Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., 1549 (1962)

Docket Number:03-RD-00113


In view of the foregoing, and the fact that the Petitioner has traditionally represented such employees, we find that the employees engaged in the lithographic process at the Employer's Houston plant may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire. We shall not, however, make a final unit determination at this time, but shall direct that the question concerning representation which exists with regard to these employees be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in the following voting group : All lithographic process employees at the Employer's plant in Houston, Texas, in.cluding pressmen, feeders, press supply or inkmen,' and lithographic apprentices, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.

If the majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to certify the Petitioner as representative for the unit described in the voting group above, which the Board finds, in that event, to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority vote for the Intervenor,' they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain in the existing plantwide unit at the Houston plant and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.

[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER PETERsoN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.

'' At the hearing, the Employer took no position as to the unit sought by the Petitioner but asserted generally that a question existed as to the unit placement of the press supply ,or inkman who handles ink plates. As this employee has special knowledge concerning lithographic inks and plates and works entirely or substantially in connection with the lithographic process, we include this category in the unit.

a The Intervenor requested, in the event that its unit contention be rejected, that its name be placed on the ballot 'in the unit that the Board finds ,appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.' Buffalo's Trucking Service, Inc. and Dominick Scutella, Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 506,


Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Murray S. Freeman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from .prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

114 NLRB No. 246.

1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD - Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :

  1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

  2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative of employees of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.

  3. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 506, AFL-CIO, herein called Teamsters, began an organizing campaign among the Employer'semployees early in 1955, and was designated by a majority of the employees. On June 17, 1955, the Employer filed it petition (Case No.

    3-RM-112). Thereafter, on June 27, 1955, the Teamsters filed unfair labor practice charges alleging a violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5)...

To continue reading