Esquire, Inc.

ESQUIRE, INC. 205 ESQUIRE, INC. (CORONET INSTRUCTIONAL FILMS DIVI- SION)' and LOCAL 476, STUDIO MECHANICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES and CANADA, AFL, I.A.T.S.E., Petitioner ESQUIRE, INC. (CORONET INSTRUCTIONAL FILMS DIVI- SION) and LOCAL 666, INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRIES OF THE INTER- NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES and CANADA, AFL, I.A.T.S.E ., Petitioner ESQUIRE, INC. (CORONET INSTRUCTIONAL FILMS DIVI- SION) and LOCAL 780, MOTION PICTURE LABORATORY TECHNICIANS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYES & MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, I.A.T.S.E., Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC- 3086, 13-RC-3087, and 13-RC-3089. May 29, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Allen P. Haas, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peterson]. 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. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioners seek three separate units of employees at the Employer ' s motion picture studio. Local 476 desires to represent the studio production employees , Local 666 seeks the cameramen and assistant cameramen , and Local 780 would represent the film editors and assistant editors. The Employer contends that the separate units desired by the Pe- titioners are inappropriate , and that only a single unit for all these employees, including also its laboratory employees employed at a separate location , is appropriate . The parties 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the units requested were inappropriate. For reasons given in paragraph numbered 4 herein, this motion is denied. 105 NLRB No 14. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also disagree as to the inclusion or exclusion of several indi- viduals. The Employer is engaged in the production and sale of edu- cational motion pictures and television commercials. It main- tains and operates a motion picture studio which is housed in a 3-story building in Glenview, Illinois, a suburb some 17 miles distant from downtown Chicago. In this studio it makes all the necessary technical preparations for producing motion pictures, such as designing and building the sets, photographs the various scenes , except such as are required to be photo- graphed "on location," and edits the completed films. On the first floor of this building there is a large room with a suitable stage for acting or narrating, used for the filming and sound recording of pictures. To carry on its motion picture business, the Employer makes use of the trade groups generally employed in the motion picture industry. It employs a set designer who designs and-- with the help of other employees- -constructs, arranges, paints, and sets up the various scenes required by the script of a particular picture. It employs carpenters, electricians, painters, property men, and the various other categories that are commonly known as stagehands. It employs cameramen, assistant cameramen, film editors , and assistant film editors. The Employer also maintains and operates a laboratory in downtown Chicago. All films produced at the studio are proc- essed in this laboratory.3 Although the processing of the films is obviously an essential part of their completion for marketing, this function is quite apparently not so integrated with the Employer's studio operations as to make it a com- pletely indispensable part of the Employer's production pro- cesses. This is demonstrated by the fact, shown by the record, that some of the Employer's competitors do not maintain their own laboratories but send their films for processing to labora- tories not connected with their own operations.4 The Employer contends that the separate units requested by the Petitioners are inappropriate because of (1) its centralized control and supervision over all its employees; (2) the functional integration and interdependence of its various departments; and (3) the interdepartmental transfers of its employees. With respect to the firsttwo reasons advanced, these factors, although unquestionably present, do not appear to manifest themselves in a substantially greater degree than in many cases where units less than plantwide have been found to be appropriate. We do not believe that the centralized control of the Employer' s business and the integration of its various de- 3 The processing consists of developing the black and white film, removing the "no good" takes, cutting, splicing, printing, and storing of films However, all the Employer's motion pictures are originally taken in color. The original color film, before black and white copies are made, is sent to the Eastman Kodak Company for development 4One of the other principal producers of educational motion pictures, The Encyclopedia Britannica Films, also located in Chicago, has no laboratory of its own, but sends its films to outside laboratories for processing. ESQUIRE, INC. 207 partments are such as to preclude the establishment of separate units that otherwise would be appropriate.' As to the interdepartmental transfers , we are not persuaded that they are such as to preclude the appropriateness of the units sought . Several employees within the groups here involved were originally employed in jobs other than those they now hold . These instances appear either to have consisted of the temporary expedient of placing a new employee in a less desirable job because of the absence of openings in better positions , or to have involved a short period of training and adjustment before the employee was placed in the job to which he appeared most suited . Thus each of the 2 cameramen, hired 6 or 7 years ago, was originally placed in the studio stockroom for a brief time and then transferred to general work on the studio floor for several months before taking over the camera work.6 Likewise two employees now in the edi- torial department at the studio formerly worked at the Em- ployer ' s downtown Chicago location performing the com- paratively routine functions of cutting , matching, and sequencing film.' The cameramen and editors appear, however, to be permanently assigned to the positions they now occupy. There is some occasional interchange of work , due to the fact that the Employer ' s entire complement is not large and employees may assist each other in various tasks when needed. It is clear , however, that this occurs most frequently among the studio production employees here sought as a separate unit, and that the cameramen devote themselves primarily to camera work and the editors to their particular function. Further, although it was asserted that there had been inter- change between studio and laboratory employees , the record discloses that since 1947 when the laboratory was moved from the studio to its downtown location , employee interchange between the two operations has been almost nonexistent.8 Upon the entire record in this case , and particularly be- cause in the motion picture industry groups of employees such as are involved herein have traditionally been represented in SSee The Visking Corporation, 101 NLRB 59; Knox Glass Bottle Co , 100 NLRB 4, Burke Millwork Co , Inc., 100 NLRB 522. 6One of then also worked in the animation department for several months before going on the floor as a cameraman. 7One of these employees, who was transferred to the editing department about 10 months ago, is still doing cutting and splicing, but is assisting in editing and learning to use discretion as to cutting film that is essential to the editing process 8 The Employer also contended at the hearing that its motion picture enterprise should not be bound by the traditional labor-relations practices of the motion picture industry on the ground that it is a comparatively small business producing principally educational films and does not use the technique and the equipment of the large producers of motion pictures in the entertainment field. We are not persuaded from the record made in this case that there is merit to this contention On the contrary, it appears, as shown by the modern equipment and techniques used by the Employer and the variety and extent of its motion pciture business, which amounted to approximately $1,000,000 in the last year, that it is essentially part of the motion picture industry. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD separate units , we find that the units requested by the Peti- tioners are appropriate.' There remains for consideration the disagreement of the parties as to the inclusion of the following individual employees: The Petitioners would include in the studio production unit, but the Employer would exclude as supervisors , Bernard Montgomery and Paul Seitzinger . The Employer would include, but the Petitioners would exclude , Fred Norman, Hazel Manzelman, Ann Whitley, Nancy Dana, and Joyce Wolter. The Employer's supervisory hierarchy is headed by John M. Abraham, a vice president of the Employer, who is the general manager of the entire film division, including the studio and laboratory. Under Abraham is the producer , Richard Creyke, who is in charge of the entire studio . Under Creyke there are two directors who divide between them the super- vision of the cameramen and studio production employees during the taking of motion pictures and sound recording. The film editors work under Aubrey Moore , the supervising editor. Peter Butzen supervises the animation department." Montgomery is primarily a set designer . He reads the script and designs sets according to the instruction in the script. He also works with the property man, carpenter , electrician, and the painter , in the actual building of sets. Contrary to the Em- ployer' s contention, we find that he has no power to hire, dis- charge , or discipline any of the employees withwhom he works, or effectively to recommend such action. He has never exercised such power . Nor does he responsibly direct the work of any of the other employees . Upon the entire record in this case, we find that Montgomery is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall include him in the unit of studio production employees. Seitzinger is classified as a sound mixer . He is a highly skilled employee who performs his work in company with a recordist and a boom man . During the taking of pictures he is stationed at the sound mixer in the studio and the recordist is stationed in the sound truck housed in a garage adjoining the studio . The boom man operates the microphone boom on the set being filmed. Although these 3 employees must work in close coordination, and Seitzinger is the most skilled of the 3, it does not appear that Seitzinger in fact responsibly directs the work of the other Z. The Employer asserts that Seitzinger has authority effectively to recommend the hiring or discharge of the 2 employees with whom he works , but the record does not appear to support this assertion . Although Seitzinger was informed when Brennan, the recordist, was hired, Seitzinger 9 Transfilm, Incorporated, 100 NLRB 78; Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 97 NLRB 566 The Employer asserts that the units here sought are inappropriate because they are based solely on the extent of organization. As the appropriateness of the units here sought is supported by other factors, such as the distinctive nature of skills and work performed, and absence of employee interchange, together with the history of bargaining in the industry, we find no merit in the Employer 's contention. 19 The Petitioner generally agrees with the Employer's characterization of the above as supervisors. ESQUIRE, INC. 209 was unacquainted with Brennan. The record does not establish that Seitzinger was asked to pass on Brennan's qualifications, and he made no recommendation. Upon the entire record we find that Seitzinger is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall include him in the unit of studio production employees. Fred Norman is a truckdriver, supervised by the producer at the studio, who carries film, memoranda, and other material to the laboratory in downtown Chicago and returns with mate- rial for the studio He also carries film to the Eastman Kodak laboratories for development, brings back the developed film, transports actors and other employees from the railroad station, and picks up supplies at various places. When he is not otherwise occupied he helps out in the studio, performing miscellaneous duties. We shall exclude the truckdriver on the ground that he lacks sufficient common interest with the studio production employees or with the employees in the other units here found appropriate. Manzelman is principally occupied with the operation of the commissary, and works only from about 10 in the morning until about 2 in the afternoon. She purchases food on her way to the studio, prepares the food in the studio kitchen, and serves lunch for all the studio employees. After she has cleaned up the kitchen her task is completed. Occasionally, however, she performs small parts in motion picture scenes. We shall exclude Manzelman from the units hereinafter described. Ann Witley and Nancy Dana are primarily office clerical employees. They are located in the "front" office, where Dana is responsible for operating the switchboard and acting as receptionist. Whitley also sometimes performs this function. Both of them also keep records of the picture production progress , keep timesheets for the other employees, take care of the producer's files, and type out scripts and letters. Upon the entire record we shall exclude Witley and Dana as office clerical employees. Joyce Wolter works in the special production division of the downtown laboratory, along with the research and script divi- sion. Although there are several other employees in Wolter's division, she is the only one in this division whom the Employer would specifically include. As employees of the laboratory division are not included in the units hereafter set forth, we shall exclude her." We find that the following groups of employees employed at the Employer's Glenview, Illinois, studio constitute separate units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: Group a : All motion picture studio production employees including electricians , carpenters, property men, sound mixer, "James DeWitt, the still photographer, is an employee in the Employer's sales and publicity department. He visits the studio frequently to take pictures for use in promotional literature. The Petitioners would exclude DeWitt, while the Employer takes no position as to him. We shall exclude DeWitt on the ground that he is not a studio employee. 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recordist, boom man, set designer, and animation employees, but excluding cameramen, assistant cameramen, film editors, assistant film editors , the truckdriver , office clericals, com- missary employees , sales personnel , producers , directors, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. Group (b): All cameramen and assistant cameramen, ex- cluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Group (c): All film editors and assistant film editors, ex- cluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 36, C.I.O., Peti- tioner. Case No. 36-RC-917. May 29, 1953 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 Robert J. Wiener , 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 [Members Murdock , Styles, and Peterson]. 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.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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 to sever a unit of lithographic employees employed at the Employer ' s Portland , Oregon, plant from an existing unit of production and maintenance employees at that plant . The Intervenor , which currently represents the production and maintenance employees , opposes serverance on the ground that the functions and working conditions of the lithographic employees are so closely related to those of other production employees that the proposed unit is inappropriate. The Employer contends that severance should not be per- mitted in view of the small number of persons in the unit, but otherwise takes no position as to its appropriateness. 1International Association of Machinists, District Lodges Nos. 63 and 1432, AFL, intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest. 105 NLRB No. 29.