Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 639
Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc.; Wrap-
Arounds , Inc. and Springfield Electrotypers
Union , Local No. 44 , International Stereotypers &
Electrotypers Union of North America , AFL-CIO.
Case 1-CA-5558
June 30, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On March 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Herbert Sil-
berman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending dismissal of the com-
plaint in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and briefs in support thereof.
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 rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
and amended charges of unfair labor practices filed by the
above-named Union on July 7, November 1, and
' General Counsel filed a motion, dated January 19, 1967, to correct
the transcript of record. No opposition having been filed to said motion,
the motion is hereby granted
2 The record is not clear as to whether the new production activity was
an enterprise which Cheney and Powers embarked upon in their personal
capacities or was an enterprise of Springfield. It is not uncommon that the
business activities of individuals who operate through a closely held cor-
November 8, 1966, an amended complaint was issued on
November 3, 1966, which was further amended during
the hearing herein, alleging that the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Respondents filed an answer
to the complaint which generally denies that they have
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing
was held before me in Springfield, Massachusetts, on
various days between November 15 and 23, 1966, at
which all parties were represented. Subsequent to the
hearing, the parties filed briefs which have been carefully
considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF RESPONDENTS
Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc. (herein called
Springfield), a Massachusetts corporation , is engaged in
the production of letterpress duplicate printing plates in
its plant in West Springfield , Massachusetts . In the con-
duct of its business operations , Springfield annually
purchases raw materials and other supplies valued in ex-
cess of $50 ,000, which are shipped to its West Springfield
plant from places outside the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts . Springfield admits, and I find , that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges that Wrap-Arounds, Inc. (herein
called Wrap-Arounds ), which also is a Massachusetts
corporation , and Springfield are affiliated business enter-
prises and together constitute a single employer under the
Act.
The two companies are engaged in the production of re-
lated products . Springfield for many years has been
producing letterpress duplicate plates which are used in
the printing industry . Its principals are Roger Powers,
who is its president and owns 33 - 1/3 percent of its out-
standing shares of captial stock, and A. Emerson Cheney,
who is its vice president and owns 66-2/3 percent of its
outstanding shares of capital stock . Powers and Cheney
are the only directors of Springfield . Early in 1965
Powers and Cheney began to investigate the feasibility of
producing printing plates by means of equipment and a
process developed by the Eastman Kodak Company. The
promotional literature prepared by Kodak refers to this
plate as the Kodak relief plate . Ultimately the decision
was made to produce such plates and commencing in
May 1965 orders for the necessary equipment and sup-
plies were placed with Kodak and other vendors.2 An ex-
tension to the building where Springfield conducts its
business was built and the equipment for producing the
Kodak relief plates eventually was set up in the new
space. The extension is contiguous with , and under the
same roof as, the existing Springfield plant . There is an
outside door leading into the new addition , but there also
is access between the two sections of the building through
potation are sometimes confused and indistinct i n regards to whether such
individuals are acting in their personal capacities or in their representative
capacities as officers, directors , and owners of the corporation Cheney
testified that most of the equipment for the Kodak relief plate process was
purchased by Springfield , but that he personally purchased some such
equipment.
Io6 NLRB No. 43
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an inside door. Because the process for producing Kodak
relief plates requires a relatively constant temperature,
the new addition is air-conditioned. However, the air-
conditioning machinery is located in the older portion of
the plant along the dividing wall which is penetrated by
the ducts through which the cool air is circulated into the
new addition.- Similarly, the machinery which provides
compressed air for the Kodak relief plate operation is also
located in the older portion of the plant behind the divid-
ing wall.
The extension to the Springfield plant was completed
in the summer of 1965 and most of the equipment
required to produce the Kodak relief plates was delivered
by September 1965. Also, in September 1965, Henry
Wilk, who has had more than 27 years' experience work-
ing for lithographic companies, was hired by Springfield
to take charge of the production of the Kodak relief
plates.3 By December 1965 limited production of Kodak
relief plates was begun.
Wrap-Arounds was incorporated about February 4,
1966. Its officers are Cheney, Powers, and Wilk who are,
respectively, the president, treasurer, and vice president
of the company who comprise its board of directors. All
the outstanding shares of capital stock of Wrap-Arounds
are owned by the same three persons: Cheney and
Powers each own 49 percent while Wilk owns 2 percent.
Wrap-Arounds is engaged in the manufacture of Kodak
relief plates in the described extension of the Springfield
plant.4 There is no lease between Springfield and Wrap-
Arounds and Wrap-Arounds did not begin to pay rent to
Springfield until May 1966. Utilities, including telephone
services, are furnished to Wrap-Arounds by Springfield.
At the time of the hearing, Wrap-Arounds employed two
production employees (Donald and Eagan) in addition to
Wilk and a part-time clerical employee. There is no in-
terchange of production employees between Wrap-
Arounds and Springfield and the clerical work of Wrap-
Arounds is performed by its own clerical employee.
However, sales functions for both companies are per-
formed by substantially the same people. In addition,
Springfield's delivery truck is used, as occasion demands,
to make deliveries for Wrap-Arounds.
Henry Wilk is in charge of the day-to-day operations of
Wrap-Arounds, while Cheney exercises such responsi-
bility for Springfield. Although Wilk hired the two
production employees now working for Wrap-Arounds
and directly supervises the production activities of that
Company as well as its clerical activities, his authority is
subject to the direction and control of the principals of the
Company, in particular Cheney. Thus, he does not have
authority to incur any extraordinary expenses nor would
Wilk discharge the clerical employee now working for
Wrap-Arounds, who was hired by Cheney, without first
consulting Cheney. Furthermore, Cheney has retained
responsibility for the financial activities of Wrap-
Arounds.
3 Wilk testified that prior to the incorporation of Wrap-Arounds his sal-
ary was paid by Springfield
i The record is not clear as to how Wrap-Arounds acquired the Kodak
relief plate equipment and its capital. Presumably they were acquired from
the three shareholders in consideration of the shares of capital stock is-
sued to them. However, it is clear from the record that the Kodak relief
plate operation, which was begun prior to February 1966 in the new addi-
tion to the Springfield plant, was acquired by Wrap-Arounds after such
corporation was formally organized
Both Springfield and Wrap-Arounds are engaged in the
production of printing plates. They are housed in a single
building owned by Springfield with convenient inside ac-
cess between the two. The cost of maintaining Wrap-
Arounds' premises, including utilitities and telephone
services, is absorbed by Springfield with an indefinite ar-
rangement for reimbursement by Wrap-Arounds. There
is a substantially common sales force for the two compa-
nies. Wrap-Arounds makes some use, at least to the ex-
tent of its delivery services, of the facilities of Springfield.
Ownership of the two companies is in the same two peo-
ple (Cheney and Powers with only a nominal participa-
tion by Henry Wilk in the ownership of Wrap-Arounds).
The direction of both companies is in the same two
people.-5 in these circumstances I find, in agreement with
General Counsel, that the relationship between Wrap-
Arounds and Springfield is such that they function to a
substantial degree as a single enterprise and therefore
constitute a single employer under the Act.6
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Springfield Electrotypers Union , Local No. 44 , Inter-
national Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North
America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The complaint, as amended, alleges, in substance, that
since April 6, 1966, Respondents have unlawfully
refused to bargain collectively with the Union, that on
July 6, 1966, the employees of Springfield went on strike,
which strike was caused and has been prolonged by
Respondents' unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union,
that 15 of said striking employees on October 31, 1966,
unconditionally offered to return to work, and that on
November 7, 1966, they were unlawfully refused rein-
statement by Respondents.
Underlying the controversy in this proceeding is
Respondents' refusal to recognize the Union as the
representative of the employees engaged in the produc-
tion of Kodak relief plates for Wrap-Arounds. For more
than 25 years Springfield, together with other employers,
engaged in the manufacture of electrotype printing plates
in the Springfield, Massachusetts, area has engaged in
joint bargaining with the Union. Customarily, the out-
come of the collective-bargaining negotiations was
reflected by a single contract executed by all parties. The
last such contract, which was for a term of 2 years, was
executed on February 7, 1964. The contracting parties
named in the agreement are "the Home City Electrotype
Cheney and Powers are the sole directors and officers of Springfield.
These two individuals plus Wilk are the directors and officers of Wrap-
Arounds Because Wilk is a minority on the board of directors and owns
only a negligible part of the capital stock of Wrap-Arounds, his position as
director and officer is at the sufferance of the other two
"N L.R B. v Stowe Spinning Company, 336 U.S 226, 227, N L R.B
v Sc hnell Tool & Die Corp, 359 F 2d 39 (C A 6), United Mineral &
Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1390
SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC.
Works ... the Springfield Electrotype Service Inc., and
The Holyoke Electrotype Company, employing Electro-
typers in the Cities of Springfield and Holyoke in the
State of Massachusetts, hereinafter called the Party of the
First Part, and the Springfield Electrotypers Union Local
#44 called the Party of the Second Part."7 The em-
ployees covered by the agreement are the "Electrotypers
employed by the Party of the First Part." The agreement
contains a union-shop provision applicable to "all Elec-
trotypers, whether apprentices or journeymen," and pro-
vides wage scales for electrotype journeymen and ap-
prentices.8 Thus, the contractual unit is limited to electro-
type journeymen and apprentices and the agreement
specifically excludes from the unit other production em-
ployees of the contracting employers.9 Thus, during all
times material hereto, laborers, shipping clerks, and
drivers were excluded from the contractual unit
represented by the Union.
As soon as Thomas Keating, president of the Union,
learned that Kodak relief plates were going to be
produced as an adjunct to Springfield's operations, he
claimed jurisdiction over such work for the Union. Thus,
in June 1965, before the addition to the Springfield plant
was completed, before any of the equipment for the
production of the Kodak relief plates had been delivered,
and before any employees had been hired to do such
work, Keating spoke with Powers about the Union's ju-
risdiction over the work. Powers referred Keating to
Cheney who told Keating that it was too early to discuss
the matter.
In September 1965 Henry Wilk was hired and was
placed in charge of the production of the Kodak relief
plates. Not until after the incorporation of Wrap-
Arounds, about February 4, 1966, was any rank-and-file
employee hired to do Kodak relief plate work. Thereafter,
William Eagan was hired on March 4, 1966, and Richard
Donald was hired on May 2, 1966. Apart from Wilk,
Eagan and Donald are the only production employees of
Wrap-Arounds. The General Counsel's contention,
which is disputed by Respondents, is that Wrap-Arounds'
' Charles Van Vlack Company is named in the instrument as one of the
contracting employers, but did not sign the agreement . There is no
dispute that only the three employers listed above were involved in joint
negotiations with the Union during the times material hereto
8 The agreement contemplates that its terms will cover not only em-
ployees (molders and finishers) engaged in the production of conventional
leadbacked electrotypes but also employees who may be engaged in the
manufacture of molds for other types of duplicating plates The provision
in question reads as follows
It is agreed between the Party of the First Part, and the Party of the
Second Part to this Agreement, that, where the elestrotyping em-
ployers install a machine to manufacture moulds for rubber and other
process duplicating plates, this work shall be done under the jurisdic-
tion of the members of Springfield Electrotypers' Union No. 44
It is further agreed that all work necessary for the registering or
pre-registering of four color originals , electrotypes, shells or molds,
or other printing plates, shall be performed by members of the Spring-
field Electrotypers' Union No 44.
See N L R.B. v Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No 84, 291 F 2d
381 (C A 8). The quoted provision does not cover the work performed by
the employees engaged in the production of Kodak relief plates and ap-
pears to relate only to letterpress duplicate plates.
The agreement also contains the following provision.
The Union reserves to its members the right to refuse to execute all
struck work received from or destined for unfair employers of Elec-
trotypers, Stereotyper%, Rubber and Plastic plate makers, subject to
the provisions of Federal Law
It is noted that this struck work provision also does not apply to Kodak
relief plates but relates to letterpress duplicate plates.
641
production employees are accretions to the historical
craft unit of electrotypers at Springfield's plant. 10
B. Conclusions Regarding the Accretion Issue
Wrap-Arounds is engaged exclusively in the produc-
tion of Kodak relief plates,'' while Springfield is engaged
exclusively in the manufacture of letterpress duplicate
plates. The production activities of the two companies are
conducted in separate and divided sections of a single
building and there is no interchange of employees
between the two companies. Neither company uses the
production equipment, materials, or supplies of the
other.12 Except for a bending machine (used to curve
printing plates) and a guillotine (used to trim printing
plates), which perform relatively minor finishing func-
tions in the production of printing plates, there is no
similarity between the production machinery of the two
companies.
While both companies produce printing plates, the
parties are in dispute regarding the extent to which the
products of either are functional substitutes for the
products of the other and also regarding the similarity of
production skills involved in the manufacture of their
respective products.
Although in the record the parties refer to the printing
plates manufactured by Springfield as electrotypes, that
is a loose use of the term. More precisely, Springfield
manufactures letterpress13 duplicate plates. "The four
most important kinds of letterpress duplicate plates are:
(1) stereotypes; (2) electrotypers; (3) plastic plates; and
(4) rubber plates."14 Springfield manufactures electro-
types and rubber plates. Such duplicate plates are made
from (that is, they duplicate) photoengravings, type, or
both, which materials are furnished to Springfield by its
customers and which are referred to as the originals. The
original has raised type or a raised image, or both, which
is duplicated precisely in the letterpress duplicate plates.
The first operation in the manufacture of any letterpress
duplicate plate is to prepare a mold from the original. The
Section 16 provides:
It is agreed that laborers may do the following work Fill cases, carry
forms, scrub casts, wash pans and dead forms, lift casts from backing-
up stands, sweep floors, turn on and off metal pots, dynamos, and
steam, and do such other work not properly the work of a Jour-
neymen
I agree with and adopt the following assertion made by General
Counsel in his brief- "It is undisputed that the Union at no time
represented any employees working in the Kodak Relief operation
Moreover, the record does not disclose that either Keating or Cheney
used the legal term 'accretion' However, it must be presumed that the
Union based its request for recognition on the contention that the Kodak
Relief operation was an accretion to the existing unit."
11 Prior to the incorporation of Wrap-Arounds in February 1966,
Kodak relief plates were being produced on a limited scale in the same
premises now occupied by Wrap-Arounds. All such production activities
were then being performed by Wilk alone After the incorporation of
Wrap-Arounds with an increase in orders for Kodak relief plates, two
rank-and-file production employees were hired for that work.
12 For some months until Wrap-Arounds acquired its own bending
machine and guillotine , Wrap-Arounds used Springfield' s bending
machine and guillotine.
" There are three major printing processes now in use, namely, letter-
press, photogravure, and photolithography. The oldest of these is letter-
press, stemming from the ancient art of the woodcut and the invention of
movable type by Johannes Gutenberg about 1450 In this process raised
type or a raised image is inked and pressed with great force into the paper
14 18 Enc. Brit 504 (1964 ed.).
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subsequent operations differ depending upon the kind of
letterpress duplicate plate that is being made.
At the hearing the manufacture of electrotypes was
described in some detail . The first step is to prepare a
mold of the original . This is accomplished by pressing a
sheet of preheated vinylite against the original in a
hydraulic molding machine. The mold is then sprayed
with a silver nitrate solution which is electrically conduc-
tive. A copper connection is affixed to the mold which
acts as an electrical terminal . The mold is then placed in
a nickel or copper depositing tank and by electrolytic ac-
tion a nickel or copper shell approximately fifteen one-
thousandths of an inch in thickness is deposited on the
mold. The shell is an exact duplicate of the original and is
the printing surface of the finished electrotype. The mold
is then removed from the depositing tank and is stripped
from the shell . A lead alloy backing is applied to the shell
to give it rigidity and strength . This is performed by plac-
ing the shell in a heated pan and pouring hot molten lead
onto the back of the shell . The operations to this point are
performed in the section of the plant referred to as the
foundry.15 The next series of operations is referred to as
finishing . Excess surface is cut from the plate and the
plate is leveled by shaving lead off the back. Nonprinting
areas on the shell side of the plate (sometimes called dead
material ) are removed by use of a routing machine which
is guided by hand . The plate then goes to the finisher's
bench where imperfections such as dents and nicks are
removed by use of handtools and the plate is manually
leveled . When necessary , letters are also repaired at the
finishing bench by using instruments such as engraving
tools, hammers, punches , and burnishing tools. The final
operations involve shaving the back of the plate on a ro-
tary shaving machine to the thickness specified by the
customer and beveling the edges of the plate when
requested by the customer . If the plate is going to be used
on a rotary press by the customer it also will be curved on
a mechanical bending machine.
Springfield also manufactures a lightweight , plastic-
backed electrotype . This plate is similar to a conven-
tional electrotype except that the back is of nylon or other
plastic material . A shell is prepared in the same manner
as for an electrotype . The backing is applied by use of
special machines . These plates do not require as much
finishing as do electrotypes.
The process by which rubber plates are manufactured
is simpler . A mold (matrix) is prepared by pressing a pre-
heated molding sheet against the original in a hydraulic
press. (An electrolytic shell is not prepared from the
mold.) The plate is then made by pressing rubber material
(natural or synthetic) against the mold in a hydraulic press
at an elevated temperature (vulcanization). The rubber
plate after being stripped from the mold is mounted for
printing.
The manufacture of Kodaxhibit 4, the "Kodak Relief
Plate is a thin , flexible relief plate designed for letterset
printing (dry offset ) 16 and for low-relief direct rotary let-
terpress." These plates are used on lithographic (offset)
presses and particular types of letterpresses. 17 The
evidence adduced at the hearing is to the effect that
Kodak relief plates cannot normally be used on letter-
presses which use the kind of letterpress duplicate plates
produced by Springfield , although there are some such
letterpresses which can be modified to accommodate
Kodak relief plates . Thus, as a practical matter the
products manufactured by Wrap-Arounds and by Spring-
field are not functional substitutes for one another.
The equipment used , processes involved , and skills
required to produce Kodak relief plates and to manufac-
ture letterpress duplicate plates bear almost no resem-
blance to one another . First , there are significant dif-
ferences in the premises where the respective production
operations are conducted. Wrap-Arounds ' premises con-
sist of a series of small , separate rooms where a con-
trolled air-conditioned atmosphere is maintained which
is necessary for the satisfactory manufacture of its
product. On the other hand, Springfield ' s production
operations are performed in relatively large areas'8 in
which machinery generating heat, some fumes, and metal
shavings are in regular operation . Second, the material
which Wrap-Arounds receives from its customers for
reproduction is paper copy (a photograph , an advertising
layout, etc .), "' not original plates (photoengravings or
type) which are the materials duplicated by Springfield
for its customers . Furthermore , Wrap-Arounds makes no
molds. Nothing done by Wrap-Arounds bears any resem-
i'The electrotypers represented by the Union are divided into two sub-
classifications One are molders who do the work performed in the
foundry and the other are finishers who do all work after the plates leave
the foundry While both molders and finishers are electrotypers, their
skills differ and their iobs are not normally interchangeable
i^ In offset printing (lithography ) the printing plate surface is smooth,
with both image and nommage areas on the same level Lithography is
based on the principle that grease and water do not mix The image areas
of the plates are coated with a substance to which the greasy printing ink
will stick On the press, the plate is moistened with water before each ink-
ing, so that only the image areas take up the greasy ink from the inking
roller In offset lithography the plate never comes in contact with the
paper The inked plate prints off onto a special rubber roll, called a blan-
ket, from which in turn the still ink-wet image is lightly transferred or "off-
set" onto paper. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1966-67 ed . Bulletin
No. 1450 . United States Department of Labor, at 515 " Dry offset is in-
direct relief printing , the term dry offset is used to distinguish this process
from the usual form of lithographic printing, commonly known as offset.
Dry refers to the fact that indirect relief printing dispenses with the dam-
pening necessary in offset lithography " 18 Encyclopaedia Britannica
504-505 ( 1964 ed ) " Letterset" is a new name for "dry offset " New
Developments in the American Printing Industry. Publishers Weekly, vol
184, p 78, Aug. 5, 1963
lr Wrap-Arounds produces Kodak relief plates in three thicknesses
Then respective functions are described in Union Exhibit 4 as follows
Type $-17
This thin , steel-backed plate can be used for letterset (dry offset)
printing on most litho presses, particularly those without undercut
cylinders Over-all thickness of 017 inches , of which the steel
support is 008 inches thick Maximum practical depth of relief- 008
inches
Type 13-25
Used for letterset (dry offset) on litho presses where cylinders are
sufficiently undercut Can also be used for direct letterpress on Har-
ris Wrap-Around presses Over-all thickness of.025 inches , including
010 inches steel support Maximum practical depth of relief 012
inches
Type 18-30
Used for direct letterpress printing on Harris Wrap-Around,
Heidelberg , Koenig and Bauer Rptafolio . and other such presses
designed to print from flexible low-relief plates Also can be used for
letterset (dry offset) on conventional litho presses where cylinders are
sufficiently undercut. Over-all thickness 030 inches , including .010
inches steel support . Maximum practical depth of relief 017 inches.
18 The only division of the Springfield plant is a partition which
separates the foundry from the finishing room
" The first step in the production of a Kodak relief plate is to make a
photographic negative of the copy Sometimes the customer furnishes
Wrap- Arounds with the negatives of the copy instead ofthecopy itself
SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 643
blance whatsoever to the foundry operations at Spring-
field.
The first step in the production of a Kodak relief plate
is to make a camera negative or negatives (for multicolor
printing) of the customer's copy by a conventional photo-
graphic process.20 The negatives are checked for quality
and certain imperfections, if present, may be corrected on
the negatives.21 The negatives are then duplicated. The
number of duplicates required depends upon the
customer's specifications. The customer usually
furnishes a so-called vinyl sheet (usually copied from a
die) which indicates how the job is to be laid out and from
which can be determined the number of copies of each
negative that is required. The duplicates of the negatives
are made in Wrap-Arounds' darkroom by its employees
and involves conventional photographic processes. On
multicolor jobs (where the customer will use the plates for
multicolor printing), different types of film and different
light sources may be used in the darkroom to make the
duplicates of the negatives.
The next step after the duplicate negatives have been
prepared is referred to as stripping which is performed in
the stripping room. The vinyl copy of the die sheet is
spread on the stripping table .22 A sheet of translucent
material is placed over the vinyl. The duplicate negatives
are affixed in position on this sheet. This is called a flat.
For multicolor jobs there will be a separate flat for each
color. In such cases the negatives must be positioned ex-
actly on each flat so that the plates made from each flat
will be in register.23 In doing this it is sometimes necessa-
ry to cut the negatives into parts and to reassemble and to
reposition the negatives on the flats.24 At this stage other
changes or corrections are made in the negatives if neces-
sary. Also, if the customer wishes a preliminary check of
the work, through what Wilk described as a color-key
proving process, proofs can be made for the customer
which would be considerably faster and less costly than
a press proof.
After the stripping operation is completed the flat is
ready for exposure. Wrap-Arounds purchases from East-
man Kodak Company unexposed relief plates.25 These
plates consist of an enameled steel base on which is a
modified acetate layer and then a photosensitive emulsion
layer. The exposure process is performed in a separate
room illuminated by lights which do not affect the
photosensitive emulsion of the unexposed plates. The flat
is cleaned with solvents and then is taped upon the sur-
face of an unexposed relief plate. The plate is then posi-
tioned on a rotary unit exposure and a vacuum is
generated which causes a -very close contact between the
flat and the unexposed plate. The unit is rotated before a
light generated by arc lamps which produces the latent
image on the plate. After exposure, the flat is removed
from the plate. The plate is developed in a special activa-
tor solution and then is sprayed with warm water to wash
away the unexposed emulsion. The exposed portions of
the emulsion have become hardened and and act as a re-
sist to the solvents in the Kodak relief plate processor.
The plate is dried and then curved on a manually operated
bending machine26 in order that it may be attached to the
magnetic drum of the processor. The processor, which is
in a separate room, is a machine developed and sold by
Eastman Kodak Company and bears no resemblance
whatsoever to any piece of equipment in Springfield's
plant. The plate, after being dried and curved, is attached
to the drum of the processor which, after being set, works
automatically. The processor by solvents and physical
scrubbing action removes the acetate not protected by the
exposed and hardened emulsion. When the plate is
removed from the processor it is normally ready for print-
ing. The finished plate may be curved or straightened to
meet the customer's requirements. Minor defects in the
relief of the plate may be corrected manually. However,
nothing approaching in complexity the routing operation
routinely done on electrotypes is done to the Kodak relief
plates. Furthermore, the Kodak relief plates are not
leveled or shaved, and the relief (bad letters, etc) cannot
be built up as in the case of electrotypes.
Wrap-Arounds employs only two production workers
in addition to Wilk, each of whom, like Wilk, had con-
siderable prior experience with lithographic companies in
the manufacture of offset (lithographic) plates. The manu-
facture of offset plates also involves the use of photo-
graphic processes. William Eagan, who was hired in
March 1966, is classified as a stripper. Eagan previously
had worked under Wilk's supervision for a period of 5 or
6 years as a stripper in the manufacture of offset plates.
According to Wilk's uncontradicted testimony, it requires
approximately 4 years to train an inexperienced in-
dividual to become a journeyman stripper. Richard
Donald, who was hired on May 2, 1966, is classified as a
contact man or darkroom technician. Donald previously
had worked a total of 12 years under Wilk's supervision
at other locations. He then worked primarily as an offset
platemaker. According to Wilk, it requires approximately
4 years to train an inexperienced individual to satisfac-
torily operate a reproduction camera. In addition to
stripping, Eagan also makes contact prints (duplicates)
and, on occasion, activates (develops) the Kodak plates.
Donald, in addition to making the contacts in the dark-
20 Although Wrap-Arounds owns a camera which can be used to make
such negatives (Wrap-Arounds has an equipped photographic darkroom
in operation), because of space limitations the camera is not set up so that
Wrap-Arounds presently uses outside concerns to make the negatives
21 At this stage the correction may be to cover with an opaque sub-
stance any parts of the negative which permit light to be transmitted but
which should have been dark Sometimes the tone value is changed which
may involve complicated processes including a process called dot etching
22 The principal construction feature of the stripping table is a large
horizontal translucent glass surface lighted from below
23 "The production of multicolored impressions . requires a se-
ries of printing plates, one for each color, bearing only that portion of the
total impression to be printed in that color. The correlative positioning or
adjustment of such a series of plates on the printing press so that in opera-
tion the colored image produced by each plate will apear in its proper posi-
tion on the printed surface without overlapping the images produced by
other plates in the series, is known in the trade as registration of the
colored plates " N L.R.B v Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No 84,
291 F 2d 381, 382 (C A 8).
24 Where letterpress duplicate plates are used for multicolor printing,
such plates also must be in register In that case the operation is done by
a mechanical rather than a photographic process after the punting plate
has been substantially completed See N L R.B v Des Moines Electro-
typers' Union No. 84, supra
21 In the manufacture of letterpress duplicate plates, Springfield starts
with materials which in the raw state bear no resemblance to the finished
product Wrap-Arounds, however, purchases completed but unexposed
plates from Eastman Kodak Company which only require development
(of a photographic nature) to be converted into the finished product.
26 All Kodak relief plates are curved before insertion in the processor
The fully developed plate may later be curved further or straightened to
meet the customer's specifications The electrotypes and plastic plates
produced by Springfield are sometimes curved to meet customers' specifi-
cations However, a much heavier bending machine than the one used by
Wrap-Arounds is required to curve electrotypes or plastic plates
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room, also helps in stripping and exposes and activates
the Kodak relief plates. Neither Eagan nor Donald is a
member of the Union nor has designated it as his collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
In his brief General Counsel argues that the two com-
panies manufacture products which have the same func-
tion and that the skills of their respective employees are
similar. The contention regarding function is that (1) both
companies produce "multi-impression printing plates"
and (2) both "manufacture plates to be used on a letter
press." The first point, while true, is without significance.
Color reproduction by any of the major printing
processes (letterpress, photogravure, and photolithog-
raphy) is from what the General Counsel refers to as
"multi-impression printing plates." I do not understand
that the General Counsel's argument purports to
obliterate the functional differences among letterpress
duplicate plates, gravure plates, and offset (lithographic)
plates. Thus, as "multi-impression printing plates" are in-
digenous to all forms of commercial color printing, the
fact that such number of plates are required where color
printing is to be done with Kodak relief plates or letter-
press duplicate plates does not reflect any greater func-
tional similarity between Kodak relief plates and letter-
press duplicate plates than between Kodak relief plates
and offset plates or gravure plates. The second point,
namely, that Wrap-Arounds and Springfield both manu-
facture plates for letterpress use, when measured against
the evidence, emphasizes not the functional similarity but
rather the functional disparity between the products of
the two companies. Only about 5 percent of the Kodak
relief plates produced by Wrap-Arounds is used for letter-
press printing and then only on presses "designed to print
from flexible low-relief plates."
Regarding similarity of skills, in his brief, General
Counsel asserts that he "does not dispute the fact that
there are some skills and techniques employed in the
Kodak operation which are not used in the electrotype
operation. However, General Counsel does maintain that
many of the skills and techniques used in the Kodak
operation are similar to those employed in the electrotype
unit." This statement, while not technically incorrect,
tends to obfuscate the facts. From the description of the
production processes of the two companies it readily can
be seen that the principal and significant skills and
techniques used by Wrap-Arounds' employees are not
used by Springfield's employees -rather than the attenu-
ated concept suggested by General Counsel that merely
"some" differences exist between the skills and
techniques required for the respective production opera-
tions. Furthermore, such similarity as may exist between
the skills and techniques used in the production opera-
tions of the two companies relate only to relatively unim-
portant phases of their work. Illustrating the incon-
sequential similarity between such skills and techniques
are the very examples given by the General Counsel to
bolster his contrary assertion. In his brief, General Coun-
sel points to five factors which purportedly demonstrate
that the employees of both companies employ many skills
and techniques in common, these are:
a. The number of negatives to be produced, as well
as their position on the Kodak Relief plate, is often
determined from the "die sheet" submitted by the
customer. Likewise, a "die sheet" is also used to
determine the number and position of electrotypes.
However, as pointed out above, an early step in the
production of a Kodak relief plate is the preparation of a
vinyl from a die sheet. The vinyl is then used to position
the duplicate negatives on the flat which is the medium
through which the unexposed Kodak relief plate is ex-
posed to the arc light. While a vinyl prepared from a die
sheet is an integral and early step in the Kodak relief
process, according to Charles Maurer, a witness called by
General Counsel, electrotypers use a die sheet only two
or three times per week and then only for the purpose of
assembling a number of otherwise finished electrotype
plates in one unit. Thus, the disparate use of die sheets by
each company emphasizes a difference rather than a
similarity between their two production processes.
b. Colors in a job to be printed by a Kodak Relief
plate are separated into their basic colors, so that dif-
ferent plates are made for each basic color. Likewise,
"color-separation" is also necessary in producting
electrotypes.
General Counsel is here saying no more than that mul-
ticolor printing requires more than one plate. This not
only applies to multicolor printing jobs where electro-
types are used or where Kodak relief plates are used, but
also to multicolor printing jobs using the photolitho-
graphic or photogravure processes. Thus, this common
factor points to no significant similarity between the
production of Kodak relief plates and electrotypes or
other letterpress duplicate plates and, moreover, has no
bearing upon the skills involved in the respective produc-
tion processes.
c. The negatives used to produce the Kodak Relief
plate are lined up or "registered" by color. Likewise,
colors are "registered" in producing electro-
types-indeed, at times using photographic nega-
tives.
The need for insuring proper register of plates for mul-
ticolor printing is common to all printing processes and
therefore indicates no significant similarity in the skills in-
volved in the production of Kodak relief plates and elec-
trotypes. The reference to photographic negatives in the
record indicates that to the limited extent that they are
used by electrotypers it is merely to make proofs, while
the use of negatives is an integral feature of the Kodak re-
lief plate process.
d. In the Kodak Relief process, it is necessary to
perform "dot-etching," i.e. reducing the size of the
dots comprising that which is to be printed so as to
change the tone-value of a color. Likewise, tone-
values in the electrotype process are similarly
changed by "dot-etching."
However, what General Counsel does not state is that in
the first case the work is done through photographic
processes and in the other through mechanical processes
and there is no resemblance in the work itself or the skills
required to perform the work.
e. When "finishing" the Kodak Relief plates, the
plates are visually inspected for imperfections and
corrected by sharp instruments. Moreover, the plates
are "trimmed" to desired size, and measured with
micrometers. Likewise, in finishing electrotypes, the
plates are visually inspected and many of the same
tools used to correct the Kodak plates are also used
to correct the electrotypes. Indeed, Maurer testified
without contradiction that he observed employees in
the Kodak operation using various finishing tools be-
longing to Respondent Springfield. Also the electro-
types are similarly trimmed and measured with
micrometers.
What General Counsel ignores is that finishing an electro-
SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 645
type is an involved and complicated process requiring a
great deal of training and skill while only slight "finish-
ing" operations can be done to a Kodak relief plate. Such
operations as trimming and bending are relatively un-
skilled. Thus, while a journeyman electrotype finisher can
readily do such finishing operations as might be required
on a Kodak relief plate, the contrary does not hold
true-a person well trained in producing Kodak relief
plates cannot by virtue of such training do finishing work
on electrotypes. General Counsel's reference to the use
of micrometers in finishing electrotypes and Kodak relief
plates again emphasizes the lack of similarity between the
two production operations. In finishing electrotypes it is
necessary to shave lead alloy off the back of the plate to
reduce the thickness of the plate to the size specified by
the customer. The shaving machine is equipped with a
micrometer which controls the thickness. Although not
generally the practice, sometimes a hand micrometer is
used to check the thickness of an electrotype.27 On the
other hand, the thickness of a Kodak relief plate cannot
be altered . Thus, the only possible reason for measuring
the finished Kodak relief plate would be to ensure that the
wrong size plate had not been selected by accident.28
Both General Counsel and Respondents rely on the
A & P case 29 to support their antithetical arguments regard-
ing the alleged accretion of Wrap-Arounds' production
employees to the craft unit of electrotypers employed by
Springfield. In that case, the Board described the applica-
ble principles, as follows:
Whether or not a particular operation constitutes
an accretion or a separate unit turns, of course, on
the entire congeries of facts in each case. In deter-
mining that a newly established facility or operation
is an accretion to an existing unit, the Board has
given weight to a variety of factors, such as integra-
tion of operations; centralization of managerial and
administrative control; geographic proximity;
similarity of working conditions, skills and functions;
common control over labor relations; collective-bar-
gaining history; and interchangeability of employees.
Obviously, cases in which all of these, or only these,
positive accretion factors are present are rare. For,
the normal situation presents a variety of elements,
some militating toward and some against accretion,
so that a balancing of factors is necessary.
Contrary to General Counsel, despite the fact that I
have found Wrap-Arounds and Springfield constitute a
single employer, I find that the production employees of
Wrap-Arounds are not accretions to the unit of Spring-
field's electrotypers which have been represented by the
Union.30 In arriving at this conclusion I rely principally
on the following: (1) The unit herein represented by the
Union is of limited scope; namely, a craft unit of electro-
typers (journeymen and apprentices) excluding all other
production employees; (2) the employees of Wrap-
Arounds have none of the craft skills of an electrotyper;
(3) electrotypers similarly do not possess the skills
required of a qualified Kodak relief platemaker;31 (4) the
production employees of the two companies are not in-
terchanged; and (5) the products made by each company
are not functionally interchangeable.
C. The Union's Representation Demands
In June 1965 Union President Thomas Keating ad-
vised Springfield that the Union claimed jurisdictiction
over the Kodak relief plate work. Between September
and December 1965 there were various communications
and meetings between representatives of the Union and
of Springfield concerning the subject. The discussions not
only covered possible recognition of the Union as the
representative of such employees but also the wages and
other conditions of employment which would be applica-
ble to them. However, no agreement with respect to such
matters was reached.32
D. The 1966 Negotiations
Negotiations for a contract to supersede the multiem-
ployer agreement expiring on February 7, 1966, were in-
itiated by the Union in December 1965 when the Union
sent to each of the three employers, who were parties to
the existing agreement , a written proposal setting forth
the changes the Union wished in their contract. The
Union's proposal contained no reference to jurisdiction
27 Cheney testified that micrometers can be used to check the relief of
the plate, but that is not the practice at Springfield
28
wrap-Arounds purchases unexposed plates in three different
thicknesses from Eastman Kodak Company.
29 The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 140 NLRB 1011,
1021.
35 fames L. Bernoudy, d/b/a Marvel Electric Company, 150 NLRB
473; Industrial Siderurgica, inc., 147 NLRB 975, Photype, Inc., 145
NLRB 1268
31 Sebastian Petrillo, a witness called by General Counsel, testified that
he is ajourneyman electrotype finisher and he learned to make Kodak re-
lief plates in a relatively short period of time However , on further ex-
amination , he testified that his experience in the Kodak process was
limited to exposing and activating (developing ) the plates and operating
the processor and that he only sometimes helps with strapping or other
work relating to negatives. Furthermore, while the import of his testimony
is that he was able to learn to operate the exposure unit , activator, and
processor quickly, he did not testify that an electrotyper uses equipment
that in any respect is similar to such machines , or that the skills and
techniques necessary to produce electrotypes are in any respect similar to
the skills and techniques required to operate the Kodak relief plate equip-
ment
32 Thomas Keating testified that at a meeting held on September 2,
1965, Cheney agreed to recognize the Union as the representative of the
employees who would be hired to do Kodak relief plate work and the
parties discussed the conditions of employment for such employees . Inter-
national Vice President Charles W Miller testified that at a meeting held
on November 5, 1965, at which Springfield was represented by Cheney
and Floyd Larson , the latter agreed on behalf of Springfield to give the
Union jurisdiction over the Kodak relief plate work and to submit a
proposal to the Union . Cheney categorically denied any agreement was
made on the part of Springfield to give the Union jurisdiction over the
Kodak relief plate work Upon consideration of all the evidence on the
subject, Ifmd that the General Counsel has not proved that an agreement
was reached between Springfield and the Union whereby Springfield
recognized the Union as the representative of any employees it might em-
ploy for production work in connection with the Kodak relief plate
process. The discussions between the two parties were more broadly
directed , namely, towards an understanding covering the terms and condi-
tions of employment , as well as recognition of the Union , for the em-
ployees who would perform the Kodak relief plate work I credit Cheney
to the extent that he testified that no separate agreement was reached ac-
cording the Union recognition as the representative of the Kodak relief
plate employees Cheney's testimony finds corroboration in Larson's
letter of November 18, 1965, to Miller in which Larson informed Miller,
"I will do what I can as soon as 1 can on that contract and we 'll see if we
can come up with something which will have some appeal both to you and
Mr Cheney if he should decide that he wishes to make a union operation
out of that plant."
308-926 0-70-42
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over Kodak relief plate work. There were four bargaining
sessions between December 1965 and March 7, 1966.33
The discussions centered about the Union's December
proposal. Before the March 7, 1966, meeting concluded
the employers made a package offer for a 2-year contract.
According to Keating, he advised the employers' group
that the Union's negotiating committee would present the
employers' offer to the union membership for their ac-
ceptance or rejection.34 Keating then asked Cheney if he
wished to discuss the Kodak relief plate operation.
Cheney replied that Henry Wilk was in charge of the
Kodak operation and that the Union should talk to him
about the matter.35
As the 1966 negotiations, in accordance with long-
established practice, related to a multiemployer craft unit
of electrotypers, the employers' offer made to the Union
on March 7, 1966, was indivisible in that it purported to
cover the entire multiemployer unit and not the electro-
typers of the individual employers separately.36 On
March 13, 1966, a membership meeting of the Union was
held to vote upon the acceptance or rejection of the em-
ployers' offer. According to the minutes of the meeting:
A motion made and seconded to accept the offer
made by the Employers but to hold in abeyance the
signing of the contract until the Wrap-Arounds
process is resolved. The motion was passed
unanimously.37
Thereafter, the Union prepared three separate agree-
ments, one for each of the employers who were parties to
the multiemployer negotiations with the Union.38 The
three contracts incorporated the terms of the employers'
offer made to the Union on March 7, 1966, and in this
respect the language of the three drafts is identical. How-
ever, in addition, the three contracts contained a lengthy
article relating to the Union's work jurisdiction.39 Theju-
risdiction article in the contracts for Home City and
Holyoke are identical, but the jurisdiction article in the
contract prepared for Springfield contains two paragraphs
which do not appear in the other two contracts.40 The
subjects convered by the jurisdiction article had not been
included in the employers' offer which was given to the
Union on March 7, 1966, for acceptance or rejection and
furthermore had not even been discussed during any of
the bargaining sessions.
On March 29, 1966, Keating and International Vice
President Miller visited each of the employers separately
to obtain execution of the respective contracts. In the
cases of Holyoke and Home City, after some protest and
discussion of the jurisdiction article by the companies'
representatives, they signed the contracts. However,
because of the inclusion of the jurisdiction article,
Cheney refused to sign the contract for Springfield.
E. Further Dealings Between Springfield and the Union
Representatives of the Union and Springfield met
together on April 4 and 6, 1966, but neither meeting
produced any agreement. At the April 6 meeting, Spring-
field's counsel took the position that Springfield had a
contract with the Union.
On April 8, 1966, Keating delivered to Cheney a letter
which, in pertinent part, read:
Local 44 has considered the objections which you
expressed at the meeting in Boston on Wednesday to
the proposed agreement concerning your Kodak Re-
lief Printing Plate operation. We feel that the objec-
tions which you raised are without merit However,
in order to seek an area of mutal agreement which
will provide adequate job security to the molders and
finishers, Local 44 now proposes, in lieu of the
proposal on the Kodak relief area, that the Company
grant the molders and finishers -
1. Severance pay of one month's pay per year of
service in the event of layoff;
33 The three employers were represented by Cheney and Powers for
Springfield, Walter Anders, its treasurer, for Holyoke Electrotype Com-
pany , and Charles Hamilton , its president , for Home City Electrotype
Works The Union's negotiating committee consisted of Keating , Ronald
Gendron, the Union's secretary-treasurer, Joseph Hickson, chapel chair-
man at Springfield 's plant ; Richard Pyne , chapel chairman at Home City,
Richard Montagna, and Charles Maurer.
34 The employers understood that their offer was acceptable to the
Union 's negotiating committee The offer related to the same unit covered
by the 1964 contract There had been no discussion during the bargaining
sessions about jurisdiction over Kodak relief plate work
35 Keating testified that he said , "we will have to complete the Kodak
discussion before we can complete our master contract " I do not credit
Keating in this regard Not only was this testimony contradicted by
Cheney, Anders , and Hamilton , but it is inconsistent with the Union's
later actions in entering into contracts with Home City and Holyoke
despite a failure to reach any agreement about the Kodak relief plate work
with Springfield Furthermore, it would have been illogical for the parties
to conclude their bargaining and for the union representatives to take back
the employers' offer to their membership for acceptance or rejection if an
essential subject of the negotiations was still unresolved
36 At no appropriate time did either party to the 1966 negotiations give
notice to the other of a desire to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining
See Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc, 156 NLRB 210, enfd. 364
F.2d 293 (C.A. 2), cert denied 385 U S 971, N L.R.B v. Sheridan Crea-
tions , Inc., 257 F 2d 245 (C A 2)
37 There is conflicting testimony as to what transpired at the union
meeting However , what happened at the union membership meeting is
largely immaterial because the Union acts only through its authorized
representatives and is bound by such representatives ' conduct within the
scope of their actual or apparent authority M & M Oldsmobile, Inc., 156
NLRB 903.
38 This was contrary to prior practice Prior to 1966 the procedure had
been for the Union and the participating employers to sign a single con-
tract
39 In his brief General Counsel asserts "The contracts prepared by
Miller and Keating contained the economic changes to the 1964 contract
negotiated by the parties In addition, language was inserted into the con-
tracts' Jurisdiction Clauses granting the Union jurisdiction over photosen-
sitized plate making , such as the Kodak Relief process This was the ju-
risdictional language which Keating had discussed with the employers in
August 1965, which Miller and Keating obtained from the Union's Inter-
national constitution and its amendments " While Keating testified that in
August 1965 he separately informed the three employers who were
parties to the 1964 contract that the succeeding agreement would include
language granting to the Union jurisdiction over photosensitive platemak-
ing processes, which testimony was denied by each of the employers, con-
trary to General Counsel, there is no evidence that, at any time prior to
March 29, 1966, Keating showed or discussed with the employers the
specific language that the Union desired to be incorporated in the new
contract
40 The two paragraphs read as follows
The employer agrees that any present employee or owner working
in the Kodak Relief Plate department as of this date shall become a
member of the union after thirty (30) days employment It is further
agreed that said employees shall not perform operations outside of
the Kodak Relief Printing Plate department
The Union agrees that the employer may utilize employees from
either the molding or finishing departments to perform any and all
operations in the processing of the Kodak Relief Printing Plates
Further any unemployed member of Springfield Electrotypers' Umon
No 44 shall be fully employed in his respective craft or the Kodak
Relief department, before the union is obligated to furnish additional
journeymen for the Kodak Relief Printing Plate department
SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 647
2. Two month's notice of layoff;
3. A pension plan.
Local 44 is prepared to meet you at your earliest
convenience to discuss these subjects. Therefore, we
are contacting the mediators who were present at
Wednesday's meeting to arrange another conference.
On April 11, Springfield, by its counsel, replied to the
letter of April 8 by communicating with the Union
through its counsel and informing it that the request for a
meeting was being denied because: (1) the parties have a
contract relating to the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of Springfield's employees and the letter of April 8
merely was a request to reopen this contract, which
Springfield was refusing; and (2) Springfield had no legal
obligation to bargain with the Union about the Kodak
operation because that operation was not an accretion to
the existing electrotype operation and the Union did not
represent a majority of the employees working in the
Kodak operation.
On July 5, 1966, Keating went to Respondent Spring-
field's plant and asked Cheney if there was any possibility
that they could resolve their differences. Cheney replied,
"I am not going to break my back for these son of ... any
longer. In fact I am going to New York tomorrow and sell
my electrotype accounts." Cheney told Keating to come
by in a few days and that he would advise Keating "how
I made out." The meeting then ended.41
F. The Strike
On July 6, 1966, Miller met with Springfield's em-
ployees in the parking lot outside the plant Miller ex-
plained what had transpired to that time and asked the
employees to vote upon whether they wanted to strike.
The men voted to strike and a strike commenced on that
date. The strike was still in progress as of the time of the
hearing.
On October 31, 1966, the Union, by letter signed by
Keating, unconditionally requested Springfield to rein-
state the striking employees. On November 7, 1966,
Respondent Springfield refused the request stating that
"its present work force was suitable for its needs."42
G. Conclusions
General Counsel advances alternative arguments to
support his contention that the Respondents have unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with the Union. His principal ar-
gument is that "the employees of Wrap-Arounds con-
stitute an accretion to Respondent Springfield and thus to
the multiemployer bargaining unit. Therefore, there is an
obligation to bargain concerning this new operation and
the Union in good faith, commencing in 1965, attempted
to obtain a contract including the Kodak relief process."
This contention is disposed of by my contrary findings as
to the alleged accretion.
General Counsel's alternative argument is even more
tenuous. He asserts that "if it is determined that the
Kodak relief process is not an accretion to the existing
unit it is submitted that Respondent had refused to bar-
gain concerning the issues raised in the April 8 letter,
since these issues were local in nature, created by the in-
stitution of the new operation, and by Cheney's threat to
close the plant. See The Kroger Co., supra (148 NLRB
569)." 1 find no merit in this argument. Springfield,
together with the two other employers constituting the
multiemployer bargaining group, had engaged in negotia-
tions with the Union as to the terms upon which the con-
tract that expired on February 7, 1966, would be
renewed. During the negotiations there was no discussion
about enlarging the Union's work jurisdiction. Uni-
laterally the Union, after its negotiating committee had
received the employers' last offer at their final bargaining
session held on March 7, 1966, added to the proposed
agreement an elaborate article relating to its work ju-
risdiction. The Union made no effort to submit its addi-
tional work jurisdiction demands to the employers'
negotiating committee for their consideration.43 Instead,
the Union bypassed the employers ' negotiating commit-
tee44 and sought to obtain from the employers in-
dividually their separate concurrence to its new demands
and their separate execution of the Union's proposed
contracts, contrary to past practice pursuant to which the
successive contracts between the parties had been em-
bodied in single instruments signed by the Union and all
the employers constituting the multiemployer group.
These tactics on the part of the Union were designed to
isolate Springfield, who was the employer most strongly
opposed to the Union's work jurisdiction demands, from
the remaining members of the multiemployer group in
order that the Union might wrest from the employers
singly greater concessions than it probably could have ob-
tained from them collectively through the established
channels of multiemployer negotiations. By such depar-
ture from prior practices and by disregarding its obliga-
tion to deal with the employers on a multiemployer basis,
the Union violated the collective-bargaining duties im-
posed upon it by the Act. On the other hand, Springfield
had the right to refuse to treat with the Union on any
other than a multiemployer basis.
As applied to Springfield the jurisdiction article in the
Union's proposed agreement, as well as the union-securi-
ty clause convering the Kodak relief plate production em-
ployees, was unlawful. These employees were on the
payroll of Wrap-Arounds. They had not designated the
Union as their representative and they were not accre-
tions to the unit of electrotype employees whom the
Union then represented. Thus, if Springfield had signed
the contract submitted to it by the Union on March 29,
1966, both Springfield and the Union would have been
engaged in violations of the Act unlawfully infringing
upon the statutory rights of Wrap-Arounds' employees.45
The Union in its April 8, 1966, letter demanded that
Springfield renegotiate the terms of the bargain tentative-
41 International Vice President Miller testified that during a telephone
conversation with Cheney on March 29, the latter threatened that he was
going to "close the .. doors "
42 The employees ' right to reinstatement in this case depends upon
whether , at the time they made their unconditional application for rein-
statement , they were unfair labor practice strikers
43 The Union's work jurisdiction demands related to all the employers
composing the multiemployer bargaining group although at the time these
demands were submitted only Springfield would have been immediately
affected by the Union's proposal.
44 To deal with members of the employers ' bargaining committee in-
dividually and separately is not the same as negotiating with the commit-
tee as a group representing its membership.
45 "[T]here can be no more direct deprivation of [Section 7] rights,
particularly of the right to choose their own bargaining representative or
to refrain from so doing , than to impose upon employees a collective-bar-
gaining agent they have not chosen " Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corpora-
tion, 122 NLRB 1289, 1292-93, enfd 280 F.2d 616 (C.A D.C ), affd. 366
U S 731 Accord: Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. N.L.R B., 370 F 2d
205 (C.A 9).
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ly reached on March 7, 1966.46 This the Union had no
right to do. As the appropriate bargaining unit was a mul-
tiemployer unit and as no action had been taken at an ap-
propriate time by either Springfield or the Union to
withdraw from such unit '41 the Union had no right to de-
mand that Springfield bargain with it separately. General
Counsel' s argument that the Union was seeking merely
to bargain about local issues, within the meaning of the
Kroger case, is completely unrealistic The Union's de-
mands as reflected by its April 8 letter constituted sub-
stantial augmentations of the economic provisions of the
employers' March 7 offer Unlike the situation in the
Kroger case these demands did not relate to "limited mat-
ters of peculiar concern" to only one employer of the mul-
tiemployer group. Severance pay,48 layoff notice, and
pensions are not matters of interest only to the electro-
type employees of Springfield to the exclusion of the elec-
trotype employees of Holyoke and Home City The con-
tention that with respect to job securt,y Springfield's elec-
trotype employees were in greater jeopardy than the elec-
trotype employees of the other two employers is not of
significance in creating a so-called local issue warranting
substantial economic concessions because such fact even
if true in 1966 could readily and radically change soon
thereafter Neither did Cheney's alleged threat that he
might go out of business create a "local issue" justifying
the Union's demand that Springfield renegotiate the
terms of the multiemployer agreement The concept in
the Kroger case of "negotiating separately on limited
matters of peculiar concern to the individual employer"
does not cover an effort to change substantially the
economic terms of an agreement In addition, contrary to
the situation here, normally. before the Board sanctions
individual and "local" bargaining within the structure of
a multiemployer bargaining relationship the situation
should be such that "the parties mutually understood that
individual variances in the agreement could be negotiated
by the individual parties "49 Furthermore, it is clear from
the Union's April 8 letter and the other circumstances
described above that the Union was pressing Springfield
for additional economic concessions for Springfield's
electrotype employees because Springfield had refused to
accede to the Union's improper demands regarding
Wrap-Arounds' employees In these circumstances, it is
my opinion, and I so find, that the Union's conduct after
March 7, 1966, particularly as reflected by its letter of
April 8, 1966, was lacking in the good faith that the Act
seeks to exact from employers and Unions in their
dealings with one another. Specifically, the Union was
seeking to compel Springfield to enter into an unlawful
agreement and was seeking further to compel Springfield
to bargain separately with respect to its electrotype em-
ployees when the appropriate collective-bargaining unit
was a multiemployer unit.50 Respondents' refusal to suc-
cumb to the Union's pressures does not, in these circum-
stances, constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith as al-
leged in the complaint. Accordingly, I find that General
Counsel has not proved that the Respondents have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As the remaining allega-
tions of the complaint are premised upon the vitality of
the 8(a)(5) allegations, I shall recommend that the com-
plaint herein be dismissed in its entirety
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondents have not violated Section 8(a)( 1), (3), and
(5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, I recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed
in its entirety
',General Counsel acknowledges that the Union and the multiem-
ployer group had effectively and successfully concluded their negotiations
on March 7 , 1966 In his brief he states " in the instant case , the issues
common to all members of the Association excluding the Kodak relief
process had been agreed to on March 7, subject to ratification There
remained only local issues concerning jurisdiction of the Kodak relief
process and the effect of such a process on Respondent Springfield's
employees " However, because Wrap-Arounds' production employees
were not accretions to the multiemployer unit which included Spring-
field's electrotypers and the Union otherwise was not designated as their
representative, Respondents were under no duty to discuss the so-called
local issues referred to by General Counsel For the L coon to refuse to
enter into the agreement otherwise reached with the muluemployer group
because of Springfield's refusal to negotiate relative to a nonmandatory
bargaining subject was to evade its statutory obligations N L R B v
Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp , 356 U S 342 349
" General Counsel in his brief contends 'Negotiations took place with
Respondent on [March 29] as well as on April 4 and April 6, and these
sessions can be interpreted as individual bargaining Furthermore, these
meetings amounted to clear acquiescence by Respondent as to bargaining
on an individual basis, and there was acquiescence by Home City and
Holyoke as indicated by their actions Contrary to General Counsel.
separate discussions between a labor organization and an individual
member of a multiemployer group directed towards resolving a difference
between them does not alone effect a withdrawal of the member from the
multiemployer group , particularly if such discussions do not occur at a
time that would be appropriate for withdrawal from the group Also, in the
circumstances here present, the fact that Home City and Holyoke signed
separate but substantially identical agreements was not a manifestation of
a desire on their part to abandon multiemployer bargaining
a" The Union's December 1965 proposals to the employers ' group in-
cluded the following "Should a shop close members shall receive 3 weeks
severance pay " This demand was abandoned by the Union during the
negotiations after some discussion
19 The Kroger Co, 141 NLRB 564, 568, affd 330 F 2d 210
(C A D C ) The court in affirming the Board ' s decision pointed out
It was from these facts , and not from any legal abstraction , that [the
Board] inferred an understanding between the parties that these
group discussions need not result in identical agreements and that, ac-
cordingly , an individual employer or an individual local might, by
timely action taken in good faith, reserve its position on a particular
matter in such manner so as not to be bound at all events by what a
majority of their associates might agree to
10 In the circumstances here , the muluemployer unit was not dissolved
because Home City and Holyoke signed the contracts offered to them
separately by the Union on March 29 , 1966, under threats to the effect
that they otherwise would be involved in Springfield 's difficulties ice
Cream, Frozen Custard industry Employees, Local 717, 145 NLRB 865
See Henry I Siegel Co, Inc v N I R B, 340 F 2d 309 (C A 2)