Drug Package Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1123 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

DRUG PACKAGE CO., INC. 1123
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production employees employed at Employer's Visalia, Cali-
fornia, packing shed, excluding office and clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer's Visalia packing shed is placed in operation
twice each year, during California's 2 corn packing seasons. Nor-
mally these seasons run from about July 1 to July 30 and from
October 15 to November 15. During the packing seasons the Em-
ployer employs approximately 30 to 40 employees at the Visalia shed,
but terminates their employment and closes the shed at the end of
each season. The Employer contends that as only about 40 percent of
its workers returns from season to season, the majority of the em-
ployees employed in any one season do not have sufficient employment
interest to justify a Board election. We find no merit in this conten-
tion. The Employer looks to the same reservoir of workers each
season to obtain its employees. To deny an election would, in effect,
deny representation and collective bargaining to these employees
simply because they are seasonal workers.2
The Visalia shed, now closed, will reopen during the first 1953 corn
packing season, about July 1, 1953. We shall therefore direct that
an election be held during that season on a day to be determined by
the Regional Director, subject to the conditions which appear in our
Direction of Election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Cain Canning Company , 81 NLRB 213.
DRUG PACKAGE CO., INC. and FRANKLIN ASSOCIATION No. 43, INC.' AND
ST. Louis PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION No. 6,2 BOTH AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS UNION
or NORTH AMERIOA, A. F. L., PETITIONER
DRUG PACKAGE CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOOK-
BINDERS , AFL,3 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 14-RC-1935 and
14-RC-1936. December 19,1950
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
x Herein called the Franklin Association.
2 Herein called the Pressmen.
Herein called the Bookbinders.
101 NLRB No. 178.
242305-53--72
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Herbert B. Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of certain drug-
gists' supplies, including pill boxes, prescription blanks, labels, and a
limited number of letterheads. All of the Employer's operations are
carried on in a three-story building in St. Louis, Missouri. The first
floor contains the office, the shipping and receiving department, and
a wholesale department. The second floor contains the composing
room, the pressroom, the lithography department, and the finishing
department. The third floor houses the box making department.
There is no history of collective bargaining at this plant for any
employees other than those in the shipping and receiving department,
who are not involved in this case.
Case No. 14-RC-1935
In this case the Franklin Association and the Pressmen jointly seek
a unit composed of all the employees in the pressroom and all em-
ployees except paste-up girls in the lithography room. The Employer
contends that, in view of the integration of its operations, the only
appropriate unit is a plant-wide unit and, in any case, that the pro-
posed unit is inappropriate because the employees sought are neither
a craft nor a departmental group. No one seeks to represent lithog-
raphy room employees separately from pressroom employees, nor
does the Employer specifically contend that the proposed joinder of
4 The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling a motion by the Employer to dismiss
the petition in Case No . 14-RC-1935 on the ground that two labor organizations are
seeking to represent separately two groups of employees in one unit . The Board has
held that joint petitioners may file one petition for a single unit where, as here, some
employees in the unit fall within the jurisdiction of one union and some fall within the
jurisdiction of the other . The employer of course , has the right to insist upon dealing
with the unions as joint representatives of the employees of a single unit at all times.
W. F. Hall Printing Company, 63 NLRB 532 The motion is hereby denied. Other
motions which were referred to the Board will be disposed of below.
DRUG PACKAGE CO., INC. 1125
the pressroom and lithography room employees alone renders the
unit sought inappropriate. The printing room contains 18 presses
of various types, including letterpresses and offset presses. All of the
Company's printing is done in this area 5 The pressmen use type set
in the composing room and plates made in the lithography room to
print labels, prescription blanks, and medicine checks, most of which
are printed many to a sheet. The printed sheets are sent to the finish-
ing department where individual labels, blanks, and checks are cut
apart and readied for shipment or sent to the third floor to be glued
to boxes. Some printing is done directly upon the cardboard used
to form boxes, and some cutting and creasing of cardboard is done
on presses in the pressroom. The cardboard is sent to the box depart-
ment for finishing after printing is completed. The employees in the
pressroom consist of letterpress and offset press operators, learners,
and feeders. The employees in the lithography room prepare layouts
to be photographed and make plates from negatives. The plates are
sent to the pressroom to be used in the offset presses. The employees
in the lithography room include layout men, opaquers, a platemaker,
a proofman, and girls who paste components on layout sheets. Each
of the departments on the second floor has a separate area assigned
to it. There is no substantial interchange of employees between the
press and lithograph departments and the other departments in the
Employer's plants In our opinion, the operations of the pressroom
and lithography room are not so integrated with the operations of the
rest of the plant employees as to make the proposed unit inappro-
priate. We find, therefore, that a unit composed of all employees of
the pressroom and lithography room is appropriate.7 We will, how-
ever, include in the unit the paste-up girls in the lithography room,
whom the Petitioner in this case would exclude, as their work is en-
tirely confined to that area , and they perform some functions in
common with other employees in the lithography room whom the
Petitioner would include.
The Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer, that the lead
man in the pressroom, Frank Dulle, should be excluded from the unit
as a supervisor. The Employer claims that all departments on the
second floor, including the press and lithography rooms are under the
supervision of one man, Ollie Forst, and that there are no other super-
visors on the floor. Although the authority of Dulle to recommend
6
There is one woman in the finishing department who sets the type for and runs a small
band feed press printing cellophane innerpacks for some of the Employer 's boxes. How-
ever , most of her time is spent in other finishing department duties.
9 The roll label press operator in the pressroom occasionally sets type in the composing
room. The Employer stated at the hearing that men are drawn from all over the plant
when there is an unusual workload in the shipping and receiving department. However,
there is no evidence as to the frequency of such assignments.
7 See The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., 73 NLRB 811.
1 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel changes was disputed by the Employer, it appears from
the entire record that much of his time is spent in responsibly direct-
ing the activities of the pressroom employees. We find, therefore,
that he is a supervisor and should be excluded.
Case No. 14-RC-1936,
Bookbinders seeks a unit composed of all the employees in the finish-
ing department on the second floor of the Employer's plant. The
Employer contends that this unit is inappropriate for reasons similar
to those alleged in Case No. 14-RC-1935. The employees in this
department include four straight knife cutters, two die cutters, and
several women who perform various duties in the department. This
department is located in a separate area on the second floor of the
Employer's plant," and is under the separate immediate supervision
of Karl Lampe .9
The straight knife cutters cut apart and trim to their proper sizes
various printed and lithographed labels and forms, which are printed
many to a sheet. The die cutters trim labels which have nonrectan-
gular shapes. The girls perform various other necessary operations
in the preparation of labels, prescription blanks, and other printed
products for shipment or binding, involving the use of perforating,
wire stitching, Brackett, and other machines. Although the Employer
contends that this department does not perform all of the functions
normally found in a bookbinding department, and we agree that no
actual bookbinding is done in the department,10 we find that the
department is in all other respects similar to a bookbinding depart-
ment, and is, in any event, composed of a homogeneous group of
employees having functions distinct and interests apart from other
employees at the Employer's plant. Accordingly, we find that the unit
requested by Bookbinders is appropriate."
Bookbinders contends, contrary to the Employer, that the lead man
in the finishing department, Karl Lampe, should be excluded from the
foregoing unit as a supervisor. Although Lampe's authority to recom-
mend personnel changes was disputed by the Employer, it appears
from the entire record that much of his time is spent in responsibly
directing the activities of the employees in the finishing department.
a Some of the finishing room employees spend part of their time operating an automatic
gluing machine used to glue boxes on the first floor . This machine is used about 8 days
each month and requires one man to operate it and two girls to remove the finished boxes
and package them for shipment . Although no employees are permanently assigned to
the machine, it is usually manned entirely by finishing department personnel.
6 The Employer contends that this employee is not a supervisor . For reasons found
below we do not agree.
'° Actual binding of the Employer 's printed products, when required , is done outside the
plant.
11 Ann Arbor Press, 85 NLRB 946.
GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY 1127
We find, therefore, that he is a supervisor and he will be excluded.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that
the following units of employees at the Employer's St. Louis, Mis-
souri, plant are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All employees of the pressroom and lithography room, includ-
ing all pressmen, learners, feeders, layout men, platemen, opaquers,
paste-up girls, and the lead man in the lithographic room, 12 but exclud-
ing the lead man in the pressroom, all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All employees in the second floor finishing department, includ-
ing John Rich,13 but excluding the lead man in the department, all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections 14 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
12 The Petitioner and the Employer agree that this employee is not a supervisor.
's At the hearing, Bookbinders contended, contrary to the Employer , that John Rich
should be excluded from the proposed unit Rich 's principal duties are in connection with
the automatic gluing machine on the first floor . He prepares materials to be fed into the
machine and helps to remove finished boxes from the machine when it is in operation.
Whenever there is no work of this type to be done , he goes to the second floor where he
piles and arranges stock near the finishing department and performs various odd jobs
within the department. Approximately 30 percent of his time is spent in the finishing
department on the second floor. U appears that whether working on the automatic gluing
machine or on the second floor, this employee usually works with other employees of the
finishing department We find that his interests are closely allied with the other employees
of the finishing department and will include him in the unit.
is The International intervened at the hearing and moved that its name be placed on
the ballot in place of the joint Petitioners . The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board for decision . As neither of the joint Petitioners objected thereto, this motion
will be granted.
GEORGE NOROIAN AND ARCHIE NOROIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-
PARTNERS D/B/A GEORGE NOROIAN COMPANY and CANNERY FOOD
PROCESSORS, COTTON WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL
No. 97, AFL. Case No. 920-CA-616. December 19,195$
Decision and Order
On May 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondents did not engage in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents
101 NLRB No. 183.