Detroit News

DETROIT NEWS 345 'we are not by this action, to be regarded as "assigning" the work- in question to electricians or to any other particular group ' of employees 14 Determination of Dispute Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act. 1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450, AFL CIO and its agents are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require, Hinote Electric Company -or any other employer to assign the work in dispute to members of the Engineers rather than to members of any other labor organization or to nonmembers of any labor organization. 2. Said Local 450 of the Operating Engineers shall, within ten (10) days from the -date of this, Decision and Determination, notify, in writing, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region of the'Na- tional Labor Relations Board, whether or not it accepts the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain-from forcing or requiring Hinote Electric Company, by means, proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 450 rather ' than to members of any other labor organization or to nonmembers of any labor organization. is The Engineers contends that the Board is obliged , if it finds the Engineers in viola- tion of 8 (b) (4) (D), to determine whether the work in dispute is in the work area ,of the Engineers or the Electricians . In our view it is not incumbent upon us to make such a determination . See Denali-McCrap Construction Company, 118 NLRB 109, footnote 4. The Evening News Association, d/b/a Detroit News; Knight Newspaper, Incorporated, d/b/a Detroit Free Press ; Detroit Times,- Division of Hearst Publishing Company, Inc.' and Inter- national Mailers - Union, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-3330 -November 5,1957 - - - - 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 Emil C. Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing oul er's rulings made at- the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 '- Although the Employers were referred to throughout this proceeding as the Detroit News,- the Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit Times, the record indicates that their correct corporate names are ,as set forth ,' Accordingly, we hereby amend the names of the Em- 'ployers, as they appear in all formal papers, to reflect their correct corporate names. 2 Originally consolidated with Cases -Nos. -7--RC-3336 and 3337 for purposes of hearing and thereafter severed by order of the hearing officer. 8lnternational Typographical Union and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 ,- International Typographical Union, hereinafter referred to collectively as the Intervenors or individually 119 NLRB No. 46. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Boards has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and. Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, 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 em- ployees of the Employers.4 3. The Petitioner contended that a schism exists within the ranks of DMU-ITU, whereas the Intervenors argued that the current contract of DMU-ITU with the Employers constitutes a bar to any determina-- tion of representatives. That contract runs from January 19, 1956,. to November 30, 1957, and provides for 60 days' notice of desire to- modify. It is well settled that regardless of the timeliness of the- filing of a petition, the Board, in an appropriate case, will order an, election if at the time of the direction the contract involved is, as here, about to expire.' Moreover, although the instant petition wasp filed more than 3 months before the Mill B date, such date has now been reached.6 We therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon the, Petitioner's allegation that a schism exists and find that the contract; is no bar. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 Employers here involved are newspaper publishers in the; City of Detroit, Michigan. The Petitioner seeks a multiennployer unit of all employees who handle incoming and outgoing papers from as ITU and DMU-ITU, respectively, were permitted to intervene over the objection of the Petitioner ; and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40, International Mailers Union , hereinafter re- ferred to as DMU-IMU, was permitted to intervene over the objection of the other Inter- venors. Since DMU-ITU has a current contract with the Employers , it was entitled to. intervene, notwithstanding its failure to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Congoleum-Nairn, Inc., 115 NLRB 1202 ; The M. B. Farrin Lumber Co., 117 NLRB: 575. The ITU, as the parent of the contracting union, was also entitled to intervene, al- though it is likewise not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. United' States C-ypsuin Company, 79 NLRB 48. However, as the Intervenors are not in com- pliance with the Act, we shall not place either of them on the ballot in the election di- rected herein . DMU-IMU was named In the petition as the local which will represent the. employees in the event the Petitioner should win an election, and during the hearing the Petitioner requested that in the event an election is directed the name of DMU-IMU ap- pear on the ballot. Its interest is therefore apparent , its right to participate in this: proceeding is clear, and we shall place its name on the ballot rather than that of Interna- tional Mailers Union. 4 The status of DMU-ITU and of DMU- IMU as labor organizations was contested by the- Petitioner and by the ITU, respectively. The record reveals that both organizations exist for the purpose of bargaining collectively on behalf of their members with employers con-- corning wages , hours, and other conditions of employment . Accordingly, we find that they are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. Wyman-Gordon Co ., Ingalls Shepard Division, 117 NLRB 75. 6 The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 117 NLRB 668. 6 Wiedemann Machine Company, 118 NLRB 1616. DETROIT NEWS 347 pressroom through and including platform work, all addressograph work in connection with mailing room operation, and including all work now being performed by the mailing department.' The Inter- venors, on the other hand, contend that separate units of each Em- ployer's employees are the only appropriate units. The Employers agree with the Petitioner that the multiemployer unit is alone ap- propriate for bargaining purposes. The Petitioner and the Em- ployers contend that there is a bargaining history on a multi employer basis of over 10 years,' but the Intervenors allege that there is no formal association of the Employers and that, in fact, all prior con- tracts have been negotiated on a single-employer basis. The Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association was formed on August 1,1945, by the three Employers as a voluntary, unincorporated association for the purpose of consulting, advising, and assisting its members in labor relations matters and other fields of common interest. The Employers are the Association's sole members. It has no bylaws, rules of procedures, assets, or liabilities, but it maintains an office and employs a manager and an executive secretary. The Employers share the Association's operating expenses equally. Since the formation of the Association, all the negotiations 9 with DMU-ITU have been conducted on behalf of the Employers by a com- mittee composed of the Association's executive secretary as chairman and a representative of each of the Employers. The executive secre- tary has attended all negotiating sessions and has acted as spokesman for the Employers in stating their position as determined in meetings held by them for the purpose of reaching mutual understanding. Occasionally a representative of one of the Employers has been absent from such sessions. Usually such representatives have not partici- pated in the discussions to any great extent. However, on occasion the executive secretary has stated that he would have to clear a matter with the Employers. Each successive contract has consisted of a single document executed by a representative of each Employer and by DMU-ITU, with no signature by or on behalf of the Association. To sustain their contention that bargaining has been on a single- employer basis, the Intervenors rely, in addition to the informal nature of the Association, on the manner of execution, the alleged lack of authority in the executive secretary, and the provision of the cur- rent contract to the effect that "the only parties to this agreement are [the Employers] . . . and Detroit Mailers Union Number Forty...." 7 This unit description conforms to the unit as set forth in the current contract. 8 The testimony related to the details of the bargaining practices since the formation of Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association. Apparently somewhat similar practices were followed for many years prior to that time. 9 The DMU-ITU's notices of termination have been directed to each Employer and to the Association, but all subsequent communications have been directed to and received from the Association's executive secretary. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The fact that the Employers are not bound together in a formal association does not preclude our finding that such an informal group constitutes a single employer for the purpose of collective bargaining.10 Nor does the fact that, once negotiations were concluded and the final agreement drawn up, each Employer executed the contract itself, rather than delegating the right to execute the agreement to a repre- sentative with power to bind the entire group, require a finding that there is in fact no multiemployer bargaining history." In the case at bar, the record clearly shows participation by these three Employ- ers in a pattern of joint bargaining with DMU-ITU.12 Thus, all contracts have been signed by all participating Employers as a single document, and the current contract,13 although describing the Em- ployers as "parties of the first part," thereafter refers to the Employers collectively as "party of the first part" and speaks of "the agreement" of the parties and "either party" to the contract. This contract pro- vides, inter alia, uniform hours, wage scales, working conditions, holi- days, vacations, sick and accident insurance, and general working rules and regulations for employees of all the Employers. It also contains a clause relating to disputes, which provides for a joint standing committee to be composed of 3 representatives of DMU-ITU and 3 representatives to be named by the Employers. One representa- tive of each Employer has been appointed to this committee and all participate in the consideration of any dispute, including any relating to only a single Employer. In addition to the collective-bargaining contracts considered above, the 3 Employers are party to a retirement benefit plan covering employees of the 3 Employers, which was nego- tiated jointly with DMU-ITU and 3 other printing trades unions. In view of this history of joint bargaining, we find that the em- ployees of the foregoing three Employers should be combined in a single multiemployer unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.14 We find, therefore, that the following employees of the above-named Employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- .10 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C., d/b/a Panaderia la Reguladora and Panaderia la Francesa, et al., 118 NLRB 1010; Jahn Tyler Printing and Publishing Company, 11.2 NLRB 167. 11 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C., supra. And see Charles H. Harper and Frank Harper, Agents, et al., 117 NLRB 1031. . 12 The fact that the Employers may have bargained individually for certain other em- ployees (employees other than craftsmen) does not affect our decision herein, since the Petitioner is not seeking to sever from a multiemployer unit employees of one member of the group. Here the Petitioner would not disturb, but would merely confirm, the existing bargaining pattern for the employees sought. Printing Industry of Seattle, Inc., 116 NLRB 1883. is It appears that previous contracts nmy have contained comparable language, but copies of, such contracts are not in evidence. 14 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C., supra. AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 349 tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and shall direct an election 15 among such employees : All employees who handle incoming and outgoing papers from pressroom through and including platform work, all addressograph work in connection with mailing room operation, and including all work now being performed by the mailing department, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting in part: I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. However, for the reasons stated in my dissent in 'West Virginia Pulp and Paper Com= pang, 118 NLRB 1595, I would not permit the Intervenors, who are not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act, to partici- pate in this proceeding for any purpose. 15 The Intervenors took the position that because of the Petitioner 's conduct in connec- tion with the alleged schism, it is impossible to hold a free election . However , the case of Kearney 4 Trecker Corp . v. N. L. R. B., 210 F. 2d 852 ( C. A. 7, 1954 ), relied on by the Intervenors , is clearly distinguishable on the facts. Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Local 235, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1164 and 35-RC-1182. No- vember 5, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the Board issued on March 28, 1957,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 16, 1957, among the employees in the stipulated unit, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for the Ninth Region. Following the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 137 eligible voters, 131 cast ballots, of which 69 were for and 49 against the Petitioner, 12 were challenged, and 1 was void. Thereafter, the Employers filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, alleging in substance that union representatives (1) threatened, intimidated, and coerced employees in the course of house-to-house visits; (2) made false statements to employees regarding hours, wages, and working conditions at the Employers' plants and at other plants where the Petitioner may or 1117 NLRB 861, wherein the Board set aside an election conducted herein on August 24, 1955 , and directed the holding of a new election. 119 NLRB No. 41.