Ewing Printing Co.

In the Matter of EWING PRINTING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMAL- GAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 22, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-Z57.-Decided July 18, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, .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 National Rela- tions Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reyn- -olds and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: 1 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations claim- ing to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2 4. The Petitioner seeks, to represent a unit of all lithographic pro- -duction employees of the Employer. The Intervenor contends that the appropriate unit consists of all the Employer's pressroom employees, including those who operate letterpress printing presses as well as 1 As the record in this case, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties, the motion for oral argument made by Los Angeles Printing Press- men and Assistants Union No . 78, herein called Intervenor , is hereby denied. 2 The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer, which by its terms purports to cover the Employer's pressmen , and provides for a term from November 3, 1947, to May 3, 1949, bars this proceeding . The contract contains no automatic renewal provision , but provides that after May 3, 1949, either party may change or terminate the contract on giving 60 days' notice. As the initial 18-month term of the contract has ex- pired, and as the contract by its terms has become one terminable at will , we find that it is no bar to this proceeding. Matter of Mid-Continent Coal Corporation, 82 N. L. R. B. '261. Furthermore we find, as set forth in paragraph 4, infra, that the lithographic employees have not in fact been covered by the provisions of this contract. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 44. 237 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD those who operate lithographic or offset presses. The Employer takes no position. Originally, the Employer was engaged in letterpress printing only, and since 1942, has conducted this phase of its business in a plant lo- cated on Virgil Avenue in Los Angeles. In 1945, the Employee pur- chased an additional plant on Sunset Boulevard in the same city which it used exclusively for lithographic printing. In October 1948, the Employer closed its Sunset Boulevard plant and moved all of its litho- graphic equipment to the Virgil Avenue plant which had been enlarged to house it. Since that time, the Employer has operated a "combina- tion shop" at the Virgil Avenue address doing both lithographic and letterpress printing. The Employer's shop is divided, into four departments : composing room, plate room, pressroom, and bindery. The employees that the Petitioner seeks to represent work in the plate room and pressroom. Both letterpress and lithographic presses are installed in one large pressroom which is supervised by a single pressroom superintendent. As stated above,. the Intervenor opposes the Petitioner's request for a unit of lithographic production employees and asserts that a unit of all the Employer's pressmen is appropriate.3 We do not agree. While it is true that the lithographic and letterpress pressmen work in the same pressroom under a common supervisor, the record discloses that there is no interchange of pressmen between the lithographic and the printing presses.4 Furthermore, until approximately. the time of fil- ing of the petition herein, the lithographic employees were not a part of the unit bargained for by the Intervenor. The record discloses that the lithographic production workers, who were transferred to the Virgil Avenue plant in October 1948, had not been covered by the In- tervenor's contract with the Employer. On the contrary, the Employer had recognized the wage scale established by the Petitioner for litho- graphic employees, and, for 3 years had hired its lithographic workers through the Petitioner's organization. Finally, the record before us indicates that the pattern of bargaining for lithographic production employees in the Los Angeles area does not constitute an exception to the traditional bargaining pattern throughout the printing industry generally. Exclusive of the lithographic production workers em- 3 See Matter of Pacific Press, Inc., 66 N. L. R. B. 458. 4 From 1942 until 1945, printing pressmen operated a multilith press, which is a type of lithographic press, in the Employer's Virgil Avenue plant. However, when the Employer purchased the Sunset Boulevard plant, it installed this press among the lithographic presses in that plant , where it was operated by lithographic pressmen . With the closing of the Sunset Boulevard establishment and the moving of all the lithographic equipment to the Virgil Avenue plant, the multilith press was also moved and is now in the pressroom of the latter plant. It has thus far, however , been operated by the lithographic pressmen exclusively. EWING PRINTING COMPANY 239 ployed at the plant of Pacific Press,5 there are approximately 370 lithographic workers in the Los Angeles area. The Petitioner has contracts covering approximately one-third of these employees. Of the remainder, approximately one-half are members of the Petitioner and work under wage scales and other conditions of employment established by the Petitioner. The Board has frequently considered the skills and techniques inci- dent to the lithographic process and has held that absent "unusual circumstances," all employees engaged in the lithographic process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' We do not believe that we should depart in this case from our finding that a unit of employees engaged in the lithographic process is appropriate? We find that all the employees engaged in lithographic production at the Ewing Printing Company, Los Angeles, California, excluding cutters, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work 5 See Matter of Pacific Press , Inc., supra, wherein the Board found appropriate a unit of letterpress and lithographic pressmen, because of the unique practices of the Company and the absence of evidence that the traditional bargaining pattern had extended to the Los Angeles area. There are approximately 55 lithographic production workers there employed, who are all represented by the Intervenor . Other than these employees the record indicates that the Intervenor represents approximately 45 lithographic employees in the Los Angeles area, a majority of whom work only on multilith presses. 9 Matter of Manz Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B. 211, and cases cited therein. ' The Intervenor suggests in its brief that, as an alternative , the Board might find a unit consisting of all the employees in the Employer ' s mechanical departments appropriate. However, this unit is larger in scope than the unit presently represented by the Intervenor, and the Intervenor has not submitted any additional showing of a representative interest. Moreover , under the circumstances in this case, we would in any event direct a separate election for the employees engaged in the lithographic process to ascertain their desires as to separate representation. 8 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 22, C. I. 0., or by Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 78, or by neither.