The case of lithographic production employees (craft employees) and printing companies

Labor Relations Reporter

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Leonard Scott Union-Prevention and Counter-
Union Campaign Consulting Files, 1966-2013 
Kheel Center for Labor-Management 
Documentation & Archives 
5-14-1979 
Analysis: Reversal of NLRB’s Certification of 'Craft-Like' 
Bargaining Unit, 1979 
Labor Relations Reporter 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/leonardscott 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Articles and News Clippings is brought to you for free and open access by the Kheel Center for Labor-
Management Documentation & Archives at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leonard 
Scott Union-Prevention and Counter-Union Campaign Consulting Files, 1966-2013 by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Analysis: Reversal of NLRB’s Certification of 'Craft-Like' Bargaining Unit, 1979 
Abstract 
The case of lithographic production employees (craft employees) and printing companies. 
This articles and news clippings is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
leonardscott/81 
COPY fOR 10UR 
INf ORMATION 
LABOR 
RELATIONS 
REPORTER® 
101 Analysis 6 
Vol. 101, No. 6 
May 14, 1979 
FILE in Binder 1 behind tab 
'Analysis' and ofter prior 
weekly is~ue 
ANALYSIS . 
) ~ · Reversal of NLRB's Certification UI of 'Craft-Like' Bargaining Unit 
DEVELOPMENT: A "craft-like'.' unit of lithograph ic 
production employees is not appro pri ate fo r bargaining, the U.S. 
Cou rt of Appeals at New York ho lds, finding that the NLRB ac ted 
arbit ra rily and depa rted from indi stinguishable precedents in ma k-
ing its ba rga in ing-un it ruling. (NLRB v. Meyer Label Co. , CA 2, 
1979, 101 LRR M 21 10) 
Employe 's Operation 
The employer is a specialty printing company located on va ri ous 
noors of three cont igu ous buildings on Eas t 16th Street in New 
York C ity. It employs abou t 30 persons a nd is engaged primarily in 
print ing labels and pat ches on fabrics, us ing letter presses, offset 
presses. and cu tting and dyei ng machines. 
The empl oye r' s ar t department is on the se venth fl oor of 5 East 
16th S treet. The fo ur a rt-depar tm ent employees perform 
preparatory work. such as designing labels, filmin g, lith ographic 
stripping. platemaking. and other tasks involved in prepari ng the 
product fo r the offset or lett er press. 
Abou t seven employees on th e third and fourth fl oor of all three 
buildings ope rate machines that cut the fab ric fo r the labels. The cut 
fabric and lith og raphi c plates then a re sent to the printing area. on 
th e third fl oo r of 5 and 7 East 16th Street. 
Seventeen employees work in the printing area. It conta ins seven 
or eight offset presses, seven letter presses, and seven cutting 
machines. A ft er the labels have been printed on the fabric, the 
materi als are sent to the shi pping department on the fo ur th floor fo r 
handling and packing. 
The Board found approp ria te a lit hographic-production unit 
of eight empl oyees. Six were lith ograph ic press operato rs in the 
17-person printing ope rati on. and two did lith og raphic ca mera 
wor k and pl a temak ing in the fo ur-person a rt department. 
Contents Co pyright 0 1979 by The Bureau of National Affairs, In c . 
Rights of re disrribution or reproduc tion belong to cop yright ow ner. 
Section 2 
0148-7981/79/ S00 50 
IOI ANAL YSJS 6 
Quoting from George Rice & Sons (NLRB, 1974, 87 LRRM 
l l 14 ), the Board said it traditionally has found that employees 
engaged in the lithographic process form a distinct and cohesive 
unit. The employees involved here operate standard lithographic 
equipment requiring a degree of skill commensurate with that 
found in other tradition al lithographic craft units, it said . Briefly 
distinguishing Continental Can Co. (NLRB, 1968, 68 LRRM 
l l 65), it added that the unit employees are engaged in commer-
cial lithographic work, including four-color wet offset printing, 
which is recognized as requiring greater skill than the dry offset 
process . 
The Board noted that the employer's physical layout does not 
separate its lithographic employees from the others, that there is 
a degree of integration of operations, and that there is "limited" 
interchange. However, it concluded that "the nature of the work 
performed by these employees and the ski lls required, which are 
recognized by the employer as warranting a separate immediate 
foreman or supervisor, establish that these employees are craft-
like" and have a separate community of interest. (Meyer Label 
Co. , NLRB, 1977, 97 LRRM 113 l) 
Reasoning of Court 
The court finds that there is no substantial evidence to support 
the Board's conclusions and that the Board has departed from its 
own precedents. 
The court discusses Continental Can, supra, Weyerhaeuser Co. 
(NLRB, 1963, 53 LRRM 1217), and Pacific Press (NLRB, 1946, 
l 7 LRRM 353), in each of which a lithographic unit was found in-
appropriate. These precedents involve the same factors which 
militate against a separate lithographic unit here, the court says, 
citing the absence of separate supervision for the lithographic 
employees, the substantial amount of time they spend performing 
non-lithographic duties, t e absence of a separate location for the 
lithographic employees, uniform treatment of all employees with 
regard to working hours, fringe benefits, and other matters, sub-
stantial interchange of jobs between lithographic and non-
lithographic employees, and the employer's "specific 
organizational structure" and "business exigencies" resulting in a 
substantial interchange of employees between offset and other 
presses. 
The court rejects the Board's finding that interchange between 
offset operators and other employees is "infrequent" and occurs 
only in emergencies or when a lithographic run has ended. The 
Board has failed adequately to consider the employer's specific 
structure and mode of operations, the court concludes, saying that 
Labor R~■ tions Reoorter o 148-7981n9/ S00.50 5-14-79 
IOI ANALYSIS 7 
the company functions essentially as an integral unit, with its 
operations organized to enable employees to perform as many 
different functions as possible, and with constant and extensive job 
interchanges among all employees. 
The court takes note of the centrality of supervision in the 
employer's small plant. A single plant supervisor directs all 
employees, it says, and the company's managerial structure and 
labor relations policy are completely integrated. Moreover, it adds, 
there is no formal training or apprenticeship program, employees 
generally are hired without previous experience, and employees 
hired primarily for one function very frequently are assigned to 
other functions. 
The Board has given insufficient weight to the uniformity of 
treatment of all company personnel, the court says, and to the close 
proximity of lithographers and other employees resulting from the 
employer's physical layout. It finds no support for the Board's 
placement of two of the art-department employees, saying that the 
art department functions as a single, integrated, four-person unit. It 
concludes its opinion with a description of the "sheer havoc" that· 
might result if the unit found appropriate by the Board were per-
mitted to bargain separately; the employer might be forced to 
reorganize its production , the court says, or to restructure its 
operations. 
BACKGROUND: The NLRB's bargaining-unit policy for craft 
employees has varied over the years. In American Can Co. (NLRB, 
1939, 4 LRRM 392), the Board effectively refused to permit the 
severance of crafts units from broader established units. General 
Electric Co. (NLRB, 1944, 15 LRRM 33) permitted craft severance 
in limited situations, but the Board subsequently decided that there 
were four industries - basic steel, basic aluminum, lumbering, and 
wet milling - whose highly integrated natures precluded any craft 
severance at all. (National Tube Co., NLRB, 1948, 21 LRRM 
1292; Permanente Metals Co., NLRB, 1950, 26 LRRM 1039; Corn 
Products Refining Co., NLRB, 1948, 23 LR RM I 090; 
Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., NLRB, 1949, 25 LRRM 1173) 
In American Potash & Chemical Corp. (NLRB, 1954, 33 
LRRM 1380), the Board decided that true craft employees could be 
severed by a union that traditionally had represented that craft. 
However, it refused to permit severance in the four favored in-
dustries, saying that it was unwilling to upset the pattern of bargain-
ing that had been firmly established there. 
In Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (NLRB, 1966, 64 LRRM 
IOI!), the Board abandoned the American Potash and National 
Tube doctrines and set forth six "areas of inquiry" which it said it 
would consider in cases where craft severance was involved. These 
S:)4-79 0148-7981n9/S00.50 Labor RPl■tions Reporter 
10 1 ANALYS IS 8 
Mallinckrodt factors also have been held applicable where a union 
seeks to establi sh a craft unit at a previously unorganized plant. (Du 
Pont & Co .• NLRB. 1966. 64 LRRM 1021; see also Holmberg, 
Inc., NLRB, 1966, 64 LRRM 1025) 
The Board's decision in the present Meyer case describes the 
lith ograph ic employees as " craft-like" workers who have skills like 
those required of "other traditi onal lithographic craft units. " 
Earlier, the Board had stated that lit hographic production 
employees were not craft workers at all and that it was the "com-
mon interests and duties of lithographic employees" that formed 
the basis fo r severance of lithographic units. (Allen, Lane & Scott, 
NLRB, 1962, 50 LRRM 1140) 
Second Circuit's Approach 
The court 's opini on in the present Meyer case takes note of 
Szabo Food Services v. NL RB (CA 2, 1976, 94 LRRM 2264). 
There, the court says, it held th at "if the 'factors identified and 
reli ed on by the Boa rd do not amount to the "s ubstantial 
j ustification" required to "fract ionate a multi- unit operation whose 
labor policy is centra ll y directed and ad ministered," enforcement 
will be denied." In Szabo, the court rejected a Board finding th at a 
union 's requested unit of food service employees at three of the 19 
cafeterias erviced by their empl oyer was appropriate. 
The sta tement quoted by the court as its Szabo ruling appears to 
derive initially from NLRB v . Solis Theat res Corp. (CA 2, 1968, 69 
LRRM 2664), involving a Board finding that one theater in a chain 
constituted an appropriate unit. The court di sagreed, but added: 
" This is not to say th at some compelling reason may not justify 
fractionating an otherwise centrally controlled system of branch un-
it s.'' Later, in uph olding a Boa rd finding th at single branch-claims 
offices of an insurance company were appropriate unit s, the court 
stated: "The holding of Solis Theatres . .. is th at the Board may 
not, without substantial justification, fractionate r1 multi-unit opera-
tion whose labor poli cy is centrally directed and administered ." 
(Continental Ins. Co. v. NLRB, CA 2, 1969, 70 LRRM 3406, cert. 
denied, US SupCt, 1969, 72 LRRM 2658) 
SIGNIFICANCE: The Board seem s to have regarded thi s case as 
a typical craft-type situation. It s brief decision focuses on the skills 
required of unit employees and on the si mil arity of their work to 
trad itional lithographic wo rk . 
However. the court's decis io n stresses the integrated nature of the 
employer's operati ons and it s functioning as an "integral unit." The 
court apparently feel s that the Soli s-Continental-Szabo line of cases 
dealing with the " frac ti onating" of "m ulti-unit" operati ons 1s 
applicable even though Meyer has o~ly a "small pl ant." 


Analysis: Reversal of NLRB’s Certification of \u27Craft-Like\u27 Bargaining Unit, 1979

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&amp;context=leonardscott

Analysis: Reversal of NLRB’s Certification of \u27Craft-Like\u27 Bargaining Unit, 1979

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR