Arizona Times, Inc.

In the Matter of ARIZONA TIDIES, INC., EMPLOYER and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-680.-Decided July 15, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held. at Phoenix, Arizona, on March 14, 1949, before Ben Grodsky, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. . Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act the Board has delegated its powers in connection with. this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and. Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning: of' the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, a labor organization, claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9- (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees in the editorial department of the Employer, including the city editor, assistant city editor, sports editor, women's editor, and the editorial writer, but excluding the managing editor. In addition to the manag- ing editor, the Employer would exclude as supervisors the city editor, assistant city editor, sports editor, women's editor, and head of copy desk.2 Furthermore the Employer would exclude the editorial writer as a confidential or managerial employee. 1 Sometimes referred to in the record as combination city and news editor. Although it appears that the Employer may in the near future establish a separate position of news editor, the duties of such position apart from that of city editor are not set forth in the record . Accordingly, we shall make no present determination as to whether the position of news editor when established is to be included or excluded from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 2 Because of the Employer's economy program, of February 25, 1949 , the head of the copy desk, whose duties appear also to include those of telegraph editor, was discharged 85 N. L. R. B., No. 42. 230 ARIZONA TIMES, INC. 231 The city editor, who is under the immediate supervision of the man- :aging editor, has under his direction at least 11 employees .3 Although there is some indication in the record that the managing editor has the final authority with respect to the hiring or firing of all em- ployees in the editorial department, the city editor does have authority effectively to recommend the hiring or firing of employees and has exercised such authority. In addition, the city editor stated that his duties were similar to those of city editors on other daily papers. Ac- cordingly, we find that he is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. The assistant city editor consults with the city editor with regard to the quality of work performed by certain employees and has au- thority effectively to recommend changes in the employment status of such employees. Also, in the absence of the city editor the assistant city editor is expected to assume the position of city editor. We find that the assistant city editor is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act ; accordingly, we shall exclude shim from the unit .4 The sports editor is in charge of the sports section which presently consists of one other employee.5 The sports editor responsibly directs the work of the sports section and he, like the city editor, has authority effectively to recommend the hiring or firing of employees under his supervision. We find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude him from the unit 6 The women's editor. Due to the Employer's economy program, the women's section was recently reduced to one employee, the editor. Although the former editor may have had supervisory authority, the present editor has no one to supervise and there is no.indication that this section will be enlarged in the near future. We find, therefore, that the women's editor is not a supervisor; accordingly, she will be included in the unit. The edito?ial writer. The Employer contends that the editorial -writer is a managerial or confidential employee and should, therefore, be excluded from the unit. We do not agree. There are no special circumstances in the record to warrant a finding that the editorial and his duties were transferred directly to the city editor . Since no one is presently employed in this category we shall not , at this time , make any determination with respect to such category. 3 The record is not clear concerning whether the sports editor, women 's editor , and the -editorial writer are under the city editor , or whether they are answerable . directly to the managing editor. 4 Matter of A. S. Abell Company , Publisher, The Sun Papers : The Sun, The Sunday Sun, The Evening Sun, 81 N . L. R. B. 82. o Prior to the Employer 's over-all reduction in force of February 25, 1949 , the sports section consisted of three employees. 6 See Matter of The Brooklyn Citizen, 52 N. L. R. B. 673 and Matter of Keystone Printing Service-TVaukegan News-Sun, 85 N. L. It. B. 157. 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD writer is either a managerial or confidential employee. The duties of the editorial writer are those generally performed by editorial writers of other daily papers, and do not include the formulation or determi- nation of management policy. For these reasons we shall include him in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.7 We find that all the employees in the editorial department at the Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, plant, including the women's editor and the editorial writer, but excluding the managing editor, the city editor, the assistant city editor, sports editor, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The parties are in dispute as to whether certain employees recently laid off are eligible to vote. The Employer contends that these em- ployees have been permanently separated from their employment and, therefore, are ineligible to vote; the Petitioner contends that their status is that of employees temporarily laid off. The record discloses that on or about February 25, 10949, pursuant to its economy program, the Employer reduced the editorial department by discharging five em- ployees.8 A representative of the Employer, stated that the time is very remote when and if the number of employees in such department will be increased. Although the Employer might possibly rehire some of the discharged employees, it considers them permanently severed from its payroll. Accordingly, we find that the five discharged em- ployees are not eligible to voter DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,. and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to 7 See Matter of A. S. Abell Company, Publisher; -The Sun Papers: The Sun, The Sunday Sun, The Evening Sun, supra. 8 At the date of the hearing there were about 17 employees in the editorial department- See Matter of Waterman Steamship Corporation, Repair Division, 78 N. L. R. B. 20. ARIZONA TIMES, INC. 233 the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining, by American Newspaper Guild.