Haddon Bindery, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1357 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HADDON BINDERY, INCORPORATED 1357
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, the
nurse, the supervisor of rectification, bottling, and shipping, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All professional employees 8 of Standard Brands, Incorporated,
and of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, at their Charles Point,
Peekskill, New York, plants, including the chemist 9 on the staff of the
technical director of Fleischmann Distilling Corporation, but exclud-
ing all other employees, guards, watchmen, the nurse, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be asked
two questions on their ballot. (1) Do you wish the professional
employees to be included in the same unit with the Employer's techni-
cal employees? (2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes of
collective bargaining by the Petitioner? If a majority of the profes-
sional employees vote "yes" to the first question, indicating their wish
to be included in the same unit with the technical employees, they will
be so included. Their votes on the second question will then be
counted together with the votes of the technical voting group (a),
to decide whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner,
and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner in
the event a majority of the employees in both voting groups vote for
the Petitioner, in which case the Board finds that the employees in
voting groups (a) and (b) together constitute an appropriate unit.
If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in
voting group (b) vote against inclusion in the technical unit, they
will not be included with the technical employees and their votes on
the second question will then be counted to decide whether or not they
wish to be represented by the Petitioner in a separate professional
unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Including Pearl Prine, Robert Dean , and Thomas Fitzgerald.
9 Michalko.
HADDON BINDERY, INCORPORATED and UNITED BOOK BINDING AND AL-
LIED WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 660, RETAIL WHOLESALE AND DEPART-
MENT STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1719.
December 22.3, 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 Eugene M. Levine, hearing
101 NLRB No. 208.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Members Houston, 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. Petitioner and the three Intervenors, International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, herein called Sul-
phite Workers, Independent Bindery Workers Union of Camden,
New Jersey, herein called Independent, and Bookbinders and Bindery
Women's Union, Local 2, AFL, herein called Bookbinders, are all
labor organizations within the meaning of the Act and claim to repre-
sent employees 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 business of manufacturing
books and at the time of the hearing operated a plant on Linden
Street and another on Jackson Street in Camden, New Jersey, and
one across the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
Petitioner and Independent seek a unit confined to the skilled and
semiskilled employees engaged in binding and handling of books at
the Linden Street plant and those temporarily on duty at other plants.
While the Bookbinders, Sulphite Workers, and Employer agree with
the composition of the unit, they contend that, as to scope, only a
multiplant unit comprising all three locations is appropriate.
All the operations involved are under the over-all supervision of
the Employer's president, although each establishment has a local
manager. The general office is located at Linden Street and here
a single payroll is maintained for all employees. At its Linden Street
and Philadelphia plants, consisting of 400 employees and 60 em-
ployees, respectively, the Employer in the past performed the bind-
ing of books and certain shipping functions. The operations and
employee classifications at each were alike, except that the Philadel-
phia plant performed the more expensive binding work requiring
more hand operations, whereas Linden Street is principally mechan-
ical. During normal operation there was a regular transfer of mate-
1 The Employer and Independent contend their contract which extended to October 27,
1952 , and contained a 60-day automatic renewal clause , is a bar to this proceeding. As
the instant petition was filed before the automatic renewal notice date, we find the
contract, even if renewed , does not constitute a bar . Morse and Morse, Inc., 83 NLRB 383.
HADDON BINDERY, INCORPORATED 1359
rials between the 2 plants,2 and some interchange of personnel. How-
ever, at the time of the hearing, conducted on October 9, 1952, the
Employer's president testified without contradiction that the Phila-
delphia plant would be closed and its operation moved to the Linden
Street plant within the next 60 days.
The third location of the Employer, at Jackson Street, Camden,
about 1 %2 miles from the Lindent Street plant, has been in operation
only since August 1, 1952. No binding is done there and its present
and expected use is for warehousing, packing, and shipping purposes.3
The employee complement at Jackson Street at the time of the hear-
ing consisted of approximately 35 temporary part-time helpers who
the parties agree should be excluded from the unit, and 10-15 regu-
lar employees, most of whom were temporarily transferred from Lin-
den Street and perform the same duties as they performed at the
Linden Street plant.
From 1942 to 1948, all the Employer's employees were represented
by the Bookbinders under its agreement with a Philadelphia area
bookbinder's association. Since 1948, however, the Linden Street
plant employees have been separately represented by the Independent,
and the Linden Street employees temporarily assigned to Jackson
Street are also represented by the Independent under its most recent
agreement covering the Linden Street plant. In 1949, a Board elec-
tion was held for the Philadelphia employees and though the Book-
binders were successful and certified, no contract was ever signed by
the parties covering those employees. The Bookbinders, however,
had an understanding with the Employer, whereby the union handled
grievances for the employees, and Employer agreed to follow the
wage pattern set by the binders association, though it no longer is a
member thereof.
In our opinion, the Jackson Street operation is essentially an
accretion to the Linden Street plant and in view of the proximity to
the Linden Street plant, the nature of its operations, and the identity
of the personnel, the Jackson Street employees should be included in
the unit of Linden Street employees a As to the Employer's Phila-
delphia plant, the Board would ordinarily direct a separate election
for the employees in that plant because of the bargaining history on a
separate plant basis during the last 4 years .-5 However, as the opera-
tions at the Philadelphia plant have either ceased or will shortly
terminate, we shall not direct a separate election among the Philadel-
phia employees.6
7 The manufacturing of some books would be started in one plant and shipped to the
other plant for cover or finishing work.
i The Employer speculated that manufacturing might be performed at the Jackson Street
location sometime in the future.
* See Lone Star Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137.
6 H. A. Satin d Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1001; Atlantic Refining Company, 96 NLRB 952.
1 See Weber Showcase and Fixture Company, 85 NLRB 1202.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all skilled and semiskilled employees en-
gaged in binding and handling of books at Employer's Camden, New
Jersey, operations, excluding clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Election emitted from publication in this
volume.]
° In accord with the agreement of the parties , we find that the 35 temporary part-time
employees at the Jackson Street operation are ineligible to vote
NATIONAL SCREW & MFG. CO. OF CAL. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-2152.
December 23, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On June 6, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of
Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
among certain of the employer's employees, to determine whether or
not they wished the Petitioner to represent them in collective bar-
gaining. A tally of ballots was furnished the parties after the
election. It shows that of approximately 108 eligible voters, 101 cast
valid ballots : 36 for the Petitioner, 63 against, and 2 challenged.
On June 11, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the elec-
tion, in which it alleged that the Employer had engaged in improper
conduct which affected the result of the election.
On August 21, 1952, the Regional Director issued his report on
objections, in which he made certain findings supporting one of the
objections, and recommended that the election be set aside.'
On September 2, 1952, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.2
The Petitioner started an organizing campaign among the Em-
ployer's employees about September or October 1951. On October 31
the Petitioner, alleging that the Employer had been conducting anti-
union meetings on company time and property, requested by letter
permission to present its case to the employees under similar cir-
cumstances. The request was denied by letter on November 9, 1951.
1 Because they were insufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director
made no findings concerning the challenges.
2 The Petitioner did not file exceptions to any adverse findings.
101 NLRB No. 218.