The Standard Register Co.

In the Matter of THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and THE DAYTON PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION' No. 54, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-408--Decided June'30, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William A. McGowan, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Dayton Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 54, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL, herein called the Petitioner, and Amalgamated Lith- ographers of America, Local No. 33, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of house printing and bindery department employees of the Employer. The Employer contends, however, that the unit sought is inappropriate in view of the ' United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local No. 768, CIO, herein called the UE, entered an appearance on the record , but thereafter withdrew its interest without moving to intervene in the proceeding. - 84 N. L. R. B., No. 100. 939 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD history of collective bargaining involving these employees on a more comprehensive basis 2 The Intervenor agrees with the Employer, but asserts that'in the event the Board finds that the- proposed unit is appropriate, the Intervenor should represent the multilith machine operator. The Employer is engaged at its plant in Dayton, Ohio, in the manu- facture of continuous business forms and attachments. Its plant is divided into a number of departments, including a house printing and bindery department with which we are herein concerned. The house printing and bindery department is located on the main floor of the plant, and is a nonproduction department physically separated from the Employer's production departments. Its operations consist pri- marily of printing letter heads, accounting supplies, calling and business cards, and catalogues for the Employer's own use. Occa- sionally, when an order requires special file punching which cannot be done on the production presses, such work is taken to the bindery section. Approximately 60 percent of the Employer's internal print- ing work is performed by the house printing and bindery department and the remaining 40 percent by commercial printing shops. The unit proposed by the Petitioner is composed of five house print- ing and bindery department employees.3 Of these five employees one is classified as a Miehle cylinder pressman, one as a multilith machine operator, two as job press feeders and binders, and one as a job pressman and binder. These employees are under the supervision of a departmental supervisor who is directly responsible to the plant's general superintendent. They have substantially the same hours and general working conditions as the employer's production and mainte- nance employees.. The Miehle cylinder pressman is in a training status and devotes all his time to operating the Miehle cylinder press. The multilith machine operator spends approximately 90 percent of his time in the operation of the multilith press and approximately 10 percent on the paper cutter ,which is a bindery operation. The job press feeders and binders are engaged in feeding job presses and spend approximately 50 percent of their time in such duties, and the remain- ing 50 percent performing bindery work such as operating paper drills, stapling machines and folding machines. The duties of the job pressman and binder consist of setting up the job presses for the S Since 1943, the Employer has recognized and has bargained with the UE as the collective bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees , including the employees in the house printing and bindery department. It has also recognized and bargained with the Petitioner as representative of its production pressmen, and with the Intervenor as representative of its lithographic employees. There is one other employee in this department who is engaged exclusively in bindery work. The Petitioner does not desire to represent this employee, nor do any of the other parties dispute her exclusion from the unit. THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY 941 press feeders and setting up bindery machines such as the paper drill, the stapler and stitcher, and the folding machine. Approximately 60 percent of his time is spent on the job presses and the remaining 40 percent in the bindery. The record shows that some of the foregoing employees are interchangeable, and that whenever the volume of work requires it, they may be temporarily detailed to other depart- ments such as the collating department; under similar circumstances, collating department employees are temporarily shifted into the bind- ery section of the house printing and bindery department. We find nothing in the record to -indicate, nor 'does ;the petitioner contend, that the employees in the house printing and bindery depart- ment comprise a group of recognized craftsmen. Moreover the rec- ord discloses no special community of interests apart from the em- ployer's production and maintenance employees. In view of these circumstances, including the fact that they have been represented in the same unit with the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees, we perceive no justification for severing the employees in question from the existing production and maintenance unit. Accord- ingly, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition 4 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be, and it' hereby is, dismissed. • • - t - - , - 4In view of the above determination, we find it unnecessary to pass upon, the contention raised by the Employer that its contract with the UE constitutes a 'bar to the present proceeding. 853396-50-vol. 84-63