Nowels Publications

222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD R. W. Nowels, d/b/a Nowels Publications and Graph- ic Arts International Union, Local 280, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-12509 July 17, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On February 14, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of all press department employees at the Employer's plant in Menlo Park, California. Thereafter, in accor- dance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Re- lations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for re- view of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that, in concluding that the peti- tioned-for unit is appropriate, he made erroneous findings as to substantial factual issues and departed from officially reported precedent. The National Labor Relations Board, by tele- graphic order dated March 10, 1975, granted the re- quest for review and stayed the election pending de- cision on review. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding with respect to the issues under review, including the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the following findings: As indicated, the Regional Director found the Petitioner's requested unit of press and camera de- partment employees to be appropriate, rejecting the Employer's contention that the unit should encom- pass all regular full-time and part-time production and maintenance employees and its alternative posi- tion that an appropriate unit would consist of em- ployees in the Employer's pasteup, camera, and press departments. Unlike the Regional Director, we find, for the reasons below, in agreement with the Employer's alternative contention, that employees in the Employer's pasteup, camera, and press depart- ments, who are predominantly engaged in tasks tra- ditionally performed by lithographic production em- ployees, constitute an appropriate unit. The Employer prints and publishes four newspa- pers and also does printing for outside customers. Two-thirds of the Employer's work comes to its plant with some work already done on it. The rest the Em- ployer handles from start to finish. There are basically five departments in the Employer's production area: graphic arts, typeset- ting, pasteup, camera, and press. On a job which would utilize all departments, the work order is first written up in the graphic arts department and goes to the typesetting department for setting headline and body material. The galleys are then sent to the paste- up department where they are proofread and pasted up on the form. From the pasteup department the job goes to the camera department. After the camera work is done, the negatives are stripped and opaqued and the plates are made. The plates are then sent to the press department. After being run through the presses, the papers are bundled and prepared for de- livery. The graphic arts department, which has six em- ployees, is also known as the front office and in- cludes classified, display, advertising, and circula- tion. The employees in this department rarely go into the press, camera, and pasteup departments. They deal with customers on prices and materials, pick up raw work, bundle up boxes, and perform handfold work before delivering the finished product. Other employees answer the phone, take care of advertis- ing, do proofreading and legal notices, and do build- ing alterations and maintenance. There are nine employees in the typesetting de- partment, also known as the compugraphics area. There employees take copy from the editors, set it using compugraphic machines, and send it to the pasteup department. They do not go into the press department at all. Although employees in both the typesetting department and the graphic arts depart- ment spend a portion of their time performing litho- graphic production functions, they are not, with the exception of employee Maureen DeBonnet, shown to be predominately engaged in such tasks.' Employees in the pasteup, camera, and press de- partments spend a substantial amount of time per- forming duties in each other's departments. There are nine employees in the pasteup department. They paste up copy and headlines. For the group as a whole approximately three-quarters of their time is spent in pasteup, one-eighth in camera work, and one-eighth in typesetting. One employee, in addition to her pasteup work, works on color and shoots nega- tives. Another employee, who started in typesetting 1 Although employee DeBonnet is listed by the Employer as a typesetting department employee, she works three-quarters of her time in the pasteup and camera departments and is therefore properly included in the litho- graphic production unit of pasteup, camera, and press departments employ- ees found herein to be appropriate See W P Butler Company, 214 NLRB No. 91 (1974). 219 NLRB No. 73 NOWELS PUBLICATIONS 223 and progressed into pasteup, devotes a great deal of his time to camera work. Still another employee spends three-quarters of his time in pasteup work and one-quarter in camera work. There are five employees in the camera depart- ment. All the cameramen do proofreading before they shoot negatives. If there is a mistake they take the material back to pasteup. Some of the camera department employees prepare ink and do pasteup work. One such employee spends approximately one- third of her time in pasteup. Another individual spends one-third of his time in camera, one-third in stripping and platemaking, and another third split up between press, maintenance, stripping, pasteup, and dealing with customers. Another employee works on the presses. There are nine employees in the press department. In addition to working on the presses, these employ- ees also perform pasteup work and are often in- volved in camera-work and in stripping, opaquing, and burning plates. They may, on occasion, also serve as forklift operators, paper bundlers, and deliv- ery drivers. Based on the foregoing evidence of employee skills, contacts, and interchange, and in the absence of a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis,2 we find that the following employees of the 2 In its brief on review, the Petitioner argues that delivery drivers in the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:3 All lithographic production employees, in- cluding press, camera, and pasteup department employees employed by the Employer at its Menlo Park, California, facility, and all employ- ees who are predominantly engaged in perform- ing work in such departments, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re- gional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified hereln,4 except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that imme- diately preceding the date of issuance of this Deci- sion on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication] press department should be excluded from the unit and that the Regional Director erred in finding Lopez, Brown and Hamilton to be supervisors. However, as the Petitioner did not file a timely request for review as to such matters, its contentions are rejected 7 See, e g, Paramount Press, Inc, 187 NLRB 586 (1970); The Standard Register Company, 120 NLRB 1361 (1958); Printing Industry of Seattle, Inc., 116 NLRB 1883 (1956); Drug Package Co., Inc, 101 NLRB 1123 (1952) As the unit found appropriate is substantially broader than that request- ed by the Petitioner, the Regional Director shall determine whether its showing of interest is sufficient before proceeding with an election. In the event the Petitioner wishes to withdraw its petition it may do so by written request filed with the Regional Director within 5 days of this Decision on Review