The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1376 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pay shall terminate 5 days after it notifies said parties as aforesaid . Loss of earnings
shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289. The backpay obligation of the Union shall include the payment of
interest, to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
Inc., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , and of a previous
similar violation by these same Respondents , (Earl D . Creager, Inc., 141 NLRB
512) the commission by Respondents of similar and other unfair labor practices may
be anticipated . Accordingly I shall recommend that Respondents be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner on the rights of employees guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
By the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By causing and attempting to cause Ohio Pipe Line Construction Company to
discriminate against its employee Richard A. Long, Respondent Union and its agent,
George E . Miller, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct Respondents also restrained and coerced employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondents did not cause or attempt to cause discrimination against Curtis
Pipes and Vernon Mann within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc.' and Local 90, Amalgamated
Lithographers of America , Independent , Petitioner. Case No.
18-RC-5534. November 4, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Alan Bruce, Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 organizations2 involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Clinton Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union, Local 711, AFL-CIO (sub.
ordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO), was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its contractual
interest in the employees herein.
144 NLRB No. 134.
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC. 1377
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer
and Intervenor contend that their current bargaining agreement,
effective from July 30,1961, to October 31, 1963, is abar to the petition.
We find this contention to be without merit. The original contract
between the Employer and Intervenor was effective from July 30,
1961, to July 30, 1963. Pursuant to a midterm reopening clause, the
parties, on August 1, 1962, extended their original contract until
October 31, 1963. The instant petition was filed on May 15, 1963. As
the petition was timely with respect to the original contract between
the Employer and the Intervenor, and Rs the new contract was a
premature extension of the original contract, we find that the current
contract does not bar the petition.3
4. The appropriate unit: The Employer, a Maryland corporation,
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of folding box cartons. The
Employer's production activities at its Clinton, Iowa, plant consist
of printing the customer's design on -boxboards and cutting and creas-
ing the boards. In a prior proceeding involving these employees,4
the Board in 1960 found that separate units of the Employer's litho-
graphic and production and maintenance employees may be appro-
priate. No union received a majority in the ensuing elections, how-
ever, and in July 1961, the Employer recognized the Intervenor as
bargaining representative in an overall unit comprising its produc-
tion and maintenance and lithographic employees. The Employer
and the Intervenor subsequently entered into collective-bargaining
agreements covering the overall unit, as described above. The Peti-
tioner now seeks to sever lithographic employees from the overall
production and maintenance unit currently represented by the Inter-
venor.5 The Employer and Intervenor contend that a separate litho-
graphic unit is inappropriate on various grounds, discussed below,
3Pacsfic Coast Association of Pulp and Paper etc ., 121 NLRB 990 Auburn Rubber
Company, Inc , 140 NLRB 919 ( Chairman McCulloch dissenting ) relied on by the Employer
in this connection is clearly inapposite There , the Board initially found that the 2-year
contract entered into between the employer and the intervenor on May 14 , 1962, was a
premature extension of the contract effective from October 24, 1960 , to December 31, 1962,
and wiis therefore not a bar to the petition filed on October 12, 1962 . The Board further
rejected the contention of the employer and the intervenor that since the original contract
was for a period exceeding 2 years , the petition was untimely even with respect to the
original contract as it was filed during the insulated period preceding the expiration date
of the first 2 years of the original contract Relying on its recently announced rule that a
contract may be a bar for a period of 3 years , the Board held that the petition was timely
with respect to the actual expiration date of the original contract Thus, in Auburn, the
Board reaffirmed the premature extension rule and was confronted solely with the issue
whether the petition was timely with respect to the original contract In the instant
case, however , there is, as noted, no question that the petition here was timely with respect
to the original contract
9 Lord Baltimore Press, Incorporated , 128 NLRB 334.
G The specific categories of employees sought by the Petitioner are lithographic produc-
tion employees , including pressmen, feeder operators , platemakers, and inkmakers, and
their apprentices , trainees, and helpers.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, further, that in the event the Board finds the lithographic pro-
duction unit to be appropriate, the offset general helpers should be
excluded therefrom.
The Employer's current operations are basically the same as they
were when the Board issued its earlier decision, except for the follow-
ing modifications : In 1960, the Employer performed its printing op-
erations by means of offset (lithographic) presses and letterpresses.
At that time, the Employer employed both lithographic and letter-
press employees.' The Employer has since purchased two roto-
gravure presses which are operated by employees in a newly created
rotogravure department. The Employer's printing department now
has four Harris-Seybold offset presses and two letterpresses, namely,
a Cottrell two-color letterpress and a two-color Miehle combination
letterpress and die-cutting press. The letterpresses currently are op-
erated only "as needed," since less than 5 percent of the Employer's
boxboard is printed by letterpress. Further, none of the Employer's
employees are presently classified as letterpress employees. Rather,
lithographic employees perform the letterpress work when necessary
and only a small portion of their time is utilized for such work. As de-
scribed below,-there is only a limited amount of interchange between
lithographic and other employees of the Employer.
The Board has frequently held that employees engaged in the litho-
graphic process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.' The record herein establishes that the Em-
ployer's lithographic employees utilize standard lithographic equip-
ment, perform usual lithographic duties, and exercise the customary
skills utilized in the traditional lithographic process. The Employer
and the Intervenor contend, however, that the lithographic unit is in-
appropriate, because (1) the Employer's lithographic employees per-
form letterpress work, (2) there is considerable interchange between
lithographic employees and other employees, and (3) there is no
formal apprentice program for lithographic employees. We find no
merit in these contentions. The record establishes that only a small
portion of the time of lithographic employees is devoted to letterpress
work. Thus, only ,5 percent of the Employer's boxboard is processed
through the letterpresses; letterpresses are not operated according to
regular schedule but rather on an "as needed" basis; and a representa-
tive of the Employer testified that no lithographic employee spends
more than 25 percent of his time on letterpress work. In view of these
circumstances, we do not believe that the fact that lithographic em-
6 The earlier decision does not indicate what percentage of the Employer's printing
operations were performed by letterpress . However, the record herein establishes that at
the time of the 1960 hearing there were at least two full-time letterpress pressmen, and
it appeals from the record that the letterpress work was a significant portion of its
printing operations.
7 See, for example , Ad-Press Corporation , 119 NLRB 564.
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC. 1379
ployees on occasion are engaged in letterpress work is sufficient reason
to deny these employees the separate representation to which they
would otherwise be entitled on the basis of their common interests
and duties. Further, with respect to the interchange between litho-
graphic and other employees, the record establishes that there is no
interchange above the classification of offset press helpers and that
otherwise such interchange amounts to less than 5 percent of the time
of the lithographic employees involved. In this respect, the instant
case is distinguishable from Pacific Press, 66 NLRB 458, where the
Board found that a separate lithographic unit was inappropriate,
relying on the fact that the interchange between offset and letterpress
employees was substantial, that it occurred on a regular basis, and
that it involved the entire offset press crew. Significant, too, is the
fact that the record here does not reflect any material change in the
extent of the interchange between lithographic and other employees
since our prior decision, in which the Board distinguished Pacific
Press and found that the amount of interchange was insufficient to
make the separate lithographic unit inappropriate. Finally, with re-
spect to the absence of a formal apprentice program for lithographic
employees, the record establishes that employees are given consider-
able on-the-job training and some classroom instruction in litho-
graphic skills and that it normally takes between 3 and 4 years of
supervised lithographic work before an inexperienced employee may
qualify for the job of offset pressman.'
In view of the foregoing, we find that the decision in Weyerhaeuser
Company, 142 NLRB 1169, in which the Board found that a separate
lithographic unit was inappropriate, is distinguishable. There, the
Employer employed both lithographic and letterpress employees; the
letterpress and offset operations were merged; and there was substan-
tial interchange between lithographic and letterpress employees.
Here, however, the Employer employs only lithographic employees ;
lithographic employees perform only a minimal amount of nonlitho-
graphic work; and there is only sporadic interchange between litho-
graphic and other employees.
We accordingly find that a separate unit of lithographic employees
may be appropriate if these employees desire to be represented
separately?
The parties are otherwise in agreement as the scope of the unit,
except that, contrary to the Petitioner, the Employer and the Inter-
venor would exclude offset general helpers from the unit. The record
indicates that offset general helpers spend most of their time in wind-
8 For the reasons stated in our earlier decision, we also find no merit in the contentions
of the Employer and the Intervenor based on the integrated nature of the Employer's
production process
eAllen, Lane & Scott, etc, 137 NLRB 223.
727-083-64-vol. 144-88
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing and repiling materials that come off the offset presses ; that the
line of progression among lithographic employees begins with offset
general helpers and continues through offset press helpers , offset feeder
operators , offset second pressmen , and offset pressmen ; and that of the
Employer's 16 offset pressmen and second pressmen , all but 3 began
in the classification of offset general helper. In view of the foregoing,
we shall include offset general helpers in the unit.'o
There remains for determination the unit placement of Neil Marsh.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that Marsh is not a supervisor,
but rather a working leadman, and therefore should be included in the
unit. The Petitioner takes no position on this issue . Marsh is
covered by the present contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor. He is an offset pressman and the leadman of the third shift,
which does not have a foreman or supervisor as such. Like the other
pressmen , he is hourly paid, receives a pressman 's rate of pay, and
has similar fringe benefits . Unlike the foremen in the plant , he does
not prepare information sheets on employees ; and while he assigns
work to other employees and relays orders from higher supervisors to
employees on his "crew ," such direction of the work does not appear
to require the use of independent judgment, but rather is of a routine
nature, reflecting the relationship of the more to the less experienced
employee. Moreover , the record indicates , and we find , that Marsh
does not have authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or change the
status of any employee , or make effective recommendations in any of
these respects. We find, therefore, that Marsh is not a supervisor and
we shall include him in the unit."
In view of the foregoing , we find that, the requested unit may be
appropriate . However, we shall make no final unit determination at
this time but shall direct that an election be conducted in the follow-
ing voting group of employees at the Employer 's Clinton, Iowa, plant :
All employees engaged in lithographic production work, including
pressmen, feeder operators , platemakers, and inkmakers , and their
apprentices , trainees , and helpers , excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees , professional employees, watchmen , guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting
group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board,
under such circumstances , finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining. In the event a majority in the voting group do
not vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their
io Robertson Sign Company , 129 NLRB 207;
u West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738.,740-741, 744-747.
ZELRICH COMPANY 1381
desire to remain a part of the existing unit represented by the Inter-
venor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Zelrich Company and International Hod Carriers , Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union
No. 518. Case No. 16-CA-1770. November 5, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 17, 1963, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case ton three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions
and modifications.2
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees and threaten-
ing them with loss of benefits if they voted for the Union. On Novem-
ber 20, Johnson, whom we find, for the reasons relied upon by the
Trial Examiner, to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
asked Waites, the employee who had brought the Union into the
plant and was the leader in the organizing campaign, what he thought
of the Union. Johnson also told Waites that if the Union came in,
1 At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent , which had cross-
examined the General Counsel's witnesses, rested without presenting any witnesses in its
behalf, but merely stated its position as to the issues herein.
As the record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and
the positions of the parties , the Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
2 We hereby correct apparently inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report, which do
not affect the ultimate findings and conclusions.
144 NLRB No. 120.