The Standard Register Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Standard Register Company and The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Lo- cal 54, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA 13400 July 3, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELI.O, AND MURPHY Upon a charge filed on January 23, 1979, by The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 54, AFL CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served on The Standard Register Company, Dayton Ohio, herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 9, issued a com- plaint on February 8, 1979, against Respondent, al- leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an administrative law judge were duly served on the parties to this proceed- ing. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com- plaint alleges in substance that on December 27, 1978, following a Board election in Case 9 RC- 11852, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and that, commencing on or about January 11, 1979, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and contin- ues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, al- though the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so. On February 19, 1979, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and deny- ing in part, the allegations in the complaint. On March 12, 1979, counsel for the General Coun- sel filed directly with the Board a Motion To Strike Portions of Respondent's Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on March 15, 1979, the Board issued an order transferring the pro- ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Case 9-RC 11852. as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended. See L.TV' Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967): Follen Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967). enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended. Judgment should not be granted. Respondent there- after filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent's Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment In its response to the Notice To Show Cause, Re- spondent contends that granting the General Coun- sel's Motion To Strike Portions of Respondent's An- swer and Motion for Summary Judgment would deny Respondent the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing conducted by an administrative law judge and would be contrary to the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States and established precedent of the National Labor Relations Board. The General Counsel's basic position with respect to his motion to strike portions of Respondent's an- swer to the complaint is that some of Respondent's denials are plainly contrary to the facts and the offi- cial record and are, accordingly, subject to a motion to strike. While, for reasons stated below, we find Re- spondent's answer to the complaint does not present a meritorious defense to the allegations of the com- plaint, we do not believe any portion of the answer should be struck. In our judgment, Respondent's an- swer can be viewed as an endeavor by Respondent to preserve a position, albeit, in our view, an erroneous one. See Grant's Furniture Plaza, Inc. of West Palm Beach, Florida, 220 NLRB 1092 (1975), citing Rod- Ric Corporation, 171 NLRB 922, 924 (1968). The mo- tion to strike is therefore denied. With respect to his Motion for Summary Judg- ment, the General Counsel's basic position is that all issues in dispute were decided in the representation proceeding and that, accordingly, he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In its opposition to the motion, Respondent con- tends that it is entitled to present evidence at a hear- ing, and that the denial of such a hearing would be contrary to the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States and established precedent of the National Labor Relations Board. In our opinion the truth of the allegations of the complaint either has been expressly admitted by Re- spondent in its answer, or stands admitted by virtue of the uncontroverted factual averments in the Gen- eral Counsel's motion and the attachments thereto. The record before us shows that: 243 NLRB No. 32 300 STANDARD REGISTER (CO. I. On December 27. 1976, Dayton Printing Press- mens Union Local #54,2 herein called the Union, filed a petition in Case 9-RC 11852, seeking to repre- sent employees in a unit stipulated by the parties to be an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining pur- poses. 2. On or about March 2, 1977. the Regional Direc- tor approved a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election executed by the parties including Graphic Arts International Union, Local 508, O-K I, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Intervenor. The appropriate unit was stipulated to be: All employees in the letterpress room. Web Let- terpress Division. including all apprentice press- men, apprentice pre-pressmen. journeymen, floormen, and general workers, all employees op- erating transfer letterpresses used in production. including Building #7, all photo offset employ- ees, offset (litho) pressmen, production employ- ees in the planning and analyzation department, plumbers. all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate Department including journey- men platemakers. apprentices and general work- ers, all employed at the Employer's facility at 626 Albany Street. Dayton. Ohio, the only loca- tion of the Employer involved herein, but ex- cluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 3. On March 11, 1977. an election was held in the above-described unit resulting in 52 votes being cast for the Union, 57 votes being cast for the Intervenor, and 40 votes cast against the participating labor or- ganizations. There were no challenged ballots. 4. On May 17, 1977, the Regional Director, having duly investigated the matters iised by the Employ- er's objections, issued and served on the parties his report on objections wherein he recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety and that, as the tally of ballots revealed that none of the choices in the election received a majority of the valid votes cast, the Board direct a runoff election to be conducted between the Intervenor and the Union, the two choices receiving the higher number of votes. 5. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report with the Board, and, there- after, on June 2, 1978, a panel majority of the Board3 issued a Decision and Direction of Runoff Election 2 At the time of the execution of the stipulation, the Union's name was changed to The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Lo- cal 54. AFL-CIO. 1236 NLRB 699. Member Jenkins dissented on the ground that in his opinion a pamphlet circulated by the Intervenor the day before the election carried an impermissible threat which required that the election be set aside and a second election held. directing the Regional Director to hold a runoff elec- tion between the Intervenor and the Union. 6. On July 14. 1978, a runoff election was held in which 73 ballots were cast for the Union. 37 ballots were cast for the Intervenor, and 10 ballots were chal- lenged. an insufficient number to affect the results of the election. 7. On August 14. 1978. the Employer filed timely objections to the runoff election asserting. inter aia, as objectionable, conduct occurring prior to the initial election held on March 11, 1977, and treated in those proceedings, conduct related to the Board's directing of a runoff election. the holding of the same, and pro- cedural matters involved therein, and alleging im- proper conduct by the Board agent conducting the election. On September 19, 1978, the Regional Direc- tor, having duly investigated and considered the is- sues raised by the Employer's objections, issued and served on the parties his Report on Objections to Runoff Election and Recommendations to the Board wherein he recommended that the objections be over- ruled in their entirety and that the Union be certified as the employees' collective-bargaining representa- tive. 8. Thereafter, the Employer filed with the Board exceptions to the Regional Director's report and rec- ommendations and, thereafter, on December 27. 1978, a panel majority of the Board4 issued a Supple- mental Decision and Certification of Representative. certifying the Union as the collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. 9. On January 3. 1979, the Union wrote Respon- dent referring to its certification as bargaining agent by the Board and requested that it and Respondent's "enter into negotiations toward a new collective bar- gaining agreement at the earliest possible date." 10. On January 24, 1979, Respondent wrote the Union acknowledging the Union's letter of January 3, 1979, stating further: As you no doubt recognize, The Standard Register Company disagrees with the decision of the National Labor Relations Board in the mat- ter of The Standard Register Company's objec- tions to conduct by the Intervenor affecting the results in the representations case. In view of The Standard Register Company's disagreement with the decision in that matter, it is unable to recog- nize your organization at this time as the repre- sentative of an uncoerced majority of its employ- ees in an appropriate unit as a result of a properly conducted National Labor Relations Board secret ballot election. In light of the above, it does not appear that a meeting for the purpose of negotiating or con- 239 NLRB 1066. Member Jenkins dissenting. 301 D[ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluding a collective bargaining agreement at this time would be appropriate. I 11. On February 23, 1979, after receiving Respon- dent's answer to the complaint, the General Counsel wrote Respondent with regard to Respondent's denial of paragraphs 6 and 8 of the complaint. The second paragraph of the General Counsel's letter states: The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clar- ify your position in the matter. Attached hereto is a copy of a letter dated January 11, 1979, [sic] addressed to Mr. Clark of the Union and signed by N. C. Young, Director of Industrial Rela- tions. Do you dispute the authenticity of this let- ter or do you acknowledge that this letter was mailed to the Union in response to its January 3 request letter. Is it Respondent's position by your Answer to paragraph 8 of the Complaint that you are not refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union, an conversely are willing to now begin bargaining, or that you wish to test the Board's certification of the Union, as your An- swer to paragraph 6 would seem to indicate. 12. On March 2, 1979, Respondent's counsel re- sponded to the General Counsel's letter as follows: In response to your letter of February 23, 1979, please be advised that the Respondent. The Standard Register Company, does not dis- pute the authenticity of the letter from N. C. Young, Director, Industrial Relations, to Wil- liam M. Clark, Secretary-Treasurer and Business Representative of Dayton Printing & Graphic Communications Union No. 54. Respondent also acknowledges that Mr. Young's January I 1, 1979, [sic] letter, a copy of which was attached to your letter of February 23, 1979, to me, was mailed to the union. With respect to the remainder of the inquiries in your letter of February 23, 1979, it appears that they go to evidentiary matters. As Counsel for General Counsel has consistently and suc- cessfully argued to the Administrative Law Judges and the Board, evidentiary matters are for the hearing and not for the Complaint and Answer. Respondent has already filed its Answer in this matter. Based on the above facts, and the entire record be- fore us, we find Respondent has failed to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for hearing. The only conceivable issue concerns the al- legedly objectionable conduct raised in Respondent's objections to both the first election and the runoff election, which Respondent contends, as of January 24, 1979, invalidates the Union's certification. We have previously rejected these contentions as lacking in merit. As Respondent has not alleged any further facts requiring modification of our conclusions, it is clear that, by now seeking an evidentiary hearing, Re- spondent seeks only to relitigate matters heretofore resolved in the representation case. In the circum- stances of this case, such an evidentiary hearing is not warranted and "would be an exercise in futility."5 Respondent next contends that, even if all issues "which remain to be resolved in the present unfair labor practice case have been presented at the repre- sentation proceeding," it is not precluded from raising these issues in an unfair labor practice proceeding. In support of its position, it cites Russell-Newman Manu- facturing Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 1260 (1966), and J. J. Newberry Company, 196 NLRB 995 (1972). In our opinion, nothing in these decisions supports Respon- dent's contention. In Russell-Newman Manufiacturing Co., Inc., supra, the relative truth of the campaign literature was in issue. In J. J. Newherr) Companv, supra, the supervisory status of area managers, which had not been resolved in the representation proceed- ing, was in issue. There are no such issues present in the instant case.6 Respondent also contends that the pleadings clearly establish that substantial and mate- rial issues of fact exist, that there issues were not pre- sent in the representation proceeding, and that these issues are a necessary part of the proof which the General Counsel must establish at a hearing. We find this contention equally without merit. At no time does Respondent suggest what these issues are, nor does Respondent suggest or contend that it is pre- pared to present newly discovered or previously un- available evidence, the availability of which might conceivably require a hearing. As we said in E-Z Da- vies Chevrolet, supra at 1383: An evidentiary hearing is not a matter of right where there is nothing that a trier of fact may determine. We also find no merit in Respondent's contention that the denial of a hearing at this stage of these pro- ceedings would be contrary to the due process clause of the United States Constitution.7 For all of these reasons, we conclude that our re- fusal to hold a hearing herein offends no statutory or constitutional right. It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis- covered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1380. 1383 (1966). enfd. 395 F.2d 191 (9th (ir. 1968). 6 E-Z Davies Chevrolet. supra at 1384. ? lid 302 STANDARD REGISTER CO. issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding.8 All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding were or could have been litigated in the prior repre- sentation proceeding, and the Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that Respondent has not raised any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice pro- ceeding. We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONI)ENT Respondent, an Ohio coporation, is engaged in printing business forms at various locations in the United States, including its Dayton. Ohio, facility. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, from its Dayton, Ohio, facility directly to customers outside the State of Ohio. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon- dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZAIION INVOLVED The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communica- tions Union, Local 54, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees in the letterpress room, Web Let- terpress Division, including all apprentice press- aSee Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v V.L.R B.. 313 US. 146, 162 1941). Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(fl) and 102.69(c). men, apprentice pre-pressmen, journeymen, floormen, and general workers, all employees op- erating transfer letterpresses used in production, including Building X7, all photo offset employ- ees, offset (litho) pressmen, production employ- ees in the planning and analyzation department. plumbers, all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate Department including journey- men platemakers. apprentices and general work- ers, all employed at the Employer's facility at 626 Albany Street, Dayton, Ohio, the only loca- tion of the Employer involved herein, but ex- cluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 2. The certification On July 14, 1978, a majority of the employees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Di- rector for Region 9 designated the Union as their rep- resentative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certified as the col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit on December 27, 1978, and the Union con- tinues to be such exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. B. The Request To, argain and Respondent's Re/iisal Commencing on or about January 3, 1979. and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Respon- dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employ- ees in the above-described unit. Commencing on or about January 24, 1979, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has refused, and con- tinues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit. Accordingly. we find that Respondent has, since January 24, 1979, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the appropri- ate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I l) of the Act. IV. THE EFFE('T OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section 11, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, 303 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the ap- propriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached. embody such understanding in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the appro- priate unit will be accorded the services of their se- lected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica- tion as beginning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recog- nized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/la Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Con- struction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CON(I.USIONS (); LAW I. The Standard Register Company, Dayton, Ohio, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communica- tions Union, Local 54, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All employees in the letterpress room, Web Let- terpress Division, including all apprentice pressmen, apprentice pre-pressmen, journeymen, floormen, and general workers, all employees operating transfer let- terpresses used in production, including Building 7, all photo offset employees, offset (litho) pressmen, production employees in the planning and analyza- tion department, plumbers, all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate Department includ- ing journeymen platemakers, apprentices and general workers, all employed at the Employer's facility at 626 Albany Street, Dayton, Ohio, the only location of the Employer involved herein, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since December 27, 1978, the above-named la- bor organization has been and now is the certified and exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about January 24, 1979, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of all the employees of Re- spondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Standard Register Company, Dayton, Ohio, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of' pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con- ditions of employment with The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 54, AFL- CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All employees in the letterpress room, Web Let- terpress Division, including all apprentice press- men, apprentice pre-pressmen, journeymen, floormen, and general workers, all employees op- erating transfer letterpresses used in production, including Building #7, all photo offset employ- ees, offset (litho) pressmen, production employ- ees in the planning and analyzation department, plumbers, all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate Department including journey- men platemakers, apprentices and general work- ers, all employed at the Employer's facility at 626 Albany Street, Dayton, Ohio, the only loca- tion of the Employer involved herein, but ex- cluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 304 STANDARD REGISTER CO. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with. restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, em- body such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Dayton, Ohio, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: The majority has concluded that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bar- gain with the Union. I agree with my colleagues' find- ing that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union and that its refusal to so bargain was predi- cated on its position that the Union's certification is invalid. When this case was initially before us on ob- jections to the first election, I dissented from the ma- jority's failure to find that a leaflet, circulated the day before the election, contained an implied threat to abandon the bargaining representative's statutory duty to fairly represent the unit membership after the election and that the election should be set aside on the basis of this conduct. When this case was before us again on objections to the runoff election, I again dissented, based on the reasons stated in my earlier dissent, and in particular my conclusion that a second election and not a runoff election was required. Since the runoff election was improperly directed, the 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." Union's certification is invalid, and Respondent had the right to refuse to bargain with the Union. Accord- ingly, I dissent from my colleagues' finding that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. APPENDIX NoIc(E To EMPI.OYI.I s POSTED BY ORDER OF ]lE NATIO()NAL LABOR REI.AIIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NO1 refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with The Dayton Printing and Graphic Communications Union, Local 54, AFL CIO, as the exclusive rep- resentative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. W: WInl.L NOl in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WIl., upon request, bargain with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in the bargaining unit de- scribed below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees in the letterpress room, Web Letterpress Division, including all apprentice pressmen, apprentice pre-pressmen, journey- men, floormen, and general workers, all em- ployees operating transfer letterpresses used in production, including Building 7, all photo off- set employees, offset (litho) pressmen, produc- tion employees in the planning and analyza- tion department, plumbers, all employees in what is now known as the Rubber Plate De- partment including journeymen platemakers, apprentices and general workers, all employed at the Employer's facility at 626 Albany Street, Dayton, Ohio, the only location of the Employer involved herein, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY 305