Danner Press of Canton, Inc.

In the Matter of DANNER PRESS OF CANTON, INC., EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 20, CIO, PETI- TIONER Case No. 8-RC-916.---Di sided September 14, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Garver, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner requests a unit composed of all lithographic pro- ductiow employees of the Employer, excluding all other employees 2 I International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL, appear- ing on behalf of Canton Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 241 , herein called the Intervenor, contends that its contract with the Employer executed on April 9, 1949, is a bar to this proceeding . The contract was effective until April 9, 1950 , subject to automatic renewal in the absence of written notice to modify or terminate given by either party 60 days prior to the expiration date. Notice to renegotiate a new contract was given by the Intervenor on February 7, 1950 , and the petition herein was filed on June 7, 1950. It is clear under well-established Board precedents that the Intervenor 's notice effectively forestalled the automatic renewal of the contract. The G. A. Gray Company, 88 NLRB 962. Accordingly , we find that the contract cannot operate as a bar. We also find no merit in the Intervenor's contention that because the original contract provided that all disputes regarding a new contract , which could not be settled by conciliation, should be determined by an arbitration board, the contract was not terminated and is a bar. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate is denied for the reasons given below. 0 The parties stipulated and the record shows that pursuant to a consent election agree- ment the International Mailers ' Union, Akron Mailers' Union No. 82 , was certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative of all employees of the Employer in the bindery, shipping , and mailing departments including inside and power truckers and machine operators. 91 NLRB No. 43. 237 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the appropriate unit consists of all pressroom employees of the Employer, including em- ployees who operate letterpress printing presses as well as those who. operate offset or lithographic presses, as currently represented by the Intervenor.' The parties also disagree as to the supervisory status of working foremen. The Employer operates what is known in the printing industry as a "combination shop," that is, one which does both letterpress and lithographic printing. Its plant, which performs no platemaking; and is exclusively a printing plant, consists of a large one-story build- ing divided into three parts : A manufacturing area, a warehouse area,, and offices. The manufacturing area consists of a large room, one end of which is occupied by the offiset press and the letterpress, the only two presses involved herein, and the other end by the bindery; the shipping and warehouse areas are adjacent to the manufacturing area but are located in separate rooms. The Employer's operations are under the supervision of the plant. manager, who is assisted by a bindery foreman, a shipping room fore- man, and a working foreman on the offset press and letterpress, re- spectively. There are approximately 20 employees employed on the. 2 presses, 8 of whom are journeymen, 5 are apprentices, 4 are helpers,, and 3 are joggers or fly boys. All employees of the Employer havet substantially the same working conditions and employee benefits.. The Board has frequently. considered the skills and techniques inci- dent to the lithographic process and has held that, absent unusual cir- cumstances, all employees engaged in the lithographic process form a. cohesive unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining ' However, the Board did make an exception in the Pacific Press case' where the operations of the employer were found to be unique in the. industry. Relying on the exception expressed in that case, the Employer and Intervenor contend that the facts in this case are sub- stantially similar, in that there allegedly is regular and continual interchange between letterpress and offset press. employees, a factor relied upon by the Board in the Pacific Press case. The record shows,- 3 The record shows that in April 1949 the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a collective bargaining contract covering the Employer 's pressroom employees , excluding litho- graphic employees for whom the Petitioner herein sought separate representation (Case No. 8-RC-351). In June 1949, the Petitioner withdrew its petition in the afore -mentioned proceeding, whereupon the Employer and the Intervenor orally agreed , with the consent of the lithographic employees , to extend coverage of the 1949 contract so as to include the offset presses in the pressroom. 4 Ewing Printing Company, 85 NLRB 237 ; Franklin Dekleine Company, 84 NLRB 948; Beu.rmann-Dfarahall, Inc., 84 NLRB 414. e Pacific Press, Inc., 66 NLRB 458. DANKER PRESS OF CANTON, INC. 239 however, although some of the Employer's press employees are, on -occasion, subject to assignment to either the offset or letterpress, that in the instant case-in contrast to the Pacific Press case where there was a substantial interchange of employees between the offset presses .and the letterpresses-the general practice has been to assign a basic crew to work on the offset press and another on the letterpress. We find, therefore, that the lithographic employees whom the Peti- tioner seeks to represent may, if they so desire , constitute a separate .appropriate unit notwithstanding their previous inclusion in a broader unit. We shall' not, however, make any final unit determination at this time but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. There remains for consideration the supervisory status of working foremen. There are two working foremen who are in charge of the offset press and the letterpress, respectively. They receive the same wages as journeymen pressmen with a bonus of $2 per day. Although they devote a portion of their time to directing the work of others .and, when necessary, training new employees, the majority of their time is spent working on the presses. They do not have any authority to hire, discharge, or discipline employees, or effectively to recommend such action. Under these circumstances we find that the working foremen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we :shall include them in the voting group. We shall direct that an election be held by secret ballot among the following employees at the Employer's Canton, Ohio, plant. All lithographic production employees including working foremen but ,excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If, in this election, the employees in the above-described voting group select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a. separate collective bargaining unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.]