Dayton Newspapers, Inc.

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dayton Newspapers, Inc. and Dayton Bookbinders Union Local x$199, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner Dayton Newspapers, Inc. and Dayton Newspaper Advertising Workers' Independent Union,' Petitioner Dayton Newspapers, Inc., Petitioner and Dayton Bookbinders Union Local No. 199, International Brotherhood of Bookbind- ers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 9-RC-3118, 9-RC-3129, and 9-111[- 150. November 22, 1957 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Harold V. Wil- liams, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. Upon the entire record' in these cases, 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 em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Advertising Workers, Petitioner in Case No. 9-RC-3129, seeks to represent an overall unit of regular and regular part-time ad- vertising and billing department employees. Bookbinders, Petitioner in Case No. 9-RC-3118, seeks a unit limited to employees of the classi- fied advertising subdepartment of the advertising department. The Mailers takes no unit position but desires to participate in the election in any unit found appropriate by the Board. Although the Employer, I The Petitioners are referred to as Bookbinders and Advertising workers, respectively. International Mailers Union , which was allowed to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest, is referred to as Mailers. 2 After the hearing, the Employer filed a motion with the Board in which it requested that an affidavit of its advertising director, reflecting testimony which it inadvertently failed to adduce at the hearing, be added to the record herein. As all parties have been properly served and as no one opposes the motion, it is granted. :The Bookbinders and Mailers deny that Advertising workers is a labor organization. As the record shows that Advertising workers has a constitution and officers , holds meet- ings, and exists for the purpose of dealing with the Employer regarding conditions of em- ployment of employees , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 119 NLRB No. 73. DAYTON NEWSPAPERS, INC. 567 as Petitioner in Case No. 9-RM-150, sought a determination of rep- resentatives among the employees in the classified advertising sub- department, it stated at the hearing that it agreed with the unit contention of Advertising Workers, except that it would exclude the secretaries to the advertising director and classified advertising department manager as confidential employees. The Employer, which publishes two newspapers in Dayton, Ohio, has collective-bargaining agreements with labor organizations cover- ing its mechanical, warehouse, maintenance, and circulation employees. There is, however, no history of bargaining for the other nonmechani- cal employees, including the advertising and billing department employees involved in this proceeding. The advertising and billing departments are located adjacent to each other and sell and receive payment for newspaper advertising. The advertising department is divided into five subdepartments called retail advertising, national advertising, classified advertising, adver- tising service, and art department. The advertising director assisted by four subdepartment managers and the phone ad supervisor, directs and supervises the work of advertising department employees. The record shows that operations of the various advertising subdepart- ments are integrated and employees in the subdepartments possess similar skills and are transferred among the various subdepartments as the needs of the Employer require. The record contains no evidence that the classified advertising subdepartment is operated as a separate unit within the advertising department, or that its employees have skills or interests different from those of other advertising department employees. The billing department, which charges advertisers' ac- counts, is located adjacent to the advertising department and is super- vised by a subdepartment manager. Billing department employees work closely with advertising department employees in computing the money due from advertisers; billing department employees have transferred to advertising department jobs; and company policy dic- tates promotional transfer between the two departments where pos- sible. From the foregoing, it is clear that, although the advertising and billing department unit sought by Advertising Workers consists of 2 administratively separate departments, they nevertheless perform coordinated work and are functionally integrated, and the employees of these 2 departments possess similar skills and are interchanged be- tween the 2 departments on the basis of either desire or need. There is, moreover, no evidence of similar integration or coordination be- tween these departments and the remaining unrepresented non- mechanical departments. It is also clear that no valid reason exists for establishing the separate unit of classified advertising subdepart- ment employees sought by the Bookbinders. Accordingly, we find 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the overall unit sought by the Advertising Workers is appropriate and that the unit sought by Bookbinders and in the Employer's peti- tion is inappropriate.4 We shall therefore dismiss the petitions filed by the Bookbinders and the Employer. There remains for consideration the Employer's contention that the secretaries to the advertising director and to the classified adver- tising subdepartment manager should be excluded as confidential employees. As it does not appear that the advertising director or the classified advertising subdepartment manager formulate, deter- mine, and effectuate management policy in the field of labor rela- tions, we find that these secretaries are not confidential employees, and we shall. therefore include them in the unit.,' We find the following employees at the Employer's Dayton, Ohio,. plant constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All regular and regular part-time office, clerical, sales, bill ing clerks. and other employees of the billing department, and the retail, national, classified, service, and art subdepartments including the secretaries to. the advertising director and classified advertising subdepartment man- ager, but excluding all other employees, professional employees,, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 9-RC-3118 and- 9-RM-170. ] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] d Cf. The Peoria Journal Star, Inc., 117 NLRB 708. 5 The B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724-725. Maas Brothers, Inc. and Local Union No. 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. 12-RC- 104. November 22, 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 Norman A. Cole,. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. 1 As amended at the hearing. 119 NLRB No. 69.