Courier Journal and Louisville Times Co.

In the Matter of COURIER JOURNAL AND LOUISVILLE TIMES Co., EM- PLOYER and LOUISVILLE MAILERS UNION No. 99, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION, PETITIONER Case LY'o. <9-R-26/5.-Decided April,25,1947 Wyatt c' Grafton, by Messrs. Wilson W. Wyatt, Arthrur W. Graf ton, and Louis Lusky, all of Louisville, Ky., for the Employer. Mr. Edward J. Fillen'warth, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Mr. Thomas H. Young,,of Louisville, Ky., for the I. M. U. Mr. J. Paul Keith., of Louisville, Ky., and Mr. Max Burns, of Detroit, Mich., for the I. T. U. Mr. Lewis H. Ulman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Louis- ville, Kentucky, on April 14,1947, before William O. Murdock, hearing officer. At the hearing the Intervenor, in effect, moved to dismiss the petition herein on the ground that it was a party to a valid existing contract with the Employer which bars a determination of representa- tives at this time. For the reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the Intervenor's motion is hereby denied. On April 19, 1947, the Em- ployer, without objection, moved to correct the record in certain minor respects. The Employer's motion is hereby granted. 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 TILE EMPLOYER The Courier' Journal and Louisville Times Company, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in publishing a morning and an evening news- paper in Louisville, Kentucky. Annually, the Employer purchases raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, from sources outside the 73 N. L. R. B., No. 113. 585 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD State of Kentucky. The Employer solicits and prints national ad- vertising; it subscribes to national news services; and it distributes, its newspapers to points outside the State of Kentucky. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. U. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is. a labor, organization affiliated with the Interna- tional Mailers Union, herein called the I. M. U., claiming to repre- sent employees of the Employer.. Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, herein called Local 99, I. T. U.,, is a labor organization affiliated with the International Typographical Union, A. F. L., herein called the I. T. U., claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Petitioner, by letter dated March 24, 1947, notified the Em- ployer that it represented a majority of the employees.in the Employ- er's mailing room, and requested recognition as their bargaining agent. On March 26, 1947, the Petitioner filed its petition herein. The sole disagreement among the parties concerns an alleged contract dated November 9, 1946, between the Employer and -the 1. T. U., which the latter urges as a bar to a present determination of representatives. The record reveals that the Employer and Local 99, I. T. U., exe- cuted a contract on July 12, 1945, retroactive to February 3, 1945, which was to continue in effect until February 2, 1946. This contract was signed by a representative of the Employer and a, representative of Local 99, I. T. U., and it was approved, in accordance with the laws of the I. T. U.,,by a national officer of that organization. On October 1, 1945, an amendment to the contract was similarly executed and ap= proved, revising the wage scale provisions and extending the'expira- tion date to August 17, 1946. The contract of July 12,,1945,-as ex- tended, was terminated by a letter from Local *99, I. T. U., to the Em- ployer dated .September. 23,' 1946, and shortly thereafter the Local and the Employer began the negotiation of a new contract. ' On November 9, 1946, the Employer and Local 99, I. T. U., signed a new agreement which was then submitted to the International office of the I. T. U. for approval and underwriting by the International President. This approval was withheld on the, ground that certain provisions of the Dew agreement-did not comply, with the I. T. U. laws. The Employer protested that the contract wasvali'Wyy'executed; nev- ertheless it continued negotiations at meetings 'held in November and December-1946, and in January, February and March, 1947, with a view to reaching an agreement that would be acceptable to the In- ternational office of the I. T. U. COURIER JOURNAL AND LOUISVILLE TIMES CO. 587 On January 14, 1947, Max Burns, an. international representative of the I. T. U., arrived in Louisville. On the following day, Burns and -certain officers of Local 99, I. T. U., conferred with Leslie Baker, Jr., the Employer's vice president and treasurer, concerning the I. T. U.'s desired changes in the agreement of November 9, 1946. Baker advised .the representatives that he considered that the agreement.of November 9, 1946; was a valid, contract,, but that he would take the proposed changes under advisement and notify the I. T. U. of his decision. On February 11, 1947, Baker wrote to Burns, advising him that the Employer had received no request from Local 99, I. T. U., to open the contract, which had then been in operation for 3 months, and that the changes .proposed by the I. T. U. were "too fundamental for us to consider at this late date." , On February 17, 1947, Burns and certain officials of Local 99, I. T. U., met with Baker and advised him that the Local had adopted a resolution authorizing a "lockout" 1 unless the Employer would negotiate a contract acceptable to the I. T. U. After that conference, Baker sent a wire to Woodruff Randolph, international president of the I. T. U., stating that the Employer had always been ready to negotiate on points covered by a letter from Randolph .to Baker, dated December 7, 1946, but that Burns had repudiated,that'letter and was demanding- other material changes in the agreement. Baker requested an immediate reply from Randolph, clarifying the position of the I. T. U., because another conference with, Burns and the officials of the Local had been scheduled for 10 a. m. on February 18, 1947. On February 18, 1947, Baker received the ,following telegram from Randolph : YOUR PAPER HAS NO MAILER CONTRACT SO FAR AS THE I. T. U. IS CONCERNED. MR. BURNS IS NOW IN LOUISVILLE AS MY PROXY TO NEGOTIATE ONE LOCAL UNION HAS ASKED SANCTION OF LOCKOUT IF ONE CANNOT` BE SECURED. I -URGENTLY SUG- GEST YOU ENTER SUCH NEGOTIATIONS COPY TO MR. BURNS. /S/ WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, PRESIDENT. On February 18, 1947, Baker and other representatives of the Em- ployer'met with Burns and the officials of Local 99, I. T. U. Baker took the position that the Employer had a valid contract and Burns took the position that there was no contract in existence. Baker-testi- fied at the hearing,,that after `the, morning meeting of -February, 18, 1947, he abandoned his position, and acquiesced in Burns' position that there was no contract. That- afternoon Baker, Burns, -and the president and secretary-treasurer of Local 99, I. T. U., negotiated 3 Local 99, L T. U , so characterised its,threatenediaction. 1 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a new agreement dated February 19, 1947, which was sent to the national headquarters of the I. T. U. for its approval. - - Sometime after March 3, 1947 , the Employer-- was given a copy of a letter from Larry Taylor, first vice president of the I. T. U., addressed to C:-C . Thompson , the president of'L'ocal 99; I. T. U., in which the I. T. U. pointed out certain changes that would have to be made in the agreement of 'February 19 before it could be ap' proved by ' the international president . Baker discussed -this letter - with the' officials of Local 99, 'I. T. U., on March 18; 1947 , but that meeting produced no concrete results. The agreement ; of February 19, 1947, was never signed by'any of the parties. ' On March 22, 1947, Local 99, I. T. U., held a meeting •at which the members voted to continue negotiations on a local basis: Chirence J. Waddell, who; at -that time, was secretary-treasurer of Local •99, I. T. U., passed out authorization cards of the L M : U. at that meet- ing. After the meeting he wrote to ' Baker, notifying him that there was no ' contract in existence and that Local 99, I. T. U., had voted-to 'dispense with the assistance of the I. T. U'. international representa- tive alid 'continue negotiations -oli a' local basis. ',. At, the hearing Wad- dell admitted that no specific resolution authorizing his letter to Baker had been passed, and that the letter was ,based upon his understand- ing of the vote' to continue negotiations on a' local basis. On March 25, 1947, the Employer received the -Petitioner's -letter of March 24; heretofore mentioned , requesting 'recognition as'a bargaining' agent ' • - ' for the' employees of the Employer's mailing'room. In view of the foregoing , we. find no merit 'iii' the I. T.''U.'s con= tendon that the alleged contract' of November 9, 1946, bars , a. determi- n ation: of representatives at this time: , Having denied , that it, held a binding contract:with the Employer for several months,, the I. T. U. cannot no v be heard to assert that it holds one foi ' th ptirpose of barring'an election. 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 ,We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the 'parties, that all employees in the Employer's mailing room for both morning and evening newspapers, including substitutes, apprentices, situation holders, foremen, assistant superintendents, and the,'superintendent,2 ,constitute a unit appropriate for the,purposes of collective bargaining .within the meaning of Section 9 (b)'of the Act.; ''Supervisory ' employees have been 'members of the bargaining unit repiesented by the 1. T U in the past and are traditionally included in the units, established in the printing industry. See Matter of Marcellus M •Murdock,'67 N L R B 1426, and cases cited therein. COURIER JOURNAL AND LOUISVILLE TIMES CO. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 589 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Courier Journal and Louis- ville Times Co., Louisville, Kentucky, 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 Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent, for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec- tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, affiliated with the International Mailers Union or Louisville Mailers Union No. 99, affiliated with the International Typographical Union, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.