Robertson Paper Box Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 348 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union states in its objection that the notice was improperly displayed, con-
tending that because of this one eligible employee was not advised of his right to
vote and thus failed to cast a ballot in the election.
The investigation showed that the only eligible employee who did not vote was
James Covington, who is employed as a part-time janitor. Covington attends high
school 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily. After school he spends 2 hours daily in the store,
cleaning desks, sweeping the floor, dusting displays, and emptying waste baskets.
This work takes him to all parts of the store. Covington states in his affidavit
that: "I didn't vote in the election for one thing because I didn't know about it
[the time and date] and also because of the early hour I couldn't have been there
anyway since it was during my school hours and I would have been in school."
Covington states that he seldom reads the various notices posted on the bulletin
board because they usually did not concern him. He admits that although he was
aware that an election was scheduled, he failed to read the notice or to make any
inquiries as to the scheduled date and time.
Under these circumstances, Covington's failure to vote is not attributable to the
manner in which the notices were posted. Since he did not see the notice at all,
the manner of posting becomes immaterial as to him. The notice of election was
available in the place where notices to employees are customarily posted. Fur-
thermore, Covington could have determined the election date and hours by simply
asking the store manager, who did remark at one time to Covington that an election
would be held soon, although she did not specify the date.
The Regional Director therefore concludes that the manner in which the election
notices were posted did not cause any eligible employee to refrain from voting.
The Regional Director having concluded that objection No. 2 lacks merit, recom-
mends that it be overruled.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Robertson Paper Box Company, Incorporated and General Team-
sters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen, Local Union No. 493,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No.
1-RC-5455. August 6, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND SECOND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On March 2, 19599 the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in this proceeding, finding a unit of production and maintenance
employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
Thereafter, on March 20, 1959, Norwich, Connecticut, Printing Spe-
cialties and Paper Products Union, Local No. 494, subordinate to In-
ternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 494, one of the Intervenors herein,
filed a motion to amend the Decision and Direction of Election by
severing a craft unit composed of the Employer's printing pressmen,
cutting pressmen, and creasing pressmen, their apprentices and help-
ers. On March 26, 1959, the Board issued a telegraphic notice to show
cause why it should not find appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining a craft unit as requested by Local 494, and a residual pro-
i Unpublished.
124 NLRB No. 45.
ROBERTSON PAPER BOX COMPANY, INCORPORATED 349
duction and maintenance unit. By telegram dated March 31, 1959,
United Mine Workers, District 50, another Intervenor, filed a response
thereto, moving that Local 494's motion be denied as untimely, and
that, in the event the said motion be allowed, the Board reopen the
record for the taking of further testimony on the unit question. By
telegram dated April 1, 1959, Local 494 responded to the notice to
show cause, supporting its motion. On the same day the Employer
and the Petitioner filed responses opposing Local 494's motion, and_
the Employer filed a motion to reopen the record. On April 9, 1959,,
the Board issued an order reopening record and remanding proceed-
ing to Regional Director for a further hearing on the issue of appro-
priate unit.
The further hearing was held before M. Alice Fountain, hearing
officer, on May 8, 1959, at Boston, Massachusetts. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are.
hereby affirmed.'
At the reopened hearing the only evidence introduced was that by
the Employer to show that the "Printing Specialties and Paper Prod-
ucts" Local of the International Printing Pressmen involved here, as
distinguished from a regular "Printing Pressmen" local of the Inter-
national, is not a craft union,and has not traditionally organized or
represented employees on a craft basis, but on the contrary was estab-
lished for the purpose of organizing, and has organized, employees in
the paper box industry on an industrial basis.
The first portion of this evidence consists of provisions in the Inter-
national's constitution, as follows : (1) A "Jurisdiction" provision
which first lists "printing pressmen" and several other specific related
craft categories, and then lists "printing specialty and paper products
workers covered on a industrial basis"; (2) provisions for $1.85 per
month dues for members of "Specialty Unions" as against "regular"
dues of $6.20 per month; (3) provisions for lesser "death benefits" for
members of "Specialty Unions"; and (4) provisions for the publica-
tion of two different official International journals, one to be known as
"The American Pressmen," and the other to be known as "The Spe-
cialty Worker."
The second portion of such evidence consists of various statements
in issues of "The Specialty Worker" journal, the most comprehensive
of which from the April 1957 issue is as follows :
SPECIALIZED PRINTING
Marching hand in hand with the vast expansion of the pack-
aging industry in America is the equally fast growing field of
3 For the reasons stated hereinafter , we find no merit in Local 494's objections to the
admission into evidence of certain documentary evidence.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
specialized printing. Frequently the same plant which is manu-
facturing packaging materials or products also has a department
which is printing diversified advertising messages upon their
customers' products. This may vary from the comparatively
simple printing on corrugated shipping containers to the multi-
colored, intricate printing appearing upon a vast variety of
paper and other materials such as plastic and aluminum foil.
Under these circumstances printing is but one sequence of a
series of production steps and not the main end product in itself.
Ordinarily, the printing pressmen are among the highest skilled
jobs in such a plant. Typically, however, the number of produc-
tion workers engaged in activities before and after the printing
process is far greater than the number responsible for the print-
ing operations.
We point out these matters to you to explain, in part, that print-
ing equipment is being moved into regular production plants as
a natural and logical development of modern manufacturing
methods. This does not mean, necessarily, that regular commer-
cial job shops are losing business to such plants, although some-
times this happens. Rather it indicates the recognized necessity
of printing advertising upon all packaged products which even-
tually come within the sight of a possible consumer.
As a union mainly concerned with maintaining full jurisdic-
tion over all kinds of printing presses and related equipment, we
cannot ignore these economic facts of life. We must endeavor,
as fast as we can, to offer union membership to all the production
workers in such plants.
We say all the workers because we recognize that, for a num-
ber of reasons, it would not be wise to try to separate the printing
press operations from the long chain of production links in these
semi-production line plants. Working against any possibility of
separating the printing press workers from others when we are
advocating joining our Union, are the facts that first, there usu-
ally is no sharp separation of the printing department from other
plant departments. Second, supervision often extends beyond the
pressroom. Third, other production operations may be very
close or attached to printing equipment and some 'workers are
shared between operations as the need for help varies. Fourth,
workers in the plant have a greater commonality of interest than
is the case in regular printing plants in which separate depart-
ments are established to perform distinctly different operations.
Fifth, a single union, covering all workers, in such plants tends
ROBERTSON PAPER BOX COMPANY, INCORPORATED 351
to further harmonize work relations between workers. This re-
flects to the good of all concerned, including management.
We conclude that, for selfish as well as unselfish reasons, we
must interest ourselves in bringing the workers in specialty
printing and paper products plants into our Union. In doing so
we must recognize that regular craft distinctions do not exist
and are not practical for most of such plants. It is obvious that
the full production unit is the proper unit for organization.
Normal craft union arguments are meaningless to these work-
ers. Our Specialty union membership arrangement is the ideal
answer for this kind of work groups. Such an arrangement has
served to bring union conditions to thousands of these workers
and has worked toward the elimination of unfair low wages
competition which had been prevalent in many of these specialty
plants. But we have only scratched the surface, considering the
large number of unorganized workers in these plants.
The third portion of such evidence consists of contracts between
various "Printing Specialties and Paper Products" locals and about
50 companies in the paper box industry, all of which contracts cover
overall production and maintenance units. These companies run
from coast to coast, and it is also significant that the parties to one
of these contracts are the Local involved herein and a paper box fac-
tory located only 9 miles away in the same area in Connecticut as the
Employer herein.
The foregoing evidence introduced at the reopened hearing clearly
supports the Employer's contention that the "Printing Specialties
and Paper Products" Local involved, as distinguished from a regular
"Printing Pressmen" local, is not a craft union but an industrial
union.3 Additional supporting factors may be found in that : (1)
Local 494 itself represented the employees involved herein on an
overall production and maintenance basis for 13 years prior to the
instant petition; (2) the Board in several cases has found that the
International Printing Pressmen or one of its "Printing Pressmen"
locals is a "traditional representative" entitled to craft severance of
printing pressmen in the paper box industry,4 but the instant case
appears to be the only one in which a "Printing Specialties and Paper
3 We note that in its brief Local 494 completely ignores the distinction shown between
a "Specialty" local and a regular local, which is now a key factor in the case, and treats
the two as if they were the same.
4 See, e.g., Sutherland Paper Company, 106 NLRB 524 and 112 NLRB 622; Crowell
Carton Company, 111 NLRB 528; The New Haven Pulp & Board Company, 83 NLRB
268, It should also be noted that in Sutherland, a "Printing Specialties and Parser
Products" local intervened for an overall production and maintenance unit, excluding
the pressmen sought by its International.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Products" local has even sought such a craft severance; I and (3) the
only evidence of "traditional representation in the instant case is
broad testimony that "the International Pressmen, through their
Local Union, have traditionally devoted themselves to the representa-
tion of employees in the printing industry on a craft basis," with no
specific testimony that the "Printing Specialties and Paper Products"
Local involved is such a "traditional representative."
The Board has held that a union which, by its constitution, does not
purport to represent a specific craft but may represent a multitude of
crafts or even tradesmen who may not be skilled craftsmen is not a
qualified "traditional representative" under American Potash 6 for
craft severance purposes.' In the instant case, not only the Interna-
tional constitution, but also official statements in the International
journal, a substantial number of contracts in the industry," and the
Board's administrative experience, show that the "Printing Special-
ties and Paper Products" Local involved does not qualify as a "tradi-
tional representative," particularly in the absence of any specific
affirmative evidence to support its "traditional representative" claim.
Moreover, the Board has also held that the fact that another affiliate
of a union's international may be a "traditional representative" (such.
as the "Pressmen" locals of the International here) does not establish
that the union involved is a "traditional representative." I Accord-,
ingly, we find that Local 494 is not a qualified "traditional representa-
tive" under American Potash for purposes of the alleged craft sever-
ance which it seeks, and is therefore not entitled to such severance.10
In, view of the foregoing, we affirm our original finding that only
the existing overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate,
and We shall direct an election in that unit.
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election.
In all cases such a local has sought a production and maintenance unit, and Local
494 has cited no case to the contrary . See, e . g., Sutherland Paper Company, supra;
American Forest Products Corporation , 114 NLRB 1200 . In Sutherland Paper Com-
pany, 122 NLRB 1284, cited by Local 494, the Board found that the Lithographers
International was a traditional representative of lithographic employees.
IAmerican Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
'Port Die Casting Corporation, 115 NLRB 1749. Accordingly, we find no merit in
Local 494's contention that the provisions of the International constitution should not
have been admitted into evidence because they are not relevant.
s In view of the refusal of Local 494 to produce these contracts upon request of the
Employer prior to the hearing, the fact that the Employer then obtained such contracts
directly from the employer or ,employer association involved, and the fact that Local 494
did not really question the authenticity of the contracts, we find that the objection of
Local 494 to the introduction into evidence of these contracts on the ground of "no!
proper identification" was frivolous and without merit.
6 Bazcgh & Sons Company, 11.4 NLRB 937, footnote 11.
"In view of this finding, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the question as to
whether the alleged craft unit sought is a true craft unit under American Potash.