Kelley & Jamison, Inc.

KELLEY & JAMISON , INC. 463 3. Respondents, individually and collectively, have not violated Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Kelley & Jamison, Inc. and Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24, Petitioner. Case No. 26-RC- 2192. August 25, 1964 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Roger B. Holmes. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. Upon the entire record in the case,' the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor 2 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act and claim to represent certain employees 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 Petitioner seeks an election among the Employer's pressmen and a cameraman-platemaker, referred to in its petition as "all litho- graphic production employees." For many years, in separate bargaining units, the Petitioner has represented the pressmen and the Intervenor has represented the com- positors. Ina recent proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, in Case No. 26-CD-15, involving the same parties, the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute,4 in which the Petitioner and 1 The parties stipulated that the transcript of testimony and exhibits in Case No. 26-CD-15 be made a part of the record herein 2 Memphis Typographical Union, Local No. 11, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. ' In view of our disposition in this case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the con- tention that the Intervenor 's contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding . We also reject as lacking in merit the contention that Petitioner is disqualified from doing business for not filing under State law. 4146 NLRB 1614. 148 NLRB No. 58. 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Intervenor were competing to have the disputed work of the cameraman-platemaker, who is engaged in offset preparation work, as- signed to their respective members. In awarding the disputed work, the Board found that it was properly assigned to employees in the existing unit of the Employer's compositors, currently represented by the Intervenor. Accordingly, the employee performing that work was properly within the Intervenor's unit at that time. The parties agree that since the previous hearing there has been no substantial change in the Employer's operations or the duties of the cameraman- platemaker. The record further shows that since the aforesaid De- cision the cameraman-platemaker has been covered by the existing contract between the Employer and the Intervenor . In these circum- stances, we shall exclude the cameraman -platemaker from the unit sought by the Petitioner. We find that all pressmen at the Employer's Memphis, Tennessee, operation, excluding the cameraman-platemaker and all other em- ployees, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Canton Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case No. 10-CA-5443. August 26, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On April 21, 1964, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his De- cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the at- tached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an an- swering brief. 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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 148 NLRB No. 56.