Southeastern Newspapers, Inc.

SOUTHEASTERN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 311 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices herein found, I am convinced that the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices by Re- spondent reasonably may be anticipated. I will therefore recommend that Re- spondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 878 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All truckdrivers and warehousemen, including order fillers, checkers, stockmen, inventory clerks, and packers, but excluding all office clerical employees, sales em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. At all times since January 30, 1959, the above-named Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforestated appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By engaging in conduct detailed in III D 2, supra, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 5. The strike, which commenced on August 3, 1959, was caused and prolonged by Respondent's unfair labor practices. 6. By refusing to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers, upon their uncondi- tional request, Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the aforestated labor organization, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 7. By the above conduct and by engaging in the conduct detailed in III, F, supra, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Southeastern Newspapers , Inc. and International Mailers Union, Petitioner. C =e No. 10-RC-4749. October 6, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act 129 NLRB No. 33. 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: Subsequent to the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the peti- tion on the ground that the showing of interest to support it was ob- tained through the active participation of Frank W. Kelly, an alleged supervisor. At the hearing testimony was introduced without objec- tion which indicates that Kelly is in charge of 11 to 23 employees on the night shift, and that he has authority to hire and discharge and has effectively recommended the hiring and layoff of employees. We find on these facts alone that he is a supervisor as defined in the Act. The question raised by the Employer in its motion as to whether Kelly participated in obtaining the Petitioner's showing may not be litigated in this proceeding but is a subject for administrative determination. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., 124 NLRB 908; Georgia Kraft Company, 120 NLRB 806. For this reason, we have treated the Em- ployer's motion as a request for administrative investigation of the Petitioner's showing. We have determined on the basis of our ad- ministrative investigation that Kelly participated in obtaining the signatures of all the employees whose cards were submitted to estab- lish a showing of interest to support the instant petition. We have held that such solicitation by a supervisor impairs a Petitioner's show- ing interest. The Wolfe Metal Products Corporation, 119 NLRB 659. As the Petitioner's showing is thus inadequate, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Mallinckrodt Chemical Works , Uranium Division and Local 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division and Inter- national Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers, Maintenance Men, Local No. 6, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 14-RC-3770 and 14-RC-3805. October 7, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Walter A. Wer- ner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 129 NLRB No. 41.