Calumet Contractors Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 80 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (3) compositors-here involved constitute separate appropriate
units.' However, -where, as here, the only unit sought is one combin-
ing two or more of the foregoing groups, and the employer does not
object to the proposed unit on the ground of the joinder of such groups
in a single unit, the Board finds the combined unit appropriate.
We find, therefore, that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All letterpress pressmen, apprentice pressmen, all letterpress press
assistants, apprentice press assistants, offset pressmen, offset press
assistants, rotary pressmen, hand compositors, linotype operators and
apprentices, stereotypers, offset cameramen, strippers, layout em-
ployees, platemakers, opaquers, and darkroom employees at the Em-
ployer's Stevens Point, Wisconsin, plant, but excluding employees in
the hand binding department, bindery department, stockroom,
shipping and receiving department, maintenance department, office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1McQuiddy Printing Company, 116 NLRB 1114 (lithographing employees ; letterpress
operators) and Everlast Process Printing Co., 98 NLRB 1313 ( linotype operators and
compositors).
a Drug Package Co., Inc., 101 NLRB 1123, 1124-1125.
• The unit finding conforms substantially to the unit request of Petitioner.
Calumet Contractors Association and Christian Building Trades
Local 12, Christian Labor Association of U. S., Petitioner.
Case No. 13 PC-5479. June 30, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.'
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated' its powers herein to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged, in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
1 The hearing officer properly permitted various building trade craft unions, herein
called the Intervenors, to intervene for the sole purpose of protesting the appropriateness
of the unit. See Patine Gas and Electric Company, 91 A'LRB 615 (footnote 1).
121 NLRB No. 16.
MONARCH RUBBER CO., INC. 81
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective 'bargaining within Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer in Indiana and Illinois, including,
craft journeymen and apprentices, laborers, machine opera-tprs,-atld
truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical employees, professional em.-;
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.a
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 The Employer is an association composed of 12 general contractors and 14 subeon,
tractors who are engaged in the building and construction industry . It was formed in
October 1956 , and in January 1957 , it commenced collective-bargaining negotiations with
the Petitioner on behalf of its employer members. On April 9, 1957, the Employer and
Petitioner executed a contract effective from April 1, 1957 , to June 30, 1958, covering
all the employees of the Employer . On April 8, 1957, the Petitioner filed the instant
petition seeking- certification in this unit. The Employer agrees that such a unit is
appropriate. The Intervenors contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate on the
grounds that ( 1) it is not supported by a multiemployer bargaining history, and (2) it
would join various building trade craftsmen in the same unit.
As for (1) inasmuch as the Petitioner and the Employer seek multiemployer bargain-
ing, and as none of the Intervenors seeks to represent any smaller units, collective-
bargaining history is not a, prerequisite to finding the multiemployer unit appropriate.
Western Association of Engineers, etc., 101 NLRB 64. Moreover, we note that this unit -
has been in effect for over a year.
With respect to (2), while employees of a , particular craft may be represented in a unit
of their own when their separate representation is sought , units including employees
belonging to different crafts are also found appropriate by the Board . Thus, employees
of several crafts may be combined to form a maintenance unit where no bargaining history
on a broader basis exists. United States Time Corporation, 108 NLRB 1435, 1436-7.
The Board customarily finds appropriate a unit consisting of all employees of an em-
ployer, Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200, 2201-2; Southern Paperboard
Corporation, 112 NLRB 302 , 304; and this Is true even in the heavy engineering con-
struction industry. Brown and Boot, Inc., et ai. d/b /a Ozark Daft. Constructors, 77
NLRB 1136 ; Foley Brothers, Inc., 97 NLRB 1482. We see no reason why the same
rule should not apply when, as here , building construction is involved . As no union seeks
to represent any craftsmen involved in a -separate unit, and as no other valid reason has
been advanced for not granting an employerwide unit -herein we find the unit as re-
quested to be an appropriate one.
Monarch Rubber Co., Inc. and International Hod Carriers' Build-
ing , Common Laborers' Union of America, Local Union No.
1085, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3060. July 21, 1958
,SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF THIRD ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election,'
'issued by the Board herein on June 28, 1957, an election by -secret
i The first election , held on May 9, 1957 (unpublished ) pursuant to a stipulation for
certification upon consent election, resulted in 64 valid ballots for the Petitioner, 40
121 NLRB No. 19.
487926-59-vol. 121--7