Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1169 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1169
also drove by the homes of the same three employee organizers who were in meetings
at the Massey Motel.
Rodgers has been discredited in his efforts to cover up the fact that his business in
Anderson over a period of time included duties related to the Union's organizing
drive at Respondent's plant. In consideration of all the factors described,1i I find
Rodgers' explanations for the alleged surveillance activities implausible and unsatis-
factory; I do not credit them. On the affirmative side, the evidence is sufficient that
Rodgers, at times with Sam Jordan, was deliberate in seeking to observe the meeting
place at Pedigo's motel, and the homes and activities of the Aliens and McKinney.is
It is not necessary separately to make findings on each of the incidents in the testi-
mony. For the various reasons indicated, I conclude on the collective evidence in
the record as a whole that Respondent unlawfully engaged in surveillance in violation
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, as alleged.20
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2 By engaging in surveillance of employees' union meetings and activities, and
those of Union Agent Pedigo, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended order omitted from publication.]
18 As well as Rodgers' demeanor on the stand
10 E g, Tra-Line Metal Products Company, et al , 138 NLRB 964
20Id., New England Die Casting Company, supra, Dal-Tex Optical Co., supra
Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 22, Petitioner . Case No. 21-RC-8091. June 17,
1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On February 8, 1963, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first
Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-
entitled proceeding. Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor,'
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
'Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union, District Council No. 2, International
Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as
the Intervenor, was permitted to Intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a prior certi-
fication and a current collective-bargaining agreement with the Employer
142 NLRB No. 127.
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board timely requests for
review of such Decision and Direction of Election on the grounds,
inter alia, that substantial questions of fact and policy were raised
with respect to the Regional Director's unit determination 2 By tele-
graphic Order dated March 19, 1963, the Board granted the requests
for review and stayed the election pending its decision on review.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the
following findings :
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of lithographic production em-
ployees from a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's La
Puente, California, plant. The Employer is engaged in the manufac-
ture of folding paperboard cartons at the La Puente plant, which are
decorated by either the letterpress or the offset process (lithography),
or a combination of the two. The Employer and the Intervenor con-
tend that only a plantwide unit, which is covered by their current
contract, is appropriate. The Regional Director found that the em-
ployees in the requested unit possess and exercise the skills associated
with typical lithographic work, and are the type of employees accorded
separate representation by the Board. Accordingly, he directed a self-
determination election. The Employer and the Intervenor sought, and
we have granted, review of this determination.
In December 1960 the Board, upon separate petitions filed by the
Intervenor and the Petitioner, respectively, directed elections in a
production and maintenance unit and in a voting group of lithographic
pressmen at the plant involved herein.' As a result, the Intervenor
was certified as the bargaining representative of all the production and
maintenance employees, including the lithographic pressmen.' On
April 6, 1961, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract
which, as extended, is to be effective until February 27, 1964.
Of the 14 employees in the printing department at the time of the
hearing, 4, the first pressman, second pressman, feeder-operator, and
press tender, work on the offset press platform; 3, the pressman, feeder,
and helper, work on the letterpress during the day shift, and 3 simi-
larly classified employees work on the same press during the night shift.
Two floorboys are assigned to the day shift and an equal number to
2In view of our dismissal of the petition on the ground the requested unit is inappro-
priate for severance, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the contract -bar contention raised
on review by both the Employer and the Intervenor.
s Weyerhaeuser Company, 129 NLRB 998.
At the time of the hearing in the 1960 case, the lithographic employees were in a sepa-
rate department , with separate immediate supervision , seniority, and line of progression.
Since then the Employer 's lithographic work has contracted , the offset presses being reduced
from 3 to 1, and the lithographic complement from a maximum of 14 to 6, and a single
supervisor is in charge of both offset and letter press operations , with a single line of
progression and the same seniority rules for both groups , as more fully discussed hereinafter.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1171
the night shift. The shipping department employees deliver the
paperboard stock to the offset and letter presses which are located in
the same room. Thereafter, the floorboys place the stock into positions
on both type presses. After completion of the letterpress or the litho-
graphic operations, the printed stock is moved from the press area to
the "printed stock" area where it is stacked by the floorboys for drying
purposes. The printed stock is later taken to the cutter area where it
is cut and scored to form cartons. Thereafter, the cartons are trans-
ported to another area where they are glued, waxed, and assembled.
About 2 years ago the Employer virtually eliminated its letterpress
operation, with the exception of a single, one-color printing press
operated by one man. However, approximately a year ago the Em-
ployer increased its letterpress operations upon the installation of a
three-color letterpress. During the past year other changes in print-
ing techniques likewise have occurred at the Employer's plant. For
example, a single carton is printed by being run through both offset
and letter presses. In another instance, a carton is initially processed
by offset but varnished on a letterpress. Since the institution of these
changes in printing techniques, it is quite common for a particular
carton to be processed by either type of presses, depending upon con-
venience in scheduling. In the latter part of 1962, the Employer also
introduced an innovation known as letterset, which employs the letter-
press printing technique on an offset press. This new process involves
the use of plastic plates, which, like letterpress plates, contain a raised
surface for that portion which is to be printed. Unlike the litho-
graphic process in which the impression is transferred from a flat sur-
face metal plate to an intermediate rubber blanket which, in turn,
"offsets" it on the paper, the ink transfer is essentially the letterpress
technique, i.e., the ink is applied only to the raised portion which does
the printing.
All printing department employees, irrespective of classification, are
treated uniformly under the recent collective-bargaining agreement
for purposes of determining seniority with respect to such matters as
promotions, layoffs, and vacation preferences. The record reveals that
the Employer's innovation of changes and new processes has affected
its recent personnel actions relating to promotions as described below.
Thus, as to current promotions, an employee, hired as a floorboy, there-
after advances first to helper on the letterpress and later to helper on
the offset press. He afterwards progresses to feeder operator on the
offset press, later to pressman on the letterpress, and finally in the line
of progression to second and first pressman on the offset press.5
5 'Several years ago when the offset process was the principal production method, most
promotions reflected the upgrading of employees on the lithographic first shift to higher
positions on the then newly created second and third shifts . However, the picture was
reversed about a year ago upon the installation of the three-color letterpress.
712-548-64-vol. 142-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to interchange, the record reveals that during the past 6 months,
the single-color letterpress, which is only utilized occasionally, has
been operated about half its operating time by the offset press tender
who functions on such occasions as pressman. Likewise, as the neces-
sity arises, letterpress personnel assist in the daily washup of the litho-
graphic press, which normally is performed by the press tender and
the feeder operator on that press and the two floorboys. Working
hours for all production employees, letterpress and offset alike, are the
same except when there is continuous operation of the same type of
press. All employees, irrespective of classification, punch in at the
same timeclock, use the same lunchrooms, and enjoy identical fringe
benefits.
In support of their requests for review, the Employer and the In-
tervenor urge, inter alia, that because of the single promotional
sequence now followed at the Employer's plant involved, together with
the substantial interchange between lithographic employees, on the one
hand, and letterpress employees, on the other, the unit of lithographic
production employees requested for severance is inappropriate. We
agree. It is clear from the record in this proceeding that the Employer,
since the issuance of the Board's decision in 1960 involving this plant,
has instituted substantial changes which have resulted in the merger
of its letterpress and offset operations into a single printing depart-
ment with common immediate supervision and a single line of progres-
sion that ignores craft considerations for purposes of promotion and
results in substantial interchange between employees primarily en-
gaged in either of the two printing functions. In the circumstances,
we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that a unit of lithographic
production employees cannot appropriately be severed from the pro-
duction and maintenance unit at the Employer's La Puente Plant.'
Accordingly, as the unit requested is inappropriate for severance on a
craft or any other basis, we shall dismiss the petition.7
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
6 See Pacific Coast Association, 130 NLRB 1031. In that case the Board held that litho-
graphic employees could appropriately be severed in two plants of the employer, as "the
lithographic employees attain seniority in a progression system separate from other
printing department employees . . . In two other plants of the same employer, the
Board denied severance for lithographic employees as "the record shows that the litho-
graphic employees ate on the same seniority and progression ladder as the letterpress
employees at these plants, and that they frequently interchange between letterpresses and
lithographic presses and exercise priority in moving front one type of press to the other as
required by fluctuations in the workloads."
7 Cf. Allen , Lane d Scott , 137 NLRB 223; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. N L R B., 311 F. 2d 19
(C A. 7) (1962)