Electrographic Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

810 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer's operation does not preclude the establishment of
separate craft units 14
While the Employer and the Intervenor also contend that the
multicraft character of the unit sought by the Petitioner renders it
inappropriate, the Board has previously held that, in the absence of
a controlling history of bargaining, such a unit embracing all skilled
maintenance personnel may be accorded separate representation 1s
However, we shall not make any final unit determination until we
have first ascertained the desires of the employees concerned.
We shall direct an election in the following voting group : All
skilled maintenance employees, and their helpers, at the Employer's
Jackson, Tennessee, plant, including the machinists, machinists'
helper, roll grinder, roll grinder trainee, pipe fitter, electricians, and
machinists' and electricians' working foremen, but excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority select
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be
represented in a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
14 Cf . Reynolds Metals Company, 93 NLRB 721.
15 Armstrong Cork Company , 80 NLRB 1328 ; General Electric Company, Circleville Lamp
Works, 89 NLRB 949; Halliburton Portland Cement Company , 91 NLRB 717; and
-Aerovom Corporation, 93 NLRB 1101.
REILLY ELECTROTYPE COMPANY, DIVISION OF ELECTROGRAPHIC COR-
PORATION and NEW YORK AUXILIARY UNION LOCALS Nos. 1 AND 100,
INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS ' AND ELECTROTYPERS ' UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3067. May
10'3, 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 Eugene M. Purvey,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Reynolds].
94 NLRB No. 120.
REILLY ELECTROTYPE COMPANY 811
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent most, but not all, of the Em-
ployer's maintenance and lesser skilled production employees; the
proposed unit embraces substantially all the employees except highly
skilled craftsmen in established bargaining units. The Employer'
agrees that the craft units should be undisturbed, but opposes all other
exclusions, asserting that all of its unrepresented employees have com-
mon interests and working conditions, and must therefore be joined in
a single bargaining unit.
The Employer, which produces and sells plastic and metal stereo-
types, electrotypes, and related products, conducts its operations at
-three locations, 45th Street, 52nd Street, and 38th Street, all in the
Borough of Manhattan, New York City. Its main plant is at 45th
'Street, where, in addition to electrotypers and stereotypers, it has a
variety of semiskilled and unskilled production and service workmen,
such as clerks, shippers, mat cutters, proof boys, and general helpers.
It produces some electrotypes at 52nd Street, where miscellaneous
categories of workmen are located. All plastic grinding, a prepara-
tory process involving raw materials used at the other two locations,
is performed by plastic grinders located at 38th Street, where a group
-of maintenance workmen is also stationed. The Employer's principal
storage facilities are also at 38th Street.
The electrotypers and stereotypers, together with their respective
.apprentices, have for some years been represented by New York Elec-
trotypers Union No. 100, and New York Stereotypers Union No. 1,
in separate craft units. The employees now sought by the Petitioner
have for 10 years been represented by it as part of a multiemployer
unit under successive contracts with an association of employers. The
last contract covering the employees here involved expired on May 31,
1950, when the Employer withdrew from the association. The Peti-
tioner constitutes an auxiliary organization to the craft unions now
representing the electrotypers and the stereotypers.
We have considered and find insufficient the various reasons urged
by the Petitioner in justification of its proposed unit from which some
few of the production and maintenance employees would be excluded.
Chief among the Petitioner's arguments is the assertion that only the
employees sought by the Petitioner do work "pertaining" to the pro-
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction of electrotypes and stereotypes.' The fatal defect in this pro-
posed test for an appropriate unit is the vagueness inherent in its
phrasing. In fact, this very case conclusively illustrates the imprac-
ticability of the test. The Petitioner would exclude the grinders,
who prepare raw materials used by the electrotypers and stereotypers,
and certain maintenance employees, who reline plating tanks, clean
generators, and fill oil tanks. Certainly the work of these employees
"pertains" to the Employer's production operations as much as does
that of the shippers, receivers, and order clerks whom the Petitioner
would include in the unit. In effect, the Petitioner suggests a "quasi-
craft" unit. While it is true that some of the noncraft employees in
various locations do work that brings them into closer contact with
the craftsmen than others, this fact alone does not warrant establish-
ment of a separate unit. Quasicraft concepts implicitly defy identifi-
able unit delineations and would lead to dismemberment of a produc-
tion and maintenance unit without logical end.
The Petitioner also seeks to justify the proposed unit on the further
ground that it is coextensive with its own jurisdictional limitations.
In a sense, this is an extension of the Petitioner's major argument, as
its jurisdiction is auxiliary to that of the craft unions representing the
Employer's highly skilled workmen. However, the Petitioner admits,
nor could it do otherwise on the record before us, that the employees
involved in this proceeding are not craftsmen. In these circumstances,
as the Board has heretofore held, the jurisdictional boundaries created
by the Petitioner's own constitution and bylaws cannot, standing alone,
govern the scope of a unit, which must be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.2
Finally, we reject the contention that the past bargaining history in
this case justifies the proposed unit. Although the record does not
establish affirmatively that all the Employer's job categories now in
dispute were within the scope of the multiemployer bargaining unit,
I Specifically , the Petitioner described its proposed units as follows
Wax casters , pan scrubbers , blanket washers, helpers on all forms of duplicate process
plates performing work not pertaining to a journeyman and apprentice , servicemen,
shippers, receivers, order clerks, dispatchers. checkers, packers, mat cutters, proof boys,
file pattern clerks, form boys , and general helpers in shipping room doing work in
connection with the production and handling of the products of the electrotype and
stereotype departments,
excluding
Office helpers, messengers , apprentice and journeymen electrotypers and stereotipers,
supervisors as defined in the Act, all employees not doing work in connection with the
production or handling of the products of the stereotype and electrotype departments
The patent ambiguity in the unit as requested, and the resultant confusion appearing in
the record make it impossible to discuss the disagreement between the paities in con-
ventional teimg of specific categories sought to be included or excluded Indeed , as the unit
description offered by the Petitioner was taken from an earlier multi -employer contract,
it is not precisely applicable to the Employer 's operations Thus , it includes wax casters,
who are not employed by this Employer, and lists other categories which apparently fall
in other classifications on the Employer ' s payroll
2 8 H Kress d Co, 92 NLRB 15
SOUTHLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 813
it does show that the old unit was defined in terms of job content, as
opposed to job title. Furthermore, it suggests that the scope of the
unit was modified by usage, if not by specific agreement, to include the
vague job areas described above.' In any event, the Board has long
held that a bargaining history which was not based on appropriate
bargaining units does not dictate continued existence of like unit
arrangements.'
tI is clear on the record as a whole that the various categories of
semiskilled and unskilled production workers, together with the main-
tenance men, comprise the usual production and maintenance group
of a single employer, and that the skilled electrotypers and the stereo-
typers, in conformity with the established pattern in this industry,
appropriately constitute separate craft units. Absent any persuasive
reason for breaking up the lesser skilled employees into more than one
unit, therefore, Board policy requires inclusion of them all in the
conventional single production and maintenance unit.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employ-
ees at the Employer's three plants in New York City, excluding office
clerical employees, journeymen, and apprentice electrotypers and
stereotypers, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Significantly , an elevator operator whom the Petitioner would exclude is a member
of that Union.
< Benner Tea Company, 88 NLRB 1409.
Ast he Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest , and as it indicate at the
hearing that it would accept an election in the more inclusive unit, we shall direct an
election in the appropriate production and maintenance unit.
SOUTHLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
L. L. LEVINSON and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO
W. R. STRICKLAND and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO. Oases Nos. "4-CA-157, 34-CA-189, and 34-CA-188. May
24,1951
Decision and Order
On February 27, 1951, Trial Examiner John Lewis issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
94 NLRB No. 123.