Tongg Publishing Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 174 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tongg Publishing Co., Ltd. and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 62, Petitioner . Case No. 37-RC-685. April 20,
1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Shirley N. Bingham, 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 :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. Honolulu Typographical Union Local 37, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Typographers, contends that its outstanding collective-
bargaining contract with the Employer covering compositors also
includes strippers, and that this contract therefore bars the inclusion
of strippers in the Petitioner's proposed unit. Although the contract
contains language susceptible of the interpretation that it covers
strippers, the evidence is incontrovertible that, notwithstanding the
contract, the Typographers has not in fact bargained for such em-
ployees. Without protest from the Union, the Employer has unilat-
erally established wage rates and working conditions for the strippers.
We find the Typographers' contract does not cover strippers and
that it is therefore not a bar to the inclusion of strippers in the pro-
posed unit.'
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of lithographic produc-
tion employees, including offset pressmen, art department employees,
strippers and photoengraving department employees. Honolulu
Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union, Local 413, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Pressmen, contends that the offset pressmen should be in a
single unit with letterpressmen. The Typographers opposes the in-
clusion of the strippers in the unit. The Employer asserts that there
should be separate units of (a) offset pressmen, and (b) camera,
stripping, and platemaking employees. It also urges that the art de-
partment employees should be excluded from any unit or units.
The Employer is engaged in the business of job printing, doing both
letterpress and offset printing, and the wholesale distribution of its
1 Red Dot Foods , Inc, 114 NLRB 145.
131 NLRB No. 31.
TONGG PUBLISHING CO., LTD. 175
manufactured items. Its lithographic operation is a complete one,
running from pasteup, through camera work, stripping, and plate-
making, to the offset presses.
The offset pressmen work in a separate room on the other side of
the plant from the letterpressmen. They do not interchange with the
letterpressmen and do only lithographic work. The stripping depart-
ment employees take parts of several negatives and strip them together
to form a new negative which is suitable for the creation of a plate to
be sent to pressmen. The photoengraving department employees spend
substantially all their time in lithographic production work, photo-
graphing negatives for plates, and doing stripping and platemaking.
All the above lithographic employees utilize standard lithographic
equipment, and perform the usual duties and exercise the customary
skills involved in the traditional lithographic process. The artists,
although hired on the basis of their creative talents, spend most of
their time doing pasteup work, that is, preparing the drawings on a
sheet to be photographed.
The offset pressmen are presently represented by the Pressmen in
a single unit together with the letterpressmen. There is no collective-
bargaining history for the other employees in the Petitioner's proposed
unit.
The unit sought, including the artists,2 constitute all the employees
engaged in the lithographic process. The Board has held that such em-
ployees may constitute an appropriate unit notwithstanding that some
of them have been included in a different unit .3 The Petitioner is a
union which traditionally represents lithographic production em-
ployees. Accordingly, the unit sought may be appropriate. However,
because the strippers, photoengravers, and artists are now unrepre-
sented, they are entitled to a self-determination election before being
merged in a broader unit.4 But before any elections may be held, the
Board must be administratively satisfied that the petitioning union
has a sufficient representative interest in the group of employees in
question 5 In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make the
necessary showing of interest among the presently unrepresented em-
ployees. Inasmuch as the offset pressmen alone would not constitute
an appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 As the artists spend most of their time doing lithographic work, they properly belong
in the unit with other lithographic process employees Johnson Printing, Inc, 92 NLRB
1426, 1427.
sHarvey Paper Products Company, Division of Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Com-
pany, 116 NLRB 1624.
4Aerojet General Corporation, 129 NLRB 1492 (Members Fanning and Kimball dis-
senting) ; Sutherland Paper Company, 122 NLRB 1284
s Aerojet General Corporation, supra
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
I dissent from the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner has made
the necessary showing of interest among the offset pressmen to warrant
an election to determine whether they wish to sever themselves from
the existing unit. This is a necessary first step to the establishment of
the lithographic process unit the Petitioner seeks to represent. The
Petitioner also has the necessary showing of interest in that litho-
graphic process unit which is appropriate to justify the election
therein. Petitioner is not seeking to add the presently unrepresented
lithographic process employees to an existing unit. It seeks to com-
bine certain unrepresented employees with employees now represented
by another union, the combined group constituting an appropriate
unit. To justify severance of the offset pressmen, Petitioner must of
course demonstrate a showing of interest. It has done so. To justify
an election in the appropriate lithographic unit, it must also demon-
strate a 30 percent showing of interest in that unit. It has done so.
There is simply no justifiable reason for not holding this election .6
8 See dissenting opinion of Members Fanning and Kimball in Aerojet General Corpora-
tion, 129 NLRB 1492.
T.I.L. Sportswear Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America (AFL-CIO). Case No. 26-CA-934 (for-
merly 15-CA-1576). April 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 9, 1960, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her
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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleged that Respond-
ent had failed or refused to hire Roxie Lee Bagwell in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1). Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The
1 At the hearing, the Charging Party moved to strike Respondent's answer to the com-
plaint and for summary judgment on the pleadings because of Respondent 's failure to
serve a copy of the answer upon it, as prescribed by Section 102.21 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations . The Respondent had filed a timely answer and had served it upon the
General Counsel . The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner and a request to the
Board for special permission to file an interim appeal from the Trial Examiner 's ruling
was also denied by the Board . The Charging Party asserts in its exceptions that the
131 NLRB No. 28.