Commercial Printing Co., Inc.

In the Matter of CO_ILII ERUi AI, PRINTING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, Arr1_LTATED WITli THE CIO and BIRDIINGLAD] PRINTING Plu:55 IAN'S AND ASSISTANTS UNioN, LOCAL #121, A. F. or L. Case No. 10- RE RE-29.-Decided April 3,1947 Messrs. William Sadler and Wallace A. Shelby, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Employer. Mr. Walter M. Robinson, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Lithographers. Messrs. John S. McLellan, of Pressman's Home, Tenn., George O. Baker, of Atlanta. Ga., and Paul E. Tontpson, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Printing Pressmen. Mr. Bernard L. Balicer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AN D DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Bii- mulgham, Alabama, on November 19, 1946, before Clifford L. Hardy, hearing oficer. At the hearing the Printing Pressmen moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that an existing contract be- tween the Employer and the Printing Pressmen covering the disputed group of employees constitutes a bar to the instant proceeding. The hearing officer reserved for the Board ruling on the motion. For the reasons set forth in Section III, inti a, the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error anti are Iiereby aflirmed.t 1 A ttei the hc.n nig officer i ese ved f or the Bon td rnl uig on the Pi I rill jig Pi essmen's mo- tiou to disnncc the i'nnting Iiessmen iequested that the heaiIHg be adjourned so that it could seek pen iiis ion pursuant to Section 203 51 (c) of the Boaid s Rules and Regul itions- Seiies 4 to have the Bond rule oil its motion to disuuss Upon the healing officei's denial of the motion 10 ad,touin the pioceeduigs the Piintntg Ihessinen•withdieiv Iron the beai- ing We find no pieludice in the hearing officer's denial of the iegaested adloui invent Section 20::51 (c) states, in petit, that "Unless expressly authorized be these Rules and Regulations, iulmgs by the Regional niteetor and bN flie hearing office shall not he ap- pealed dnectli to the Ronid'exeept b,y special permission of the hoard, but shall he con- sideied In the Bo,l d in ieeiesmg the decoid aJtet the case has been Iiansferied to the Board" Section 203 51 (a) provides that "the heating officer shall rule upon all motions iefeiied to bun except that he shall iefer to the Board toi appiopriate action all motions to dismiss petitions, at such time as the Board consxteis the entice retold" [Italics supplied 73 N L 11 R , No 27. 159 7399211-47-vol 73-12 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF TI-JE EMPLOYER Commercial Printing Company, Inc., herein called the Employer, is a corporation with its plant and offices located at Birmingham, Alabama, engaged in commercial printing and lithographing. Dur- ing the year 1945, it purchased raw materials, consisting of paper, press repair parts, and ink valued in excess of $100,000, over 90 percent of which was purchased and shipped to its plant from points outside the State of Alabama. Sales of commercial printing and lithographing in the same period exceeded $150,000 in value, over 5 percent of which was sold 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. 'ri lE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Lithograpliers of America, herein called the Lithog- raphers, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Birmingham Printing Pressman's and Assistants Union, Local #121, herein called the Printing Pressmen, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to rep- resent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESE NTATION On October 18, 1941, the Employer and the Lithographers entered into a contract covering all lithographic department employees of the Employer, effective for 1 year from November 1, 1941, and auto- matically renewable from year to year thereafter in the absence of 30 days' notice to modify the agreement. This contract was last re- newed on November 1, 1945. On August 16, 1946, the Printing Pressmen and the Employer executed a contract covering all employees engaged in the operation of printing presses, including offset pressmen. On August 20, 1946, an addendum to the contract was executed, providing that the pro- visions of the agreement, insofar as it applied to offset pressmen, were not to take effect until December 1, 1946. On or about September 23, 1946, the Employer gave notice to the Lithographers of its desire to terminate its contract with the lat- COMMERCIAL PRINTING COMPANY, INC. 161 ter. The Lithographers immediately asked the Employer to bar- gain for a new contract . As a result of the conflicting claims to offset pressmen made by the Printing Pressmen and the Lithog- raphers, the Employer filed the Petition herein on October 8, 1946. The Printing Pressmen contends that its alleged contract with the Employer covering the offset pressmen is a bar to this proceeding. We do not agree . Where, as here, the contract now raised as a bar is not the extension or renewal of an existing contract , the usual rule of determining contract bar questions by the effective rather than the execution date, governs.2 The petition herein preceded the effective date of the agreement insofar as it concerned the offset pressmen and therefore the contract constitutes no'bar to a present determination of representatives. 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 Lithographers seeks a unit of all employees working in the Employer's lithographic department, including offset pressmen, plate- niakers, and the lithographic foreman. The contention of the Print- ing Pressmen, as revealed by its motion to dismiss, is that a unit of all the Employer's pressmen, including offset pressmen, is appropriate. The Employer takes no position with respect to the appropriate u nit.3 The record shows that although the Employer does both letterpress and lithographic printing, these operations comprise separate de- partments located on separate floors. There is no interchange of work or personnel between them and each department is under the supervision of a foreman who reports directly to the president of the Employer. Furthermore, the pay scales of employees of the two departments differ, and there is also a wide variation in the nature of the two processes. The record fails to reveal any collective bargaining history including offset pressmen in a unit of pressmen of the Em- ployer's plant whereas, as indicated above, the Lithographers has been the collective bargaining representative of these employees for ap- proximately the past 5 years. In addition, as was pointed out m Matter of Roberts and Son,4 throughout the printing industry litho- graphic employees are now organized almost exclusively upon an 'But see Matter of Mississippi Lime Company of Missouri, 71 N. L R B. 472, where an existing contract contained an automatic renewal clause and the contract raised as a bar was executed after the Mill B date but to take effect on the expiration date of the existing agreement a Theie ai e approximately 4 employees in the lithographic department and 10 in the letterpress department i 71 N L R B 294 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operational basis. In the instant proceeding, there is nothing in the record to indicate that a different situation prevails in the Binning- ham area where the Employer's plant is located. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a unit comprised of the lithographic department employees, including the offset pressmen, is appropriate. We find that all employees of the Employer's lithographic depart- ment, including offset pressmen, platemakers and the lithographic foreman 6 but excluding all other employees, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Commercial Printing Com- pany, Inc., 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulatlons- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of tills Direction, including employees who did not work clueing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and inched nlg employees in the an med 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 or not they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Lithographers of ,America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., or by Birmingham Printing Pressman's and Assistants Union, Local #121, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CrrAunrAN HERZOC took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 'Matter or Roberts and ,Son, footnote 4, supra, Mattei of Foote 1 Dawes, 66 N L R P 416 Matter or Can P Curran Printing Company, 57 N L R ni 185 Compare dotter or Pacnfie Ptess, Inc . 66 N L R B 478 The ioenmul is included nr accoidauce with the custom prevalent in the punting mdustiy Anv participant in the electron herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval Ihereof by the Regional Director, hale its name removed from the ballot