W.H. Kistler Stationery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

Imthe Matter of W. H. KISTLER STATIONERY CO., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOOKBINDERS , LOCAL UNION 29-58, A. F.
OF L., PETITIONER,
Case No. 17-R-1445. Decided September 5, 1946
Messrs. Irving Hale, Jr., and Robert L. Semple, both of Denver,
Colo., for the Employer.
Messrs. Edward J. Scheunemann and George V. McDowell, both of
Denver, Colo., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin T. Camacho, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board con-
ducted on June 7, 1946, a prehearing election pursuant to-Article III,
Section 3, of the Board's Rules and Regulations among employees of
the Employer in the unit hereinafter found appropriate, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by the Petitioner for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the par-
ties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 36 eligible voters
and that 30 of these eligible voters cast valid ballots, of which 16 were
for the Petitioner, 14 were against, and 1 other ballot cast was chal-
lenged. '
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of the Rules and
Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Howard W. Kleeb, Trial Examiner. The hearing was
held at Denver, Colorado, on July 2, 1946. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
70 N. L . R. B., No. 105.
1195
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
W. H. Kistler Stationery Co. is a Colorado corporation , having-its
principal office and place of business in Denver , Colorado, and is en-
gaged in the printing, furniture, mimeograph and stationery business.
The Employer's gross annual sales amount to approximately $984,000,
30 percent of which is derived from the printing department.
Approximately 11.7 percent of the printing production is shipped
annually to points outside the State of Colorado, and over 25 percent
is delivered to companies directly engaged in interstate commerce.
Some of the items delivered to these companies are in turn sent out
of the State of Colorado by the companies to their branch offices. The
Employer's annual purchases of raw materials used in the printing
department amount to approximately $100,000, 90 percent of which
is obtained from firms within the State of Colorado.
The Employer purchases approximately 95 percent of the products
used in the operation of the furniture , stationery , and mimeographing
departments from sources outside the State of Colorado. The Em-
ployer derives approximately 70 percent of its total annual income
f ioiii the latter three departments.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING RFPRESEN TATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of, the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit should consist of
all the Employer 's employees in the bindery department, including the
wrapping girls ( apprentices ), but excluding bundle boys, errand boys,
W. H. KISTLER STATIONERY CO. 1197
porters, and multilith operators. The parties, However, are in dispute
as to the inclusion of the bindery department foreman in the appro-
priate unit. The Petitioner seeks to include him while the Employer
would exclude this employee.
The Employer, although it recognizes that as a general rule foremen
in the printing trades are included in rank-and-file bargaining units,'-
nevertheless contends that the foreman here in dispute falls within
that line of exceptions recognized by the Board in such cases as Matter
of Country Life Press Corporation,' in that his functions are man-
agerial as well as supervisory in nature. In the Country Life case,
the general foreman was excluded from the bargaining unit for the
reason that, in addition to supervisory authority, he possessed man-
agement responsibilities, conferred with other department heads to
plan the progress of the Company's business, and was expected to
familiarize himself with the work of other departments and to visit
other plants.
The record indicates that the foreman here in_dispute consults with
other department heads for the smooth production and progress of the
work, that lie has complete charge of the bindery department, has au-
thority to hire and discharge, is responsible for all its operations, such
as production schedules, maintenance and training of new employees;
that while he devotes some of his time to manual work he is primarily
occupied with matters of supervision. However, be does not par-
ticipate in formulating over-all employer policy though on occasions
he is consulted by top management on matters pertaining exclusively
to his department. Like the employees under his supervision he works
the same hours, is paid on an hourly rate, punches a time clock, and
has the same A acation privileges, and does not participate in the bonus
plan enjoyed by top management.
From the foregoing facts and on the basis of the entire record, we
are of the opinion that the.foreman Here in dispute is within the class
of foremen traditionally included in bargaining units in the printing
trades, and we shall so include hi 111.3
There are no other disputes as to the inclusion of employee cate-
gories and we find that all employees in the Employer's bindery de-
partment, including the wrapping girls (apprentices) and the fore-
man, but excluding bundle boys, errand boys, porters, and multilith
operators, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
1 See Matter of 1V F. Hall Printing Company, 51 N L. R B 640, and cases therein cited ;
Matter of Service Printers , Incorporated, 54 N. L R B. 1082.
9 51 N. L. R. B. 1362.
8 Matter of Harlich Manufacturing Co._ 55 N L. R B.1420-
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election. We shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit 4
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, Local Union 29-58, A. F. of L., has been designated and
selected by a majority of all employees of W. H. Kistler Stationery
Co., Denver, Colorado, in its bindery department including the wrap-
ping girls (apprentices) and the foreman, but excluding bundle boys,
errand boys, porters, and multilith operators, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section
9. (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
The one challenged ballot mentioned, supra, not being determinative in the election, was.
not in issue at the hearing.