Masonware Co.

MASONWARE COMPANY 231 Masonware Company and Local 26, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-6186. February 14, 1961 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 Thomas E. McDonald, hear- ing 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act .2 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and main- tenance unit a unit of lithographic production employees including a cameraman-platemaker, a lithopress operator and helpers, the feeder and puller on the coating machine, and a forklift operator. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the appropriate unit should comprise the overall production and maintenance unit. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of metal spools and stampings. The Employer has one coating machine which is used to apply paint or other coating materials to the metal sheets, which coat- ing is baked onto the metal as the sheets pass through an oven attached to this machine. Two employees, a feeder and a puller, work on this machine. About 50 percent of this coated material then goes to a litho- press, which decorates the metal by the use of a plate and ink and water solutions, whereby the image on the plate is transferred to the metal. These plates are produced by a cameraman-platemaker, who uses a vacuum frame, camera, and related equipment, to make nega- tives from which an image is burned into the plates by the camera. The Employer employs one full-time lithopress operator, two full- 1 The name of the Intervenor, Masonware Employees' Independent Union, appears herein as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer and the Intervenor contend that an existing contract executed by them on November 25, 1958, to run until November 25, 1960, is a bar . As the petition herein was filed on September 14, 1960, within the 150- to 60-day period preceding the terminal date of the contract, we find that the petition was timely and the contract is no bar. Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. 130 NLRB No. 29. 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time day-shift helpers who operate the lithopress, and a forklift oper- ator who moves coated sheets from the coating machine to the litho- press. Except on infrequent occasions when there is no work to be -done in the lithographic department, in which event the foregoing -employees are assigned to production duties, these employees perform lithographic production work and do not interchange with other em- ployees. The record also reveals that these employees receive higher comparative rates of pay than other employees at the plant, with the exception of employees in the machine shop. The record further dis- closes that, with the exception of the cameraman-platemaker, who is supervised by the plant superintendent, the employees involved are supervised by the lithographic department foreman who supervises no other employees.3 The Board has frequently stated that all employees engaged in the lithographic process form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, without regard to the specific skills -of the various employees engaged in that process 4 As the camera- man-platemaker, lithopress operator and helpers, and the forklift operator form a cohesive unit of employees engaged in the litho- graphic process, and as the Petitioner has traditionally represented units of such employees, we find that they may, if they so desire, be separately represented by the Petitioner.' However, we shall exclude the feeder and puller on the coating machin'3 because they are not skilled employees and are not considered as part of the lithographic craft.6 There remains for consideration the unit placement of certain part- -time lithopress helpers. The Employer operates the lithopress on a nightshift basis 1 week each month. The full-time lithopress opera- tor also operates the press on the night shift. Two helpers are em- ployed on the night shift. One such helper regularly works this shift for the Employer, performing the same duties as the full-time day-shift helpers. When the week's night shift is over, this employee performs no other work for the Employer but is recalled the subse- quent month for further night-shift work. In view of the foregoing, we find that this employee is a regular part-time employee and we shall include him? The other night-shift helper is normally em- ployed by the Employer in departments other than the lithographic department. Only when the night shift is in operation does this a The hearing officer took evidence as to the supervisory status of Symington , the fore- man of the lithographic production department, although it is not clear whether any parties contend that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act As the record shows that Symington effectively recommends the hire and discharge of employees under him, we find that Symington is a supervisor and we shall exclude him. See, e .g., Earl Litho Printing Co , Inc, 116 NLRB 1538, 1539 See Robertson Sign Company, 129 NLRB 207. e See Continental Can Company, Inc, 110 NLRB 409, 410 ; Continental Can Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 210 7 See, e g, Brown Cigar Company, 124 NLRB 1435. HAMILTON BROS., INC. & B & C STEVEDORING CO., INC. 233 helper perform lithographic production work. As this employee spends the predominant portion of his working time performing non- lithographic production work, we shall exclude him from the unit.' Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the following voting group of employees at the Employer's East Provi- dence, Rhode Island, plant : All lithographic production employees, including the cameraman- platemaker, lithopress operator, the full-time lithopress helpers and the regular part-time night-shift helper, and the forklift operator, but excluding all other employees, the feeder and puller on the coating machine, the night-shift helper who is predominantly engaged in nonlithographic production work, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a cer- tification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit. If a ma- jority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the overall unit now represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 See Sutherland Paper Company , 122 NLRB 1284, 1287. Hamilton Bros., Inc. and B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc. and Inter- national Longshoremen's Association, Local 1759, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Longshoremen's Association, Peti- tioner. Case No. 12-RC-1074. February 14, 1961 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 Alan D. Greene, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in stevedoring in Tampa, Florida. Its annual gross income amounts 'The names of the parties appear in the caption as corrected at the hearing. 130 NLRB No. 30.