Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above , occurring,
in connection with the operations of the Charging Party in section I, 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 Union has engaged in activities violative of
Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the'
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Crowe-Gulde Cement Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning,
of the Act.
2. Amarillo General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 577,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of employers , including those listed
above in section III, B , to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, handle , or work upon products of Crowe-Gulde Cement Com-
pany, and/or to perform services for their respective employers , with an object of
forcing or requiring such employers to cease doing business with Crowe-Gulde
Cement Company, the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(4)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Sutherland Paper Company and Amalgamated Lithographers
of America , Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-3717.1 February 5,1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Iris Meyer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
1 On September 10, 1958, the Board granted the request of International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO, to withdraw its petition
In Case No . 7-RC-3796, which had been consolidated with this case.
2 For the reasons stated below , the motions to dismiss of the Employer and of Local'
1010, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, are denied.
Their requests for oral argument are likewise denied because the record and briefs
adequately state the issues and their positions.
122 NLRB No. 147.
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 1285
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and Local 1010, United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, contend that a contract bars the
instant petition on the grounds that (1) they had reached complete
agreement on all substantive provisions of their new contract prior
to the filing of the petition, and (2) the Petitioner enlarged its unit
request at the hearing, so that a new petition was in effect filed as
of that date, which was subsequent to the execution of the contract
urged as a bar.
A 1955 contract between the Employer and the Intervenor had a
terminal date of June 29, 1958, subject to automatic renewal. On
April 2, 1958, the parties executed a new contract, to be effective
May 26, 1958. The petition was filed on March 24, 1958. Because
the petition was filed before the new 1958 contract was signed, we
find that no contract bars the instant petition, even though agree-
ment as to the terms of the 1958 contract may have been reached
prior to the filing of the petition.' Nor is there merit in the Inter-
venor's contention that the unit requested was enlarged at the hear-
ing so as to render the 1958 contract a bar. In its original petition,
the Petitioner sought "all lithographic production employees," and
at the hearing it merely clarified the classifications to be included
in the unit.4 In the circumstances, we find that the clarification was
not tantamount to a new petition.' Accordingly, we find that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's lithographic pro-
duction employees, including the lithographic pressmen, assistant
pressmen, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket washer, and
multilith operators. If found by the Board to belong in the unit,
the Petitioner would also be willing to represent the stock repilers.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a plantwide unit
is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of paperboard, fold-
ing cartons, and specialty paper products. It decorates its paper
products by means of a letterpress operation not here involved, and
a Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160.
4 The petition requested "all lithographic production employees ." As indicated below,
at the hearing the Petitioner specified that it wished to represent the lithographic press-
men, assistant pressmen , helpers, utility men, platemakers , the blanket washer, and
multilith operators , and, it appropriate , to include the stock repilers.
6 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115 NLRB 1420, 1421.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the utilization of the lithographic or offset process. Engaged in
the lithographic operation are platemakers, who make the plates for
the offset presses; pressmen, assistant pressmen, helpers, and utility
men, who comprise the press crews which operate the offset presses;
and the blanket washer and stock repilers, who performs functions
essential to the operation of these presses. These employees utilize
standard lithographic equipment and supplies. They perform the
usual duties and exercise the customary lithographic skills used in
the traditional lithographic process. All of them are currently repre-
sented by the Intervenor in a plantwide unit.
The Employer argues that the employees sought by the Petitioner
do not constitute a clearly identifiable, functionally distinct, and
homogeneous group. The record, however, shows that lithographic
press crews do not work on the letterpress operations; nor is litho-
graphic process work engaged in by employees other than those
sought by the Petitioner. At the time of the hearing, the Employer
was operating three lithographic presses. Crews of four men are'
assigned to each press at peak production, resulting in a 3-shift oper-
ation with a total of 36 men on the presses, 18 repilers handling
stock, 1 blanket washer, and 9 platemakers. During slack periods,
vacations, or absences, these employees, pursuant to the provisions
of the existing contract with the Intervenor, and according to senior-
ity, "bump" other employees or each other as the workload dictates.
For those who are connected with the operation of the presses, the
line of "bumping" replacement is from pressman to assistant press-
man, utility man, helper, repiler, and, finally, to work outside the
lithographic process.
The Employer contends that such "transfers," or bumping, occur
on a weekly, daily, or even hourly basis, and is so extensive that it
results in the employees sought by the Petitioner not being primarily
engaged in lithographic work. Although the Employer's vice presi-
dent in charge of industrial relations testified that "some people are
out of that unit" [sought by the Petitioner] on a permanent or tem-
porary basis for 51.3 percent of the time, the record does not support
a conclusion that the employees sought are primarily engaged in
nonlithographic work. An analysis of the complete work histories
of all employees, for the entire period during which the Employer
has maintained the lithographic operation, was made part of the
record. It is true that these histories show transfers of at least a
week's duration, but there is no similar evidence with respect to
hourly and daily transfers, and there is nothing to indicate that the
data as to weekly transfers is not typical of all the transfers.
These work histories show the following : (a) During the period
from the beginning of the Employer's lithographic operation in
March 1955 to April 28, 1959, just prior to the hearing herein begin-
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 1287
ping April 30, 1958: None of the nine pressmen and nine assistant
pressmen ever transferred out of the lithographic operation after
being assigned to a press crew in these classifications. As to the
nine helpers who have been assigned as helpers for press crews, two
have never transferred out of the offset operation, six were trans-
ferred out for 5 days each and one was transferred out for approxi-
mately 5 weeks. And as to the nine utility men, since their assign-
ment in that classification to a press, six were transferred out of
the offset operation on a single occasion for a period of 5 days; (b)
during the period from the establishment of the plate room in June
1957 to April 28, 1958: of the nine platemakers listed on the exhibit,
six have never transferred out of the lithographic operation; one
transferred out for 6 days; one transferred out for 7 days, and later
transferred out on April 28, 1958, for a period not shown in the
record ;6 (c) with respect to the stock repilers, whose work in con-
nection with the lithographic process is most affected by a production
slowdown, the Employer's business during the past year has been
such that very few of them have spent a majority of their time in
lithographic work.'
The multilith operators, whose inclusion in the unit is also sought
by Petitioner, work in the office, physically separated, and under
different supervision, from the other employees involved herein. The
multilith operators are primarily engaged in operating multilith
machines to print forms and letters for intracompany use, rather
than for sale.
The Board has held that employees engaged in the lithographic
process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, notwithstanding a bargaining history on a broader
basis.8 In view thereof, on the basis of the facts set forth above,
and as the Petitioner is a union which traditionally represents litho-
graphic employees, we find that the offset pressmen, assistant offset
pressmen, helpers, utility men, platemakers, the blanket washer, and
stock repilers primarily engaged in the lithographic process ° may
constitute a separate appropriate unit, if they so desire.10 Multilith
g After 1 day of hearing on April 30, the hearing was recessed. On May 22 the
Employer presented additional data showing a shutdown of two presses on May 12, 1958.
This shutdown resulted in the placement of 6 pressmen in lithographic work as repilers,
and the placement of 18 offset press employees and 6 repilers in nonlithographic work.
7 However, stock repilers not primarily engaged in the lithographic process are excluded
from the voting group of lithographic employees established below.
s Fey Publishing Company, 108 NLRB 1031 ; McCall Corporation, 118 NLRB 1332, and
National Cash Register Co., 119 NLRB 486. Whether there is an historical pattern of
bargaining on a plantwide basis in the folding box industry, of which the Employer is a
part, is also not controlling in determining the appropriateness of a lithographic unit in
this case. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, 1422. We there-
fore do not decide whether, as the Employer contends, such a pattern of bargaining exists.
9 See Beckman Instruments, Inc. (Berkeley Division), 116 NLRB 963, 964; Pacific
Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 94 NLRB 477, 481-482.
10 The Employer's and Intervenor's reliance upon two earlier Board decisions involving
the Employer is misplaced. The Board's findings in those cases (106 NLRB 524 and
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operators are included by the Board in such units because the multi-
lith operation, like that of the Employer's herein, is essentially litho-
graphic in character." However, because the multilith operators in
this case are now unrepresented, they are entitled to a self-determi-
nation election.12 Accordingly, we shall vote them separately and
apart from the represented lithographic employees.
We shall not make a final unit determination at this time but shall
direct elections among the employees in the following voting groups :
(1) All multilith operators at the Employer's Kalamazoo, Michigan,
facilities, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act; and (2) all employees engaged in the lithographic
process at the Employer's Kalamazoo, Michigan, facilities, 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.
If a majority of the employees in voting group 1 vote against the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to re-
main unrepresented, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
a certification of results to such effect. However, if a majority of
the employees in voting group 1 vote for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented as part of
a lithographic unit together with the employees in voting group 2,
and their votes for the Petitioner will be added to those cast for the
Petitioner by employees in voting group 2. If a majority of the
employees in the pooled group vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire for separate representation, and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for such a unit, which the Board, under
the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. If a majority in the pooled group vote against the
Petitioner, there shall be no change in the representative status of
the employees in either voting groups, and the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group 1
do not vote for the Petitioner, and a majority of the employees in
112 NLRB 622 ), that the Employer 's printing pressmen constituted a craft group which
could be separately represented , cannot serve to preclude the establishment of a litho-
graphic unit in this case.
n National Cash Register Co., supra.
12 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134 . See also National Cash Register Co., supra,
where, unlike this case , the petitioner failed to make the necessary showing of interest to
justify a self-determination election among the multilith operators.
1 Although the Employer would include inkmen in the lithographic production unit, the
record shows those employees make ink for both letterpress and lithographic operations
and only one-fifth of this ink is used in the lithographic work. In these circumstances,
we exclude inkmen from the unit. Williams & Marcus Co ., 120 NLRB 211 ; Pacific Coast
Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 94 NLRB 477, 481.
BRR,NAARD-ALTMANN TEXAS CORPORATION 1289
voting group 2 do vote for the Petitioner, the employees in voting
group 2 will be taken to have indicated their desire for separate
representation in a unit, which the Board, under the circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for such unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation and Loyce Lovell, John S.
Torres, Julia C. Contreras, Irene Perez, Minnie . Escamilla and
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO,
Party to the Contract
International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO and
Loyce Lovell, John S. Torres, Irene Perez , Minnie Escamilla,
Julia C. Contreras, Ninfa M. Escamfilla and 'Bernhard-Altmann
Texas Corporation , Party to the Contract. Cases Nob. 89-CA=
691, 89-CA79, 59-CA-786, 89-CA-787, 89-CA-788, 89-CB 191,
89-CB-218, '89-CB-419, 89-CB-220, 89-CB-$21, and 89-CB-22L.
February 6, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 29, 1958, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
.Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondents had not engaged in and were not engaging in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaints and recommending
that the complaints be dismissed in their entirety, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
.a supporting brief; the Respondent Union filed a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and finds merit in the General Counsel's exceptions.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here-
with.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent Company had
not violated Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act by executing and
1 Except for Ming an answer, the Respondent Company did not enter an appearance
in this case.
122 NLRB No. 142