Queensbrook News Co., Inc.

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD loads in the shop, do all the necessary liaison work between the engineering department and other departments, handle the issuing of the manufacturing orders, and do considerable expediting in the shop to see that the orders are completed on schedule. They have to answer questions from the commercial department in regard to de- livery commitments and determine whether new orders should be taken or not, and if they are taken, what delivery can be main- tained. Although these employees do 'no actual physical work, they are under the same general supervision as the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, and their duties are closely connected with the Employer's production operations. We find that they are plant clericals. We shall therefore include them in the voting group. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group: All dispatchers, material-move men, scheduling clerks,, and employees in the stores and shipping and receiving departments at the Employer's plant at Lynwood, California, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the above voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the production and maintenance unit currently repre- sented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director shall issue a. certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 By Order Granting Petition and Amending Decision and Direction of Election, dated March 6, 1952 , the Board granted a petition by the parties to exclude scheduling clerks from the voting group. QUEENSBROOK NEWS CO., INC. and LOCAL 917, INTERNATIONAL Bno ni- ERI3OOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3895. February 14,1952 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 George Turitz, 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 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 employees of the Employer. 98 NLRB No. 21. QUEENSBROOK NEWS CO., INC. 85 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 of the Employer's return room em- ployees. The Intervenor, Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinity, contends that a separate unit of return room employees would not be appropriate because an over-all unit has already been found appropriate by the Board. The Employer and the Petitioner urge the Board to reconsider the unit question in this proceeding. In an earlier proceeding, initiated in 1949, the Petitioner sought a similar unit of return room employees.' The Board at that time found appropriate a unit of all employees, "including drivers or routemen, floormen, distributors, and current and return room employees at the Employer's Brooklyn, New York, plant." The Intervenor, who also intervened in the earlier proceeding,z had previously represented the Employer's floormen, distributors, and drivers, and there urged the over-all unit, including return room employees, which the Board found appropriate. In that proceeding the Petitioner argued that the Intervenor had shown a tendency to discriminate against return room employees; the Board observed that denial by a union of equal representation to employees would be curable by rescission of any certification that might be issued to such union.3 On July 7, 1950, the Intervenor was certified in the earlier case. Months after, during which the return room employees were advised by the Intervenor that nothing could be done for them until a con- tract had been negotiated for their members, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a contract on March 1, 1951, which, although naming all certified classifications in its coverage, expressly stated that no provision was made as to wages, hours, and working condi- tions of return room employees.' Return room employees earn $59 a week, with lunch period on their own time; all other employees in r Queensbrook News Co , lire, 2-RC-1394. May 25, 1950 , not reported in printed volumes of hoard decisions , see Bronx County News Corporation, 89 NLRB 1567, there cited I Other cases considered by the Board with , and decided on the basis of, Bronx County News Corporation were Bt ooklyn News Co , Inc , 2-RC-1370, May 25, 1950, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions , Novick News Co , 2-RC-1934, May 25, 1950, not reported in printed volumes of Boaid decisions . Seljan News Co , 2-RC-1732, May 25, 1950, not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions, to all of which the Intervenor was a party See footnote 2 of Bronx County News Corporation, above. This clause provided : 27 (a) Due to the differences between the parties which have not yet been resolved, it is understood that the rates of pay, hours and conditions of work for Return Room employees, will be separately negotiated. Obviously there is no merit to the Intervenors contention that a contract with such pro- vision bars this proceeding involving only return room employees The record indicates that the Intervenor currently has similar contracts with Bronx County News Company, Brooklyn News Co , Inc Novick News Co , and Seljan News Co. 998666-vol 98-5`3-- 7 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the unit earn $91 a week and their lunch is on company time. The Intervenor states that it demands a uniform scale of wages for all employees and cites the Employer's refusal to pay that scale to return room employees as the reason for its inability to negotiate a contract on their behalf. The Employer states that it cannot pay the higher wage for work in the return room. The record shows that the Intervenor is a union which limits its membership to sons of members except in certain instances where permanent employees in shops organized by it are granted member- ship if the wage scale is appropriate, or membership after long serv- ice-with restriction as to employment elsewhere-if the scale is not appropriate. None of the return room employees of the Employer was given a membership card by the Intervenor although some inquiry to that end was made, and the Intervenor processed no grievances for these employees, who considered it hopeless to ask for membership unless a contract was negotiated. It is clear that no equal representation was accorded to the Employ- er's return room employees by the Intervenor although that union was certified by the Board as their collective bargaining representative.-' In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the inclusion of return room employees in a broader unit under our prior unit deter- mination does not necessarily render inappropriate at this time a separate unit of return room employees. Had the question of repre- sentation for these return room employees arisen originally at a time when no union sought to represent them in a single unit with other employees, the Board might well have found appropriate a residual or departmental unit of return room employees and directed an election among them on that basis .6 Such a union is no less appropriate now. Because of the absence of any previous bargaining for these return room employees as a separate unit, we did not in our earlier decision deem it necessary to give them a self-determination election. In the light of developments since then we think the advisability of such an election is apparent. 6 The Intervenor contends that this proceeding is not an appropriate one: that the Petitioner, instead of the petition filed herein , should submit a motion in the earlier proceeding to rescind the certification , or should petition for 'decertification . As we find that a unit of return room employees may, in all the circumstances , be an appropriate one, we deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss this proceeding . As to the decrease in the Employer's operations due to loss of one line of magazines distributed by it-also urged by the Intervenor as a ground for dismissal-we note the Employer 's testimony that efforts were being made to get back this business . Nothing in this record would justify a dismissal of or postponement of this proceeding on the ground of curtailed opera- tions on the part of the Employer. 6 At Queensbrook News these employees work in a separate area with a high partition and are separately supervised . They do not interchange with floormen , distributors, and drivers The difference in wages has already been mentioned . Also their vacation privi- leges and their working week differ from those of the other classifications in the over-all unit. THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. 87 If in the election directed herein a majority of the return room employees vote for the Petitioner, they shall be deemed to have indi- cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. In that event the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for a unit of all return room employees of the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, excluding all other employees, and all supervisors 7 as defined in the Act, which unit the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. We shall then modify accordingly the certifi- cate issued to the Intervenor on July 7, 1950. If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they shall be deemed to have elected to remain in the unit originally found appropriate by the Board. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 Although the Petitioner would include the foreman of the return room in the unit on the ground that he is a "mere messenger boy" for the Employer , we shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor . The record indicates that he makes effective recommenda- tions concerning the retention of new employees and the discharge of employees , as well as responsibly directing the work of the return room. TIIE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. and WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER GUILD, OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RC--850. February 14,1952 Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election In our decision of October 9, 1951 (96 NLRB 673), in this matter, the Board found that the unit sought by the Petitioner was inap- propriate. In view of this conclusion, and as the Petitioner clearly and emphatically 1 stated that it did not desire an election in any other unit which the Board might find appropriate, the Board issued an order dismissing the petition. On January 15, 1952, the Petitioner filed a petition for reconsidera- tion, and thereafter the Employer filed a memorandum in opposition to the petition. In its request for reconsideration the Petitioner has changed its position and has withdrawn its objection to an election, among the employees it seeks to represent, to determine whether those employees should be added to the unit of editorial employees which the Petitioner now represents. As such a unit would be appropriate for the reasons stated in our decision of October 9, 1951, in this matter and in Record Publishing Company, 91 NLRB No. 215 (not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions), the Board hereby reopens 1 The position of the Petitioner was so stated at the hearing and in the Petitioner's brief which concluded , "Because of the compelling circumstances in this case , the Guild believes that the unit it requests should be neither reduced nor enlarged. It is not interested in, nor does it request, the designation of any alternative unit as appropriate." 98 NLRB No. 26.