Continental Can Co., Inc.

CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. 409 persons thereby discouraging membership in the Union and thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to promote Vernon Harris to superior positions subsequent to his employment on October 3, 1951 , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Appendix A Initial Application Name 1951 Wiley Asher ----------- March 31 Paul A. Bailey_________ March 29 William Banks, Jr------ March 29 Marie Berg_____ _______ March 29 Beryle Broyles__________ June 30 Alice Cowan--------- October 26 Irene Dunbar____________ April 3 Shelton Dickey__________ April 4 Walter Fleming________ March 30 Nora Gann______________ April 2 Iva Hamm_____________ April 11 Agnes Hammond Holland-March 29 Wilma Hoover________ August 18 Initial Application Name 1951 Ila Mae Johnson_________ April 6 Nola C. Jones___________ April 4 Ruth Nelson____________ April 6 Edith Berryhill Pickering__ May 1 George Pickering________ April 2 Virgie Philyaw___________ April 9 Mary Lou Riley__________ April 5 Leona Sawyer__________ March 29 Dempsey Shelton______ March 30 Toney Sloan____________ April 2 Tom Toliver___________ March 30 Lola Wilson___________ March 29 CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., PLANT No. 40 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL No. 31, A. F. L., PETITIONER. CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., PLANT No. 40 and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 38, C. I. 0., PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 17-RC-1851 and 17-RC-1863. October 19, 195 . Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Margaret L. Fassig, 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 these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 31, A. F. L., herein called the IAM; Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 38, C. I. 0., herein called the Amalgamated; United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Steelwork- ers; and International Union, United Automobile Workers of Amer- ica, AFL, herein called UAW-AFL, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 110 NLRB No. 58 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) ( 1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In Case No. 17-RC-1851, the IAM seeks a production and main- tenance unit, including employees in the lithographic department, at the Employer's Omaha, Nebraska, plant. The Employer, the Steel- workers, and the UAW-AFL agree with the unit position of the IAM. In Case No. 17-RC-1863, the Amalgamated seeks a separate craft unit of lithographic production employees . The sole issue raised at the hearing concerns the appropriateness of the separate unit sought by the Amalgamated. There is no collective-bargaining history at the Omaha plant. It is a new metal container manufacturing plant within the Employer's central division which, as of the hearing date, was expected to com- mence operations about September 1, 1954. The lithographic work to be performed at the Omaha plant will be substantially the same as that performed at the Employer 's other metal container plants, many of which have separate bargaining units of lithographic em- ployees represented by the Amalgamated.' In the Employer's lithographic department, the employees sought by the Amalgamated, as clarified in its brief, include only the press- men, pressfeeders , and apprentices . There will also be employed in this department employees engaged in coating and oven stripping functions, not sought by the Amalgamated, who are not skilled and are not considered as part of the lithographic craft. The record shows that the pressmen, with the assistance of the pressfeeders, will operate the Employer's lithographic presses. It was testified on be- half of the Amalgamated that 4 years of apprenticeship training are required for an individual to become a journeyman pressman, and that the contracts of the Amalgamated covering other metal container plants of the Employer incorporate such apprenticeship requirements. At the time of the hearing there were on the payroll of the Omaha plant only four employees, classified as lithographic trainees, en- compassed in the requested unit of the Amalgamated . All four em- ployees were selected by the Employer because of their background and experience in the field of lithographic and graphic arts. These employees will work at the Omaha plant under the close supervision and guidance of foremen who are journeymen lithographers. It was anticipated that when lithographic operations were commenced at Omaha, about September 1, 1954, each of the 4 employees would have had at least 31/2 months of training under journeymen lithog- raphers at the Employer's Milwaukee plant. In addition , each will require approximately 1,500 hours of further apprenticeship before 1 See, e . g, Continental Can Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 210 (Portland , Oregon , plant) 91 NLRB 500 (St Louis, Missouri, plant) CONTINENTAL -CAN COMPANY, INC. 411 being fully qualified by the Employer as a lithographic pressman. On the entire record, we find that the Amalgamated has requested a traditional craft unit such as the Board has frequently found may be appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.' The appropri- ateness of such a unit is not precluded by the fact that the unit, as presently shown, embraces only trainees or apprentices, and does not include any journeymen lithographers.' Accordingly, we shall direct that elections be conducted in the fol- lowing voting groups of employees at the Employer's Omaha, Nebraska, plant : (1) All lithographic pressmen, lithographic pressfeeders, and ap- prentices, excluding coaters and oven strippers,4 and all other em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees and cafeteria employees,' but excluding litho- graphic pressmen, lithographic pressfeeders and apprentices, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select the Union seeking to represent them separately, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar- gaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to that labor organization for the unit. In this eventuality, if a majority of the employees in voting group (2) select a bargaining representative, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the labor organization thus selected, and the Board, in the circumstances, finds the employees in voting group (2) to con- stitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes. If, however, a majority of the employees in voting group (1) do not vote for the Union seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group will appropriately be included in the production and main- tenance unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting group (2),s and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor or- ganization selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled 2E. g, The Heekvn Can Company, 89 NLRB 717, 97 NLRB 783; Continental Can Company, Inc , supra; cf. Fey Publication Company, 108 NLRB 1031; Diamond Printing Company, 109 NLRB 112. See Continental Can Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 210. See Continental Can Company, Inc, ibid. See Mrs Tucker' s Products , 106 NLRB 533 (plant clericals ) ; and Nebel Knitting Company, 106 NLRB 114 (cafeteria employees). 9 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the Union seeking the separate unit shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against any union seeking the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union. American Potash & Chemical Corvoration. 107 NLRB 1418. 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. 5. The Steelworkers moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that they were premature because of a contemplated expansion of the employee complement at the Omaha plant. There were 86 unit em- ployees on the Employer's payroll for the week ending July 25, 1954. The Employer ultimately intends to employ between 350 and 400 em- ployees. It was expected that the plant would commence operations about September 1, 1954, as already noted, and that by November 1, 1954, the Employer would have employed 50 percent or more of its anticipated employee complement in substantially all classifications. With respect to the lithographic unit, the Employer ultimately ex- pects to employ 4 pressmen and 4 pressfeeders. Also to be employed in the lithographic department are 4 oven strippers and 2 coaters, not included in the unit. We shall provide for an election to be held by December 1, 1954, or on such earlier date, to be selected by the Regional Director, as it shall appear that a substantial and representative number of employees is then employed in each of the voting groups. (Eligibility shall be de- termined by the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of a notice of elections.) We believe that the working force which will be employed when the elections directed herein are held will be a sub- stantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed in the voting groups for a reasonable time in the future. Accordingly, the Steelworkers' motion to dismiss is hereby denied.' [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 7 See, e. g., A. M. & F. Products, 106 NLRB 1074. STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC.' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 1-CA-1553. October 20, 1954 Decision and Order On June 8, 1954, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 1 The name of the Employer appears as set forth in the answer, exceptions, and brief. 110 NLRB No. 61.