Electrographic Corp.

810 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Employer's operation does not preclude the establishment of separate craft units 14 While the Employer and the Intervenor also contend that the multicraft character of the unit sought by the Petitioner renders it inappropriate, the Board has previously held that, in the absence of a controlling history of bargaining, such a unit embracing all skilled maintenance personnel may be accorded separate representation 1s However, we shall not make any final unit determination until we have first ascertained the desires of the employees concerned. We shall direct an election in the following voting group : All skilled maintenance employees, and their helpers, at the Employer's Jackson, Tennessee, plant, including the machinists, machinists' helper, roll grinder, roll grinder trainee, pipe fitter, electricians, and machinists' and electricians' working foremen, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate appropriate unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 14 Cf. Reynolds Metals Company, 93 NLRB 721. 15 Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328 ; General Electric Company, Circleville Lamp Works, 89 NLRB 949; Halliburton Portland Cement Company , 91 NLRB 717; and -Aerovom Corporation, 93 NLRB 1101. REILLY ELECTROTYPE COMPANY, DIVISION OF ELECTROGRAPHIC COR- PORATION and NEW YORK AUXILIARY UNION LOCALS Nos. 1 AND 100, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS ' AND ELECTROTYPERS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3067. May 10'3, 1951 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 Eugene M. Purvey, 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 Reynolds]. 94 NLRB No. 120. REILLY ELECTROTYPE COMPANY 811 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 organization involved claims 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 seeks to represent most, but not all, of the Em- ployer's maintenance and lesser skilled production employees; the proposed unit embraces substantially all the employees except highly skilled craftsmen in established bargaining units. The Employer' agrees that the craft units should be undisturbed, but opposes all other exclusions, asserting that all of its unrepresented employees have com- mon interests and working conditions, and must therefore be joined in a single bargaining unit. The Employer, which produces and sells plastic and metal stereo- types, electrotypes, and related products, conducts its operations at -three locations, 45th Street, 52nd Street, and 38th Street, all in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City. Its main plant is at 45th 'Street, where, in addition to electrotypers and stereotypers, it has a variety of semiskilled and unskilled production and service workmen, such as clerks, shippers, mat cutters, proof boys, and general helpers. It produces some electrotypes at 52nd Street, where miscellaneous categories of workmen are located. All plastic grinding, a prepara- tory process involving raw materials used at the other two locations, is performed by plastic grinders located at 38th Street, where a group -of maintenance workmen is also stationed. The Employer's principal storage facilities are also at 38th Street. The electrotypers and stereotypers, together with their respective .apprentices, have for some years been represented by New York Elec- trotypers Union No. 100, and New York Stereotypers Union No. 1, in separate craft units. The employees now sought by the Petitioner have for 10 years been represented by it as part of a multiemployer unit under successive contracts with an association of employers. The last contract covering the employees here involved expired on May 31, 1950, when the Employer withdrew from the association. The Peti- tioner constitutes an auxiliary organization to the craft unions now representing the electrotypers and the stereotypers. We have considered and find insufficient the various reasons urged by the Petitioner in justification of its proposed unit from which some few of the production and maintenance employees would be excluded. Chief among the Petitioner's arguments is the assertion that only the employees sought by the Petitioner do work "pertaining" to the pro- 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD duction of electrotypes and stereotypes.' The fatal defect in this pro- posed test for an appropriate unit is the vagueness inherent in its phrasing. In fact, this very case conclusively illustrates the imprac- ticability of the test. The Petitioner would exclude the grinders, who prepare raw materials used by the electrotypers and stereotypers, and certain maintenance employees, who reline plating tanks, clean generators, and fill oil tanks. Certainly the work of these employees "pertains" to the Employer's production operations as much as does that of the shippers, receivers, and order clerks whom the Petitioner would include in the unit. In effect, the Petitioner suggests a "quasi- craft" unit. While it is true that some of the noncraft employees in various locations do work that brings them into closer contact with the craftsmen than others, this fact alone does not warrant establish- ment of a separate unit. Quasicraft concepts implicitly defy identifi- able unit delineations and would lead to dismemberment of a produc- tion and maintenance unit without logical end. The Petitioner also seeks to justify the proposed unit on the further ground that it is coextensive with its own jurisdictional limitations. In a sense, this is an extension of the Petitioner's major argument, as its jurisdiction is auxiliary to that of the craft unions representing the Employer's highly skilled workmen. However, the Petitioner admits, nor could it do otherwise on the record before us, that the employees involved in this proceeding are not craftsmen. In these circumstances, as the Board has heretofore held, the jurisdictional boundaries created by the Petitioner's own constitution and bylaws cannot, standing alone, govern the scope of a unit, which must be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2 Finally, we reject the contention that the past bargaining history in this case justifies the proposed unit. Although the record does not establish affirmatively that all the Employer's job categories now in dispute were within the scope of the multiemployer bargaining unit, I Specifically , the Petitioner described its proposed units as follows Wax casters , pan scrubbers , blanket washers, helpers on all forms of duplicate process plates performing work not pertaining to a journeyman and apprentice , servicemen, shippers, receivers, order clerks, dispatchers. checkers, packers, mat cutters, proof boys, file pattern clerks, form boys , and general helpers in shipping room doing work in connection with the production and handling of the products of the electrotype and stereotype departments, excluding Office helpers, messengers , apprentice and journeymen electrotypers and stereotipers, supervisors as defined in the Act, all employees not doing work in connection with the production or handling of the products of the stereotype and electrotype departments The patent ambiguity in the unit as requested, and the resultant confusion appearing in the record make it impossible to discuss the disagreement between the paities in con- ventional teimg of specific categories sought to be included or excluded Indeed , as the unit description offered by the Petitioner was taken from an earlier multi -employer contract, it is not precisely applicable to the Employer's operations Thus , it includes wax casters, who are not employed by this Employer, and lists other categories which apparently fall in other classifications on the Employer 's payroll 2 8 H Kress d Co, 92 NLRB 15 SOUTHLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY 813 it does show that the old unit was defined in terms of job content, as opposed to job title. Furthermore, it suggests that the scope of the unit was modified by usage, if not by specific agreement, to include the vague job areas described above.' In any event, the Board has long held that a bargaining history which was not based on appropriate bargaining units does not dictate continued existence of like unit arrangements.' tI is clear on the record as a whole that the various categories of semiskilled and unskilled production workers, together with the main- tenance men, comprise the usual production and maintenance group of a single employer, and that the skilled electrotypers and the stereo- typers, in conformity with the established pattern in this industry, appropriately constitute separate craft units. Absent any persuasive reason for breaking up the lesser skilled employees into more than one unit, therefore, Board policy requires inclusion of them all in the conventional single production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employ- ees at the Employer's three plants in New York City, excluding office clerical employees, journeymen, and apprentice electrotypers and stereotypers, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.5 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 Significantly , an elevator operator whom the Petitioner would exclude is a member of that Union. < Benner Tea Company, 88 NLRB 1409. Ast he Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest , and as it indicate at the hearing that it would accept an election in the more inclusive unit, we shall direct an election in the appropriate production and maintenance unit. SOUTHLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO L. L. LEVINSON and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO W. R. STRICKLAND and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Oases Nos. "4-CA-157, 34-CA-189, and 34-CA-188. May 24,1951 Decision and Order On February 27, 1951, Trial Examiner John Lewis issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair 94 NLRB No. 123.