Robertson Paper Box Co., Inc.

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union states in its objection that the notice was improperly displayed, con- tending that because of this one eligible employee was not advised of his right to vote and thus failed to cast a ballot in the election. The investigation showed that the only eligible employee who did not vote was James Covington, who is employed as a part-time janitor. Covington attends high school 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily. After school he spends 2 hours daily in the store, cleaning desks, sweeping the floor, dusting displays, and emptying waste baskets. This work takes him to all parts of the store. Covington states in his affidavit that: "I didn't vote in the election for one thing because I didn't know about it [the time and date] and also because of the early hour I couldn't have been there anyway since it was during my school hours and I would have been in school." Covington states that he seldom reads the various notices posted on the bulletin board because they usually did not concern him. He admits that although he was aware that an election was scheduled, he failed to read the notice or to make any inquiries as to the scheduled date and time. Under these circumstances, Covington's failure to vote is not attributable to the manner in which the notices were posted. Since he did not see the notice at all, the manner of posting becomes immaterial as to him. The notice of election was available in the place where notices to employees are customarily posted. Fur- thermore, Covington could have determined the election date and hours by simply asking the store manager, who did remark at one time to Covington that an election would be held soon, although she did not specify the date. The Regional Director therefore concludes that the manner in which the election notices were posted did not cause any eligible employee to refrain from voting. The Regional Director having concluded that objection No. 2 lacks merit, recom- mends that it be overruled. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Robertson Paper Box Company, Incorporated and General Team- sters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen, Local Union No. 493, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5455. August 6, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On March 2, 19599 the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in this proceeding, finding a unit of production and maintenance employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' Thereafter, on March 20, 1959, Norwich, Connecticut, Printing Spe- cialties and Paper Products Union, Local No. 494, subordinate to In- ternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 494, one of the Intervenors herein, filed a motion to amend the Decision and Direction of Election by severing a craft unit composed of the Employer's printing pressmen, cutting pressmen, and creasing pressmen, their apprentices and help- ers. On March 26, 1959, the Board issued a telegraphic notice to show cause why it should not find appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining a craft unit as requested by Local 494, and a residual pro- i Unpublished. 124 NLRB No. 45. ROBERTSON PAPER BOX COMPANY, INCORPORATED 349 duction and maintenance unit. By telegram dated March 31, 1959, United Mine Workers, District 50, another Intervenor, filed a response thereto, moving that Local 494's motion be denied as untimely, and that, in the event the said motion be allowed, the Board reopen the record for the taking of further testimony on the unit question. By telegram dated April 1, 1959, Local 494 responded to the notice to show cause, supporting its motion. On the same day the Employer and the Petitioner filed responses opposing Local 494's motion, and_ the Employer filed a motion to reopen the record. On April 9, 1959,, the Board issued an order reopening record and remanding proceed- ing to Regional Director for a further hearing on the issue of appro- priate unit. The further hearing was held before M. Alice Fountain, hearing officer, on May 8, 1959, at Boston, Massachusetts. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are. hereby affirmed.' At the reopened hearing the only evidence introduced was that by the Employer to show that the "Printing Specialties and Paper Prod- ucts" Local of the International Printing Pressmen involved here, as distinguished from a regular "Printing Pressmen" local of the Inter- national, is not a craft union,and has not traditionally organized or represented employees on a craft basis, but on the contrary was estab- lished for the purpose of organizing, and has organized, employees in the paper box industry on an industrial basis. The first portion of this evidence consists of provisions in the Inter- national's constitution, as follows : (1) A "Jurisdiction" provision which first lists "printing pressmen" and several other specific related craft categories, and then lists "printing specialty and paper products workers covered on a industrial basis"; (2) provisions for $1.85 per month dues for members of "Specialty Unions" as against "regular" dues of $6.20 per month; (3) provisions for lesser "death benefits" for members of "Specialty Unions"; and (4) provisions for the publica- tion of two different official International journals, one to be known as "The American Pressmen," and the other to be known as "The Spe- cialty Worker." The second portion of such evidence consists of various statements in issues of "The Specialty Worker" journal, the most comprehensive of which from the April 1957 issue is as follows : SPECIALIZED PRINTING Marching hand in hand with the vast expansion of the pack- aging industry in America is the equally fast growing field of 3 For the reasons stated hereinafter , we find no merit in Local 494's objections to the admission into evidence of certain documentary evidence. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD specialized printing. Frequently the same plant which is manu- facturing packaging materials or products also has a department which is printing diversified advertising messages upon their customers' products. This may vary from the comparatively simple printing on corrugated shipping containers to the multi- colored, intricate printing appearing upon a vast variety of paper and other materials such as plastic and aluminum foil. Under these circumstances printing is but one sequence of a series of production steps and not the main end product in itself. Ordinarily, the printing pressmen are among the highest skilled jobs in such a plant. Typically, however, the number of produc- tion workers engaged in activities before and after the printing process is far greater than the number responsible for the print- ing operations. We point out these matters to you to explain, in part, that print- ing equipment is being moved into regular production plants as a natural and logical development of modern manufacturing methods. This does not mean, necessarily, that regular commer- cial job shops are losing business to such plants, although some- times this happens. Rather it indicates the recognized necessity of printing advertising upon all packaged products which even- tually come within the sight of a possible consumer. As a union mainly concerned with maintaining full jurisdic- tion over all kinds of printing presses and related equipment, we cannot ignore these economic facts of life. We must endeavor, as fast as we can, to offer union membership to all the production workers in such plants. We say all the workers because we recognize that, for a num- ber of reasons, it would not be wise to try to separate the printing press operations from the long chain of production links in these semi-production line plants. Working against any possibility of separating the printing press workers from others when we are advocating joining our Union, are the facts that first, there usu- ally is no sharp separation of the printing department from other plant departments. Second, supervision often extends beyond the pressroom. Third, other production operations may be very close or attached to printing equipment and some 'workers are shared between operations as the need for help varies. Fourth, workers in the plant have a greater commonality of interest than is the case in regular printing plants in which separate depart- ments are established to perform distinctly different operations. Fifth, a single union, covering all workers, in such plants tends ROBERTSON PAPER BOX COMPANY, INCORPORATED 351 to further harmonize work relations between workers. This re- flects to the good of all concerned, including management. We conclude that, for selfish as well as unselfish reasons, we must interest ourselves in bringing the workers in specialty printing and paper products plants into our Union. In doing so we must recognize that regular craft distinctions do not exist and are not practical for most of such plants. It is obvious that the full production unit is the proper unit for organization. Normal craft union arguments are meaningless to these work- ers. Our Specialty union membership arrangement is the ideal answer for this kind of work groups. Such an arrangement has served to bring union conditions to thousands of these workers and has worked toward the elimination of unfair low wages competition which had been prevalent in many of these specialty plants. But we have only scratched the surface, considering the large number of unorganized workers in these plants. The third portion of such evidence consists of contracts between various "Printing Specialties and Paper Products" locals and about 50 companies in the paper box industry, all of which contracts cover overall production and maintenance units. These companies run from coast to coast, and it is also significant that the parties to one of these contracts are the Local involved herein and a paper box fac- tory located only 9 miles away in the same area in Connecticut as the Employer herein. The foregoing evidence introduced at the reopened hearing clearly supports the Employer's contention that the "Printing Specialties and Paper Products" Local involved, as distinguished from a regular "Printing Pressmen" local, is not a craft union but an industrial union.3 Additional supporting factors may be found in that : (1) Local 494 itself represented the employees involved herein on an overall production and maintenance basis for 13 years prior to the instant petition; (2) the Board in several cases has found that the International Printing Pressmen or one of its "Printing Pressmen" locals is a "traditional representative" entitled to craft severance of printing pressmen in the paper box industry,4 but the instant case appears to be the only one in which a "Printing Specialties and Paper 3 We note that in its brief Local 494 completely ignores the distinction shown between a "Specialty" local and a regular local, which is now a key factor in the case, and treats the two as if they were the same. 4 See, e.g., Sutherland Paper Company, 106 NLRB 524 and 112 NLRB 622; Crowell Carton Company, 111 NLRB 528; The New Haven Pulp & Board Company, 83 NLRB 268, It should also be noted that in Sutherland, a "Printing Specialties and Parser Products" local intervened for an overall production and maintenance unit, excluding the pressmen sought by its International. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Products" local has even sought such a craft severance; I and (3) the only evidence of "traditional representation in the instant case is broad testimony that "the International Pressmen, through their Local Union, have traditionally devoted themselves to the representa- tion of employees in the printing industry on a craft basis," with no specific testimony that the "Printing Specialties and Paper Products" Local involved is such a "traditional representative." The Board has held that a union which, by its constitution, does not purport to represent a specific craft but may represent a multitude of crafts or even tradesmen who may not be skilled craftsmen is not a qualified "traditional representative" under American Potash 6 for craft severance purposes.' In the instant case, not only the Interna- tional constitution, but also official statements in the International journal, a substantial number of contracts in the industry," and the Board's administrative experience, show that the "Printing Special- ties and Paper Products" Local involved does not qualify as a "tradi- tional representative," particularly in the absence of any specific affirmative evidence to support its "traditional representative" claim. Moreover, the Board has also held that the fact that another affiliate of a union's international may be a "traditional representative" (such. as the "Pressmen" locals of the International here) does not establish that the union involved is a "traditional representative." I Accord-, ingly, we find that Local 494 is not a qualified "traditional representa- tive" under American Potash for purposes of the alleged craft sever- ance which it seeks, and is therefore not entitled to such severance.10 In, view of the foregoing, we affirm our original finding that only the existing overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate, and We shall direct an election in that unit. [Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election. In all cases such a local has sought a production and maintenance unit, and Local 494 has cited no case to the contrary . See, e .g., Sutherland Paper Company, supra; American Forest Products Corporation, 114 NLRB 1200. In Sutherland Paper Com- pany, 122 NLRB 1284, cited by Local 494, the Board found that the Lithographers International was a traditional representative of lithographic employees. IAmerican Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 'Port Die Casting Corporation, 115 NLRB 1749. Accordingly, we find no merit in Local 494's contention that the provisions of the International constitution should not have been admitted into evidence because they are not relevant. s In view of the refusal of Local 494 to produce these contracts upon request of the Employer prior to the hearing, the fact that the Employer then obtained such contracts directly from the employer or ,employer association involved, and the fact that Local 494 did not really question the authenticity of the contracts, we find that the objection of Local 494 to the introduction into evidence of these contracts on the ground of "no! proper identification" was frivolous and without merit. 6 Bazcgh & Sons Company, 11.4 NLRB 937, footnote 11. "In view of this finding, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the question as to whether the alleged craft unit sought is a true craft unit under American Potash.