The Mengel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 17, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD equipment usually identified with the printing trade, perform work entirely different from that of other employees, and do not share all the working conditions and benefits of the contract unit. Under circumstances substantially similar to those presented here, the Board has held that employees engaged in the operation of printing presses form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and may be represented separately from the production em- ployees.2 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that these printshop employees are essentially office clericals, and should there- fore be joined with them, for the principal equipment in their shop- the two offset presses-are not ordinarily considered office equipment. Accordingly, we conclude that the employees involved herein consti- tute a functionally distinct and homogeneous group appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and that they may be represented separately.3 We find that all employees in the printshop of the Employer's Bronx, New York City, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 Parke, Davis & Co., 85 NLRB 533. 8 Ingersoll Rand Co., 100 NLRB 1342. THE MENGEL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMER- ICA, CIO, AND INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL S-502, PETITIONER . Case No. 11-RC-476. March 17, 1953 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 Martin L. Ball, Jr., 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 ^ three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 103 NLRB No. 83. THE MENGEL COMPANY 749 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. The Employer contends that no question of commerce exists herein because the Employer has, for some years past, recognized the International Woodworkers of America, CIO, as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of its employees and urges, as a bar to this pro- ceeding a bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Inter- national expiring on January 18, 1953. We find no merit in this con- tention. The Board has frequently held that an employer' s recogni- tion of a bargaining representative does not negate the existence of a question concerning representation. The filing of a petition express- ing a desire to secure certification is itself sufficient to raise such question 2 Moreover, as the contract has now expired, it can no longer operate as a bar. We find that a question of commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .8 4. The Petitioners and the Employer contend that the only appro- priate unit is the present contract unit comprising all the Employer's maintenance and production employees at its Elizabeth City, North Carolina, plant, including powerhouse employees and watchmen. The Intervenor,4 contending that three separate departmental units com- prising (1) production in the factory, (2) employees in the mainte- nance division and powerhouse, including watchmen, and (3) em- ployees engaged in the log yard, are appropriate, requests the direction i Before the hearing, but after the International had filed its petition herein, Local S-502 filed its petition . At the hearing, the International moved to amend its petition to include Local S-502 as a petitioning party. The Employer objected on the ground that Local S-502 had failed to request recognition before filing its petition and on the further ground that the petition of Local S-502 was in conflict with the petition of the Interna- tional . We find the objection of the Employer to be without merit as we have frequently allowed amendments of petitions to substitute or add petitioning parties where it has been demonstrated that the additional party is the real or joint party in interest . ,Spandsco Oil and Royalty Company, 88 NLRB 1406 ; Aluminum Foils , Inc., 94 NLRB 806. Nor does the fact that the petitioners are joint prevent our directing an election . White Motor Com- pany, 86 NLRB 380. P General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678; John F. Humphrey, et at., 100 NLRB 571. B The Employer moved to dismiss on two additional grounds: ( 1) That Brownlee, who signed the Petitioners ' petitions , was not authorized to do so, which contention we reject because the record contains ample proof of Brownlee's authority ; and (2 ) that the Peti- tioners were members of a conspiracy with other locals of the International to force the Employer to bargain with the International on a companywide , multiplant basis in con- travention of the Board 's certification of individual single-plant units. The hearing officer properly rejected the offer of proof in support of this contention on the ground that it was not within the issues of a representation proceeding . We affirm the hearing officer's ruling upon the further grounds that we are administratively satisfied that neither of the Petitioners has ever been certified in any unit at the Employer's plant involved in this proceeding , and that even if the present and past positions of the Petitioners are incon- sistent with respect to the type of unit they seek to represent , such inconsistency is not fatal to their petition. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 101 NLRB 108. 4 The Independent Woodworkers ' Union of America , Local No. 1, was permitted to inter- vene herein upon a showing of interest in the overall unit. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of separate elections covering such units. We deny the request of the Intervenor, without deciding upon the appropriateness of the units for which the Intervenor contends, as the Intervenor, who in this re- spect has the status and obligations of a petitioner,5 has failed to make separate sufficient showings of interest to support the direction of elections claimed appropriate by the Intervenor. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Eliza- beth City, North Carolina, plant, excluding the watchmen,6 office and plant clerical employees,' and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368 ; Cadillac Motor Car Division, 94 NLRB 217. 6 As the watchmen work at night and on weekends when the plant is closed, punch clocks, and have no duties other than patrolling the plant in protection of the Employer's property , we find them to be "guards" within the meaning of the Act. Union Starch and Refining Co., 100 NLRB 567. 7 The Employer and the Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate unit should be the contract unit as defined in the bargaining agreement between them . The said agreement specifically excluded both office and plant clerical employees. ALBERT ROSSI, D/B/A AL ROSSI PRODUCE COMPANY and UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-2091. March 17,1953 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 LaFayette D. Mathews, Jr., 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 Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 em- ployees of the Employer.2 1 At the hearing the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct name of the Employer. 2 General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 890, AFL, herein called the Team- sters, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. 103 NLRB No. 85.