KVP Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1553 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

KVP SUTHERLAND PAPER CO., SUTHERLAND DIVISION 1553
ing Co ., has lawfully recognized , in accordance with the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the SIU or any other labor organization and a question concerning
representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9 (c) of the said
Act, unless we are then certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
representative of the employees of Velasco Trucking Co.
WE WILL NOT, by picketing or otherwise , induce or encourage any individual
employed by Sea-Land Service, Inc., Puerto Rico Division , by Sea-Train Lines
of P.R . Inc., or by any other person , to engage in a strike or a refusal to handle
freight or a refusal to perform any service, and WE WILL NOT, by picketing or
otherwise , threaten , coerce, or restrain , Sea-Land , Sea-Train , or any other per-
son, where our purpose is to force or require Sea-Land , Sea-Train , or any other
person to cease doing business with Velasco Trucking Co., or where our pur-
pose is to force or require Velasco Trucking Co. to recognize or bargain with
us unless we have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
representative of the employees of Velasco Trucking Co.
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS , LOCAL 901, IBTCW & H
OF AMERICA,
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, P. O. Box
11007, Fernandez Juncos Station , Santurce , Puerto Rico , Telephone No. 724-7171,
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-3834. May 12, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On July 24, 1963, the Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and ordering that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth therein. The Board, in finding that the Respondent refused to
bargain as of July 17, 1962, with the certified representative for the
lithographic unit, which heretofore had been found appropriate, spe-
cifically rejected as not material, and stated that it had not considered
or passed upon, the Employer's offer of proof relating the alleged
changes in said unit. On its own motion, the Board 2 has decided to
reconsider its decision in this respect and finds as follows regarding the
Employer's offer of proof.
In support of the contention that the lithographic unit is not appro-
priate because of changes in the Respondent's printing operation,. the
2 143 NLRB 834.
'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 Leedom and Fanning].
146 NLRB No. 183.
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent made an offer of proof setting forth alleged changes oc-
curring between October 1961 and November 23, 1962,3 involving : (a)
interchange of employees , and (b) technological changes.
With respect to interchange of employees , the offer is to prove the
following : ( 1) Sixteen employees found ineligible to vote in the lith-
ographic unit by the Board on June 8, 1962,' and who had not per-
formed offset work prior to October 2, 1961 , thereafter worked on off-
set equipment in skilled and relatively unskilled classifications for
periods of time ranging in some cases from 7 to 23 days but in most
instances for periods of 1 to several months ( in one case , nearly 9
months ). ( 2) Twenty-nine employees found ineligible to vote in the
lithographic unit by the Board on June 8, 1962,5 and who had previ-
ously performed some offset work , have performed , since October 2,
1961, additional offset work in skilled and relatively unskilled classi-
fications for various periods of time, in most cases from 1 to several or
more months . ( 3) During the period of approximately 7 months that
an offset press has been installed next to letterpress equipment in divi-
sion 2 ( offset presses have been located previously only in division 8),
interchange between offset and letterpress equipment , occurring for
short periods during the shift hours of a single working day, occurred
19 times affecting the pressman and assistant pressman classifications,
and 4 times affecting helpers , or 23 times in all, an average of 3 times
a month ; with respect to interchange for longer periods , i.e., for 1 or
more days but no more than a week, there were 20 such occurrences to
the categories of pressman and assistant pressman , and 30 to the cate-
gory of helper . In sum , such interchange occurred a total of 50 times
or an average of 7 times it month. ' ( 4) During a walkout on Au-
gust 27 , 1962, of 65 employees on offset, 10 on letterpress , and 2 on
other jobs , Respondent was able adequately to man all offset equipment
in less than 30 days without going outside the ranks of printing depart-
3 Having considered in the prior representation proceeding the operational changes which
occurred up to October 1961, the Board , on June 8, 1962, found that the lithographic unit
was still appropriate . KVP Sutherland Paper Company. Sutherland Division , Case No.
7-RC-4449 , Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative , not published in
NLRB volumes.
• These employees , listed in Appendix I In the Hearing Officer's report , adopted In the
Board 's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative , dated June 8, 1962,
had only the expectation of working on offset equipment under the interchange for training
program.
5 These employees were listed In Appendixes II and V In the Hearing Officer's report,
adopted in the Board 's Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative.
we do not regard Interchange to the relatively unskilled classification of helper as the
type of interchange that materially affects the Identity of the lithographic unit. See
Weyerhaeuser Company, 146 NLRB 1.
The offer of proof falls to support the allegation that there were 165 Instances of inter-
change between offset and letterpress equipment in division 2. In any event, over a
7anonth period, the 165 figure results in an average of 24 instances a month, not a sub-
stantial amount in comparison with the number of employees in the unit ( according to
the Board's earlier Supplemental Decision, there were 84 unchallenged voters In the
lithographic unit).
KVP-SUTHERLAND PAPER CO., SUTHERLAND DIVISION 1555
ment employees. This was possible, according to Respondent, because
48 out of 62 employees who transferred to the idled equipment had ac-
quired prior offset experience. Of these 62 employees, 41 employees,
according to the offer of proof,' were earlier held by the Board to be
ineligible to vote in the lithographic unit.'
With regard to technological changes, the Respondent, since Octo-
ber 1, 1961, has increased its use of the Dycril plate and is working on
its further development for letterpress application. Respondent is
conducting a variety of tests and studies in the use of wraparound
plates and press equipment (Harris and Heidelberg) designed to
eliminate preparatory cost on letterpress. Since October 1961, Re-
spondent has intensified its research and experimental work on the
use of the Dycril plate to achieve a so-called dry offset process, and
was planning to go into dry offset production as of December 1962.
Plates had been ordered and the first major production run had been
scheduled on foil margarine cartons, now done on offset where. long
runs are involved. Respondent further alleges that the use of the
Dycril plate for both letterpress and dry offset eliminates the major
operational difference between offset and letterpress, and also means
that the plate room will service both processes interchangeably.
The record establishes that as of June 8, 1962, the Board found that
an appropriate unit of lithographic production employees existed.
Respondent's offer of proof, in the main, shows with respect to the 16
employees who had previously done no offset work, the 29 employees
who had performed some offset work, and the 62.employees who oper-
ated offset equipment during the walkout, that the alleged increase in
interchange consists of temporary assignments from letterpress work
to offset work. There is no increase in the movement of lithographic
employees (those who voted in the lithographic unit and whose ballots
were not challenged) away from offset duties to letterpress work.
Moreover, such alleged interchange is not on a day-to-day basis but
for sustained periods of time. The alleged increase in interchange
between letterpress and offset employees, for a period of hours during
the workday, or a day to a week, occurred with the placement of an
offset press in the letterpress division. At most, as shown above, this
averaged out to a relatively small amount of interchange per month.
Similarly, the alleged technological changes are not shown to have
been effective to such a degree that the identity of lithographic pro
duction employees as a unit is destroyed, or even substantially affected.
Accordingly, based on the entire record, and considering the changes
alleged in the offer of proof alone. and. together with the changes con-
7 Not all these 41 names mentioned in the offer of proof appear on Appendixes I, II,
and V referred to above in footnotes 4 and 6, which list the employees which were held
ineligible to vote in the lithographic unit.
9 It appears that of these ' 41 employees, 31 are included in the 16 and 29 employees dis-
cussed above under points "1" and "2," respectively.
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sidered by the Board in its Supplemental Decision of June 8, 1962,
we find that neither the alleged increase in interchange,' nor the alleged
technological changes," are sufficient to render inappropriate the litho-
graphic production unit found appropriate on June 8, 1962. We
therefore reaffirm our prior determination that the lithographic pro-
duction employees constitute an appropriate unit. We also affirm the
finding in the Board's earlier Decision and Order herein that Re-
spondent, as of July 17,1962, refused to bargain and has continued to
refuse to bargain with the Charging Union, the certified representa-
tive, in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act. Further, we affirm the order in the said Decision and
Order.
6 Weyerhaeuser Company, supra. Compare Pacific Press, Inc., 66 NLRB 458; and
Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 130 NLRB 1031, which we
find are distinguishable from the instant case on their facts.
10 See Allen, Lane & Scott, et al., 137 NLRB 223. Compare Weyerhaeuser Company,
142 NLRB 1169.
Frankel Associates, Inc. and District 65, Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA.-9259. May
12, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 26, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had unlawfully interrogated and made coercive remarks to one em-
ployee but that it had not engaged in the other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support
thereof.
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 Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications and
additions :
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for the
reasons stated by him, that the Respondent did not discriminatorily
discharge employees Melvin Richard, Samuel Fluitt, and Joseph R.
Edwards in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
146 NLRB No. 182.