Kingsport Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

KIN,GSPORT PRESS, INC., PETITIONER 1157
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone 828-7572, if they have questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions. •
Kingsport Press, Inc., Petitioner and International Typographi-
cal Union and Local 940, International 'Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No; 10-RM-391. January 19, 1965
'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 Hearing Officer
Scott P. Watson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby- affirmed. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Unions involved herein filed briefs.
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 -McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
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.
The petition named International Typographical Union and its
Local 940,, referred to here collectively as Typographers, as the rep-
resentative of the unit in which an election is sought. Typographers
was certified for this unit in 1940. Local 175, Electrotyper's Union,
International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, referred to here as Electrotypers, was permitted to inter-
vene on the basis. of its claim that certain employees whom the
Employer would include in its proposed unit properly belong in a
unit which it presently represents. -
3. The Employer questions the majority status of Typographers
on the ground that it has been engaged in an economic strike for
more than a year and that substantially all the 'strikers, have been
permanently replaced. -
- The Unions seek dismissal of the petition on the' ground that the
Employer does not now refuse to recognize Typographers as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit petitioned for.
The Board uniformly processes a petition filed by an employer if
the statutory requirements for filing such a petition are met and, as
here, there is no contract or certification bar. The requirements are
a claim of representative status in the unit covered by the petition,
and rejection or questioning by the employer of the union's claim to
150 NLRB No. 113.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be the present representative of the employees in the unit. Here; the
Typographers has engaged in an economic strike from April 1963
to the present, and continues to claim recognition as bargaining agent
for the Employer's composing and photographic department. Al-
though the Employer is willing to recognize Typographers and to
meet and negotiate with it while its present status as the certified
representative continues, it is apparent that its purpose in filing the
instant petition is to question such status and to determine, through
an election, whether Typographers remains the choice of a majority
of the employees in the bargaining unit. We find that the instant
petition raises a question concerning representation.'
4. The Electrotypers contends that eight proof press operators
should not be included in the unit to the extent that they pull proofs
from plates, on the ground that such - work has traditionally been
performed by employees in the molding department which it repre-
sents. Before the strike, two separate groups of employees operated
the Employer's proof presses to obtain reproduction proofs for use
in offset platemaking. Composing room employees pulled 'proof
from made-up type, while 'molding department employees pulled
proof from plates. Since the strike, a single group of eight em-
ployees, the proof press operators here in issue, have pulled proof
from both type and plates interchangeably. Neither type of work
predominates.
The Electrotypers concedes that to the extent that these employees
pull proof from type they are properly included in the composing
room unit petitioned for here. Proof press operators are normally
included in a composing room rather than in a pressroom unit .2 We
shall include the proof press operators in the composing room unit
since a portion of their time is spent in pulling proofs from type,
which is concededly composing room work .3 Moreover, we note that
in an earlier proceeding involving molding department employees
represented by Electrotypers, the Electrotypers successfully 'chal-
lenged the votes of the proof press operators on the ground that they
were not properly included in its unit. Ve hold therefore that the
proof press operators are properly part of the composing and pho-
tographic unit which Typographers continues to claim.
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following em-
ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All com-
1 Bowman Transportation, Inc., 142 NLRB 1093. United States Gypsum Company, 116
NLRB 1771, on which the Unions rely, is inapposite , since in that case the employer sought
to prosecute its petition after signing a contract with the union , thereby admitting, in
effect, that it no longer questioned the union's majority status. Cf. United States Gypsum
Company, 117 NLRB 1677.
2 See Ditto Press, Inc., 93 NLRB 733 , 735.
3 See Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516.
OVERTON MARKETS, INC., ETC. 1159
posing department and proofroom employees, including proof press
operators; all photographic department employees performing cam-
era operations, stripping, contacting, film processing, opaquing, and
photographic proofing employed by the Employer at its Kingsport,
Tennessee, plant, but excluding all employees engaged in offset and
Dycril platemaking operations in the photochemical department,
technical, professional, and research and developmental employees,
and/or employees engaged in experimental work, office and plant cleri-
cal employees, guards, watchmen, all other employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Overton Markets , Inc.; J . W. Overton & Son, Inc.; Marvin B.
Overton , Inc. ; W. S. Overton , Inc. ; Thomas L. Overton, Inc. ;
Lilton Davis; Frank McLaurin ; all d/b/a "Overton Markets"
and Local 305, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL-CIO , Petitioner, and Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, Local 233, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 5-RC-3822 and 5-RC-3825. January 19, 1965
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, CLARIFICATION OF
CERTIFICATION, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Elections,' the
Acting Regional Director for Region 5 conducted secret ballot elec-
tions on June 27, 1963, among the employees in the two units found
appropriate by the Board .2 The tally of ballots in the election in
the Retail Clerks unit showed 39 for and 41 against the Retail
Clerks, and 31 challenged ballots. In the election in the Meat Cut-
ters unit, the tally showed 12 for and 7 against the Meat Cutters,
and 6 challenged ballots. The challenges were sufficient in number
to affect the results of each election. Thereafter, the Employer filed
objections to the conduct of both elections, and the Retail Clerks filed
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election in its unit.
1142 NLRB 615.
2 The units were:
(1) All full-time and regular part-time employees in the grocery, produce, and dairy
products departments of the Employer's 10 retail grocery stores , and all employees of
the warehouse and bakery, excluding meat department employees, office clerical employees,
professional employees , guards, general managers , and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(2) All meat department employees , including the meat department manager at the
East Chester Street store, but excluding the meat department managers at all other stores,
all other supervisors as defined in the Act , and all other employees.
150 NLRB No. 109.