Packer Displays, Inc.

PACKER DISPLAYS , INC. and INTERNP .TIONAL ALLIANCE OF BILL POSTERS , BILLERS &DISTR .BUTORS OF UNITED STATES & CANADA, LOCAL # 89, MIP .MI, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2319 . July 6, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., 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 Houston, Murdock, 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit confinec to all billposters of the Employer. The Employer contende that the unit should include its maintenance and construction employees. There is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's opera- tions. There are 10 billposters, also knou n as route men, who are engaged in placing advertising mat•:er on billboards with the use of paste and brushes and the tacking of signs on telephone poles. The Employer also has about 10 other em- ployees who construct and maintain the billboards. They also spend about 20 percent of their time in performing billposting duties. Conversely, the biLposters spend about 10 to 15 percent of their time in maintenance and construction work. Both groups of employees receive the same rate of pay. A light patrolman, whose duties are divided between electrical work and repairing torn or loose posters, is also employed. In view of the absence of evidence that the billposters constitute a highly skilled group and because of the inter- change of duties between them and the construction and main- 1 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co , 90 NLRB 106. 106 NLRB No 1 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tenance employees, we find that a unit confined to billposters is inappropriate.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 See Montgomery Ward and Company, 99 NLRB 1490; Arnold Hoffman R, Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 1371; cf. National Transitads, Inc., 67 NLRB 511. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. O. Case No. 16-CA-435. July 6, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On January 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5 ) of the Act, as alleged in the amended complaint, and recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the charging Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The charging Union duly filed a brief in support of its exceptions , and the Respondent duly filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.' The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed . With the exception noted below , the rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in IThe Respondent requested special leave to file additionally a reply brief in answer to the charging Union's exceptions and brief, and submitted copies thereof together with its request. The Union opposed the request. As the Respondent has failed to give sufficient reason for granting such special leave, its request is refused and its reply brief is hereby rejected. 2During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, acting upon the Respondent's motion, dismissed paragraph 8, A, of the amended complaint without considering the merits thereof. The Trial Examiner's ruling was based upon the :act that the unfair labor practice alleged in the said paragraph had not been brought to the Respondent's attention within 6 months after its occurrence. The event in question occurred on or about November 30, 1951, some 2 months after the filing of the charge. The Board has frequently pointed out, however, that Section 10 (b) does not preclude inclusion in the complaint of acts believed violative of the Act where they occur subsequent to the filing of the charge. Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, affirmed on this point in 185 F. 2d 1021 (C.A. 5), reversed on other grounds in 189 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 5); Shen Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated, 105 NLRB 491. We have accordingly reinstated this allegation of the amended complaint and have considered it on the merits. The record shows that the conduct complained of in paragraph 8, A, of the amended com- plaint involved the Respondent's reprimand of a number of employees who left their work to discuss the progress of the bargaining negotiations in which the Respondent and the charging Union were then engaged. There is no evidence that the Respondent's reprimand was either improperly motivated or reflected any interference with the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees under the Act. Stibbs Transportation Lines, Inc., et al., 98 NLRB 422. Accord- ingly, in adopting the Trial Examiner's ultimate determination dismissing this portion of the amended complaint, we do so for the above reasons, rather than for those motivating the Trial Examiner. 106 NLRB No. 5