Campbell Offset Printing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1421 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

.III the Matter of CAMPBELL OFFSET PRINTING Co., INC., EMPLOYER
and LOCAL #3, AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER 1
Case No. 3-RC-501.-Decided January 19, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Naimark, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in the business of printing by the litho-
graphic process at Syracuse, New York. Purchases of materials and
supplies during 1949 totaled approximately $41,500, of which $2,670
represented materials bought outside the State of New York. Total
sales during the same period amounted to $225,000. All sales were
made to customers within the State except one sale, amounting to
$600, made to a customer in Illinois.
3 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as corrected at the hearing.
0 The hearing officer properly permitted the intervention of William R. Alexander, on
the basis of a showing of interest submitted to the hearing officer and accepted by him as
adequate. An individual seeking representative status must show , as was shown here,
that he seeks such status for the purpose of collective bargaining, but contrary to the
Petitioner 's contention , an individual ( unlike a labor organization ), is not required to
comply with the filing requirements of the Act. Hofmann Packing Co., Inc., 87 NLRB 601.
For reasons discussed in paragraph 1, the hearing officer correctly denied identical
motions made by the Employer and the Intervenor to strike out the testimony of the
Employer 's president , on the ground that the Board is without jurisdiction In the instant
proceeding . We find no merit in the further grounds urged in support of these motions
that the testimony was immaterial and was elicited without the Employer 's consent.
The hearing officer referred to the Board motions made by the Employer and the Inter-
venor to dismiss the petition on three grounds : ( 1) That Petitioner failed to establish that
It has authority to represent the employees ; ( 2) that the Petitioner has failed to show
that it is qualified under Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act ; ( 3) that the Petitioner
failed to establish a case. . These motions are denied . The Board has repeatedly held that
showing of interest and compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act are matters
for administrative determination . Binns' Passaic Iron and'Brass Foundry, 77 NLRB 380;
Muntz Television, Inc., 92 NLRB 29. We are administratively satisfied that ' the Petitioner
has made a sufficient showing of interest and is in compliance . The third ground urged in
support of the motion is'without merit, for reasons appearing herein.
92 NLRB No. 212.
1421
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For 11 years the Employer's major customers have been three manu-
facturing companies also located in Syracuse : The Carrier Corpora-
tion, manufacturers of air-conditioning equipment which the record
establishes is sold Nation-wide; the Easy Washing Machine Corpora-
tion; and the Porter-Cable Machine Company, manufacturer of sand-
ing machines, power saws, and various electrical tools. During 1949;
the Employer received $50,000 from the Carrier Corporation for
printing booklets on the use of equipment sold by Carrier, and $30,000
each from the Easy Washing Machine and the Porter-Cable Machine
.Corporation for printing advertising material and instruction
booklets.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the Employer's
enterprise affects commerce. The Employer annually renders serv-
ices valued at more than $50,000 which are necessary to the operations
of other employers producing annually goods valued at more than
$25,000, destined for out-of-State shipments.' On the basis of these
factors we shall assert jurisdiction in accordance with our policy
,enunciated in Hollow Tree Lumber Company.4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to "lithographic
production employees," specifically cameraman, layout men, plate-
maker, and pressmen. The Employer takes no position as to the
appropriateness of the unit.' The Intervenor asserts that only a unit
comprising all production and maintenance employees can be
appropriate.6
All employees work under the same supervision. However, the
employees described by the Petitioner as lithographic production
employees, of whom there are nine, are more highly paid than the
other six production employees and the single maintenance
employee-the sweeper.
The production employees whom the Petitioner would exclude
from the unit are all engaged in operations which take place- after
the printing operation is completed. They consist of one cutter, one
3 Easy Washing Machine Corporation, 89 NLRB 73 : Porter-Cable Machine Co., 35
NLRB 961.
n 91 NLRB 635.
s At the hearing the Employer appeared specially to contest jurisdiction but apparently
adopted the Intervenor's objection to the unit in that it permitted the Intervenor's counsel
to state that lie represented the Employer on matters other than jurisdiction. However,
in its brief the Employer limits itself to contesting jurisdiction.
6 The record does not, however , indicate that the Intervenor desires an election in such
a unit.
CAMPBELL OFFSET PRINTING CO., INC. 1423
folder, and four employees engaged in assembling of books, collating
pages, stitching, gluing on covers, drilling, writing packing slips, etc.
None of these employees, except the cutter and the folder, ever per-
forms any of the functions performed by the employees the Petitioner
seeks to represent. In emergencies the cutter occasionally runs a
press, but it is conceded that this is not a regular part of his work.'
Running the folding machine does not always take up all the folder's
time; when he is not required for folding he puts in his time runnilig
a press or cutting, depending on production- requirements at the
moment. The Employer was unable to estimate the percentage of,
the folder's time spent on each of the three types of work he performs.
However, the fact that he is paid at the same hourly rate as the cutter,
which is 50 cents less than the hourly rate of the pressmen, is an indi-
cation that his work consists principally of folding or cutting.
The Board has frequently recognized as appropriate, and entitled
to separate representation, lithographic units comprising classifica-
tions analogous to those the Petitioner would include here, and ex-
cluding cutters,. folders, and other bindery employees as performing
functions not a part of the lithographic process 8 We do not believe
that the limited interchange here present renders such a unit
inappropriate.
Accordingly we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining : Cameraman,
layout men, platemaker, and pressmen, excluding folder operators,
cutters, other bindery workers, sweepers, and all other employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Similarly the platemaker, cameraman, and layout men have occasionally done some
cutting, and pressmen and layout men have made plates. These interchanges of function
have taken place only when deviations from the normal flow of production have created
temporary need for extra help at some stage of production.
8 The Madison Company, 92 NLRB No. 152; Piedmont Label Company, 5-RC-597,
unpublished; John S. Swift & Co., 76 NLRB 792; Providence Lithograph Company, 62
NLRB 1389.