Textprint, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 18, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1101 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

TEXPRINT, INCORPORATED Texprint, Incorporated and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-12094 January 8, 1981 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE The Regional Director for Region 10 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in this proceed- ing on June 3, 1980, directing an election in a unit of "[a]ll production and maintenance employees employed at the Macon, Georgia facilities of Tex- print, Incorporated and TKG International .... "1 Contrary to the Petitioner's position, the Regional Director found that the two corporations are a single integrated operation and that all pro- duction and maintenance employees of the two firms possess a sufficient community of interest to require their inclusion in a single bargaining unit. Additionally, the Regional Director excluded Tex- print's trainer-technicians and process control clerks from the unit on the ground that they lack a community of interest with the unit employees. 2 Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, both the Employer and the Petitioner filed timely requests for review of the Regional Di- rector's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that the Regional Director erred factually and departed from Board precedents. The National Labor Relations Board, by tele- graphic order dated June 27, 1980, granted the Pe- titioner's request for review regarding the single- employer issue and the Employer's request for review with respect to the placement of the proc- ess control clerks. The election was held on June 27, 1980, with the ballots being impounded pending this Decision on Review. 3 The Employer subse- quently filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including all submissions by the parties I The Petitioner seeks to represent only those production and mainte- nance employees employed by Texprint 2 The Employer seeks to include both classifications of employees in the bargaining unit. a Consistent with Sec 102.67(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, all ballots were seg- regated into three groups as follows: (I) eligible Texprint employees, (2) TKG's production and maintenance employees, and (3) Texprint's proc- ess control clerks. 253 NLRB No. 138 with respect to the issues under review, and makes the following findings: Texprint, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, is owned jointly by Chori Company of Japan, Tokai Senko of Japan, and California Pacific Cor- poration of the United States. It is engaged in the processing and printing of fabric at its plant in Macon, Georgia. Tokai Senko is the majority shareholder of Texprint, which has approximately 100 employees. A Mr. Hosono serves as production manager and is primarily responsible for the super- vision of the Company's employees, while Sandy Holston, the personnel manager, makes all hiring decisions. The cloth which Texprint produces is printed from screens composed of mesh. Screen preparation involves the tracing and engraving of designs by skilled craftsmen. Prior to 1976, the tracing function took place in Japan and then the materials were sent to the Macon plant where Tex- print employees performed screen engraving. Tran- sit delays under this system, however, caused Tex- print severe problems in meeting production dead- lines for its customers. Consequently, in 1976, TKG International was formed as a separate corporation to produce screens at the Macon facility owned by Texprint. Tokagi-Chokoko of Japan owns 60 percent of the stock in TKG, while Tokai Senko holds the re- maining shares. TKG commenced operations by staffing its engraving department with employees who transferred from Texprint. Its tracing depart- ment was formed with new hires. Joe Williams is TKG's production manager and has ultimate con- trol over the 35 to 40 employees presently em- ployed in the tracing and engraving departments. He also has sole authority to hire new employees. Of TKG's current production, approximately 60 percent is for Texprint and the rest is for outside customers procured by a salesman working in the Carolinas. Presently, when Texprint receives an order for a particular pattern of cloth, a Texprint technician meets with Williams, TKG's production manager, and they decide the manner in which the screen should be produced. Process control clerks em- ployed by Texprint then prepare an order for the appropriate pattern and send pictures of the designs to clericals employed by both firms. Thereafter, the order is given to TKG's tracing and engraving em- ployees who work in an enclosed area on the man- ufacturing floor. After these employees produce either a rotary or flat screen depending on the pat- tern, the Texprint strike-off department makes a sample which is shown to the customer. If the cus- tomer does not approve the sample, the order goes back to the TKG tracing department where em- 1101 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees begin preparing a new screen. Otherwise, Texprint production employees print the specified pattern on cloth shipped by the customer to the Macon facility. Texprint pays cash for those screens purchased from TKG, but deducts rent for its facilities and equipment that TKG utilizes on a daily basis. The record discloses that employees of both cor- porations receive wages and fringe benefits which are virtually identical and have uniform work rules. According to the testimony of Terry Harris, Tex- print's vice president of administration, "We con- sult if one of us is considering giving a raise or change or anything like that. We consult with the others so that they are aware of it." Harris further stated," . . . we generally follow the same policy on raises . . . [but] they are not administered exact- ly the same way." Furthermore, although both cor- porations are engaged in the cloth manufacturing process, they perform dissimilar work and each has different classifications of employees. It also ap- pears from the record that those employed by TKG generally possess greater skills than do Tex- print employees, 25 percent of whom are engaged in manual labor. Evidence supporting this finding shows that there has been no interchange of em- ployees between the corporations for approximate- ly 2 years. Additionally, employees of the two firms wear different uniforms while sharing the same facilities at the Macon plant. Whereas Tex- print has three shifts of employees, all those em- ployed by TKG work from 7:30 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. TKG employees, who wear blue badges, may leave the premises during their lunch break for which they are not paid. By contrast, Texprint em- ployees wear white badges and are not permitted outside the plant during their paid lunch hour. Thus, despite the similarities in employees' wages, benefits, and work rules, there is no clear showing that the two Companies commonly arrive at labor relations policies. In its request for review, the Petitioner contends that the Regional Director erred in finding that the requested unit of Texprint's production and mainte- nance employees is inappropriate under the facts present here. It argues that the record does not show that the two firms, established as separate legal entities, are a single integrated enterprise. In doing so, the Petitioner points out that the employ- ees of both corporations are separately supervised and that each Company maintains its own bank ac- count and finance department. It also relies on the evidence that there have been few employee trans- fers since TKG was formed in 1976. Finally, the Petitioner asserts, citing Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 629 (1962), that, even assuming a unit com- posed of employees from both Companies might be appropriate in this case, such a finding does not es- tablish the inappropriateness of the single-plant unit. The Employer, on the other hand, agrees with the Regional Director's finding that the appropriate unit should include the production and mainte- nance employees of both Companies. In support of its position, the Employer contends that Texprint and TKG are a single integrated operation, as found by the Regional Director, because they have dependent operations, common ownership, and common control of labor relations. It also argues that employees of both firms possess an identical community of interest in that they share the same facilities, receive common wages and fringe bene- fits, and have uniform work rules. Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that the record establishes that Texprint and TKG con- stitute separate employers within the meaning of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the requested single-employer unit of Texprint employees is appropriate here. We note, at the outset, that the record herein plainly reveals an absence of common controlling ownership of the two Companies. Thus, while Tokai Senko is majority owner of Texprint, it holds only a 40-percent interest in TKG. Further, Takagi-Chokoko, which owns the remaining 60 percent of TKG's stock, holds no interest in Tex- print. Nor is there any evidence that Tokai Senko, the only common shareholder, exercises active con- trol over the daily operations of either Company. Instead, each corporation has a plant manager re- sponsible for its daily operations. While the evidence supports the Employer's po- sition that both corporations are integrated insofar as they combine to produce the ultimate product of Texprint, and that wage, benefit, and personnel policies are similar, there is no dispute that Tex- print and TKG are distinct corporate entities. Thus, each Company maintains separate bank ac- counts and payroll records. In addition to having its own plant manager, as described above, each Company has its own personnel who are responsi- ble for hiring and firing employees. It is also clear that Texprint purchases screens from TKG in the same manner as any other corporation would buy products from its suppliers. In turn, TKG pays rent to Texprint for the separate offices it maintains within the Macon facility. Furthermore, the simi- larities in employees' wages, benefits, and work rules have resulted from informal consultations be- tween the plant managers of each Company and, 1102 TEXPRINT, INCORPORATED thus, do not firmly establish that the corporations have common labor relations policies. Although Texprint and TKG are located in the same facility, the record shows that in their day-to- day operations they operate independently of each other. The corporations are physically situated in different areas of the plant, are under separate plant managers, and perform distinct types of work with different classifications of employees. As a conse- quence of the firms' dissimilar work, there has been virtually no interchange between their supervisory and nonsupervisory employees in recent years. In fact, it appears that retraining would be required prior to transferring an employee from one Compa- ny to the other. In view of the foregoing and the entire record, especially the degree of autonomy in the operations of each corporation, the absence of common con- trolling ownership in both firms, the lack of sub- stantial interchange of employees between Texprint and TKG, and the distinctive character of the work performed by each corporation, we find that the record establishes that the two legal entities are separate employers.4 Accordingly, we conclude in the circumstances of this case that the Texprint production and maintenance employees constitute a separate appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes. 5 There remains for consideration the unit place- ment of Texprint's process control clerks. The Re- gional Director, as noted, excluded these employ- 4 See, e.g., Milo Express, Inc. and Keystone Lawrence Transfer Company, 212 NLRB 313 (1974); Martin Outdoor Advertising Company and Sunad. Inc., Outdoor Advertising, 198 NLRB 1136 (1972). 5 The Employer also submitted, together with its brief, a motion re- questing that the Board reopen the record to receive additional evidence which would support the Regional Director's finding that Texprint, In- corporated, and TKG International are a single business enterprise. Spe- cifically, the Employer asserts that TKG has taken the following action since the hearing was conducted in this proceeding: (1) Masahiro Kawa- moto was appointed to TKG's board of directors and, thus, now serves both Texprint and TKG in this capacity; and (2) after determining that any plans to purchase a separate physical facility were not financially fea- sible, TKG's board of directors decided that the Company's operations would remain at the Texprint plant indefinitely. For purposes of ruling on the Employer's motion, we assume that it accurately describes what has transpired, and we have considered its relevance in light of the issue presented here. Having done so, we concluded that Kawamoto's presence on the board of directors of both corporations does not affect our find- ings in this case; i.e., the Employer has not alleged that Kawamoto now has controlling ownership in either corporation, that he has active con- trol over the daily operations of these Employers, or that he is responsi- ble for effectuating the labor relations policies of both firms. Further- more, in reaching our conclusions here, we are not relying on the specu- lative testimony adduced at the hearing concerning TKG's plans to pur- chase a separate facility in which to conduct its operations. Accordingly, we hereby deny the Employer's motion to reopen the record as lacking in merit since it would serve no useful purpose and only further delay the proceeding. ees from the bargaining unit because they perform clerical functions and have limited work contacts with the unit employees. The Employer would in- clude them as plant clericals. The record shows that there are 8 to 10 process control clerks whose duties are directly concerned with unit work in that they keep customers informed vis-a-vis the pro- duction process. These employees are hourly paid, receive the same fringe benefits as unit employees, have virtually no contact with office clericals, and work in an enclosed area on the production floor. In addition, they have the same supervisor as do inspection department employees, an included cate- gory. Under these circumstances, we find that the process control clerks' duties are essentially those of plant clericals and, thus, they have a substantial community of interest with the other unit employ- ees. Accordingly, contrary to the Regional Direc- tor, we shall include them in the bargaining unit. We therefore find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, in- cluding process control clerks, employed at the Macon, Georgia, facility of Texprint, In- corporated, excluding trainer-technicians, office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall direct that the ballots of the above-described employees, which have been im- pounded, be opened and counted by the Regional Director and that thereafter he take such further appropriate action as may be required by Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. DIRECTION It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for Region 10 shall, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days from the date of this De- cision on Review and Direction, open and count the valid ballots cast in the election held on June 27, 1980, and prepare and cause to be served on the parties a tally of ballots in accordance with Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, which shall thereafter be applicable to the further processing of this matter. 1103