Superior Typesetting Co.

SUPERIOR TYPESETTING CO. 15 IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced the seven employees named in Appendix A attached hereto in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to each immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights. and privileges. See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. It will further be recommended that Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. Said loss of pay, based upon earnings which each would normally have earned from the date of the discrimination, March 22, 1956, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. See N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S. 344. It is also recommended, in order to satisfy the remedial objectives of the Act, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon its employees' rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company, is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and .(7) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the seven employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) .(1) of thelAct. 3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not committed unfair labor practices in the cases of Vincent Michalak and John Rhodes. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Superior Typesetting Co. and Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Superior Typesetting Co. and St. Louis Helpers & Assistants Local 168, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Cages Nos. 14 RC-3159 and 14-RC-166. June 6,196' DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS. Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 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. Pursuant to the provisions of-Section 3' (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in "connection with 118 NLRB No. 3. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. 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 Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-3159, hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters, and the Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-3166, here- inafter referred to as the Bookbinders, are labor organizations which claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2'(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Employer employs 60 employees, 56 of whom are presently members of the Typographical Union, which union did not intervene in this proceeding. The remaining 4 employees, consist of 2 regular truckdrivers, 1 occasional truckdriver, and 1 janitor-porter who does no driving. The Teamsters request a unit consisting of the two regular truckdrivers and if the Board so orders, it would include the occasional truckdriver but not the janitor-porter. The Bookbinders and the Employer claim that the only appropriate unit is a residual unit consisting of all four employees. The Bookbinders intervened in the Teamsters' petition, but the Teamsters did not intervene in the Bookbinders' petition, Case No. 14-RC-3166. The testimony shows that the 2 regular truckdrivers spend from 55 to 60 percent of their time truckdriving, 10 to 15 percent of their time performing duties incidental to driving, that is, hauling materials to the trucks, and the remainder doing work inside the plant, such as assisting in wrapping and weighing. The occasional driver relieves the regular drivers in case of illness, spending about 35 percent of his time in driving a truck or making deliveries in a private car. The janitor-porter spends 90 percent of his time in wrapping and weighing in the plant and does no driving. We find that as the two regular truckdrivers spend a majority of their working time in actual driving and in loading and unloading trucks incidental thereto, they constitute a functionally distinct group which is entitled to separate representation.' We also find that the re- maining 2 employees may constitute an appropriate residual unit, or all 4 employees as sought by the Bookbinders may constitute an appropriate residual unit. In view of the above, we shall direct elections by secret ballot among the following groups of employees at the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding from each voting group office i In.tercheniical Corporation, 116 NLRB 1443. EMPLOYING PLASTERERS ASSOCIATION 17 clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. (a) All truckdrivers. (b) All occasional drivers and janitor-porters. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the Teamsters, which is seeking to represent them separately, those eln- ployees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Teamsters for such unit. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do not vote for the Union Which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, their votes will be pooled with those in voting group (b) and the Regional Director is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organi- zation selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Employing Plasterers Association of the District of Columbia, Inc.' and Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2126. June 5, X957 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 Robert W. Knadler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 employees employed by members of the Employer Association.' I The name of the Employer Association appears as amended at the hearing. A list of the members of the Association is appended hereto. - 2 We affirm the hearing officer's ruling denying intervention to the Construction Con- tractors Council and the Piaster Builders Association. We also deny the Employer Asso- ciation's request for oral argument as the issues raised herein have already been passed upon by the Board. S After the close of the hearing, Carpenters District Council moved for intervention and sought to file a brief. As we are not satisfied that the Carpenters have a valid basis for intervention , particularly in view of our determination herein, we deny the 'motion to intervene and reject the brief proffered by the Carpenters and purporting to discuss the merits of the current representation proceeding. 118 NLRB No. 5. 450553-58-vol. 118-3