H & H Bookbinding Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 355 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

H & H BOOKBINDING CO. 355
H & H Bookbinding Co., Inc . and Wilma S . Midkiff,
Petitioner and Local Union No. 53-B, Graphic Arts
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case 25-RD-349
June 21, 1973
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On February 22, 1973, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 25 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding the
following unit to be appropriate for purposes of the
requested decertification election:
All employees of the Employer in its cutting de-
partment and bindery operations, but excluding
all semi-skilled and unskilled "B" workers (non-
journeymen and non-apprentices), probationers,
part-time employees, temporary employees,
mailers, truckdrivers, and all office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. [Emphasis
supplied].
Thereafter, in accord with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Acting Regional Director's
decision on the grounds that in specifically excluding
the categories of employees italicized in the unit de-
scription set forth above, he departed from officially
reported precedent. The Union filed opposition to the
request for review.
By telegraphic order dated March 15, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review and stayed the election pending decision on
review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on re-
view.
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, including
the Employer's brief on review, and makes the follow-
ing findings:
Prior to October 31, 1972, the Employer, together
with other members of an association, as well as a
number of nonmember companies, was a party to a
multiemployer bargaining relationship with the
Union and its predecessor. By the terms of its most
i Local Union No. 53-B, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing
recent contract, effective November 1, 1970, to Octo-
ber 31, 1972, the Employer recognized the Union as
the representative of "all employees in the cutting
department and binding operations." Prior to Octo-
ber 31, 1970, the Employer also recognized the Union
as representative of a separate unit of its unskilled and
semiskilled employees in the cutting department and
bindery operations who had not achieved apprentice
or journeymen status, and who were referred to as
"B" workers. However, at that time the Employer
took the position that a separate contract for "B"
workers at its plant created administrative problems
and was no longer needed. The record indicates that
after discussions with the Union, an agreement was
reached on April 2, 1971, whereby three "B" workers
were approved as apprentices and five as journeymen
and were included in the coverage of the existing con-
tract. Whether this agreement resulted in the inclusion
of all then employed "B" workers in the unit is un-
clear, as subsequently, in May and June 1972, further
discussions ensued as to three "B" workers and it was
agreed on June 10 that two of the three be "promot-
ed" to apprentice status and that the third would be
terminated. Moreover, on June 13, the Union sent the
Employer a letter which states that the Union "agrees
to accept the offer made by [the Employer] to resolve
the dispute involving the employees formerly known
as `B' workers, i.e. [the letter then lists `B' workers who
were reclassified as apprentices and journeymen and
covered by the existing contract]."
The Employer contends that the Acting Regional
Director erred in excluding "B" workers from the
unit; that on the basis of the foregoing evidence, the
Union had agreed to include employees formerly
known as "B" workers in the unit. The Union, in its
opposition, states that the Employer has hired many
individuals who were never represented by it. Howev-
er, the Employer in its brief on review asserts that the
Union has been on strike since December 2, 1972, and
that none of the replacements it has hired have been
approved or accepted by the Union as having jour-
neymen or apprentice status.
In accord with the Employer, we find no evidence
in the record to indicate that it continues to classify
certain of its employees as "B" workers.' For this
reason, we shall delete the reference to such employ-
ees in the unit description.
The appropriate unit is therefore described as fol-
lows:3
2 No request for review was filed as to the Acting Regional Director's
finding that the contract unit is now confined to employees of the Employer
or to his listing other specific exclusions such as probationers, part-time
employees, temporary employees, mailers, truckdrivers, and all office clerical
employees.
I Our modification of the unit description is without prejudice to the right
Continued
204 NLRB No. 82
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees of the Employer in its cutting employees, professional employees, guards and
department and bindery operations, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
probationers, part-time employees, temporary Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re-
employees, mailers, truckdrivers, office clerical gional Director for the purpose of conducting an elec-
tion pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
of any party to challenge individuals at the polls on the ground that they have period for determining eligibility shall be that imme-been excluded from the contract unit.
diately preceding the issuance date of this Decision.
[Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]