Buzza-Cardozo Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 9, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : Conclusions of Law 1. Chemical Workers Union, Local 266, line, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, affiliated with International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By renewing and extending, from December 1, 1949, to December 1, 1951, the collective bargaining agreement, dated October 9, 1946, containing illegal union-security provisions, the Respondent has, since November 19, 1950, furnished support and assistance to Local Union No. 165, National Brotherhood of Operative Potters, AFL, in recruiting and maintaining membership, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 3. By the foregoing conduct and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,. the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mar- guriette Hoyt, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] BUZZA-CARDOZO COMPANY and PRINTING SPECIALTIES AND PAPER PROD- UCTS UNION No. 388 , INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSIST- ANTS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL, AND SIGN R, PICTORIAL PAINTERS UNION No. 8 31, LROTIIERI-IOOD OF PAINTERS , DECORATORS, AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONERS . Case No. 21-RC-2267. May 9, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Hailey, hear- ing 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 Houston and Murdock]. 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 employees of the Employer. 99 NLRB No. 19. BUZZA-CARDOZO COMPANY 41 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioners seek to represent all production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, greet- ing card factory. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate, because it includes purchasing department and art department employees, who it asserts are respectively office clerical and professional employees, lacking any community of interest with the production and maintenance group. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of holiday greeting cards. Most of its cards are originated and drawn by 10 artists in its art department, assisted by 4 letterers, 3 junior artists, and 8 color-plate employees. The Employer assigns a title, such as "Mother's Day," to the artists, who make original drawings appropriate to the sug- gested topic. Junior artists do not create entire cards, but fill in de- tails and, together with the color-plate employees, prepare a series of single-color plates necessary to the mass-production process, from each original drawing. The letterers, working freehand, fill in verses and greetings. Finished drawings and color plates go from the art department to the purchasing department, located on the main factory floor apart from the rest of the office force, where purchase orders are prepared and forwarded, together with the drawings and plates, to independent photographers and printers for further processing. The record does not show how much of the time of these purchasing ,department employees is devoted to clerical work and how much to handling the drawings and color plates. Despite the Employer's assertion-that all employees in the art de- partment are professional employees, there is no showing in the record that even its most skilled artists meet the requirements of Section 2 (12) of the Act. Although some of them attended art schools, the Employer requires its artists to have no more than a high school edu- cation and artistic talent. On this state of the record, although some of the art department employees perform varied tasks which cannot be standardized, it does not appear that any of them meet the several criteria in the definition of professional employees set forth in Section 2 (12) of the Act., Nor do we feel that these employees have interests so different from those of the other production and maintenance employees in the plant that they may not be included in the large unit. True, the art department is separately located from the main part of the factory, and the artists are paid by the month rather than on the hourly basis common in the other production departments. However, the work I Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Irwin Mica Works ), 97 NLRB 1217. 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the artists is an integral, and indeed an essential , part of the pro- duction process. Together, they produce the Employer's finished product, I+ or this reason, we find that their interests are principally allied with those of the other production employees, and we shall include them in that unit.2 The remaining dispute as to the unit relates to the inclusion of the purchasing department clerks, who the Employer asserts are office clerical employees, who, it is agreed, should be excluded. However, the purchasing department employees perform work more closely related to the production process, both in function and physical loca- tion. Accordingly, we find that the purchasing clerks are like fac- tory clericals. We shall include them in the production and main- tenance unit.3 We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Los Angeles, California, plant, including all artists, junior artists, color-plate employees, letterers, and purchasing department employees, but excluding sales ahd office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and professional employees, and the art director' s assistants, the verse editor, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Petitioner herein filed a joint petition. The Employer asserts that the Board should not entertain such a petition because the Employer might be subjected to jurisdictional disputes between the two Petitioners 4 It also contends that it has no effective guaran- tee that the Petitioner herein will bargain jointly. We find no merit in the Employer's objections. Board precedent has fully established the propriety of two more labor organiza- tions acting jointly as bargaining representative for a single group of employees. We see no reason to depart from past practice in this case.' The names of the Petitioners will appear jointly on the ballot. If they are successful in the election to be directed herein, they will be certified jointly as the exclusive collective bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the unit. The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit. Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on these grounds is hereby denied. z Johnson Printing, Inc., 92 NLRB 1426. $ East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., 95 NLRB 1135. 4In connection with this assertion , the Employer contends that both Petitioners are craft unions and for this reason may not represent an Industrial unit. We have frequently held, under such circumstances , that the willingness of a Petitioner to represent employees Is controlling under the Act, not the eligibility of employees to membership, nor the exact extent of the Petitioner 's constitutional jurisdiction . Fox Deluxe Foods, Inc., 96 NLRB 1132. Webb-Zinn Printing Company, 95 NLRB 1488. S. MARTINELLI & COMPANY 43 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] _ S. G. MARTINELLI, D/B/A S. MARTINELLI & COMPANY and WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 11, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSE- MEN'S UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 00-RC-1651. May 9, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert V. Magor, 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 .2 3. The Employer contends that the petition herein, which was filed on November 28, 1951, is barred by a contract or contracts covering the employees sought by the Petitioner. On July 23, 1950, the Em- ployer and the Intervenor's.predecessor entered into a contract to run to June 1, 1951, and from year to year thereafter, in the absence of 30 days' notice to modify or terminate. This contract covered the Employer's sales delivery drivers, but not any of the other employees involved in this proceeding. There is some question as to whether this contract is still in force. In any event, this contract contains a clause requiring the preferential hiring of members of the Inter- venor's predecessor. We find, for that reason, that such contract is not a bar to this proceeding.3 I The Employer moved at the hearing to dismiss the petition herein on the grounds (a) that the Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing of interest among the employees employed during the Employer 's peak season , and (b ) that the petition is barred by a contract or contracts between the Employer and the Intervenor . The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board . As to contention ( a), the Board has held that in seasonal activities , such as this , the required showing is to be made among the employees employed in the unit at the time the petition was filed . Cf. Holly Sugar Corporation, 94 NLRB 1209 . We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made such a sufficient showing in this proceeding. Accordingly , we find this contention to be without merit. For the reasons set forth in the text , infra, we also find contention ( b) to be without merit . Accordingly , the motion is hereby denied. Y Teamsters Automotive Workers Union , Local 576, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, herein called the Inter- venor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a contractual interest. 8 F. H. McGraw and Company , 96 NLRB 821. 99 NLRB No. 12.