Ditto Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 733 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

DITTO PRESS, INC. 733
in their respective sections, it does not appear that either of them pos-
sesses oi• exercises supervisory authority. We find, as did the Regional
Director. that Lawton and Jennings are not supervisors as defined
in the Act and shall overrule the challenges to their ballots.2
(furl Solwliier.-The Regional Director, upon the basis of his in-
vestigation, found that Soiiuner is a supervisor and recommended that
the challenge to his ballot be sustained. In its exceptions, the Em-
ployer raises material issues of fact as to Somnmer's supervisory status.
We find it unnecessary at this time to order a hearing to resolve these
issues of fact, as a conclusive election may result from the opening and
counting of the four challenged ballots found valid hereinabove.3
Direction
IT Is iiEI{IdliY DIHECI ND that, as part of the investigation to ascertain
reps eseutat Ives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Oliver
Macliineiv Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Regional Direc-
tor for the Seventh Region shall. pursuant to National Labor Relations
Board I:ules and Regulations. vvitltin ten (10) days from the date
of this Direct ion, open and count the ballots of James Blok, Francis
Vadebollcoeur, William 1). Lawton, and Lawrence Jennings, and
thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots, including therein the count of the challenged
ballots.
'Cf Rrpubhc Steel Cotpotatron , Canton Plant , Central Alloy District , 91 NLRB 904;
Fticmrl Bros itanu factunnq Cotapanu , 89 NLRB 1404 ; and Gay Games, Inc, 88
NLRB 250
' S ( S Cot t uqa tcrl Paper Mac inner y Co , Inc , 89 NLRB 1263 ; Leedon Webbing Company,
81 NLRB 216
DITTO PRESS, INC.' and CINCINNATI PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSIST-
ANTS' LOCAL UNION No. 11, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN &
ASSISTANTS' UNION Or NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
DITTO PR11,SS. INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA
LOCAL NO. 8, AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
PET1TION13 1. ('a.ee.s No.,^.1'-I,'('-1010 and 9 RC-1018. March 8, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Alan A. Bruckner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
I The name of the Eutplon er appears a, corrected at the hearing.
93 NLRB No 113
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 appropriate units:
The petitioner in Case No. 9-RC-1010, hereinafter called the Press-
men, seeks to represent a unit composed of all pressmen , including
letter pressmen , offset pressmen , and their apprentices employed at
the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant . The petitioner in Case No.
9-RC-1018, hereinafter called the Lithographers , seeks to represent a
unit composed of all employees engaged in the lithographic produc-
tion process at the same plant , including the offset pressmen, their
apprentices , and the offset platemaker . The Employer contends that
only a plant-wide unit is appropriate . However , the Employer also
asserts that, if the Board determines that a craft unit is appropriate,
such a unit should consist of all employees in the pressroom , includ-
ing the letterpressmen , offset pressmen , their apprentices , and the
offset platemaker , together with all employees in the composing room.
There is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer 's plant.
The Board has frequently considered the skills and techniques in-
cident to the lithographic process and has held that , absent "unusual
circumstances ," all employees engaged in that process form a cohesive
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining .z Contending
that the decision in the Pacific Press case 3 ( where the Board found
the operations of that employer to be unique in the industry ) should
be controlling here, the Employer and the Pressmen urge that the
letterpressmen and offset pressmen should be included in the same
unit. In support of their contention, they assert that there is sub-
stantial interchange between the letterpress and offset press opera-
tions , the principal factor relied upon by the Board in that case. We
do not agree . It is clear from this record that the interchange of per-
Z Court Square Press, Inc., 92 NLRB 1516 ; Ewing Printing Company, 85 NLRB 287;
Manz Corporation, 79 NLRB 211.
3 Pacific Press, Inc., 66 NLRB 458.
' DITTO PRESS, INC. 735
sonnel between the Employer's letterpress and offset press operations
is infrequent' Unlike the Pacific Press case, where there was sub-
stantial interchange of employees between those two operations, the -
general practice of the Employer has been to assign a basic crew to
work on the offset presses and another on the letterpresses. As the
lithographic production employees have duties and functions similar
to those of employees in traditional lithographic units which the
Board has consistently found to be appropriate, we believe that they
may form a separate, appropriate unit.5
As it is likewise evident that the Employer's letterpressmen and
their apprentices compose a traditional, homogeneous craft group, we
believe that they also may be established as a separate bargaining
unit, apart from the composing room employees, whose skills are dis-
similar to theirs .a
There remains for disposition the Employer's contention that the
compositor-proof press operator should be included in the unit with
the offset pressmen. None of the parties contends that he should be
included in the unit of letterpressmen. This employee is located in
the composing room where he operates the proof press, reproducing
proofs for both the lithographic and the letterpress operations. In
view of the nature of his work, and its situs, we shall exclude him from
the lithographic unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Cin-
chinati, Ohio, plant constitute units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All letterpressmen and their apprentices, excluding office and
clerical employees, offset pressmen, composing room employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All lithographic production employees, including offset press-
men, their apprentices, and the offset platemaker, but excluding the
compositor-proof press operator, all other employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 During the 2 months before the hearing , only 1 of the Employer ' s 7 offset press oper-
ators and apprentices spent any appreciable time in nonlithographic work. This employee
spent about 20 percent of his working time as a helper on a letterpress This, however,
was a temporary assignment made because of a lack of lithographic work Ordinarily,
the lithographic , or offset , pressmen have sufficient work in their own operation to keep
them fully occupied
5 Danner Press of Canton, Inc, 91 NLRB 237
6Deltay's Inc, 81 NLRB 1374 . See also Johnson City Publishing Company, 81 NLRB
1341, and cases cited therein