Triangle Publications, Inc.

In the Matter of TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. avd AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. I. O. Case No. 16-R-1678.-Decided July V, 1946 Mr. E. G. Cloud, of Houston, Tex., for the Company. Mr. W. B. Melody, of Houston, Tex., for the Union. Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by American Newspaper Guild, C I. O., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Triangle Publications, Inc., Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board on April 18, 1946, conducted a pre- hearing election pursuant to Article III, Section 3, of the Board's Rules and Regulations,' among employees of the Company in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished to the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 11 eligible voters and that 11 voters cast ballots, of which 9 were for the Union, none were against the Union, and 2 were challenged. Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of the Rules and Regulations,2 the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon. due notice before Earl Saunders, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Houston, Texas, on May 24 and 25, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and ' By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the con- duct of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial issues. ' As amended November 27, 1945, this Section provides that in instances of prehearing elections, all issues, including issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots, shall be heard at the subsequent hearing. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 95. 780 TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. 781 to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY Triangle Publications, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates plants in the cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Hous- ton, Miami, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The Houston plant is solely involved in this proceeding. The Company is engaged at its Houston plant in the printing and distribution of a periodical devoted exclusively to race news and the development and advancement of horse breeding and horse racing. During the calendar year 1945, and the first 4 months of 1946, the raw materials used by the Company at its Houston plant exceeded $25,000 in value, all of which was received by the Company from points outside the State of Texas. During the same period the material printed by the Company at its Houston plant exceeded $50,000 in value, of which more than 30 per- cent was shipped to points outside the State of Texas. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Newspaper Guild is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to- membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit of all employees of the editorial department of the Company's Houston plant, including the copy holder and assist- ant editor, but excluding the editor and all other supervisory em- 782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees. Although the Company is in substantial agreement with the Union, contrary to the Union's position it objects to the inclusion of the copy holder, on the ground that he is an employee in the com- posing department, and the assistant editor, on the ground that he is a supervisory employee.' The copy holder reads to a proofreader copy prepared by the edi- torial department. The proofreader in turn checks this against the galley proof prepared by the composing department. The copy holder is located in the editorial department, which is physically separated from the composing department, and his wages are com- parable to those of the employees in the editorial department.4 Although the Company states that the copy holder is under the direct supervision of the composing department foreman, this foreman testified that he has no control over the copy holder. This testimony is corroborated by the fact that the copy holder was assigned to his job by the editor, who is in charge of the editorial department. In addition, the copy holder's off days are scheduled by the editor, who appoints editorial department employees to substitute for the copy holder on these occasions. We also note that the Company has a collective bargaining agreement with another union covering all em- ployees in the composing room, yet the copy holder is excluded from the coverage of this agreement. Under all the circumstances we shall include the copy holder in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. The assistant editor aids the editor in running the editorial depart- ment. He is in sole charge of the department in the editor's absence, which occurs approximately 25 percent of the time. The assistant editor performs copy reading work and also coordinates the work of the sub-divisions of the department so that the periodical will be issued on schedule. He has the authority effectively to hire and dis- charge employees in the department. In addition, he has the author- ity to sign checks. Furthermore, except for the salary of the editor, his weekly salary is $20 higher than that of any other employee in the editorial department. We find from the above facts that the as- sistant editor is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our customary definition of that term. Therefore, we shall exclude him from the unit hereinafter found appropriate .5 8 The ballot of Anthony Jebbia, the copy holder , was one of the two challenged at the election ; the other challenged ballot was cast by an employee who, the Company contended, had been permanently discharged, apparently as of the eligibility date or before the day of the election . The assistant editor, Henry G. Mahan, did not vote in the election. 4 The copy holder receives $35 a week, whereas the proofreader, who is a composing department employee , receives $63 a week. 5 The Union contends that the assistant editor, if found to be supervisory, should never- theless be included because of a purported custom in the industry . But there is nothing in the record to indicate that it is the custom in the newspaper industry to include assistant editors with the supervisory powers of the assistant editor in this case in units comprised of non-supervisory editorial department employees. Cf. Matter of The Chicago Daily News, Inc., 56 N. L. R. B. 274. TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. 783 We find that all employees of the editorial department of the Com- pany's Houston plant, including the copy holder, but excluding the assistant editor, editor, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the Union has received a majority of the valid votes cast, and that. the challenged ballots are, insufficient to affect the election results. We shall, therefore, certify the Union as the collective bargaining repre sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.' CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0.,, has been designated and selected by a majority of all employees of the Houston plant editorial department of Triangle Publications, Inc., Houston, Texas, including the copy holder, but excluding the assist- ant editor, editor, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the ex- clusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment,and other conditions of employment. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. 9 As the challenged ballots do not affect the outcome of the election we find it unneces- sary to direct that the ballot of Jebbia , whom we have included in the unit , be opened and counted , nor do we deem it necessary to pass upon the validity of the remaining challenged ballot.