Arvey Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

INTL. TAG AND BUSINESS FORMS CO.
International Tag and Business Forms Company, a
Division of Arvey Corporation and Chicago Typo-
graphical Union No. 16, International Typo-
graphical Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
13-RC-1 1100
March 4, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer James A.
Miller. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules , and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 13, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by
the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act-to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)(i) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the
following reasons:
The' Petitioner seeks to sever from -an existing
production and maintenance unit, represented by
the-Intervenor, a unit of all composing room em-
ployees in the tag and-business forms divisions of
the Employer's plant in Chicago, Illinois. The Em-
ployer and Intervenor oppose severance, relying
primarily on the-,highly integrated nature of the
plant's operation, the established bargaining history
' Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No 415, affiliated with
the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract with
the Employer
35
in the existing production and maintenance unit,
and the community of interests shared by the com-
posing room employees with the other hourly-paid
employees in the existing unit.
The Employer is engaged in the business of
manufacturing tags and business forms at its
Chicago, Illinois, plant. It maintains two divisions,
namely, the tag division and the business forms
division. The Intervenor has represented the em-
ployees in these divisions in a single unit since
receiving a Board certification in 1953, and its most
recent contract with the Employer was effective
from May 1, 1965, to April 30, 1967. Included
therein are the employees sought by the Petitioner,
namely, five employees in the tag division compos-
ing room, and six employees in the business forms
division composing room.2
The Employer's tag and business forms divisions
employ about 175 employees, and the work com-
plement is almost equally divided between the two
divisions. The tag division, and its composing room,
are at the east end of the plant, and the business
forms division, and its composing room, are on the
west side of the plant. The manufacturing operation
occupies the central portion of the plant. Each divi-
sion has its own shipping and receiving, main-
tenance, plant security, marketing, accounting, and
purchases and materials departments. The sales de-
partment services both divisions.
The process of producing tags and business
forms, from their conception to delivery of the final
product, requires the participation of all depart-
ments in the Employer's two divisions. As a first
step in" the Company's operation, the salesman
writes up an order on an order form. He then
sketches a copy or obtains a sketched copy from
the marketing department. The copy then goes to
the marketing men, who screen it from a technical
aspect, clear the customer's credit, and reconcile it
with Company policies. The copy proceeds to the
order typist, who prepares the "job set," which
contains orders for appropriate action by depart-
ments concerned. Following a review of the order
by the production control department, the com-
position work is begun. A compositor will take the
raw copy, "_lay out" the job, and select the ap-
propriate type. A make-up man assembles the type,
which is then proofread for typesetting. A plate is
prepared and "locked-up" prior to its transmittal to
the press department. The tags and forms are then
run off at the press. Following the completion of
the printing process, the business forms go-to the col-
2 In its brief, Petitioner describes its requested unit as encompassing as
many as 15 employees, 2 of whom work at locations other than the com-
posing room. In, view of our determination herein, we do not decide the
proposed inclusion of these additional employees
170 NLRB No. 28
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lating department and then to the bindery depart-
ment, while the tags are sent to the wiring depart-
ment. After the necessary packing is done, the
products move to the warehouse to await shipment.
The composing room employees, as indicated,
prepare type or plates which are used in the manu-
facture of tags and business forms. Under schedule
"A" of the contract, which pertains to wage rates,
they are listed under the "Composition Plate De-
partment," and they are classified as intertype
operators, platemakers, compositor-intertypers,
Ludlow compositors, and utility men. There are no
rigid qualifications for employment in the compos-
ing rooms. Employees have been hired into these
positions with and without previous experience;
some were shown to have come from other depart-
ments in the plant, through plantwide bidding.
There is no formal apprenticeship program
required by the Company, employees being given
on-the-job training. All employees in the plant
share a common cafeteria, work the same basic
hours, and participate in identical fringe benefit
programs, including vacations, insurance, and over-
time pay. Employees in the composing rooms
punch the same timeclock ^ as other employees in
the unit, and are subject to the same grievance
procedures as set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement . Each composing room has its own
foreman, who supervises no other employees and
who reports directly to the-division superintendent.
Though there is very little daily interchange of em-
ployees between the composing rooms and the
pressroom or other areas, there have been transfers
into and out of the composing rooms, when the
work load of the composing rooms or other depart-
ments required it.
There is no substantial evidence that the bargain-
ing interests of the composing room employees
have been neglected or prejudiced by virtue of their
representation in the overall unit; there wage rates,
which are higher than those prevailing for all other
employees, reflect recognition of their greater
skills. The record contains some indication that the
composing room employees at the Company's plant
may not be as skilled as composing room em-
ployees in the commercial printing industry
generally. For example, it was shown that
proofreading of tag and business forms is not as ex-
acting as proofreading in the graphic arts industry.
Moreover, there is evidence that, by virtue of new
equipment and other factors, the function of the
composing room employees herein is more-special-
ized than elsewhere, requiring less skill.
In Mallinckrodt Chemical Works 3 we revised the
principles applicable to craft severance petitions and
indicated that we would weigh, on a case-by-case ba-
sis, all relevant factors, including the craft status of
the employees sought, the extent to which the em-
ployees in the unit sought have established and
maintained their separate identity during their in-
clusion in the broader unit , the bargaining history
of the employees involved, the degree of integra-
tion of the Employer's production processes, and
the extent to which the successful operation of
these processes is dependent on the assigned func-
tions of the requested employees.
Upon reviewing the facts in this case, we con-
clude that it will not effectuate the purposes of the
Act to allow fragmenting of the production and
maintenance unit by permitting the severance of a
unit of composing room employees. While it cannot
be gainsaid that the employees, whom the Peti-
tioner seeks to represent, do possess some skills, it
appears that such skills do not equal 'those in the
commercial printing industry generally, and
moreover, that these skills, insofar as exercised at
the Employer's plant, have been diluted by spe-
cialization. The lack of any formal apprenticeship
program or rigid requirement of, composing room
experience reflects this dilution of skills; Compos-
ing room employees receive the same fringe
benefits as do the other plant employees, and it ap-
pears that their work is but one incident, although
an important one, in the continuous flow of the
production processes used in the making of tags
and business forms.
Under the entire circumstances, we view the
functional integration of the work of composing
room employees with other phases, of the Em-
ployer's production operation, the- common in-
terests shared with the other production and main-
tenance. employees, the particular nature of the
composing room skills required in the plant here in-
volved;' and the 15-year history of successful bar-
gaining on the broader basis as compelling con-
siderations for continuing the current bargaining
pattern. Therefore, we find that it would not be ap-
propriate to permit severance of the composing
room employees from the existing production and
maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.' -
ORDER
It isahereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
162 NLRB 387 whether, under other circumstances, such -a unit would be appropriate.
' In view of our disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to decide ' Hoftnberg, Inc , 162 NLRB 407.
whether the composing room employees herein are, in fact, craftsmen, or