St. Louis Lithographing Co.

24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOIr RELATIONS BOARD statute, which defect in the-contract was not cured prior to the filing of the petition,' we find the contract herein no bar to this proceeding. We find that a question affecting commerce exists 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. We find, as stipulated by the parties, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including janitors, truckers, and sweepers employed by the Employer at its Gowanda, New York, plant, but excluding executives, foremen, subforemen or strawbosses, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election` omitted from publication.] e Cf. New Idea, Division of Avoo Manufacturing Corporation , 106 NLRB 1104. The case of G. Mathes, Division of Lewin-Mathes Company, 105 NLRB 911, relied upon by the Intervenor, is not in point, inasmuch as in that case it appears that the defect of non- compliance was cured before the Board proceeding commenced. 7 We shall, based upon its alleged contractual interest , permit the Meat Cutters to appear on the ballot. A. Siegel & Sons, Inc., 94 NLRB 471 at 472-473; Pacific Tankers, Inc., 81 NLRB 325 at 326. In the absence of any showing that confusion will result from allowing the Meat Cutters to appear on the ballot jointly with its Local 34, a complying local union, we shall so designate the Meat Cutters on the ballot in harmony with the motion for substitution referred to heretofore . See General Motors Corporation, 88 NLRB 450 at 457-458. St. Louis Lithographing Company and Local #5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC- 2788. September 8,1955 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 Joseph H. Solien, 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 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 Employer is a Missouri corporation engaged in the business of producing printed materials by the lithographic process at its plant located in St. Louis, Missouri. The Petitioner seeks a unit of litho- 114 NLRB No. 9. e,` ' : ST. LOUIS LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY 25 graphic production workers limited to offset press operators and feed- ers, platemakers, and a cameraman. The Employer agrees that a unit of lithographic production workers is appropriate, but contends that such a unit should include cutters, a varnisher, an embosser, and an artist. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the Em- ployer's employees. The Employer's production employees are divided into six depart- ments.' The Employer's president supervises the art, camera, plate- making, and press departments, while its vice president supervises the finishing, and the varnishing and embossing departments. The cut- ters, the varnisher, and the embosser work in close proximity to the pressmen. The cutters: The two cutters are part of the finishing department. One cutter operates a cutting machine exclusively, while the other oc- casionally sets up dies in a label cutting machine. These employees cut approximately 90 percent of the lithographic products printed. They also cut approximately 10 percent of the paper stock before it is run -off on the lithographic presses. These employees do not work on the lithographic presses, nor do they interchange with the other litho- graphic employees requested by the Petitioner. The varnisher and the embosser: The varnisher and the embosser sought to be included in the lithographic unit by the Employer are in the varnishing and embossing department. The varnishing opera- tion consists of coating sheets of label paper, which have been fully printed, with a varnish which adds a high gloss to the printed surface and affords some protection for the finished label. The embossing operation is also performed after the sheets have been lithographically printed, and is in the nature of a pressing of the paper which results in the raising of certain areas, giving the finished product a richer appearance than an ordinary, flat sheet of paper. The embosser works exclusively on the embossing machine, while the varnisher spends most of his time operating the varnishing ma- chine and the remainder in cutting and embossing. The type of var- nishing performed on the varnishing machine is known as "spirit varnishing," and does not require the use of lithographic plates. A certain amount of varnishing is also performed by the pressmen on the lithographic presses. One type of "press varnishing" consists of varnishing the entire sheet. In this operation, the water rollers are removed from the press and the usual water, acid, or etch which is normally applied to the lithographic plate is not used. A second type ' These departments and the employee complement in each are as follows : art depart- ment-1 employee ; camera department-1 employee ; platemaking department-2 em- ployees ; press department-10 employees ; finishing department-8 employees ; and var- nishing and embossing department-3 employees . The Employer also employs 5 salesmen, a porter and janitor, and 3 clericals. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of press varnis'hing is known as "spot varnishing," where the water rollers and lithographic plates prepared by the platemakers are used. The varnisher and the embosser do not work on lithographic presses, nor do they interchange with other lithographic employees. The artist: The artist testified at the hearing that he considers him- self to be both a lithographic and a commercial artist. The record shows, however, that lie spends between 90 and 95 percent of his time in creative art work, such as is usually done by commercial artists. Approximately 1 percent of his time is spent in such lithographic art activities as dot etching and work on continuous tone negatives, while the remainder is'spent in stripping and opaquing work. The record further shows that practically all process art work normally per- formed by lithographic artists is sent to an outside concern. The Board has frequently considered the skills and techniques inci- dent to the lithographic process and has held' that all employees en- gaged in that process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.2 However, the Board has consistently ex- cluded from the traditional lithographic unit cutters such as are here involved.' Accordingly; we shall exclude the cutters herein. As to the embosser and the varnisher, we do not believe that their work is so intimately connected with the lithographic process as to warrant their inclusion in the unit sought by Petitioner. While the work of the varnisher is similar to the press varnishing operation per- formed by the pressmen, it.does not involve the use of the lithographic presses or plates as does press varnishing.4 Furthermore, these em- ployees do not interchange with those in the traditional lithographic classifications, nor is there job progression for them from one process to the other. Accordingly, we shall exclude the embosser and the var- nisher from the unit found appropriate. As it is apparent from the record that the artist spends the major portion of his time in work of the type normally performed by com- mercial artists, we shall also exclude him.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer at its St. Louis, Missouri, plant constitute a unit appropriate for pur- 2 Cf. Diamond Printing Company, 109 NLRB 112; Fey Publishing Company, 108 NLRB 1031. 3 Campbell Offset Printing Company, 92 NLRB 1421; The Madison Company, 92 NLRB 914 d See Continental Can Company, Inc, 110 NLRB 1042, 105 NLRB 210; Heektin Can Company, 97 NLRB 783, 89 NLRB 717. In those cases, the Board excluded from litho- graphic units employees classified as "coaters" who operated enameling machines, an operation analogous to that of varnishing The Employer cites Continental Can Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 210, as a precedent for including in a lithographic unit an employee engaged in a varnishing operation. There, however, the employee in question also operated a lithographic press. iJosten Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 189. The Employer cites Johnston Prsnt- ing Company, 92 NLRB 1426, as authority for including commercial artists in the unit. There, however, the Board pointed out that approximately 75 percent of the artists' time was spent on work connected with the lithographic process. SEATTLE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS 27 poses of collective bargaining. within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All lithographic production ., employees, , including pressmen and feeders, platemakers, and the, camerman, but excluding cutters, the varnisher, the embosser, clerical employees, professional employees, the artist, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Seattle District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with' United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 174, International ' Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, AFL; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL; and Local 440, Inter- national Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL i and Cisco Construction Company. Case No. 19-CC-792. September 9, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On March 25, 1955, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents z had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below. i At the hearing, the General Counsel's motion to dismiss the complaint against Western Washington District Council, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, AFL, was granted without objection. ' Seattle District Council of Carpenters , affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers , Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL ; Local 440• International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America , AFL, and International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 302 , are herein individually referred to as Respondents Carpenters , Local 174, Local 440, and Local 302, respectively , and collectively referred to as Respondents. 114 NLRB No. 12. i