George Rice & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 19, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 947 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GEORGE RICE & SONS 947 George Rice & Sons and Graphic Arts International Union Local 262, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 31- RC-2714 August 19, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY . AND PENELLO On April 25, 1974, the Regional Director for Re- gion 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit of approximately 55-60 production and maintenance employees employed by the Em- ployer at its commercial printing facilities in Los An- geles, California . Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of approximately 45-50 of the Employer 's lithographic employees, but excluding bindery workers, truckdri- vers, and shipping and receiving employees, among others. In view of his decision that an overall produc- tion and maintenance unit was appropriate , the Re- gional Director rejected Petitioner 's contentions that a quality control inspector , a production clerk, an estimator-coordinator, and a production coordinator should be excluded from the unit . Thereafter, in ac- cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , the Petitioner filed a timely request for re- view of the Regional Director's Decision on the grounds that, in making his unit determinations, he made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from officially reported Board precedent. By telegraphic order dated June 10, 1974 , the request for review was granted and the election was stayed pend- ing decision on review. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the business of com- mercial lithography , printing promotional advertising and corporate literature for other companies. Of the Employer's 55-60 employees, 45 work on the day shift in the Company 's three departments: prep , press, and production. In the prep department , the Employer has about 16 cameramen , strippers, and platemakers who photograph the art work with lithographic cameras, assemble the printing units, and then transfer the art work onto metal plates . The approximately 28 press- men, feeders , and flyboys in the press department transfer the art work and material from the litho- graphic plates to paper. The production department has 11-12 employees who work interchangeably as bindery workers, truckdrivers, and shipping and re- ceiving employees. The production department em- ployees work the day shift only, whereas employees in, the other two departments are divided between the day and night shifts. Each of the three departments has its own supervisor who is responsible to the Employer's president, Grossberg. Employees in the production department generally work the same hours as the employees in the prep and press depart- ments who work on the day shift. Employees in all three departments are paid an hourly rate, have the same breaks and lunch hour, punch the same time- clock, and receive the same fringe benefits. Although there is considerable intradepartmental interchange among the employees, particularly among the bindery workers, shipping and receiving employees, and the truckdrivers in the production department, inter- change between departments is limited. Employer's president, Grossberg, testified that bindery personnel are not used in the place of "press employees" even in emergency or overflow situations. The only time bindery workers work with employees in either of the other departments occurs when the Employer is short of floorboys in the press department, and the bindery employees are called upon to stack paper, "not in a press, but restacked for one reason or another on a pallet in the pressroom." Likewise, the only' prep or press department employees who ever work in the production department are the floorboys. The floor- boys normally work in the pressroom, mixing ink, loading presses, taking chemcials back and forth to the various presses, and hauling trash out of the room. Grossberg testified that when the bindery gets "bog- ged down," the floorboys may be called upon to help load trucks, transfer loads, and pack and move car- tons. However, he further testified that he could not give an approximation of hose often this occurs. The Regional Director concluded that the Employer's operations are of an integrated nature with interchange between departments and a strong community of interest among all employees. He ac- cordingly found appropriate only an overall unit of production and maintenance employees, which in- cluded employees in the production department with the lithographic production employees in the other two departments. We disagree, finding in in the Petitioner's contention that an appropriate unit is a traditional unit of lithographic employees, including employees in the prep and press departments but ex- cluding those in the "production" department who are actually engaged in bindery work, shipping and receiving, and truckdriving. The Board has frequently held that employees en- 212 NLRB No. 139 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gaged in the lithographic process form a distinct and cohesive unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.' The record in the instant case establishes that the employees in the prep and press departments utilize standard lithographic equipment, perform usu- al lithographic duties, and exercise the customary skills utilized in the traditional lithographic process. The concept that' integration of operations negates the granting of a separate unit of lithographic employ- ees is not applicable under the circumstances present in this case. The case upon which the Regional Direc- tor relied to support his conclusion that there is such an integration of operations in this case is distinguish- able. In Continental Can Co., 171 NLRB 798 (1968), the Board found that a separate lithographic unit was inappropriate. However, in that case, the pressmen, pressmen apprentices, and their feeders spent a sub- stantial amount of time in nonprinting duties, operat- ed machinery other than lithographic equipment, and worked on production lines with nonlithographic em- ployees. There, the employees did not work under separate supervision as do the employees in the in- stant case .2 It should be noted that the employees in the Continental Can case performed largely dry offset printing which requires less skill and which the Board has distinguished from true lithography printing. In the instant case, lithographic employees in the prep and press departments operate traditional lithograph- ic machinery and do not work on a production line with nonlithographic employees. Furthermore, any interchange between the employees in the prep and press departments and those in the production depart- ment occurs only in the least skilled positions, and then only in emergency situations, and is not suffi- cient to render inappropriate or to defeat the separate identity of the lithographic production employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner, as the Board has found .3 We accordingly find that a unit of all lithographic production employees, excluding all other employees, bindery workers, truckdrivers, and shipping and re- ceiving employees, is an appropriate unit. There remains for determination the unit place- ment of the four employees whom the Petitioner con- tends are not lithographic production employees. The Petitioner would have us exclude Sam Rodriguez, Marie Kester, Gary DeJong, and Mike Gurley from the unit of lithographic production employees. Sam Rodriguez is a production coordinator who ' Lianco Container Corporation, 177 NLRB 907 (1969); Sherwin - Williams Co, 173 NLRB 316 (1968); The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc. 144 NLRB 1376 (1963). 2 In Continental Can, the Board also spoke of "common location in the production line, and shared responsibility for and participation in the opera- tion of the nonpnnting machinery on the press line." 3 See Lianco Container Corporation, supra, 908. does layouts, examines proofs which come off the presses, and acts as liaison between the department heads and the customers. He is supervised by the production department supervisor who also supervis- es the bindery workers, truckdrivers, and shipping and receiving employees. We find that he is engaged in work outside the traditional lithographic operation, and he is therefore excluded.4 Marie Kester writes up work-order forms which specify the materials and equipment to be used on a job and the delivery date. She spends most of her time in the production department, obtaining this informa- tion from the production manager and the production coordinator, and then transcribing that information onto the work-order form. We find that she is a cleri- cal employee, and as such is excluded from the unit .5 Gary DeJong is a production estimator who pre- dicts how much paper, materials, and time will be required to complete each job. He works with and is supervised by the production department supervisor and is responsible for computing price quotations for the salesmen. Like Rodriguez and Kester, he is en- gaged in work other than lithographic work, and he is therefore excluded.' Mike Gurley is the Employer's quality control in- spector. He examines the first sheets printed on the presses to insure that they will line up and trim prop- erly. His duties also include inspecting the press sheets and proofreading each new book. He spends some time in all three departments and is supervised by the press department supervisor when he works in the pressroom. However, he is supervised by the produc- tion department supervisor when he performs his quality control duties in the bindery. Since Gurley is not engaged in the lithographic production process itself, he is excluded from the unit. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately pre- ceding the date of issuance of this Decision.? 4 See Burroughs Corporation, The Todd Company Division, 139 NLRB 347, 350 (1962), where preparatory planners and proofreaders were found outside the traditional lithographic operation as were warehousing and finishing employeess See, e.g ., Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association, 174 NLRB 301 (1969). 6 Ibid r In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966), NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U.S. 759 (1969). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 31 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review . The Regional Director shall make the list avail- able to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall GEORGE RICE & SONS 949 MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: Unlike my colleagues, I agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the Employer's production here involves an integrated operation with inter- change between departments and a strong community of interest among all employees and that, therefore, a separate unit of lithographic production employees is inappropriate. In distinguishing the instant case from Continental Can Co., 171 NLRB 798 (1968), on which the Region- al Director relied, my colleagues cite separate supervi- sion and lack of interchange herein. However, as the press department's supervision is separate not only from that of the production department, which my colleagues exclude from the unit, but also from that of the prep department, which my colleagues include in the unit, I do not view such separate supervision as supportive of the lithographic unit sought. Further, there is clear interchange between the lithographic production employees and the bindery employees whenever the pressroom floorboys' help is necessary in loading trucks, transferring loads, and packing and moving cartons for the production department. While my colleagues would disregard this interchange as occurring only in the least skilled positions, the press- room floorboys-by mixing ink, loading presses, and taking chemicals to and from the presses-are as much a part of the lithographic, process as are the pressmen themselves. Yet, these lithographic produc- tion employees also perform production department work with the production department employees. be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Moreover, other factors prove the integrated nature of the Employer's operations. The bindery employees perform repair work in the pressroom. The produc- tion coordinator, although under the supervision of the production department supervisor, examines proofs from the presses and coordinates the work of all three department heads. The quality control in- spector inspects the work of the press department as well as that of the production department. In my view, the foregoing factors and, as conceded by the majority, the common working conditions and fringe benefits shared by the employees of all three of the Employer's departments clearly demonstrate the integrated nature of the Employer's operations and the resulting community of interest among all of the Employer's employees a I note that the Employer's operations are limited to lithographic production and the total employment complement is limited to 55 or 60 employees. No useful purpose is served by my colleagues' exclusion of the 10 or 12 employees from the unit which they find appropriate. If the 10 or 12 employees were en- gaged in work unrelated to lithographic production, there might be some justification for their exclusion. Under the circumstances here presented, however, I perceive no basis for the conclusion that they do not share a community of interest with the employees included in the unit. Manifestly, the Regional "Direc- tor was correct in concluding that the integrated na- ture of the Employer's operations evidences a strong community of interest among all employees and that an overall production and maintenance unit is'appro- priate. Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director, I would find a separate unit of lithographic production employees is inappropriate. 8 Weyerhaeuser Company, 142 NLRB 1169 ( 1963).