Richmond Press

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Envelope Company, Inc. d/b/a Richmond Press ' and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16-B, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-UC-172 January 8, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On August 19, 1975, the Regional Director for Re- gion 1 issued a Decision and Clarification of Bar- gaining Unit in the above-entitled proceeding which is attached in pertinent part as an Appendix, wherein he concluded that General Envelope Company, Inc. (hereinafter called Envelope), and General Mail- ways, Inc. (hereinafter called Mailways), are a single employer for the purposes of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, and that the employment interests of Mailways' employee William Pennell were so closely aligned with those of the Envelope employees in an existing unit covered by a collective- bargaining agreement between Envelope and the Pe- titioner that Pennell may, as Petitioner requests, be added to the existing contract unit.2 Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Envelope filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the ground that, in including Pennell in the existing unit, the Regional Director departed from precedent and made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. By telegram dated October 8, 1975, the request for re- view was granted. 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 case and makes the following findings: In reaching his decision the Regional Director re- lied on several findings of interrelated operations that support conclusions. He found that both Envelope's and Mailways' operations 3 are on the same premises owned by Envelope, that a significant i In the Regional Director's Decision and Clarification of Bargaining Unit, Employer's trade name was inadvertently referred to as "Richard" Press 2 The contract unit covers all employees working in head shipper (receiv- er), shipper, journeyman, and floor boy wage classifications, including all bookbinders, apprentices, and floorworkers. All other Envelope employees are covered under collective-bargaining agreements with two other labor organizations - Envelope began operations in 1930 and has had a contract with the Union for many years Mailways was established in 1974. ownership interest in both corporations is held by one person-the president and treasurer of Envelope, that Mailways purchases a significant part of its product line from Envelope, that materials shipped to either are received in the same shipping area, that all shipping room equipment is owned by Envelope and used interchangeably by the two corporations as are the mailing and storage facilities, and that ship- ping employees at both companies use the same tele- phone and timeclock. The Regional Director also re- lied on the fact that the companies are held out to the public as affiliated, that the enterprises deal in relat- ed products having to do with commercial printing 4 and that Mailways relies on Envelope for completing certain shipping and administrative functions atten- dant to its operations. The Regional Director also made findings con- cerning the integration of work forces and job func- tions which, although supporting his conclusions, we believe, deserve further development. Mailways is staffed by Pennell, a part-time ship- ping employee supervised by Austin, a dealership manager for Mailways. Austin also works for Enve- lope as a customer service representative reporting to the president, and is physically located in the latter's general office. In addition to Supervisor Austin and -Shipper Pennell, Mailways may also have a clerical employee. This small complement is generally sup- plemented by the clerical and shipping employees of General Envelope, reflecting both a substantial inte- gration of the work forces and similarity in job func- tions. Specifically, Envelope's office staff performs clerical work for Mailways whenever the need arises and its shipping employees receive Mailways' freight, unload and store it, sign receiving slips or bills of lading for the carrier, and may even make out the detailed inventory receiving slips used by Mailways to account for the freight. Envelope's president testified that its employees are expected to cooperate and help out handling Mailways' shipping when the need arises. It appears that this occurs when Pennell is not working or is off the premises making deliveries or pickups, which as- sumes importance because Pennell works only half days during which he is expected to make deliveries and pickups at customer premises and supply houses. Equally indicative of significant employee integra- tion is that Pennell has handled Envelope's freight, that when he is working on Mailways' shipping he is supervised by Austin who is paid by both corpora- tions for a combination of supervisory and apparent 4 Mailways' dealership agreements provide for the distribution and sale of commercial printing such as business forms, envelopes, and letterheads, all of which is punted by Envelope. In addition, Envelope prints, folds, and cuts dealership agreements , brochures, and business forms used by Mail- ways in its business 222 NLRB No. 8 RICHMOND PRESS 11 managerial work, and that Envelope employees were apparently unaware until this dispute arose that there was any meaningful distinction between either Mail- ways or Envelope when they helped Pennell prepare Mailways' outbound freight for mailing. Envelope argues that this unit cannot be clarified to include employees of a separate employing entity such as Mailways, citing Woolwich, Inc., 185 NLRB 783 (1970). We, however, agree with the Regional Director that Envelope and Mailways constitute a single employer. Although Woolwich involved sepa- rate companies having a family relationship between the principal executive officer of each and close proximity in location, the two companies were oper- ated as separate entities with separate day-to-day management and supervision, and with no inter- change of employees between the two. There were separate timeclocks and interchange of equipment was "limited." In addition, at the time of hearing a separate office was being constructed for Woolwich, the warehouse operation. The Board there noted that the union had never sought the Woolwich employees as a separate unit, and found that no question con- cerning representation existed to support the employer's RM petition. As accretion was also urged in that case by reason of an arbitration award, the Board addressed itself to that problem and conclud- ed that, absent employee consent,' accretion was not appropriate on a record which showed separate own- ership and essentially separate management. Here there is one-third ownership of Mailways by Envelope's president, Mailways holds itself out as an affiliate of Envelope on dealership agreements and brochures, operates on an interrelated basis on the same premises, and by reason of Austin's dual capac- ities there exists a degree of common management significant in an employee complement of the size here involved. We view this evidence as showing that these com- panies are so interrelated that a single employer find- ing is warranted and that Envelope's assertion that no common management or labor policy has been shown is unpersuasive in light of this record. Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director's de- termination that Pennell may appropriately be added to the existing contract unit. 5 We note that Pennell earns a significantly lower rate of pay than provid- ed under Petitioner's contract and that he has a demonstrated' community of interest with Envelope's shipping and receiving employees APPENDIX purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. General Envelope Company, Inc. d/b/a Rich- ard Press (herein called Envelope)' is a Massachu- setts corporation located at 144 Lundquist Drive, Braintree, Massachusetts where it is engaged in the commercial printing business and the wholesale sale of envelopes. Envelope employs twelve (12) employ- ees. Four of these employees are employed in its bindery and shipping department and are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the Petitioner. The remaining employees are represented by other labor, organization in the printing trades and are not involved herein. General Mailways, Inc. (herein called Mailways) is a Massachusetts corporation incorporated in 1974 and engaged in the sale and distribution of photoco- py paper and photocopy machine supplies. The Petitioner seeks to add to its contract unit one individual, William Pennell, whom it claims is em- ployed by the Employer. The Employer contends that Pennell, is an employee of Mailways and thus is in a separate and distinct unit having no community of interest with the employees covered by the collec- tive bargaining agreement between Envelope and the Petitioner. Mailways is located on the same premises as Envelope. It employs only two (2) individuals, Pennell, who is employed part-time as a shipper, and Ralph Austin, employed as a dealership manager and also as Pennell's supervisor. Mailways operates its business through franchised dealers. Austin is also employed by Envelope as its customer service repre- sentative. He is physically located in Envelope's gen- eral office where Mailways' clerical work is prq- cessed by Envelope clerical staff. Mailways in its dealership arrangements represents itself as an affili- ate with Envelope. It indicates therein that its prod- ucts, beside photocopy paper and supplies, includes customer commercial printing and business form en- velopes, letterhead and other imprinted specialty products. Envelope does the printing, folding and cutting for Mailways. All materials received by both Envelope and Mailways are received in the same shipping area and such materials are handled by En- velope employees as well as Pennell. Envelope owns all of the shipping department equipment. Pennell uses this equipment with the exception of a forklift which is operated solely by an Envelope employee. There is only one telephone in the shipping depart- ment area and it is interchangeably used by Enve- lope and Mailways employees as are the mailing and storage facilities. Pennell clocks in on the same timeclock used by Envelope employees, but in view of the fact that he 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD makes deliveries, he is clocked out by Austin. Pennell is paid less than Envelope shipping employees and receives none of their fringe benefits. Envelope's President, who is also its Treasurer, owns approximately 98 percent of Envelope's stock and has a one-third interest in Mailways, but is not an officer of Mailways. Based upon the above, it is found that Envelope and Mailways are represented to the public as affili- ates, are integrated, in that they use common loca- tion, office and shipping facilities. Moreover, there is an interrelationship of ownership and Austin, who is Pennell's supervisor, reports to the President of En- velope. Accordingly, it is concluded that Envelope and Mailways constitute a single Employer, and that Pennell's employment interest is closely allied to the employees unit covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the Petitioner and Envelope and he may thus appropriately be added to such a unit? See Hemisphere Progressive Corp., Hemisphere Press, Inc., 154 NLRB 711, 721; Local No. 235, Lithogra- phers and Photoengravers International Union, 187 NLRB 490, 491. 2 Under the provisions of Sec . 102 67 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, a request for review of this decision may be filed with the Board in Washington, D.C. This request must be received by the Board in Washing- ton by September 2, 1975.