Roberts and Son

In the Matter Of ROBERTS AND SON and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTII AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL No. 121 and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 10-RE-20.-Decided October 8, 1946 Messrs. T. W. Scruggs and W. H. Sadler, Jr., of Birmingham, Ala., for the Employer. Messrs. Paul E. Thompson and A. J. Muglach, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Printing Pressmen. Mr. Walter M. Robinson, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Amalgamated. Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Birming- ham, Alabama, on August 5, 1946, before Albert D. Maynard, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Roberts and Son, herein called the Employer, is an Alabama cor- poration with its plant and offices located at Birmingham, Alabama. The Employer is in the business of commercial printing of all kinds. During the year 1945, it purchased raw materials, consisting of paper, lithograph plates, chemicals, inks, rollers, metal type, printing presses, parts for printing presses and other small items used in commercial printing establishments, valued in excess of $211,165, 95 percent of which was shipped from points outside the State of Alabama. Dur- ing the same period, its sales were in excess of $450,000, approximately 10 percent of which represented printing done for customers outside the State of Alabama. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the,meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, Local No. 121, herein called the Printing Pressman, is a labor 71 -N. L. R B., No. 36. 294 ROBERTS AND SON 295 organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claim- ing to represent employees of the Employer. Amalgamated Lithographers of America, herein called the Lithog- raphers, is a labor organization affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On August 21, 1942, the Employer and the Printing Pressmen entered into a 2-year contract embracing all employees in the Employ- er's letterpress department. At its termination, this contract was ex- tended for another 2-year period expiring on August 20, 1946. On June 12, 1946, the Printing Pressmen notified the Employer of its desire to negotiate a new contract. Subsequently, the Printing Pressmen demanded that the two offset pressmen in the lithographic department be added to the unit in which it had been recognized as exclusive bargaining representative. Claiming to represent a major- ity of the employees in the lithographic department, including the offset pressmen, the Lithographers on June 28, 1946, informed the Em- ployer that it wished to negotiate a contract covering these employees. As a result of the conflicting claims to offset pressmen made by the Printing Pressmen and the Lithographers, the Employer filed the petition in this case on July 28, 1946. 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 Printing Pressmen seeks a unit of all the Employer's pressmen, including offset pressmen. But the Lithographers desires a unit of all employees working in the' Employer's lithographic department, including offset pressmen, all platemakers,2 and the artist. Although the Employer takes a neutral position with respect to the broad issue of the appropriate unit, it objects to the inclusion of the artist in the grouping sought by the Lithographers. Both letterpress and lithographic printing are done at the Em- ployer's establishment, which is known in the printing industry as a combination plant. For each type of printing the Employer main- 'After the hearing in this case the Employer filed an application with the Board re- questing permission to withdraw its petition . This application was opposed by the Lithog- raphers, which filed a brief in support of its position On September 19, 1946, the Board denied the Employer 's application In its brief, the Lithographers alleged that , following the hearing , the Employer had signed a contract with the Printing Pressmen which encom- passed the offset pressmen . If such a contract actually exists, it is clear that it is no bar to a current determination of representatives 2 One of the two platemakers is the lithographic foreman. The Lithographers ' desire to include him is in consonance with the custom existing in the printing trades. 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tains a separate department. These departments are on the same floor, but are physically separated by an aisle, the letterpress depart- ment occupying the northeast corner, and the lithographic department the northwest corner of the floor. There is absolutely no interchange of work or employees between the two departments. Each depart- ment is separately supervised by its own foreman, who is responsible to the plant superintendent. As indicated in Section III, above, there has been no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant which has affected the employees of the lithographic department. Collective agreements between the Employer and the Printing Pressmen have not included the offset pressmen within their coverage, nor have any of the other lithographic employees been embraced by their terms. During the past 7 years, however, the Employer has on a number of occasions called upon the Lithographers to supply employees for its lithographic department. In previous cases, moreover, it has been brought to the Board's attention that throughout the printing industry, as a whole, lithographic employees are now organized almost exclusively upon an operational basis, and are represented by the Lithographers rather than by an organization which is limited in its jurisdiction to a portion of the lithographic process.3 In this case there is no affirmative evi- dence in the record to show that lithographic units underlie collective bargaining at printing plants in the Birmingham area, where the Employer maintains its plant. That lithographic printing requires special skills and techniques cannot be denied. We observed in the Con P. Curran case, supra, that : ... printing by the lithographic process has long been rec ognized as a separate branch of the printing industry. As dis- tinguished from letter press printing, which constitutes the other principal branch, lithography involves printing from a plane surface and depends for its operation upon a chemical difference between various portions of the surface of the plate used in making the impression. Except for the initial step of photographing the image to be reproduced, each step in the process of lithographic printing is separate and distinct from that of letter press. Throughout the process of preparing lithographic plates and their use in lithographic, or offset presses, special skills, peculiar to the lithographic process, are required. Likewise, plates prepared for lithographic printing cannot be used in letter press repro- duction, nor can plates prepared by photoengraving be used in lithographic presses. 3 See Matter of Con P. Curran Printing Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 185; Matter of Foote and Davies, 66 N. L. R . B. 416. ROBERTS AND SON 297 And our decisions in cases involving unit issues similar to that pre- sented here for resolution have generally recognized that lithographic employees constitute a cohesive, indivisible grouping.' It is true that in the recent Pacific Press case,5 we found that a unit comprised of both letter and offset pressmen was appropriate. But in that case, there was considerable interchange of employees between the letterpress and lithographic departments, and the litho- graphic employees were not sufficiently centralized. and segregated from other workers. Furthermore, we noted in that case that the operations of the Employer were unique in the industry. Unlike the Pacific Press case, here, there is absolutely no interchange of employees between the Employer's letterpress and lithographic departments; in addition, the employees of the Employer's lithographic department are markedly centralized and segregated from all other employees.6 In these respects, this case is identical to the Foote and Davies case, supra, wherein we found that all employees performing work in the lithographic process, including offset pressmen, constituted an appro- priate unit for collective bargaining purposes. We regard the Foote and Davies case, which was issued on the same day as the Pacific Press case, as determinative of the unit issue which is now before us, despite the additional factor in that case of a history of collective bargaining at the employer's plant predicated upon a lithographic unit. For we said in the Foote and Davies case : Putting aside for the moment this bargaining history at the . plant, the facts in the instant case are ' much like those present in other proceedings affecting lithographic employees in which the Board took the position, in effect, that such workers form an indivisible grouping. From the foregoing facts, we are persuaded that a unit of all employees of the Employer's lithographic department, including off- set pressmen, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion of the artist in the lithographic unit. Unlike other employees, the artist is paid a salary at her own request, except for overtime which is paid to her on an hourly basis. The record discloses, however, 4 See Matter of Court Square Press, Inc., 44 N. L. R. B. 702 ; Matter of W. B. Kistler Stationery Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 978; Matter of Ross Gould Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 1176; Matter of Midwest Printing Company, 58 N. L. R. B . 673; Matter of George Banta Publishing Company, 59 N. L. R. B . 669; Matter of American Can Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 1631; Matter of Con P. Curran, supra; Matter of Foote and Davies, supra. Matter of Pacific Press, Inc., 66 N. L. R. B. 478. ° Here, moreover, the collective bargaining which took place between the Employer and the Printing Pressmen , excluding the offset pressmen, underscores the dissimilarity between these employees and the letter pressmen . Also, the fact that the Employer has turned to the Lithographers for lithographic help is an indication of the separate craft identity of all the Employer's lithographic employees . These elements were not present in the Pacific Press case. 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that she spends approximately 75 percent of her time in the prepara- tion of work for the lithographic presses. It was admitted by the Employer that the lithographic department could not function effi- ciently without the services of an artist. Her work is supervised by the lithographic foreman, although she is responsible only to the plant superintendent. As a matter of fact, the testimony shows that she and the lithographic foreman "have to work very closely together." Her office is separate from the lithographic department, being on the floor above, but the lithographic foreman frequently consults with her during the course of her working day. It also appears that the artist's predecessor had previously been the foreman of the lithographic department. We are satisfied that the artist's duties are substantially and inextricably interwoven with the duties of the other lithographic workers, and we shall therefore include her in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. We find that all employees of the Employer's lithographic depart- ment, including offset pressmen, platemakers, artists, and the litho- graphic foreman, but excluding all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning 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 Roberts and Son, Birmingham, Alabama, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im- mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL, Local No. 121, or by Amalgamated Lithographers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, or by neither.