KVP Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 834 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE HAVE reinstated Joseph Kellams to his former position without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges he previously enjoyed.
ADAMS DMSION , LETOURNEAU WESTINGHOUSE
COMPANY ( INDIANAPOLIS PLANT),
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center , 150 West Market Street , Indianapolis , Indiana, 46204 , Telephone No. Melrose
3-8921 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF ADAMS DMSION, LETOURNEAU WESTINGHOUSE
COMPANY (INDIANAPOLIS PLANT)
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Adams Division , LeTourneau Westing-
house Company (Indianapolis Plant ) to discriminate against its employees in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
the Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the Company make whole Joseph Kellams
for loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 1262,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------ ------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana, 46204, Telephone No.
Melrose 3-8921 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
KVP Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland Division and
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Charging Union
and United Papermakers and Paperworkers , AFL-CIO, and
its Local 1010. Case No. 7-CA-383/.. July 21, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 28, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
143 NLRB No. 91.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 835
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Intervenors, the
Charging Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting 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 Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was cormnitted.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations as modified herein.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that since July 17, 1962, the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Charging
Union as the certified, exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of a unit of all employees of the Employer's Sutherland Division en-
gaged in the lithographic process at Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Re-
spondent's answer admits that since July 17, 1962, Respondent has
declined to recognize and meet with the Charging Union. The Re-
spondent, however, defends its action on the ground, in essence, that
the unit has been rendered inappropriate by changes it has made in
its operations since the original hearing in the underlying representa-
tion case (Case No. 7-RC-4449).
We note that the Respondent, by its own admission, has refused to
bargain with the Charging Union, beginning July 17, 1962. We fur-
ther note that the Respondent was granted a hearing with respect to
the alleged posthearing changes in operations, which was held on
October 3, 4, and 5, 1961. These changes, as well as others of an
allegedly greater degree, are the very changes which Respondent
seeks to raise now as the grounds for finding the unit inappropriate.
On June 8, 1962, the Board in a Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representative considered the evidence on the alleged post-
hearing changes and stated as follows :
We are satisfied that the record supports his [the hearing officer]
conclusion that the operational changes made by the Employer
were not of such extent and character that they destroyed the
identity of the unit of lithographic production employees which
we found could be an appropriate unit.
Thus, the Board rejected the Respondent's allegation that the post-
hearing changes had rendered the unit inappropriate.
I The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , emceptions,
and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
717-672-64-vol. 143-54
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In these circumstances , we find that , as of July 17, 1962 , the Re-
spondent refused to bargain with the Charging Union, the certified
representative , in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5)
and (1 ) of the Act . In so finding, we specifically reject as not mate-
rial, and we do not consider or pass upon the Respondent 's offer of
proof, which was filed with the Trial Examiner an November 23,
1962. We hold that the matters sought thereby to be proved-i.e.,
operational changes that allegedly occurred after the two hearings
conducted in the representation proceeding-can have no material
bearing on the appropriateness of the unit which the Board hereto-
fore twice reviewed and twice found appropriate in the representa-
tion proceeding.
We find merit , however, in the exceptions of the General Counsel
and of the Charging Union, in which they request that the Board
order the Respondent affirmatively to bargain with the Union, and
we shall enter such an order.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications:
(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted as paragraph
2 (a) of the Recommended Order :
Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America as exclusive representative of all employees
in the appropriate unit, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(2) Paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order shall be renum-
bered to read "2(b)"; and paragraph 2(b) of the Recommended
Order shall be renumbered to read "2(c)."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on July 30, 1962, by Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
herein referred to as the Amalgamated , the Regional Director for the Seventh Region
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued a complaint
on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on August 24, 1962, against KVP
Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland Division , the Respondent herein , alleging
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act . In its answer the
Respondent , while admitting certain allegations of the complaint , denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practice . Thereafter on September 25, 1962, General
Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings wherein he moved,
upon consideration of the Respondent 's answer and upon the record in an earlier
representation case, Case No. 7-RC-4449, that the allegations of the complaint be
deemed to be admitted to be true and that Respondent be found to have violated
the Act, as alleged , without the taking of evidence in support of these allegations.
This motion having been duly referred to me on September 27, 1962, Trial Examiner
Thomas F. Maher thereupon reviewed all of the pleadings in the case , including the
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 837
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings, Respondent's opposition thereto,
and the Board's several decisions in Case No. 7-RC-4449,' the representation case
referred to above involving this Respondent and forming the basis of the issue of
refusal to bargain raised in the instant proceeding. Upon review I granted the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings by order dated
October 18, 1962, to the extent that I found it unnecessary to take any further
evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint or Respondent's answer
thereto, a copy of this order being attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." At
the same time I vacated the notice of hearing previously issued in the case and
provided a period of time within which briefs might be filed and oral argument re-
quested. Thereafter upon motion of United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 1010, its request for intervention was granted.
Briefs were filed on November 23, 1962, by Respondent, the Amalgamated, and
United Papermakers, hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor or the Papermakers.
Oral argument in which all parties participated was heard by me in Kalamazoo,
Michigan, on November 26, 1962.
Upon consideration of the record, including the record in Cases Nos. 7-RC-4449
and 7-RC-3717 and the briefs, memorandums, and oral argument of the parties, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
KVP Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland Division, Respondent herein, is a
Delaware corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business in
Kalamazoo, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of paperboard, folding cartons, speciality paper products, and related products.
During the most recent calendar year Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed
products valued in excess of $60,000,000, of which products valued in excess of
$30,000,000 were shipped directly to points outside of the State of Michigan.
Respondent likewise purchased during this same period pulp, waste paper, and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $15,000,000 and which were transported
and delivered to its Kalamazoo plant directly from points outside the State of
Michigan. Upon a like showing of facts the Board has already determined 2 that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act and I so find.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 1010 are conceded to be labor of ganizations within
the meaning of the Act and I so find.
IN. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Introduction
Following the Board's certification of the Union by its Supplemental Decision of
June 8, 1962,3 as the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in an ap-
propriate bargaining unit, selected by a majority vote in an election held on
February 9, 1961, the Amalgamated, by letter dated July 6, 1962, requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment as the exclusive bar-
'It is established by statute and rule of decision that the record in a representation
case is the appropriate subject of official notice in an unfair labor practice proceeding
wherein the alleged refusal to bargain is related to the Board's determination In the
earlier representation proceeding. National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Section
9(d) ; Pittsburgh Plate G lass Company v. N.L.R.B., 313 U S. 146, 158. See Appendix A,
infra, footnote 2.
It is also to be noted at this juncture that at the hearing in Case No. 7-RC-4449 it
was stipulated by all the parties that there would be Incorporated by reference for all
purposes the transcript of testimony and exhibits in Case No. 7-RC-3717, a case reported
at 122 NLRB 1284 and involving Sutherland Paper Company, the predecessor corpora-
tion to this Respondent, wherein the Amalgamated claimed as an appropriate bargaining
unit, over the Company's objections, the same unit claimed in the later representation
case.
2 122 NLRB 1284.
3 Not published in NLRB volumes.
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining representative of all of the employees in the unit certified by the Board in
Case No. 7-RC-4449 namely:
All employees of the Employer's Sutherland Division engaged in the litho-
graphic process at Kalamazoo , Michigan, including the offset pressmen , assistant
offset pressmen , helpers, utility men, platemakers , the blanket washer, and the
stock repilers primarily engaged in the lithographic process, but excluding ink-
men, all other employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Thereafter Respondent, by letter dated July 17, 1962, over the signature of F. B.
Long, Labor Relations Manager, Sutherland Division, to Harvey Lovin, Inter-
national Representative of the Amalgamated , declined to recognize and meet with
the Amalgamated , claiming it to be improperly certified by the Board , stating that-
we are of the opinion that the National Labor Relations Board erred in its
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative issued in Case No.
7-RC-4449. We are still convinced that the unit in which the Board directed
the election in the aforesaid case was and is inappropriate . In consequence, it
is our sincere belief that no proper election was ever held, and the Board was
wrong in certifying your Union under the circumstances.
Respondent has continued in its refusal to this date.
B. Procedural sequence
1. Case No. 7-RC-3717
March 24, 1958 --------- Representation petition filed by Amalgamated.
April 30, May 21, 22, 23, Hearing before Hearing Officer Iris H. Meyer. (985
July 15, 16 and 17, 1958. pages of testimony )
September 15, 1958______ Briefs filed by Amalgamated, Papermakers, and Em-
ployer.
February 5, 1959________ Board issued Decision and Direction of Election among
employees engaged in lithographic process at Em-
ployer 's Kalamazoo plant , 122 NLRB 1284.
March 5, 1959__________ Election held. Amalgamated, 33 votes; Papermakers,
29 votes; challenged , 24 votes.
May 13, 1959___________ Regional Director issued report on challenges in which
ballots of two voters were sustained and the remainder
overruled.
May 22 and June 8 , 1959__ Briefs filed by Amalgamated and Employer.
July 16 , 1959 ___________ Board issued Order and Direction in which Regional
Director 's recommendations were sustained and bal-
lots were ordered counted.
July 27, 1959___________ Revised tally of ballots issued indicating Amalgamated
37 votes, Papermakers 47 votes.
August 3, 1959 ---------- Regional Director issued certificate of results of election,
setting forth a failure of the Amalgamated to receive
a majority of the votes among-
employees engaged in the lithographic process at
the Employer's Kalamazoo, Michigan, facilities, in-
cluding the offset pressmen , assistant offset press-
men, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket
washer , and the stock repilers primarily engaged in
the lithographic process.
2. Case No. 7-RC-4449
April 25 , 1960__________ Representation petition filed by Amalgamated.
June 13, and July 19, 1960_ Hearing before Hearing Officer Alfred J. Morad. It
was stipulated that the record in 7-RC-3717 would
be incorporated.
August 19 , 1960--------- Briefs filed by Amalgamated , Papermakers, and Em-
ployer.
November 8, 1960 ------- Motion to Reopen Record for the purpose of receiving
new evidence concerning further integration of the
Employer 's printing operation, filed by Employer, to-
gether with supplemental motion filed by Papermak-
ers. Opposition filed by Amalgamated.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 839
January 12, 1961________ Board issued short-form decision denying motion to re-
open and directing an election in the same bargaining
unit as described in the Regional Director's certificate
of results of election in Case No. 7-RC-3717 (supra).
January 23, and January Papermakers and Employer filed respective petitions for
30, 1961. reconsideration and remand setting forth changes and
anticipated changes in the Employer's operation which
would affect the composition of the bargaining unit.
Opposition filed by Amalgamated.
February 7, 1961________ Petition for reconsideration denied by Board without
prejudice to right of parties to challenge ballots.
February 9, 1961 --------- Election held. Amalgamated 83 votes; Papermakers 1
vote; challenged 148 votes.
April 24, 1961__________ Regional Director issued report on challenged ballots
in which it was found that 86 of the voters challenged
never worked on the lithographic process and hence
were not entitled to vote. The remainder of the chal-
lenged ballots did not affect the outcome of the elec-
tion and were not resolved.
May 16, 1961__________ Exceptions to Regional Director's report on challenged
ballots filed by Employer and Papermakers.
August 25, 1961________ Board issued order directing hearing with direction to
explore changes in operations alleged to have been
made.
October 3, 4, and 5, 1961Hearing on challenges before Hearing Officer Allison E.
Nutt. (491 pages of testimony.)
November 6, 1961_______ Memoranda of law filed by Amalgamated after hearing.
November 24, 1961______ Hearing officer's report issued.
December 1, 1961_______ Amalgamated's exception to hearing officer's report filed.
December 18, 1961______ Employer's and Papermaker's exceptions to hearing offi-
cer's report filed.
June 8, 1962____________ Board issued Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives in which the Amalgamated was cer-
tified as the bargaining representative of employees
in the unit previously described (supra).
3. Case No.7-CA-3834
July 30, 1962___________ Charges filed alleging Respondent 's refusal to bargain
with the Amalgamated.
August 24, 1962_______ _ Complaint issued alleging violations of Section 8(a) (5)
and (1).
September 11, 1962______ Respondent filed answer denying the alleged violation,
basing its refusal to bargain upon the claimed in-
appropriateness of the unit established by the Board
in the previous representation cases.
September 25, 1962_ _____ General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Pleadings.
September 27, 1962______ Motion reterred to Trial Examiner.
September 28, 1962______ Notice to show cause issued by Trial Examiner return-
able October 3, 1962.
October 1 , 1962_ _______ Return of rule to show case extended to October 10,
1962 . Hearing postponed to October 23.
October 8 , 1962________ Hearing further postponed to October 29.
October 9 , 1962________ Respondent filed Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
October 18 , 1962________ Order of Trial Examiner on Motion for Summary Judg-
ment on the Pleadings.
October 25, 1962________ Time for requesting oral argument extended to Octo-
ber 31.
October 26, 1962 ________ United Papermakers and Paperworkers motion to inter-
vene filed by Trial Examiner together with request for
oral argument.
October 26 , 1962 --------- Request for intervention granted and oral argument set
for November 19, 1962, at Washington, D.C.
November 7, 1962 -------- Order issued changing time and place of oral argument
to Kalamazoo , Michigan, November 26, 1962.
840 DECISIONS OF ATATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
November 23, 1962 ------ Briefs filed by Respondent, Papermakers, and Amal-
gamated.
November 26, 1962 ------ Oral argument heard in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
C. The appropriate unit
On at least five occasions between February 5, 1959, and June 8, 1962, the Board
has determined that the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining and
the one in which it certified the Amalgamated as representative of Respondent's em-
ployees was and is the following:
All employees of the Employer's Sutherland Division engaged in the lithographic
process at Kalamazoo, Michigan, including the offset pressmen, assistant offset press-
men, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket washer, and the stock repilers
primarily engaged m the lithographic process, but excluding inkmen, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
D. Contentions of the parties
It is Respondent's primary position that by the procedure adopted by me whereby
I granted General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings to the
extent that I determined that no further hearing was necessary it was precluded from
presenting testimony on relevant and material matters thereby depriving it of its full
measure of due process; and that this constituted an unauthorized and unprecedented'
action contrary to the provisions of the statute
With particular reference to the merits of the several proceedings contained herein
and in extension of its position that relevant and material matters are the subject of
further proof, it is Respondent's position that the refusal to bargain with which it
is charged is entirely justified by the inappropriate character of the bargaining unit
involved. Thus Respondent, by its refusal to bargain, has brought into question all
of the prior determinations of the Board impinging upon this bargaining unit, which
determinations, plus numerous intermediate determinations of the Regional Director
and several hearing officers, are enumerated above.
For purposes of summary I shall present Respondent's principal arguments- 4
(a) The Board's action was in derogation of its own-established precedents
precluding the severance of lithographic production employees under the
applicable criteria established in cases such as Pacific Press, 66 NLRB 458, and
Pacific Coast Association, 130 NLRB 1031.
(b) The Board's action abrogated its own strict rules established for sever-
ance cases in American Potash, 107 NLRB 1418, since neither the Amalgamated
nor the em^loyees here involved meet the tests established for severance on
either craft or departmental grounds
(c) In view of the integrated nature of the Respondent's operations the
Board should have refused to direct an election in Case No. 7-RC-4449 and its
action in so directing an election contrary to the doctrine established in National
Tube, 76 NLRB 1199, constituted arbitrary and capricious conduct.
(d) The Board failed to give proper consideration to the long bargaining
history of Respondent and the Paperworkers in the traditional overall unit of
all production and maintenance employees, and to the basic interests of indus-
trial stability served by the perpetuation of such history.
(e) Technological changes have occurred and are occurring within Respond-
ent's operations which will within the foreseeable future eliminate any so-called
process disparities between offset and letterpress and require the dismissal of
Respondent's petition
(f) The Board's action is contrary to prior determinations affecting the Re-
spondent's predecessor wherein elections have been directed and held in depart-
mental units of printing employees, including employees working on offset
equipment, and the attempted severance of such employees is inconsistent with
units previously determined on broader, departmental grounds.
(g) Severance of an unidentifiable, nonhomogeneous group of employees
which is constantly changing is not only contrary to the intent of the Act and
Board's own precedents but is also obviously unrealistic and clearly destined to
contribute to industrial unrest.
4 These were supplied me as a summary to its most recent brief in this matter on
November 23, 1962, and were set forth without prejudice to Respondent's reliance upon
such additional arguments as it may have advanced in the earlier stages of the proceeding
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 841
The Papermakers ' position in its brief to me parallels to a limited degree the con-
tentions made by the Respondent . Thus it urges a further hearing in the matter to
develop evidence respecting alleged "material and substantial changes" which have
occurred since the hearing a year ago; and it contests the Board 's unit determination,
contending that the severance for bargaining purposes of employees engaged in the
lithographic process was improper and that the Board's policy in this respect, as
implemented by the American Potash principle,5 requires reexamination at this time.
E. Respondent 's offer of proof
Respondent , in addition to its legal contentions made in its brief to me and there-
after in its oral argument , sought on both occasions by way of an offer of proof to
establish that in addition to the substantial and recurring interchange between em-
ployees engaged in offset printing and letterpress printing that has already been
presented by testimony in the two related representation cases, there is evidence of
additional transfers between these two phases of the industry , illustrative of an ex-
panding interchange program ; that this program is so effective that a strike of offset
employees did not impede production in the plant for the reason that letterpress
employees already participating in the interchange program were available to per-
form the duties of the striking employees ; that the utilization of a recently developed
process, the Dycril plate and other technological advances have so revised its pro-
duction methods as to render in the foreseeable future the skills and the opera-
tions of offset printing vis-a-vis letterpress printing even more interchangeable and
indistinguishable.
Reference was made at the oral argument to this offer of proof. I observed then
that as there was then outstanding my order which vacated the previously issued
notice of hearing and which found it "unnecessary to take any evidence in support
of the Complaint of Respondent 's Answer thereto," I deemed the offer of proof to
imply a motion to reconsider my Order on Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Pleadings for the purpose of supplying additional evidentiary materials precluded
by my order As the preparation of this Intermediate Report clearly discloses my
judgment , after reconsideration , not to vacate the order issued by me, it also under-
lines the determination made by me therein that the taking of further testimony was
in fact unnecessary . In the premises , therefore, as the motion to reconsider is
denied , so also is the offer of proof rejected , for the reason stated, and for addi-
tional reasons which will become evident hereafter ( infra).
F. Analysis and conclusions
The net effect of Respondent's refusal to bargain here by its refusal to honor the
Board's certification of the Amalgamated is to bring into question once again the
Board's continuing judgment respecting the unit of Respondent's employees appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Because Respondent, I should
hope, would concede that it is neither my privilege nor inclination to overrule the
judgment of the National Labor Relations Board my function in this proceeding
must necessarily be directed not to a reevaluation of all that has transpired to this
point but rather, first, to the determination that something new has been added, and
then to a determination, subject to Board review, that that "something," if such there
be, does or does not alter the Board's continuing definition of the appropriate
bargaining unit.
Because, therefore, the procedural and due process aspects of the case which
have arisen by virtue of my granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Pleadings are so enraveled with considerations of whether or not the bargaining
unit's character has recently changed I see no prospect of separating the discussion
of and conclusions pertaining to these respective issues. Suffice it to say that once
it has been demonstrated that no further evidence is necessary to resolve the issue
of unit appropriateness, then an exploration of the procedural mechanics whereby
this conclusion was reached becomes academic. It is my plan, therefore, to treat
of the longstanding issues in this case first and save the procedural considerations
until last.
1. The Board's certification of the Amalgamated
A review of the chronology set forth above and of the full record in each of the
two representation cases in which the appropriateness of the disputed bargaining
unit is the dominant issue reveals a number of significaht facts. Thus, three sepa-
5 So named for American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418, in which
the Board enunciated its most aecent policy respecting the severance of craft units.
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rate hearings have been conducted between April 30, 1958, and October 5, 1961,
for a total of 12 hearing days, during which time over 1,500 pages of testimony
was taken and many pounds of formal exhibits admitted into the record. Similarly,
during this same period, and continuing to this present writing, Respondent, to-
gether with the other parties, have on at least nine occasions filed with the Board
or its agents, including this Trial Examiner, briefs, memorandums of law, excep-
tions, and oppositions, all directed to the inappropriateness of the bargaining unit
claimed by the Amalgamated and found and reaffirmed by the Board at least five
times to this date. Hence, it is not entirely accurate to say, as did Respondent in
its most recent brief to me,6 that by being deprived of a further hearing it is pre-
cluded from availing itself of its rights guaranteed by the Act to appear and present
highly relevant and material evidence under oath and subject to cross-examination,
in support of its position in this proceeding.
It is well established that issues, including those relating to the appropriateness of
a bargaining unit, previously presented to the Board in a representation proceeding,
as was the issue here presented in Cases Nos 7-RC-3717 and 7-RC-4449, are not
the proper subject of relitigation in a subsequent related unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding? Nor does Respondent appear to contest this proposition. Rather, relying
upon the recognized exception to the foregoing rule to the effect that previously un-
available or newly discovered evidence would properly be admissible,8 Respondent,
by its Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings, its sub-
sequent brief to me dated November 23, 1962, by its offer of proof contained therein,
and throughout its oral argument, vigorously contends that it be permitted to estab-
lish on the record, by hearing, the "material and substantial changes" that have
occurred during the year that has elapsed since the last hearing in the matter.
Because of the vigor of Respondent's contentions in this respect an analysis fol-
lows of the subject matter concerning which further evidence was sought to be
adduced.
Listed above are seven grounds of alleged inappropriateness (supra, "D. Conten-
tions of the parties") and in addition Respondent's brief is replete with other factual
allegations-all, it is claimed, being facets of the recent "material and substantial
changes" relied upon, not only for a further hearing, but for a reversal of the Board's
unit determination.
As contention (a) above Respondent would consider the Board's action to be
in derogation of its own precedents, particularly Pacific Press, 66 NLRB 458, and
Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 130 NLRB 1031. Re-
spondent, however, has already presented this argument to the Board on three
occasions, namely in its brief in Case No. 7-RC-3717, filed September 15, 1958,
in its Exception to Hearing Officer's Report on Challenged Ballots dated December 18,
1961, where for five pages it discusses the implications of Pacific Press, and again in
its exceptions dated May 16, 1961, wherein it invites the Board's attention to the
Pacific Coast case.
Respondent next would have the Board consider its action to date in this case as
abrogating the severance rules established in American Potash & Chemical Corpora-
tion, 107 NLRB 1418. As early as September 1958, in its brief to the Board and
again in its December 18, 1961, brief, the Respondent, in language strikingly similar
to its most recent contention, made the same legal point. In this respect Respondent's
claim that granting an election in an integrated operation violated the so-called
National Tube doctrine (76 NLRB 1199) is merely a variation upon the same theme,
bottomed upon American Potash (supra), albeit the National Tube case, the base case
of the whole concept, does not appear to have been cited previously. In any event,
the subject matter has certainly been well and frequently briefed to the Board.
In contention (d), supra, Respondent claims the Board has failed to give proper
consideration to bargaining history as it relates to Respondent's plant and employees
and to the Papermakers' representation in a traditional overall unit. Far from
being something new or recently discovered, this argument, as disclosed by a reading
of the record made since 1958 , appears to have been at all times one of the dominant
issues in the case.
So also with the contention that "technological changes have occurred and are
occurring within the Respondent's operations which will within the foreseeable
future eliminate any so called process disparities." This very point was raised, in
6In referring hereafter to the several points of contention raised by Respondent I am
not unmindful of the Intervenor's like argument8 and it is intended that my remarks be
addressed to both, wherever applicable.
Royal McBee Corporation , 133 NLRB 1450.
s Mos8 Amber Mfg. Co ., 119 NLRB 732.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 843
fact , in the Respondent 's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer 's Report in Case No.
7-RC-4449 filed on December 18, 1961, at pages 15 and 16. Two and a half months
earlier, at a hearing in the matter on October 3, Respondent called its Production
Manager Gordon Hinga, whose testimony , extending for at least 20 pages of the
transcript in the hearing, described in detail the technological changes which had
occurred and which were anticipated.
Likewise with respect to its two final contentions enumerated above (supra, (f) and
(g) ), relating to the Board's disparity of treatment of the severance issue when
compared with Board practice and precedent , there appears in Respondent 's Septem-
ber 15, 1958, brief, beginning at page 62 , a full discussion of the law and precedents
hinging upon the issue . And earlier in that same brief, by way of summarizing the
facts already established by hearing , the brief stated ( at p. 24 ) that because of the
demonstrated interchange "there is no clearly identifiable , functionally distinct, and
homogeneous complement of so-called `lithographic production employees .' " This
assertion bears a striking resemblance to the Respondent 's contention made to me
that a hearing is necessary to establish the Board 's error in severing "an unidentifiable,
non-homogeneous group of employees which is constantly changing."
Elsewhere in its brief and argument to me and incorporated as part of its offer
of proof Respondent urged that "during the thirteen ( 13) months that have intervened
between the date of the last hearing in Case No. 7-RC -4449 on October 3, 4, and 5,
1961 , and the present date, the Respondent has continued to incorporate and utilize
technological changes in its printing operations , the effect of which is also highly
relevant and material to the issues involved in this proceeding ." Without in any way
suggesting the inaccuracy of this assertion it is worthy of note that on November 8,
1960, following the first hearing in Case No . 7-RC-4449 and 11 months prior to
a second hearing held in that case for the purpose of adducing testimony on
challenged ballots, Respondent filed its motion to reopen record for the purpose of
receiving new evidence concerning further integration of the Employer 's printing
operations . Therein , as here, Respondent sought to introduce to the Board 's atten-
tion matters which had occurred even within the 4 months following the hearing,
indicating , as it has here, that "certain studies were still in progress " and that changes
were constant.
Similarly, Respondent urges upon me the expanding nature of its interchange
program as evidence of a need for further hearing and a repudiation of the Board's
unit holding . This is not a new condition , however, for in its motion for reconsidera-
tion of the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No . 7-RC-4449
Respondent sought unsuccessfully to establish by additional evidence that in the
several months preceding the Board 's decision the training and interchange program
had substantially expanded.
As a further basis for showing substantial interchange and employee adaptability
to both printing processes , offset and letterpress , Respondent would supply evidence
to show how , during a recent strike of employee members of Amalgamated , replace-
ment of them by letterpress operators was effected with little , if any, impairment of
production . As early as its brief filed in September 1958, however, Respondent
had acquainted the Board with this argument and with references to the record
of the 1958 hearing to support it . The Respondent stated at page 30 of its brief:
"Despite the fact that none of these employees had any prior offset experience and
their entire experience had been acquired at the Company, in the Company 's letter-
press operations , the Company did not have to bring in a single outside production
employee to achieve acceptable printing production within a matter of a few weeks
after the first offset press was installed."
In oral argument and in its brief the Respondent points to the continuing tech-
nological advances which require a reevaluation of the unit determinations , neces-
sarily after further hearing . Thus, Respondent contends in addition to the use and
further development of the so-called Dycril plates on major production runs, it "is
also conducting a variety of tests and exploratory studies in the use and application of
wrap around plates and press equipment ( Harris and Heidelberg ) designed to
eliminate preparatory cost on letterpress ." In this respect I have studied the testi-
mony given a year ago by Production Manager Hinga, who enumerated at that time
the names of major customers whose carton requirements were being met by use
of the Dycril plates then in operation . And in describing the sort of studies and
tests of method and equipment , as Respondent urges are still in process (supra),
Hinga's testimony was as follows:
Q. Now, you testified that in addition to the study represented by Company's
Exhibit 3 , other studies were made; would you please specify what other studies
were made , who gave the direction for those studies, who made the studies and
what the results of the studies were?
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. In all cases, the directions came from me. The motivations may have been
from members of the management sales or otherwise. Other studies made, as
I illustrated, "taking a hard look at other types of letter presses," such as the
Dycril, the wrap-around press, dry offset on offset itself, the Heidelberg press,
which I indicated, one purchased, and one anticipate receiving, and again,
the moral obligation to the skills being displaced because of the downward trend
in that activity.
A review of the foregoing persuades me that very little, if anything, has been left
unsaid. Particularly is this so in view of the Board's most recent judgment of the
matter that no changes had occurred that would justify a reversal of the finding that
the unit involved was an appropriate one. This determination the Board made on
June 8, 1962. Respondent thereafter refused to bargain on July 17, 1962, less than
6 weeks thereafter, stating as it did so that the unit was inappropriate. If Respondent
deemed the unit inappropriate then it did so on one or both of two grounds: either
(1) it considered the Board's determination basically wrong, or (2) as it urges upon
me, substantial and material changes have occurred in the unit's composition. If it
be the former ground my position in the matter is clear: I have neither the authority
nor the inclination to overrule a decision of the Board. Under such circumstances I
would certainly respect the Board's unit determination and its certification of the
Amalgamated as a representative of the employees in the umt.9
If on the other hand I am to find that new arguments have been made or substan-
tial and material changes effected I am to do so only upon a consideration of the
6-week period between June 8, 1962, the date of the Board's last look at the whole
picture, and July 17, the day upon which the Respondent refused to bargain because
of its objections based upon the inappropriateness of the unit
Nothing which had been alleged to have transpired during that period, or indeed
thereafter, possesses any of the characteristics of novelty, previously unavailable
argument or fact, unusual change, or substantial materials not previously considered
by the Board. I therefore find and conclude that the facts before the Board were
ample to sustain its unit determination which it reaffirmed as recently as June 8, 1962,
and that as the Amalgamated was duly certified as the representative of the em-
ployees in that unit Respondent's obligation to bargain with it was absolute.
2. The alleged deprivation of due process
It is contended that the Order on Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings
issued in this case and finding the holding of a further hearing unnecessary consti-
tuted a deprivation of Respondent's rights in due process.
At the outset I would refer to the material set forth above in which I have con-
cluded that nothing has been raised herein that had not been previously considered.
When the motion was first presented to me Respondent was given opportunity to op-
pose it and did so before my order issued. Nothing in its opposition to the motion
persuaded me that there was anything new to be litigated. Thereafter, in its brief to
me and again in its oral argument, Respondent sought, in effect, to obtain reconsidera-
tion of my order by setting forth allegedly new facts and legal concepts. This I did,
and upon reconsideration I find, as noted above, that on further consideration of the
briefs and oral arguments I am still persuaded that nothing has been presented to me
which has not been previously considered by the Board as late as its decision of
June 8, 1962. It cannot be said, therefore, that any substantial deprivation of Re-
spondent's right to a full consideration of its position has occurred. Accordingly,
thereof, and for the reasons stated in my order which forms Appendix A of this
report, I am of the opinion that Respondent has been given every right to which it
is entitled.
Moreover, the procedural sequence of the several cases which formed the whole of
this proceeding discloses the fullest possible measure of due process. Respondent has
had recourse to motions, for remand and for reconsideration; it has filed briefs in
support of such motions and in support of exceptions, as well as briefs supporting
positions taken in the three hearings already held. Moreover, Respondent, upon the
issuance of this report, still retains to itself the right of review by both the Board and
courts. Meanwhile, insofar as it relates to this particular stage of the proceedings,
it is appropriate to note that "it concerns the state that there be an end of law suits." 10
9 General Instrument Corporation, 140 NLRB 3 8; Olsen Rug Company, 120 NLRB 366.
10 Coke on Littleton, 303.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 845
3. The refusal to bargain
Having concluded as I have that the Board's certification of the Amalgamated as
representative of the employees in the unit found approriate in Case No. 7-RC-4449
was proper in all respects, and that nothing has occurred since the Board's certifica-
tion of the Amalgamated to alter this determination, Respondent's refusal to bargain
with the Amalgamated under such circumstances constituted a violation of Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, and I so find
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The operations of Respondent described in section I, above, in connection
with the unfair labor practices described in section III, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because of the limited scope of Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Amalga-
mated I shall not recommend that it cease and desist from the commission of other
unfair labor practices.ii
Furthermore, as it is implicit in my recommendation requiring Respondent to cease
and desist from refusing to bargain that it, in effect, bargain with the Amalgamated,
I find it redundant and unnecessary to affirmatively order Respondent to do so.12
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case and in Cases Nos. 7-RC-3717 and 7-RC-4449, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2 The Charging Union and the Intervenor are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees of the Employer's Sutherland Division engaged in the litho-
graphic process at Kalamazoo, Michigan, including the offset pressmen, assistant
offset pressmen, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket washer, and the stock
repilers primarily engaged in the lithographic process, but excluding inkmen, all
other employees, and supervisors 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
4. On and since June 8, 1962, the Amalgamated has been and now is the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above.
5. By failing and refusing, upon request of the Amalgamated, to meet with it
for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement Respondent had
refused to bargain with the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6 By the aforesaid failure and refusal to meet with the Amalgamated, Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
KVP Sutherland Paper Company-Sutherland Division, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to recognize or to bargain collectively with
Amalgamated Lithographers of America as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the appropriate unit described above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
U Sinclair Refining Company, 132 NLRB 1660, 1664, 1673
12 Sinclair Refining Company, supra.
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its plant at Kalamazoo, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B." 13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Board's Seventh Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by Respondent and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14
13 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "A Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "A Decision
and Order"
14 If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read, "Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within 10 days.
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
United States of America
Before the National Labor Relations Board
Division of Trial Examiners
Washington, D.C.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY SUTHERLAND DIVISION and AMALGAMATED
LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, Case No. 7-CA-3834
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Upon the filing of Respondent's Answer to the Complaint herein, General Counsel
has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings, wherein he moves:
1 That all allegations in the Complaint be deemed to be admitted to be true and
Respondent be found by the Trial Examiner to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act without the taking of evidence in support of the allegations of the
Complaint; and
2. That the Motion be ruled upon immediately so that in the event it is granted
the necessity for hearing will be removed and the hearing canceled.
In support of his Motion General Counsel sets forth (1) the Board's Decision and
Direction of Election dated June 12, 1961, in Case No 7-RC-4449, wherein certain
of Respondent's employees were designated as constituting a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, (2) the results of an election conducted by the
Regional Director wherein the employees in the aforesaid unit selected the Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America (herein referred to as the Union) as their bar-
gaining representative (3) the Board's Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives, dated June 8, 1962, in Case No. 7-RC-4449, reaffirming its bargain-
ing unit determination and certifying the Union as the employees' exclusive bargaining
representative, (4) the Union's request of July 6, 1962, that the Respondent bargain
collectively with it in behalf of the employees in the designated unit, and the Re-
spondent's refusal on July 17, 1962, and thereafter, to meet with and bargain with
the Union, (5) the Regional Director's Complaint issued on August 24, 1962, al-
leging the aforesaid refusal as a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, (6) Re-
spondent's answer, dated September 13, 1962, admitting those allegations set forth
in the complaint, excepting only those relating to the Board's unit determination in
Case No. 7-RC-4449, which determination it disputes, contending, as it did in that
case, that the unit was not appropriate for bargaining purposes and that no bargain
obligation arose, and finally, (7) premised upon the foregoing, upon the absence
of any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence following the Board's
certification in Case No. 7-RC-4449, and upon Respondent's objections limited to
the Board's determination in that case General Counsel contends there is nothing
herein that requires further bearing or relitigation
Responding in opposition, Respondent, by counsel, contends that statutory provi-
sions, specifically the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, and the Board's Rules and Regulations preclude the entry
in a complaint proceeding of a summary judgment, as sought here. Respondent
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO.-SUTHERLAND DIVISION 847
further contends that because the Board's Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives of June 8, 1962, in Case No. 7-RC-4449 adopted conclusions re-
sulting from the most recent hearing held in October 1961, and a full year having
since elapsed to the date of this Order, substantial changes in Respondent's opera-
tions that have resulted from a continuing program of employee integration and inter-
change, a situation alluded to by the Board in its June 8, 1962, decision, warrants
further reconsideration of its previous unit determination. And finally, repeating a
contention made at the October 1961, hearing and rejected by the Board, Respondent
contends that continuing technological change in the printing industry and its impact
on the so-called offset printing process warrants a further hearing for further scrutiny
of the situation by the Board.'
Now this motion having been referred to me on September 25, 1962, I have re-
viewed the Complaint and notice of hearing issued on August 24, 1962, Respondent's
answer thereto filed September 11, 1962, General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment on the Pleadings, dated September 25, 1962, Respondent's opposi-
tion thereto filed on October 9, 1962, pursuant to my telegraphic order to show
cause of September 28, 1962, and the Board's formal file in Case No. 7-RC-4449,
including the Board's original Decision and Direction of Election dated January 12,
1961, based upon a hearing held between June 13 and July 19, 1960, and its Sup-
plemental Decision and Certification of Representatives dated June 8, 1962, in which,
after hearing held on October 3, 4, and 5, 1961, the Board held that the changes
planned and instituted in Respondent's operations were not, as claimed there (and
as again claimed in the opposition to the instant motion) such as to render the
bargaining unit inappropriate. Accordingly I find that no litigable issue not pre-
viously raised in the two hearings in Case No. 7-RC-4449 and thereafter considered
by the National Labor Relations Board in each of its decisions in the matter based
respectively upon these hearings, or not admitted by Respondent's answer, has been
raised by the pleadings herein.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Section 9(d), specifically provides
that when a complaint proceeding such as the instant one, held pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, is based upon the facts certified in a representation proceeding held
pursuant to Section 9(c), the record in such a representation case shall be included
in the transcript of the entire record for the purposes of court review of the complaint
proceeding. Thus, as stated by the Supreme Court in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S. 146 at 158: "The unit proceeding and this complaint on
unfair labor practices are one." 2 Including as it does here two extended hearings
on an issue twice decided and once again raised as a defense in Respondent's Answer,
it is appropriate to note the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit that "[N]either the statute (referring to the Act), nor the Constitu-
tion, give a hearing where there is no issue to decide " 3
As it is thus established by statute and rule of decision that the record in the
aforementioned related representation proceeding becomes a portion of the record
upon which any determination, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, is to be made
by me in any Intermediate Report and Recommended Order I shall hereafter issue,
the necessity for any further hearing in the matter is thereby removed and there
remains for consideration by me only such legal issues as have been raised by the
pleadings herein and the record in Case No. 7-RC-4449 and the facts found therein.
Accordingly, I HEREBY GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings
to the extent that I find it unnecessary to take any evidence in support of the allega-
tions of the Complaint or Respondent's Answer thereto and shall proceed to prepare
and issue an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order upon the merits of the
issues presented.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Notice of Hearing issued herein setting hearing
of the matter for October 9, 1962, and subsequently postponed by me to October 29,
1962, be, and here is vacated.
i The Board's formal file in Case No. 7-RC-4449 discloses that Respondent had, for the
same reason, requested on November 8, 1960, the reopening of the record of the first hear-
ing held June 13 and July 19, 1960.
2 United Insurance Company of America v. N L R B , 272 F 2d 446 (C A. 7), cited to
me by Respondent as contrary to the principle stated in the text, has no relevance. In that
case the prior representation case relied upon by the Board, and rejected by court, was
one that terminated by withdrawal of the representation petition and never resulted in a
certification of representatives in an appropriate bargaining unit. The instant representa-
tion proceedings, on the contrary, include the certification required by Section 9(d) and
also found to have been present in the ruling Pittsburgh Plate Glass case, 10 NLRB 1111.
3 Fay v. Douds, 172 F. 2d 720, 725. Cf. Liquid Carbonic Coop., 116 NLRB 795.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Briefs, or proposed findings and conclusions, or both, relating to the merits of
the issues presented by the entire record in this case may be filed at Washington, D.C.,
pursuant to Section 102.42 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amend-
ed, on or before November 9, 1962. In the event the parties, or any of them,
desire to present oral argument in the matter written request therefore must be
made of me in Washington, D.C., within five days of the date of this Order.
(S) Thomas F. Maher,
THOMAS F. MAHER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
October 18, 1962.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL recognize Amalgamated Lithographers of America as the collective-
bargaining representative for all of our employees in the unit found appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining concerning wages, hours, and working
conditions, and we will, upon request, bargain with said Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit,
and, if an understanding is reached, we will embody such understanding in a
signed writing. The appropriate unit is:
All employees of the Employer's Sutherland Division engaged in the
lithographic process at Kalamazoo, Michigan, including the offset pressmen,
assistant offset pressmen, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket
washer, and the stock repilers primarily engaged in the lithographic process,
but excluding inkmen, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act.
KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY-
SUTHERLAND DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500
Book Building 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, 48226, Telephone
No. 963-9330, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Winn-Dixie Stores , Inc., and Winn-Dixie Louisville , Inc. and
District Union Local 227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No.
25-CA-1637. July 25, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 28, 1963, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Intermediate 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 attached
Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re-
spondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
143 NLRB No. 89.