Joan Davis Enterprises

5 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the drivers. Reports are also made to the Employer on the proficiency of new operators. In addition to the foregoing instances pointing to the super- visory status of the bus supervisors, for example their use of discretion and their responsible direction of the bus drivers, there is the further fact that to find the bus supervisors to be employees within the meaning of the Act would create a ratio of 15 supervisors over approximately 1,714 employees in the transportation department , or 1 supervisor for 114 men.' The Board will not overlook the impracticability and unreasonable- ness of a ratio of 1 supervisor to 114 employees, especially where the operation is spread over approximately 100 miles of bus routes .'o We are mindful that large ratios do not appear to be unusual in the bus transportation industry,' but we do not believe this sufficient cause for eliminating the ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisory employees as a factor to be considered, and we note that it is higher in this matter than in other cases heretofore considered. Accordingly, the Board finds that the bus supervisors responsibly direct the bus operators in their work, and that they are, therefore, super- visors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. In the light of our findings above, of the approximately 113 individuals in the unit sought by the Petitioner, 93 are super- visors as defined in the Act. Moreover, the president of the Union is a bus supervisor. Accordingly, as the Petitioner is predominantly controlled by supervisors and as such control renders it incapable of serving as the bargaining representative of the nonsupervisory receivers ,'2 we shall dismiss the petition. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 9 When the "bus supervisors " are considered "supervisors" as defined in the Act (the acting bus supervisors are admitted employees), the ratio is 1 to 18. 10 Warren Petroleum Corporation , 97 NLRB 1458 ; J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Republic Cotton Mills Division, 93 NLRB 1513. u See Capital Transit Company, 98 NLRB 141 ; and The Baltimore Transit Company and The Baltimore Coach Company, 92 NLRB 688. 12 Columbia Pictures Corporation, et aL , 94 NLRB 466. JOAN DAVIS ENTERPRISES and TELEVISION WRITERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner FILMCRAFT PRODUCTIONS and TELEVISION WRITERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner DON W. SHARPE d/b/a DON SHARPE ENTERPRISES and TELEVISION WRITERS OF AMERICA , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21 -RC-2846, 21-RC- 2850 , and 21-RC-2851. April 30, 1953 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was 104 NLRB No. 69. JOAN DAVIS ENTERPRISES 585 held before Norman H. Greer, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers.* 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all television writers of Joan Davis Enterprises, hereinafter called Davis, Film- craft Productions, hereinafter called Filmcraft, and Don Sharpe Enterprises, hereinafter called Sharpe, in single employer units. The Intervenor moved to dismiss on the ground that the single employer units are inappropriate and contended that a multiemployer unit, for which the Employers indicate a preference is alone appropriate. Neither the Intervenor nor the Employers, however, contend that the Employers belong or will belong to any multiemployer bargaining group. There is, in fact, no history of any type of collective bargaining for the employees involved. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the Intervenor's contention and its motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. Apart from the foregoing, there was no objection to the composition of the units sought. We find from the record that the following units, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: Unit I: All writers employed by Joan Davis Enterprises in the preparation and presentation of television shows and pro- grams produced by it. Unit II: All writers employed by Filmcraft Productions in the preparation and presentation of television shows and pro- grams produced by it. Sharpe, the Employer in Case No. 21-RC-2851, moved to dismiss the petition in that case on the ground that it had no employees in the proposed unit. The record shows that the employees sought by the Petitioner in that case are not 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss the peti- tion in the Filmcraft case because of the alleged inadequacy of the Petitioner's showing of interest in that case. As the adequacy of a petitioner 's showing is a matter for administra- tive determinations, not litigable at a hearing on the petition, the motion is denied. T. P. Stevens Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1513, 1514. ' Screen Writers Guild intervened on behalf of itself and the Authors League of America. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees of Sharpe. Accordingly, we shall grant Sharpe's motion and dismiss the petition in Case No. 21-RC-2851.3 5. The Intervenor requests that anyone employed in one of the appropriate units since January 1, 1951, be allowed to vote in that unit. The Petitioner requests that those em- ployed in such a unit only within 6 months before the direction of election be allowed to vote. It appears from the record that, unlike some other occupations in the television industry,4 the employment conditions of the employees in the foregoing units are relatively stable. Of the 3 writers employed by Joan Davis at the time of the hearing, 1 had been so employed throughout the 24 weeks preceding the hearing, and the others for shorter periods. These writers prepare scripts for a serial show, I Married Joan. There was no evidence as to the term of their contracts. At the time of the hearing Filmcraft had 2 writers in its employ, 1 of whom had been hired 3 weeks before, and the other 1 day before, the hearing. Filmcraft testified that it was negotiating for the employment of 2 other writers. The 4 writers will work on pilot scripts for shows which, if success- ful, will become serial shows, running for indefinite periods, in which event, Filmcraft has the privilege of extending the writers' contracts. There was no evidence of any pattern of intermittent or casual employment of writers by Filmcraft or Davis. Nor was there any evidence to indicate that any of the writers formerly employed by these Employers during any past period has any expectancy of reemployment by these Em- ployers in the foreseeable future, or that such former em- ployees have in the past been so reemployed. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to depart from our usual eligibility practice. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 21-RC-2851 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publicatidh.] $The Petitioner moved to substitute Official Films for Sharpe. Althdugh it appears that Official Films is, in fact, the employer of the employees sought, it was not notified of this proceeding nor was it present or represented at the hearing. The motion is therefore denied. 4See American Broadcasting Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 114 (talent); Television Film Producers Association, 93 NLRB 929 (actors)