officer granted the Petition-
er's motion to amend its petition, which had originally asked for a
unit of "all lithographic production employees," to request a unit of
"offset pressmen, press feeders, and press assistants, excluding all
other employees, and, in particular, all the lithographic employees
covered by the Photo-Engravers' contract." Thus the Petitioner now
seeks to sever the offset pressmen from the bargaining unit of press-
room employees and to establish them in a unit which, because it does
not include the platemakers represented by the Photo-Engravers, does
not embrace all the lithographic employees. The Board has repeat-
edly held that, absent unusual circumstances, all employees engaged in
the lithographic process form an indivisible entity for the purposes of
collective bargaining.2 The Petitioner does not question the existence
or wisdom of the many decisions to this effect. On the contrary it
says in its brief that the interrelationship between the offset pressmen,
whom it now seeks to represent, and the platemakers, who are repre-
sented by the Photo-Engravers, is "particularly clear on this record."
The Petitioner's stated reason for amending its petition is that it is
"not inclined to attack" the contract of the Photo-Engravers during
its duration. Obviously this record does not present circumstances
which would justify the Board-in the exercise of its statutory re-
sponsibility to define the appropriate unit in each case - in varying
established principles relating to lithographic employees. We shall
dismiss the petition because, as amended, it requests an inappropriate
unit.
Order
IT IS, HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by the Amalgamated
Lithographers of America, Local 15, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
1 At the hearing the Denver Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 40, I. P. P. &
A. U. of N. A., and the Denver Photo-Engravers ' Union No. 18 , I. P. E. U., were allowed to
intervene-the former because of a contract dated April 15, 1950 , covering the Employ-
er's pressroom employees including offset pressmen , and the latter- because of a contract
dated February 15, 1950, covering the Employer ' s employees engaged in the process of
photoengraving . In view of our decision with respect to the unit problem herein, we
do not further analyze these contracts nor pass upon their validity for contract bar
purposes.
7 Manz Corporation, 79 NLRB 211 , and cases there cited.