Printing Industry of Delaware

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Printing Industry of Delaware and Amalgamated Lithographers
of America , Local #58,1 Petitioner
Wm. N. Cann , Inc. and Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
Local #58, Petitioner . Cases Nos..-1WC-4451 and 4-RC-4454.
June 8, 1961
DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER
Upon petitions 2 duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Katherine W.
Neel, 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 these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
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 represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct.4
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing unit of printing
and lithographic production employees, a unit of lithographic pro-
duction employees employed by the following members of the Em-
ployer : The Mercantile Press, Inc. ; Sterling Printing Co., Inc. ;
Knebels Press; and Cann. At the hearing, the Employer and the
Intervenor objected to the proposed severance on the ground that
only the overall unit is appropriate; and, in its memorandum to the
Board, the Intervenor also maintained that the requested unit is in-
appropriate because -it does not include a fifth member of the Em-
ployer, McClafferty Printing Company, and because the record does
not clearly indicate whether Knebels Press has any lithographic pro-
duction employees.
1 The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing
z The Petitioner stated that it filed a petition in Case No 4-RC-4452 because it did not
know whether Wm. N Cann, Inc , herein referred to as Cann , was a member of the multi-
employer bargaining group sought in Case No 4-RC-4451 As we find that Cann is a
member of this group , and as the Petitioner requested Cann's inclusion in the multi-
employer unit , the petition in Case No 4-RC-4452 will be dismissed. -
3International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America and wilming-
ton Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union Local 322, herein called the Intervenor,
intervened on the basis of a contract interest
* The Intervenor and Cann asserted as a bar a contract between the Intervenor and the
Employer . As the record indicates that the contract in question , which was dated
December 8, 1960, was not agreed upon until December 12 and executed on December 17,
we find that it is not a bar to the petition which was filed on December 9, 1960 See
Appalachian Shale Products Co , 121 NLRB 1160.
131 NLRB No. 135.
PRINTING INDUSTRY OF DELAWARE 1101
The four companies involved in the unit sought by the Petitioner
have engaged in joint bargaining for a unit of printing and litho-
graphic production employees with the Intervenor for approximately
18 years. About 10 years ago the Employer, an association of com-
panies in the printing industry in Delaware, was incorporated. The
four companies, who became members thereof, continued to bargain
jointly with the Intervenor for a unit of their printing and litho-
graphic production employees, and to sign identical contracts or a
joint contract. Hamilton Printing Company was at one time part of
this multiemployer bargaining group ; but is no longer in existence.
Two other members of the Employer, Charles Printing Company and
McClafferty Printing Company, have lithographic equipment, but
they are not represented at, and do not participate in, the joint bar-
gaining sessions conducted on behalf of the four companies sought
herein, and are not signatories to the most recent contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor. Diamond Printing Company became
a member of the Employer in June 1960, and is signatory to the latest
contract with the Intervenor, but for its letterpress employees only ;
it has bargained individually with the Petitioner for its lithographic
production employees for approximately 8 years. In these circum-
stances, we find that the bargaining unit of printing and lithographic
production employees has been on a multiemployer basis consisting of
the four companies named in the petition, and that any severance to
be granted should be multiemployer in scope.. As to the issue of sever-
ance, the Board has frequently held that employees who utilize stand-
ard lithographic equipment, and perform the usual duties and
exercise the customary lithographic skills used in the traditional litho-
graphic process, form a cohesive unit and are entitled to separate
representation if they so desire.5 We turn now to a consideration of
whether these four companies employ such employees.
The Mercantile Press, Inc., employs seven individuals who regularly
do lithographic production work. Two of them work solely on offset
presses; two of them spend virtually all their time operating an off-
set press; and the remaining three perform, respectively, the duties of
cameraman, stripper, and platemaker. In addition, a letterpress oper-
ator spent approximately 25 to 30 percent of his time during the
past year operating an offset press, but the record indicates that he
has been reassigned to letterpress work exclusively.
Sterling Printing Co. has four employees who do lithographic pro-
duction and/or letterpress work : one spends about 40 percent of his
time operating an offset press and platemaking equipment and the
remainder doing letterpress work; the second spends between 20 and
30 percent of his time operating an offset press and the remainder do-
5 Employing Printers of Peoria, 130 NLRB 1511
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing letterpress work; the third does letterpress, work predominantly
and only occasionally does-offset work; apd the fourth does letterpress
work exclusively.
Knebels Press has two employees who operate its two offset presses
and also perform letterpress work. Although these employees have
heretofore- been part of the multiemployer unit, the record does not
indicate what percentage of their time is spent on lithographic pro-
duction work. No other employee in the plant performs lithographic
production work.
Wm. N. Cann, Inc., employs 13 individuals who regularly do litho-
graphic production work : 7 of these operate the 5 offset presses in the
plant and the other 6 work as cameramen, strippers, or platemakers.
There is one artist, who has not been included in the unit, who per-
forms work for both the offset and letterpress operations, but there
is no evidence of any other interchange between lithographic and
letterpress employees.
On the entire record, we find that, as Sterling Printing Co. has no
employees who spend the majority of their time in lithographic pro-
duction work, this. company is not includable in the proposed multi-
employer lithographic production unit. We find, however, that the
remaining three companies have employees who use standard litho-
graphic equipment and exercise the customary lithographic skills used
in the traditional lithographic processes, and, moreover, that the
majority of these employees spend virtually all their time in litho-
graphic production work and do not regularly interchange with letter-
press employees.' We therefore find that the lithographic production
employees of these three companies form a cohesive group who may
be entitled to separate representation if they so desire.' As the record
fails to disclose whether the pressmen employed by Knebels Press
devote a majority of their time to the operation of lithographic
equipment, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge.' In
the event that Knebels Press has no employees who devote a majority
of their time to lithographic production work, severance will be lim-
ited to the lithographic production employees of The Mercantile Press,
Inc., and Cann, who, we find, under these circumstances, form a co-
hesive group entitled to separate representation if they so desire.
Accordingly, depending upon the election results, we find that the
lithographic production employees of The Mercantile Press, Inc., Wm.
8 Employinq Printers of Peoria, 130 NLRB 1311. cf Pacific Press, inc, 6 6 NLRB 458
7 In accord with our usual policy, we exclude those employees whose duties are not
predominantly devoted to the lithographic production processes. Employing Pranteis of
Peoria, supra
8 The Intervenor 's contention that the unit sought is inappropriate because the Peti-
tioner has not established whether or not Knebels Press has any employees who spend the
majority of their time doing lithographic production work is without merit See Employ-
ing Printers of Peoria, supra.
PRINTING INDUSTRY OF DELAWARE 1103
N. Cann, Inc., and Knebels Press, or of The Mercantile Press, Inc.,
and Wni. N. Cann; Inc., may constitute an appropriate unit.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain indi-
viduals. Coleman E. Bye, Jr., a stripper at The Mercantile Press,
is the son of the company president. The record indicates that, while
his father owns a controlling interest in the company, the son enjoys
no special status which allies him with management by virtue of his
father's status. However, it is not clear whether his father is only
a majority stockholder, in which case the son would be included,9 or
wholly owns the corporation, in which case the son would be excluded
as "an individual employed by his parent" within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act.10 We shall therefore permit him to vote
subject to challenge.
William Sterlie, a stripper at Cann, is classified as a foreman by the
company, but the Employer's testimony establishes that he does not
have any statutory supervisory authority. Accordingly, we shall in-
clude him in the voting group. Cann also employs an artist who
spends part of his time doing lithographic production work. As he
has not been included in the contract unit, as the record does not
show that he spends the majority of his time on lithographic produc-
tion work, and as none of the parties urged his inclusion, we shall
exclude him from the voting group.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting group of employees at the plants of The Mercantile
Press, Inc., Knebels Press, and Wm. N. Cann, Inc., in Wilmington,
Delaware :
All lithographic production employees, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, watchmen and guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the
Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of elec-
tion to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 4-RC-4452.]
9 MacTntlire 1To or Company, 119 NLRB 54, 56.
10 Bridgeton Transit, 123 NLRB 1196, 1197.