Roberts and Son

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 294 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of ROBERTS AND SON and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING
PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTII AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL
No. 121 and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-RE-20.-Decided October 8, 1946
Messrs. T. W. Scruggs and W. H. Sadler, Jr., of Birmingham, Ala.,
for the Employer.
Messrs. Paul E. Thompson and A. J. Muglach, of Birmingham, Ala.,
for the Printing Pressmen.
Mr. Walter M. Robinson, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Birming-
ham, Alabama, on August 5, 1946, before Albert D. Maynard, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Roberts and Son, herein called the Employer, is an Alabama cor-
poration with its plant and offices located at Birmingham, Alabama.
The Employer is in the business of commercial printing of all kinds.
During the year 1945, it purchased raw materials, consisting of paper,
lithograph plates, chemicals, inks, rollers, metal type, printing presses,
parts for printing presses and other small items used in commercial
printing establishments, valued in excess of $211,165, 95 percent of
which was shipped from points outside the State of Alabama. Dur-
ing the same period, its sales were in excess of $450,000, approximately
10 percent of which represented printing done for customers outside
the State of Alabama.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the,meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, Local No. 121, herein called the Printing Pressman, is a labor
71 -N. L. R B., No. 36.
294
ROBERTS AND SON 295
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, herein called the Lithog-
raphers, is a labor organization affiliated with Congress of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On August 21, 1942, the Employer and the Printing Pressmen
entered into a 2-year contract embracing all employees in the Employ-
er's letterpress department. At its termination, this contract was ex-
tended for another 2-year period expiring on August 20, 1946.
On June 12, 1946, the Printing Pressmen notified the Employer of
its desire to negotiate a new contract. Subsequently, the Printing
Pressmen demanded that the two offset pressmen in the lithographic
department be added to the unit in which it had been recognized as
exclusive bargaining representative. Claiming to represent a major-
ity of the employees in the lithographic department, including the
offset pressmen, the Lithographers on June 28, 1946, informed the Em-
ployer that it wished to negotiate a contract covering these employees.
As a result of the conflicting claims to offset pressmen made by the
Printing Pressmen and the Lithographers, the Employer filed the
petition in this case on July 28, 1946.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Printing Pressmen seeks a unit of all the Employer's pressmen,
including offset pressmen. But the Lithographers desires a unit of
all employees working in the' Employer's lithographic department,
including offset pressmen, all platemakers,2 and the artist. Although
the Employer takes a neutral position with respect to the broad issue
of the appropriate unit, it objects to the inclusion of the artist in the
grouping sought by the Lithographers.
Both letterpress and lithographic printing are done at the Em-
ployer's establishment, which is known in the printing industry as a
combination plant. For each type of printing the Employer main-
'After the hearing in this case the Employer filed an application with the Board re-
questing permission to withdraw its petition . This application was opposed by the Lithog-
raphers, which filed a brief in support of its position On September 19, 1946, the Board
denied the Employer ' s application In its brief, the Lithographers alleged that , following
the hearing , the Employer had signed a contract with the Printing Pressmen which encom-
passed the offset pressmen . If such a contract actually exists, it is clear that it is no bar
to a current determination of representatives
2 One of the two platemakers is the lithographic foreman. The Lithographers ' desire to
include him is in consonance with the custom existing in the printing trades.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tains a separate department. These departments are on the same
floor, but are physically separated by an aisle, the letterpress depart-
ment occupying the northeast corner, and the lithographic department
the northwest corner of the floor. There is absolutely no interchange
of work or employees between the two departments. Each depart-
ment is separately supervised by its own foreman, who is responsible
to the plant superintendent.
As indicated in Section III, above, there has been no history of
collective bargaining at the Employer's plant which has affected the
employees of the lithographic department. Collective agreements
between the Employer and the Printing Pressmen have not included
the offset pressmen within their coverage, nor have any of the other
lithographic employees been embraced by their terms. During the
past 7 years, however, the Employer has on a number of occasions
called upon the Lithographers to supply employees for its lithographic
department. In previous cases, moreover, it has been brought to the
Board's attention that throughout the printing industry, as a whole,
lithographic employees are now organized almost exclusively upon
an operational basis, and are represented by the Lithographers rather
than by an organization which is limited in its jurisdiction to a portion
of the lithographic process.3 In this case there is no affirmative evi-
dence in the record to show that lithographic units underlie collective
bargaining at printing plants in the Birmingham area, where the
Employer maintains its plant.
That lithographic printing requires special skills and techniques
cannot be denied. We observed in the Con P. Curran case, supra,
that :
... printing by the lithographic process has long been rec
ognized as a separate branch of the printing industry. As dis-
tinguished from letter press printing, which constitutes the other
principal branch, lithography involves printing from a plane
surface and depends for its operation upon a chemical difference
between various portions of the surface of the plate used in making
the impression. Except for the initial step of photographing
the image to be reproduced, each step in the process of lithographic
printing is separate and distinct from that of letter press.
Throughout the process of preparing lithographic plates and their
use in lithographic, or offset presses, special skills, peculiar to
the lithographic process, are required. Likewise, plates prepared
for lithographic printing cannot be used in letter press repro-
duction, nor can plates prepared by photoengraving be used in
lithographic presses.
3 See Matter of Con P. Curran Printing Company, 57 N. L. R. B . 185; Matter of Foote
and Davies , 66 N. L. R . B. 416.
ROBERTS AND SON 297
And our decisions in cases involving unit issues similar to that pre-
sented here for resolution have generally recognized that lithographic
employees constitute a cohesive, indivisible grouping.'
It is true that in the recent Pacific Press case,5 we found that a
unit comprised of both letter and offset pressmen was appropriate.
But in that case, there was considerable interchange of employees
between the letterpress and lithographic departments, and the litho-
graphic employees were not sufficiently centralized. and segregated
from other workers. Furthermore, we noted in that case that the
operations of the Employer were unique in the industry. Unlike the
Pacific Press case, here, there is absolutely no interchange of employees
between the Employer's letterpress and lithographic departments; in
addition, the employees of the Employer's lithographic department
are markedly centralized and segregated from all other employees.6
In these respects, this case is identical to the Foote and Davies case,
supra, wherein we found that all employees performing work in the
lithographic process, including offset pressmen, constituted an appro-
priate unit for collective bargaining purposes. We regard the Foote
and Davies case, which was issued on the same day as the Pacific Press
case, as determinative of the unit issue which is now before us, despite
the additional factor in that case of a history of collective bargaining
at the employer's plant predicated upon a lithographic unit. For we
said in the Foote and Davies case :
Putting aside for the moment this bargaining history at the
. plant, the facts in the instant case are ' much like those
present in other proceedings affecting lithographic employees in
which the Board took the position, in effect, that such workers
form an indivisible grouping.
From the foregoing facts, we are persuaded that a unit of all
employees of the Employer's lithographic department, including off-
set pressmen, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion of
the artist in the lithographic unit. Unlike other employees, the
artist is paid a salary at her own request, except for overtime which
is paid to her on an hourly basis. The record discloses , however,
4 See Matter of Court Square Press, Inc., 44 N. L. R. B. 702 ; Matter of W. B . Kistler
Stationery Company, 51 N. L. R. B . 978; Matter of Ross Gould Company, 56 N. L. R. B.
1176; Matter of Midwest Printing Company, 58 N. L. R. B . 673; Matter of George Banta
Publishing Company, 59 N. L. R. B . 669; Matter of American Can Company, 61 N. L. R. B.
1631; Matter of Con P. Curran, supra; Matter of Foote and Davies, supra.
Matter of Pacific Press, Inc., 66 N. L. R. B. 478.
° Here, moreover , the collective bargaining which took place between the Employer and
the Printing Pressmen , excluding the offset pressmen , underscores the dissimilarity between
these employees and the letter pressmen . Also, the fact that the Employer has turned to
the Lithographers for lithographic help is an indication of the separate craft identity of
all the Employer 's lithographic employees . These elements were not present in the Pacific
Press case.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that she spends approximately 75 percent of her time in the prepara-
tion of work for the lithographic presses. It was admitted by the
Employer that the lithographic department could not function effi-
ciently without the services of an artist. Her work is supervised
by the lithographic foreman, although she is responsible only to the
plant superintendent. As a matter of fact, the testimony shows that
she and the lithographic foreman "have to work very closely
together." Her office is separate from the lithographic department,
being on the floor above, but the lithographic foreman frequently
consults with her during the course of her working day. It also
appears that the artist's predecessor had previously been the foreman
of the lithographic department. We are satisfied that the artist's
duties are substantially and inextricably interwoven with the duties
of the other lithographic workers, and we shall therefore include her
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all employees of the Employer's lithographic depart-
ment, including offset pressmen, platemakers, artists, and the litho-
graphic foreman, but excluding all other employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Roberts and Son, Birmingham,
Alabama, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty(30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America, AFL, Local No. 121, or by Amalgamated
Lithographers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.