Padgett Printing and Lithographing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 144 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If the majority of the employees in the above voting group cast
their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be part of the over-all system-wide operating and
maintenance unit, and the Petitioner may bargain for such employees
as part of the existing unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
HAL W. PADGETT, J. D. PADGETT AND MRS. E . R. MCDUFF, D/B/A PADG-
ETT PRINTING AND LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED
LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL UNION No. 35, CIO and DALLAS
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS , LOCAL UNION No. 56, AFL,
PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 16-RC-929 and 16-RU-958.-October 09,
1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed 1 under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Willis C. Darby,
Jr., hearing officer .2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3
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 Murdock and Peterson].
1 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the petitions are invalid because
no specific amount was placed in the spaces provided in the petition form for indicating
the number of employees supporting each petition ; and no answer was given , with respect
to one of the petitions , that a request for recognition was made to the Employer. These
technical defects, which were remedied before or during the hearing and which did not
prejudice the Employer , constitute no ground for dismissal . Petco Corporation, New
Orleans Division, 98 NLRB 150 ; Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29.
2 The Employer contends that the assignment of the hearing officer to this investigation
violated the Administrative Procedure Act (Public Law 404, 79th Cong., Chap. 324;
5 U. S. C. A., Sec. 1001, et seq.). We find no merit in this contention , as section 5 of
that act does not apply to the instant representation proceedings . Accordingly, the conduct
of the hearing by an individual who has not qualified as a hearing examiner under section
5 (c) of that act was not improper. Cf. Nicholson Transit Company , 89 NLRB 1278.
3 We reject the Employer's claim that the hearing officer was biased in limiting the
Employer 's cross-examination of a witness. The record shows that the hearing officer
curtailed such cross -examination in order to limit the testimony to relevant matters.
His ruling was therefore proper. See Ravenna Arsenal, Inc., 98 NLRB 1. Nor do we
agree with the Employer that the hearing officer improperly denied its request for a
continuance to permit preparation on the issue of the inclusion or exclusion of certain
job classifications from the appropriate unit. In this regard , the record shows that the
Employer had full opportunity to present all relevant evidence in support of its position
on this issue , and that it did in fact present such evidence . The De Laval Separator
Company, 97 NLRB 544 ; Blatz Brewing Company, 94 NLRB 1277.
101 NLRB No. 27.
PADGETT PRINTING AND LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY 145
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act 4
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 .5
4. The appropriate units :
The Lithographers (Petitioner in Case No. 16-RC-929) seeks a
craft unit of lithographic production employees; and the Pressmen
(Petitioner in Case No. 16-RC-958) seeks a craft unit of all letterpress
department employees. The Employer contends that only a plant-
wide unit is appropriate. It takes the position, however, that if a
unit or units be established on less than a plant-wide basis, the fol-
lowing alternate units may be appropriate : (1) All employees in
the composing, lithography, and letterpress departments; or (2) all
employees in the lithography and letterpress departments. The par-
ties are also in dispute as to the unit placement of certain categories
of employees. There is no history of collective bargaining at the
Employer's plant.
The Board has frequently held that, because of the differences in
the skills and techniques required in the performance of lithographic
work on the one hand, and letterpress work on the other, separate units
of these employees may be appropriate, in the absence of unusual cir-
cumstances. No such unusual circumstances here exist. The record
shows that the employees sought by the Lithographers have duties
and functions similar to those of employees in traditional lithographic
units we have previously found appropriate; 6 that they perform their
work in a separate area of the plant; and that they are under sep-
arate supervision. Likewise, the workers sought by the Pressmen
have duties and functions similar to those traditionally performed by
4 The Employer furnishes goods or services annually valued in excess of $ 50,000 to
public utilities , airlines , and concerns shipping more than $25,000 worth of goods annually
in interstate commerce. We find, therefore , contrary to the Employer 's contention, that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Hollow Tree Lumber Co.,
91 NLRB 635 ; Hamilton Photo Engraving Co., 93 NLRB 175.
The Employer argued that this proceeding should be dismissed in the absence of specific
record proof with respect to (1) the Petitioners ' compliance with Section 9 (f), (g),
and (h ) of the Act ; and (2 ) the Petitioners ' showing of interest . It is well settled,
however, that both points referred to in this argument are matters for administrative
determination by the Board . As the Board is satisfied that the Petitioners have complied
with the affidavit filing requirements and have made an adequate showing of interest in
their respective proposed units, the Employer ' s motion to dismiss on the grounds above
stated is denied N. L. R . B. v. Red Rock Co., 187 F. 2d 76 (C. A. 5 ) ; Pacific Gas and
Electric Company , 97 NLRB 1397 ; 0. D Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516
6 Court Square Press, Inc., 92 NLRB 1516; Johnson Printing, Inc, 92 NLRB 1426;
Ditto Pi ess , Inc., 93 NLRB 733 ; Ewing Printing Company , 85 NLRB 237.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members of the craft engaged in letterpress work; 7 and that they too
perform their work in a separate plant area and are under separate
supervision. There is no interchange of personnel between the press-
men of the two departments. Although their respective helpers do
assist each other on occasion, we do not deem this a sufficient reason
for combining the two groups into one unit. Nor do we believe that
the composing room employees, whose skills are dissimilar to those
of the employees here sought to be represented, should be included in
either grouping." Accordingly, we find that separate units confined
to (1) lithographic workers and (2) letterpress workers may appro-
priately be established.
There remain for consideration certain questions as to the inclusion
or exclusion of particular categories of employees in each unit.
The parties are in agreement that the unit of lithographic produc-
tion employees should include the pressmen, their helpers, cameramen,
platemakers, and layout-opaquing employees. However, the Em-
ployer would include, and the Lithographers would exclude, proof-
readers, composition-reproduction proofreaders, varitypists, and
paper cutters. The record shows that these employees work under
different supervision and have duties and functions dissimilar to those
of lithographic workers. Accordingly, we shall exclude the forego-
ing disputed categories from the lithographic unit .9
The parties are also in agreement with respect to the general com-
position of the letterpress unit, but are in dispute with respect to the
lockup man and the washup man, both of whom the Employer would
include in the unit and the Pressmen would exclude 10 The lockup
man assembles type into forms, assists the pressman in fitting the forms
to the presses, and makes adjustments on the forms while they are in
the presses. As the lockup man is engaged in work which in consid-
erable measure involves skills and duties usually associated with
letterpressmen, we shall include him in the unith The washup man
cleans the presses and performs janitorial duties in the letterpress de-
partment. Although lie is under the same supervision as the letter-
pressmen in the unit, unlike the included categories of workers, he
exercises no craft skills. We shall therefore exclude the washup
man.12
7 Southwest Tablet Manufacturing Company, 93 NLRB 278; Ditto Press, Inc ., supra;
Webb-Linn Printing Company, 95 NLRB 1488.
8 See Ditto Press, Inc., supra ; Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Mfrs., 94
NLRB 477.
9 Ditto Press , Inc., supra ; Campbell Offset Printing Co., 92 NLRB 1421 ; Ewing Printing
Company, supra.
io The Employer also sought to include in the letterpressmen unit stock cutters, who are
under the supervision of the plant superintendent and perform duties similar to those of
the paper cutters, whom we have excluded from the lithographic unit. We shall therefore
exclude the stock cutters.
Il Webb -Linn Printing Company, 95 NLRB 1488.
11 Southwest Tablet Manufacturing Company, 93 NLRB 278.
NESCO, INC. 147
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Dallas,
Texas, plant, constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All lithograhic production employees, including offset press-
men and their helpers, cameramen, platemakers, and layout-opaquing
employees, but excluding proofreaders, composition-reproduction
proofreaders, varitypists, paper cutters, and all other employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All letterpressmen and their helpers, including the lockup man,
but excluding the washup man, stock cutters, and all other employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
NESCO, INC. and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL #904, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2747.
October 29, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before George Squillacote, 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 Styles and Peterson].
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 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.!
? The Employer and Fabricated Metal and Enamelware Workers' Union , Federal Labor
Union No. 23237, hereinafter called the Enamelware Workers, an Intervenor herein, en-
tered into a contract covering production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
plant, including employees involved herein, effective from October 18, 1951, to October 18,
1952, and thereafter from year to year in the absence of a 60-day notice before any ex-
piration date. As the Petitioner filed its petition on May 16, 1952, before the automatic
renewal date of the contract, and as the contract has already terminated, we find, contrary
to the contention of the Employer and the Enamelware Workers, that the contract is no
bar to this proceeding. Krueger Sentry Gauge Co., and Krueger Metal Products, Inc., 98
NLRB 420: Slaenango Pottery Company, 85 NLRB 490.
101 NLRB No. 42.
242305--33-11