Royal Blue Print Co.

ROYAL BLUE PRINT CO. 205 R. B. P. Inc., d/b/a Royal Blue Print Company and Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees, Division of National Maritime Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-7440 June 28,1967 DECISION AND ORDER CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on March 29, 1967, before Hearing Officer David F. Sargent. Thereafter, the Petitioner and Employer filed briefs. 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 this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of six messengers and one messenger-drivers employed at the Employer's blueprint and reprographic establishment. The Employer contends that the limited unit sought is not an appropriate one for col- lective bargaining in the blueprint industry, and that the only appropriate unit is a production and main- tenance unit, which would include, in addition to the messengers and driver, about 60 employees per- forming work on diazo machines and various presses and collating machines, as well as bookbin- ders and artists and other classifications of em- ployees. The evidence herein shows that the Employer is engaged in the production and distribution of blueprints and allied graphic products at three loca- tions in San Francisco, where it handles overflow work for other concerns in the blueprint and repro- graphic industry, and in addition reproduces prints for architects, engineers, and other commercial customers. Workload on reproduction projects fluc- tuates widely from day to day depending upon customer orders and the particular reproduction process utilized to meet specific requirements. ' Hereinafter called driver. However, regardless of the duplication process used, prompt delivery of the finished product is of prime importance to efficient operation in this ser- vice industry. Petitioner contends that the messengers (includ- ing a driver who operates the Employer's only van) principally perform separate and distinct messenger duties requiring about 85 percent of their time, and that their remaining duties, although involving production, are so minimal and limited that the mes- senger's work function is in no sense an integral part of the Employer's production operations. The evidence shows, however, that the Em- ployer's operations fluctuate considerably both from the standpoint of workload, which may reach several hundred orders per day, and from the stand- point of the variety of reproduction processes util- ized, which are numerous. The messengers and driver spend in excess of half of their time in the plant moving reproduction materials from one work station to another, and each morning some of them also assist in the service control area, where together with customer service employees they identify and properly tag orders to assure their systematic processing and expeditious delivery. The Employer maintains a constant policy of per- mitting messengers and drivers to train for produc- tion positions, which policy is communicated to them. These employees have periodically availed themselves of this opportunity and qualified for plant production positions. Messengers or drivers making this transition receive dual supervision, working under a dispatcher while delivering customer orders, and under one of several produc- tion department supervisors on work in the particu- lar department where they are training. While not all messengers or drivers prove qualified for the transition to production positions, some have been assigned to such classifications, and as they have gained experience have been able to move from their basic hourly rate ($1.50 to $1.70 per hour) to the production scale ($1.70 to $4 per hour). The evidence further shows that as regards all fringe benefits there is no difference between messengers and other employees. The messengers and drivers also work the identical schedule that production employees do both during their regular workweek, and while performing overtime work. That inplant duty of keeping material for reproduction projects properly distributed to work stations to insure systematic processing of customer orders utilizes a substantial portion of their time and is closely re- lated to the Employer's production operations. Their adjunct duties performed while training for production positions are even more important to the same production process. In all the above circum- stances we are of the opinion that the messengers and drivers have no sufficient community of in- terest separate from that of other production em- ployees to warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purpo- 166 NLRB No. 25 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sec.2 On the contrary, we find that their interests broader than that described in its present petition, are so closely related to those of the other produc- we shall dismiss the petition. tion employees , so as to require their inclusion in an overall production and maintenance unit .3 As the Petitioner does not seek to represent any unit ORDER 2 E.H Koester Bakery Co, Inc., 136 NLRB 1006, 1011 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed 3 Brown Engineering Company , Inc, 123 NLRB 1619, 1621 herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed.