Royal Communicating Graphics

ROYAL COMMUNICATING GRAPHICS R.B.P., Inc., d/b/a Royal Communicating Graphics and Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, Local 17-L, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-8320 May 23, 1969 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY 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 before William L. McEntire, Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 20 transferred this case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this 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 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning 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. 4. The Employer is engaged in the business of producing copies of items by a wide variety of photographic and other processes, such as blueprint, diazo, electrostatics, lithography, photostat, and xerography. The Petitioner contends that employees engaged in the lithographic process form an identifiable and cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. The Petitioner describes this unit as consisting of "at least" eight operators and one feeder of lithographic presses, and an offset platemaker, all of whom work in the Offset Department on the first floor where the presses are located; two negative assemblers, who perform offset preparatory work in the Art and Photographic Departments located on other floors of the plant; and a cameraman in the Photographic 176 NLRB No. 22 163 Department. i The Petitioner further contends that a unit comprised of these and six other employees who do bindery work in the Offset Department would comprise an appropriate and acceptable alternative unit. The Employer contends that due to the nature of its business, wherein material is reproduced by a wide variety of methods, there is a close integration of its different copying processes, and the only appropriate unit must therefore be plantwide. The Employer urges that this is evident from a common use of its equipment on lithographic and nonlithographic work and from a necessary periodic reassignment of its personnel to lithographic and nonlithographic duties to meet a workload constantly changing in nature and magnitude. Accordingly, the Employer contends that any unit smaller than a plantwide unit is not appropriate.' The Board has often held that employees engaged in the lithographic process ordinarily form a cohesive unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining where the employees perform usual lithographic duties and exercise the customary skills utilized in a traditional lithographic production unit.' The record shows that almost half of the Employer's employees perform such duties and exercise such skills. However, the Employer points to a number of circumstances to support its contention that only a plantwide unit (and not a lithographic production unit) is appropriate. These circumstances have received our careful attention, and tend to show that a plantwide unit would also be appropriate in this case, one of first impression in the photocopying industry. However, the evidence shows that the core of the lithographic operation under consideration, the offset pressmen, work under separate supervision at one central location in a well defined administrative unit of the Employer, the Offset Department. While it is true that press operators often progress to their positions after receiving training and supervision in the Employer's other operations, a majority of them do not, after attaining such status, regularly interchange to nonlithographic operations in the plant. Finally, 13 'The parties' briefs identify these employees as Billy Andrews, Allen Davis, Sarah Johnson, Chong Kim, Beverly Kruger, David Lindsley, Republican Luccia, Sach Mayeda, press operators; Richard Sherman, a press feeder; Gilbert Lee and Suva Ma, negative assemblers; Veronica Sims, a platemaker , Lun Yun Ng, a cameraman. Davis spends 50 percent of his time training as a press operator. rrlte Employer does not concede that the Petitioner's alternative unit request is appropriate , since in the Employer's view the unit would contain only some employees engaged in the offset process, plus bindery workers who are not so engaged . The Employer's brief does recognize, however, that the lithographic production employees sought by the Petitioner regularly devote sufficient periods of their time performing offset work to be regarded as lithographic production employees. The Employer argues that our dismissal of a petition for a bargaining unit of messengers in a previous case involving this same plant and Employer, R.B.P. Inc, d/b/a Royal Blue Print Company. 166 NLRB No. 25, proves the integration of the Employer's production processes. This argument lacks merit. We held in that case merely that the messengers had no sufficient community of interest separate from that of the other employees which would warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit. 'Sherwin-Williams Co., 173 NLRB No. 54 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees (identified by the parties' briefs and named above herein) clearly devote a predominant amount of their time to lithographic production work. Under all the aforementioned circumstances we find the degree of intergration of the Employer's operations to be not significantly greater than in other cases where we have found a lithographic unit to be appropriate. In view of the foregoing, we find that all of the Employer's employees who are engaged in the lighographic production process also constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.' We expressly include in the unit above found appropriate the 13 employees identified by the parties herein as those who are predominantly engaged in the performance of usual lithographic duties. A further question arises as to whether about 17 other employees in the Employer's plant, who spend a substantial although not a predominant amount of their time performing lithographic duties, and the balance doing nonlithographic work, should be included in the lithographic production unit.' In the Berea Publishing Company case," in deciding the eligibility of employees who perform more than one function for the same employer, we established the rule that we would allow such employees to vote, even though they spend less than a majority of their time on unit work, if they regularly perform duties similar to those performed by unit employees for sufficient periods of time to demonstrate that have a substantial interest in working conditions in the unit. It appears possible that the parties to this proceeding may be able to agree about which of the dual-function employees in question meet the test 'Sherwin-Williams Co., supra. Shwnate, Incorporated, 131 NLRB 98, 99; McCall Corporation, 118 NLRB 1332, 1334. 'These employees are identified as Delia Edwards, Larry Hayes, Andrew Perez, Mary Ramos, Dennis Roberts, Yelba Schlocker, Gene Stewart, Est Due Acqua, Douglas Leong, Yvonne Schneberger. Lilo Bartel, Marilyn Mimaki, Jimmy Wong, Massaru Mochida, Paul Sawyer, Betty Morgan, and Wayne Holland 'Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516. 519 established in the Berea Publishing Company case. We find that those employees regarding whom such an agreement may be reached are eligible to vote in the election we shall direct. We shall permit the remaining dual-function employees, concerning whose eligiblity the parties may not agree, to vote subject to challenge. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees at the Employer's San Francisco plant engaged in lithographic production work, including art and paste up workers, strippers (negative assemblers), camera operators, platemakers, pressmen operating lithographic presses of all types (including multilith, Davidson ATF Chief 15, ATF 25, Miller Perfecter, Webb Offset, Rotoprint, ATF Chief 29 and ATF Chief 1420), press trainees,' and press feeders, but excluding cutters, bindery employees, and all other employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. [Direction" of Election' omitted from publication.] 'We find that Allen Davis, an employee who is learning to operate offset presses, and who spends an estimated 50 percent of his time in such activity, is a trainee on offset presses Accordingly , on that basis, we include him in the lithographic process unit we have found appropriate. 'As the Petitioner's showing of interest was in a smaller unit than is here found appropriate, the Direction of Election is subject to an administrative determination by the Regional Director for Region 20 that the Petitioner's showing of interest in the unit of employees here found appropriate is sufficient. 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear Inc. 156 NLRB 1236, N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S 759, decided April 23, 1969. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.