The Plimpton Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 975 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

THE PLLIIPTON PRESS 975
The Plimpton Press i and Local 3, Amalgamated Lithographers
of America," Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-7013. January 31, 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 Evan J. Spelfogel, 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 3
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to sever, from an existing unit of all press-
room employees, a unit of lithographic production employees, includ-
ing offset pressmen, assistants and floormen, apprentices, cameramen,
platemakers, and strippers. The Employer and the Intervenors con-
tend that such a unit is inappropriate.
The Employer has engaged in letterpress printing for many years.
In the latter part of 1961, it purchased a number of offset printing
presses and began to do lithographic work also. The Employer and
the Pressmen, whose contract had become effective September 1, 1960,
extended their contract to cover the lithographic production employees
shortly after lithographic production began.
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
The Petitioner' s name appears as amended at the bearing.
The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record and briefs adequately present the facts and the positions of the parties
' Norwood Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union Local 85 and International Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO (herein called the
Pressmen ), Boston Typographical Union No. 13 ( herein called the Typographers), and
Boston Electrotypers ' Union No. 11 (herein called the Electrotypers ) were allowed to
intervene to protect their contractual interests.
5 As discussed hereinafter, we find that the unit sought by Petitioner does not include
any of the employees represented by the Electrotypers or the Typographers , and hence
we find no merit in the contention of these parties that their contracts with the Employer
constitute a bar to the petition herein. Nor does the contract of the Pressmen constitute
a bar to the petition. The Pressmen 's contract with the Employer was due to expire on
September 2, 1962. As the petition herein was filed on June 29, 1962 , within the 90- to
60-day period preceding the terminal date of the contract , we find that the petition was
timely and that the Pressmen 's contract is no bar. Leonard Wholesale Meats, Inc,
136 NLRB 1000.
140 NLRB No. 88.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer and the Pressmen contend that the only appropriate
unit is one which embraces the whole pressroom, i.e., the same unit
which the Pressmen represents. They contend that past practices, sub-
stantial interchange among letterpress and lithographic employees,
and integration of the Employer's overall press operations preclude the
establishment of a separate lithographic production unit. The Elec-
trotypers contends that its contract with the Employer covers the
offset platemakers, and hence the unit petitioned for is inappropriate,
or, in any event, that the platemakers must be excluded from whatever
unit is found appropriate. The Typographers contends that its con-
tract covers certain offset preparatory employees, including camera-
men, strippers, and platemakers, and that these categories must be
excluded.
The record does not support the contentions of the Electrotypers or
the Typographers. The contracts of both these Unions were executed
at a time when the Employer did not have any lithographic produc-
tion employees, and we are satisfied from the record that coverage
of the future offset employees was not contemplated at that time.
The contentions of the Employer and the Pressmen are also without
merit. They point to the fact that all presses are located close to
each other, that the Employer has a common apprenticeship program,
that all work in the pressroom is similar, and that the interchange
of employees between letterpress and lithographic work is "substan-
tial." They urge us to follow our decision in Pacific Press, Inc., 66
NLRB 458, wherein we denied severance of a lithographic unit.
Despite the circumstances relied on by the Pressmen and the Em-
ployer, the record shows that 80 percent of all pressroom employees
spend 90 percent of their time doing either letterpress or,lithogTaphic
work. There is very little interchange among press operators, and,
as a matter of fact, most of the letterpress operators are not trained
to do offset work. Most of the interchange that does take place in-
volves press assistants, and even that is relatively insubstantial.
Though the record thus shows that some of the pressroom employees
are, on occasion, subject to assignment on either letterpresses or off-
set presses, it is clear that the Employer's general practice has been
to assign a basic crew to do lithographic work, and another to do
letterpress work. In view of the foregoing, the instant case is readily
distinguishable from the Pacific Press case, supra, where the inter-
change was substantial; occurred on a regular or operational basis;
and involved the entire press crew. We are persuaded that the inter-
change herein was neither substantial nor regular. Therefore, we
find that a separate unit of lithographic production employees may
be appropriate, if the employees desire to be represented separately.'
8 See Danner Press of Canton, Inc, 91 NLRB 237; Standard Printing & Litho graphing
Co, 114 NLRB 1439; and Allen, Lane & Scott, at at., 137 NLRB 223.
HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 977
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting group of employees at the Employer's place of
business in Norwood, Massachusetts :
All employees engaged in lithographic production work at the
Employer's place of business in Norwood, Massachusetts, in-
cluding offset pressmen, assistant offset pressmen and floormen,
apprentices, offset pressmen, the cameraman,'' platemakers, and
strippers involved in the lithographic process, and Foreman
Kinney,' but excluding all other employees, the ink matcher,9
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group
vote for Local 3, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, they will
be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for that unit. If a majority of the employees in the voting
group vote for Norwood Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
Local 35 and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the overall unit now represented by
the Pressmen, and the Regional Director will issue a certification
of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
I Although , at the time of the hearing , the Employer did not have a cameraman in its
employ, it had already purchased camera equipment and was searching for a qualified
lithographic cameraman . As the cameraman is an appropriate part of a lithographic unit,
we shall include this category in the unit found appropriate.
'The Petitioner contends that Foreman Kinney is a supervisor , and should hence be
excluded from the unit ; the Employer contends he is not a supervisor . He is classified
as a working foreman, and he spends 70 percent of his time as a regular crew member.
He does not attend supervisors ' meetings , and all his responsibilities are of a routine
nature. We are satisfied from the record that Kinney is not a supervisor as defined in
the Act, and hence include him in the unit 'found appropriate.
g The Petitioner contends that the ink matcher should be excluded . In view of the
fact that no one objects to his exclusion , and that he spends the vast majority of his time
working with letterpress inks, we shall exclude him.
Haynesville Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-2080.
February 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 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
140 NLRB No. 86.