The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. 673, except that during the pre-Christmas and pre-Easter rush seasons, when contingent employees are employed as regular employees, they receive, except for vacations, the same benefits as the regular employees. As the Board's unit findings are based upon functionally related occupational categories, contingent selling employees would neces- sarily be included in any unit which also included regular selling em- ployees.3 We find, moreover, that the contingent -employees con- stitute a relatively stable group of part-time employees who have a, reasonable expectation of substantial yearly employment in such at unit. We find, therefore, that they have a substantial interest in em- ployment conditions at the store and, accordingly, that they would be eligible to vote in any election which might be directed in such a unit., Before directing an election, the Board must be administratively satisfied that the petitioning union has a sufficient representative inter- est among the employees in question.5 The Petitioner has, however, failed to make the necessary showing of interest in a unit of selling employees in which contingent selling employees are eligible to vote 6 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition at such time as the required showing of interest can be made. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. 3 The Sheffield Corporation, 94 NLRB 1781 ; J. C. Penney Company, 86 NLRB 920. 4 R. L Polk; & Co, 91 NLRB 443. E Standard & Poor's Corporation, 95 NLRB 248 , and cases cited therein ; cf. J. I. Case Company, supra 6 The petitioner 's showing of interest would be inadequate , whether the nonselling em- ployees are included in or excluded from such a unit. Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to make any findings concerning the unit placement of such nonselling employees TI-IF. BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. and WASHINGTON NEWS- PAPER GUILD, OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC-850. October 9, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David S. Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to, a three-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 96 NLRB No. 102. 674 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 1 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer is a Delaware corporation with its offices in Wash- ington, D. C., where it is engaged in the business of editing, publish- ing, and distributing information pertaining to the latest develop- ments in legislation, court decisions, and rulings of Government agen- cies in the field of business, law, and economics . The information edited and published in the form of weekly, biweekly, or daily printed reports is distributed to subscribers throughout the United States and foreign countries. The business of the Employer is organized into five departments and two offices ; each subdivision is under the general supervision of a department head who reports directly to the president and editor in chief of the Employer. The business department of the Employer makes all purchases of equipment, accepts and initially handles all orders for subscriptions; it also makes all arrangements for congressional transcripts. The accounting department and the sales department perform the normal functions of such departments . The production department is en- trusted with publication production operations which consist prin- cipally of stencil and platemaking operations . The editorial depart- ment is charged with preparing the material to be published. The personnel ofice performs the usual personnel functions for all the departments of the Employer. Finally, the o, fjice of the planing director makes market surveys with regard to new fields of activity. The Petitioner herein seeks to establish a unit composed of the employees of all the departments and offices of the Employer, exclud- ing the employees of the editorial department who are currently being represented by the Petitioner.2 The Employer urges that the unit sought is inappropriate because it fails to include the employees of the editorial department, and further maintains that the only appropriate The Board exercised jurisdiction over the Employer in 5-RC-2912 ( unpublished , 1947). The Petitioner herein has been representing the employees of the editorial department since 1947 when it was selected as the exclusive bargaining representative following a consent election . The most recent contract of the Petitioner with the Employer expired in January 1951 . - Although the parties have reached agreement as to the terms of a new contract it was not signed , pending the outcome of the instant proceeding. THE, BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. 675 unit is one comprising the employees of all the nonmechanical de- partments of its operations. In Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company and Telegraph Publish- ing Company,' the Board reviewed the position it has taken, before and since the amendments to the Act, in regard to the question of the appropriate unit in the newspaper and publishing business. We noted there that the Board has, as a rule, found primarily two types of units to be appropriate, a unit consisting of the employees of a single major department of the publishing or newspaper business or a unit comprising the employees of all the nonmechanical departments. Our occasional departures from those two types of units and the specific reasons therefor, are also set forth in the afore-mentioned decision. We continue to adhere to our basic position. The unit sought by the Petitioner herein clearly comprises more than one major department of the Employer's operations, but less than all the nonmechanical departments, because it fails to include the employees of the editorial department. The community of interest linking the employees of all the depart- ments and offices of the Employer arises from the fact that in the newspaper and publishing business, the end product is always the result of the close cooperation and joint efforts of all the departments.4 The community of interest, moreover, also embraces the employees of the editorial department, the originating source of the publication. Any attempt, therefore, to exclude that department from a unit as broad as the one sought by the Petitioner herein on the ground that it does not have a community of interest with the other departments rests on tenuous grounds. The boundaries of any unit must be coexten- sive with the community of interest linking the employees. Further, in support of the proposition that the interrelationship extends to all the departments of the Employer without exception, the record reveals instances where strict departmental dividing lines are eliminated and a number of employees from various departments per- form functions ordinarily within the purview of the editorial depart- ment.-' There is also evidence of interdepartmental transfers, includ- ing transfers to and from the editorial department. It also appears that the Employer maintains a typist-stenographer pool from which all departments draw personnel when needed. Finally the employees of all departments participate in common bonus and insurance plans. 3 92 NLRB 1411 , and cases cited therein. 4 See Record Publishing Company, 91 NLRB No 215, and cases cited therein. "An example of this interrelationship is furnished by the fact that during the publica- tion of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the United States Law Week, a publication of the Employer, the employees of all departments work together in pasting and proofing the editorial material , in order to meet the deadline. Another example may be found from the fact that at the present one employee of the sales department is pre- paring art work etc. for editorial comment, while another is doing data tabulation for the city family worker's budget monthly series. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, therefore, that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro- priate, and in view of the fact that the Petitioner unequivocally stated at the hearing that it opposes the enlargement or reduction of the requested unit and does not seek any alternative unit, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY and UNITED GASH .COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No . 5-RC-874. October 9, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Benjamin E. Cook, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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. The Employer and United Construction Workers, UMW, herein called the Intervenor, have engaged in collective bargaining since 1946. On June 16, 1950, they executed a collective bargaining contract with the termination date of August 1, 1951. On March 19, 1951, they executed an agreement which provided for certain wage adjustments and the extension of the 1950 agreement to March 1, 1952. The Peti- tioner, which made its first request for recognition on May 9, 1951, contends that the supplemental agreement prematurely extended the basic contract and that therefore, under well-established Board "pre- mature extension" principles,' the contract as extended cannot operate 1 Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 NLRB 369 ; Northwestern Publishing Com- pany (WDAN), 71 NLRB 167; Republic Steel Corporation , 84 NLRB 48 ; American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19. 96 NLRB No. 87.