Associated Business Service

ASSOCIATED BUSINESS SERVICE 219 The Intervenor would exclude Norman Bean as a professional employee. The Employer would include him, while the Peti- tioner takes no position. Bean's primary function is develop- ing new equipment and improving old, and he does considerable research . He is required to exercise a high degree of inde- pendent judgment and discretion in this specialized field. Bean is a college graduate and has an engineering degree. In view of the foregoing, we find that he is a professional employee and shall exclude him. We find that the following employees of the Employer con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production-department 5 and engineering -department em- ployees at the Employer's television station at Miami, Florida, including program-planning employees, but excluding company officers, receptionist, administrative officer, clerical, per- sonnel department and sales department employees, an- nouncers, talent, film cameramen and news editors, profes- sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 The Intervenor would exclude as supervisors program directors, Bruton, Johns, and Zinn. As the record is inconclusive regarding their duties and authority, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. The record indicates that all production-department employees take turns as program directors. DOROTHY E . FITZPATRICK d/b/a ASSOCIATED BUSINESS SERVICE' and LOCAL 16, AMALGAMATED LITHO- GRAPHERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC- 2052. November 25, 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 Harold M. Kennedy, 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 mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 2 'The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 Louisville Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 28, International Printing Press- men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, submitted an adequate showing of interest prior to the date of the hearing, but did not appear at the hearing when informed that it was out of compliance with Section 9 (f) and (g) of the Act. Having effected compliance subsequent to the hearing, it filed a motion with the Board to intervene in the instant proceeding and have its name placed on the ballot in the election directed herein. We hereby grant the motion Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 87 NLRB 597 107 NLRB No. 65. 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all lithographic production employees. There is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's plant. The Employer agrees, and we find, that this is an appropriate unit.3 However, the parties disagree as to the unit placement of three employees. Robert Staples: The Petitioner contends that Staples should be included in the unit as a lithographic production employee, while the Employer would exclude him. The record indicates that Staples spends about 90 percent of his time driving a truck or working in the bindery, and the balance of his time on lithographic work. We believe that Staples is essentially a non- lithographic worker and shall therefore exclude him from the unit. Mae Hall: The Employer asserts that Hall should be included in the unit, while the Petitioner would exclude her. The record shows that, while she spends the major portion of her time operating a letterpress , working in the bindery , and perform- ing other nonlithographic work, she regularly spends a sub- stantial part of her time in lithographic work. Rollie Tatum: The Petitioner would exclude Tatum, while the Employer would include him. The record shows that he spends approximately 50 percent of his time in lithographic production work. We shall include Hall and Tatum in the unit to the extent that they do lithographic work and permit them to vote in the elec- tion directed herein. We find that all lithographic production employees of the Em- ployer, excluding office-clerical employees, the accountant, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Petitioner contends that Norman Lee Carter, an ap- prentice lithograph pressman, has been only temporiarily laid off and, hence, that he should be permitted to vote in the election. The Employer asserts that he has been permanently laid off. When laid off, he received a card stating that he was terminated because of "lack of work" and that the Employer "will rehire in future if feasible." Carter testified that he con- siders himself only temporarily laid off. The Employer testified that she preferred a• more experienced employee and that Carter had been permanently separated from his job. The Em- ployer further testified that Carter had received separation pay, which is only given upon permanent termination of employ- ment. Upon the entire record, we find that Carter has no reasonable expectation of reemployment and that he is therefore ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.4 3josten Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 189. 4C D. Beck & Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1130. SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 221 The Petitioner contends that Clarence Thompson, a litho- grapher, is not eligible to vote because be had not started work at the time of the hearing, while the Employer contends that he should be permitted to vote as he was already hired at the date of the hearing. In accordance with our usual practice, we will permit Thompson to vote if he was employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, 5 and meets the other conditions of eligibility set forth therein.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 The Goldenberg Company, 77 NLRB 335. 6 The Petitioner requests that the Board fix the eligibility period as the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the instant hearing. However, we perceive no reason for departing from our usual practice in this respect. SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOUIS C. TATE, Petitioner and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON -WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos . 10-RD- 116 and 10-RM - 115. November 25, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On August 4, 1953, pursuant to a Decisionand Order, issued by the Board on July 14, 1953, an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision.' Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 67 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots, of which 33 were for, and 24 against, the Union and 1 was challenged. On August 10, 1953, the Employer and employee Tate jointly filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on September 18, 1953, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objections did 1106 NLRB 144. 2 An election had theretofore been held among the employees in this unit on March 3, 1953, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election. The Union filed objections to that election and the Board issued the above-mentioned decision in which it sustained the objections, set aside the election, and directed that a new election be held. 107 NLRB No. 66. 337593 0 - 55 - 16