The American News Company

In the Matter of THE CONNECTICUT NEWS COMPANY, DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 443, AFL, PETITIONER Case No.1-R-3099.Decided September 05, 1946 Mr. Walter B. Lockwood, of Stamford, Conn., for the Employer. Mr. Mathew Ruoppolo, of New Haven, Conn., for the Petitioner. Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New Haven, Connecticut, on July 2, 1946, before Julius Kirle, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations. Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The American News Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in the wholesale distribution of newspapers, magazines, and books. It operates approximately 250 branches or divisions throughout the United States. We are here concerned solely with the division lo- cated at New Haven, Connecticut. This division is unincorporated and is operated under the name of the Connecticut News Company, Division of The American News Company. During the year 1945 the Employer purchased for distribution and sale in Connecticut newspapers and magazines valued in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 95 percent was purchased outside the State of Connecticut. During the same period the Employer sold newspapers and magazines valued in excess of $200,000, all of which. was sold within the State of Connecticut. 71N L R Bo9. 30 THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY 31 The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner 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 Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the Employer's delivery truck drivers. The Employer objects to this limitation, contending that the scope of the unit should be extended to include the periodical superintendent, promotion men, the distribution clerk, the return clerk, and three mail clerks. The drivers and the promotion men comprise the Employer's deliv- ery department. As described at the hearing there would seem to be little difference between the duties of the drivers and the duties of the promotion men. Both categories devote approximately 80 per- cent of their time to outside work such as driving trucks, making deliv- eries, checking returns on the outside, and making collections. The balance of their time is spent in the periodical and return department, where they work with, and are in close proximity to, the inside group of employees. They are hourly paid and are supervised by the period- ical superintendent, who, in turn, is responsible to the branch manager. The inside group of employees, composed of the distribution clerk, the return clerk, and the three mail clerks, whom the Employer would include in the unit, work in the periodical and return department, where they regulate orders and check returns. On rare occasions, when the volume of outside work increases or when one of the drivers fails to report for work by reason of illness, one or more of the inside employees may work on the outside with the drivers.' They, too, are hourly paid and are under the same supervision as the drivers and promotion men. It is clear that the principal duties of the drivers and promotion men differ from those of the inside employees. The drivers and pro- This may occur on the average of once a month. 717734-47-vol. 71 4 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD motion men are chiefly engaged in driving trucks and related work, whereas the inside employees regulate orders and check returns at the plant. While it is true that the drivers and promotion men spend about 20 percent of their time working with the inside group of em- ployees, the latter spend little or no time in the performance of any outside duties. Thus, it is apparent that the inside group has but little interest in common with the drivers and promotion men. The ditties of the promotion men, however, are so integrated with those of the drivers as to appear substantially the same. It is true that the periodical superintendent performs virtually the same duties as _the drivers but, in addition, he is in charge of all the mail employees of the Employer. Although he does not have the authority to hire or discharge other employees, he can and does effectively recommend such action, despite the fact that his recommendations are subject to further investigation by the branch manager. We are satisfied that the periodical superintendent is vested with sufficient indicia of sup- ervisory authority to warrant his exclusion from a mint of rank and file employees. In view of the foregoing facts we conclude that a unit of drivers and promotion nnen, excluding inside employees and the periodical superintendent, is appropriate. We find that all drivers and promotion men, excluding the distribu- tion clerk, the return clerk, the three mail clerks, the periodical super- intendent, 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 bargaining within the mnean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. The Petitioner maintains that two drivers, nailed Joe Coppola and Louis DePalma, should be declared ineligibile to vote, because they were hired on April 18, 1946, allegedly for the sole purpose of voting against the Petitioner and defeating it at the polls. We find nothing in the record to support this contention. Moreover, both men worked for the Employer prior to the outbreak of war and resigned in 1942, Coppola to join the armed forces, and DePalna to enter defense work. THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY 33 When rehired they were restored to their former positions as drivers.2 On the foregoing facts we find that these persons are eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed. Also contested is the eligibility of another driver, named Charles Peschel, who was permanently discharged shortly after Coppola and DePalma were rehired. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that he should be declared eligible to cast a ballot. No con- tention is made that Peschel was discriminatorily discharged in viola- tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act ; nor has any such charge been filed. Inasmuch as we are utilizing a current pay roll to determine voting eligibility in consonance with our usual practice, we conclude that Peschel is ineligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Connecticut News Com- pany, Division of The American News Company, New Haven, Con- nectlcuf, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 443, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 9 These employees were hired as di ivers, but are claimed to be promotion men by the Petitioner As we include both drivers and promotion men in the appropriate unit, dis- cussion of this difference is unnecessary.