Hearst Corp.

LOS ANGELES HERALD-EXAMINER 475 Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation and Package & General Utility Drivers Local 396, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-12698 No, ember 27, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER By MLMBt.RS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Douglas F. Ohns Following the hearing, this case was trans- terred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D C , for decision pursuant to Section 102 67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8. as amended. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Employer filed beefs Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Hewing Officer's rulings made at the hearing aie tree from prejudicial error and are hereby atfii med Upon the entire record in this case , including the hiiefs, the Board finds- I The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2 The labor organizations involved claim to i epresent certain employees of the Employer. 3 For seasons set forth below , we conclude that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer %sithin the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4 The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of all employees in the editorial, circulation, and advertising departments, including office clerical employees. excluding professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, cur rently represented by the Intervenor, Los Angeles \ev spaper Guild, Local 69, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO-CLC, a unit of local circulation di n ers which constitutes the circulation or transpor- tation department The Employer and the Intervenor oppose the requested severance, on the grounds that the only appropriate unit is the existing unit of the combined editorial and advertising departments described above, which includes the circulation drivers. The Employer, located in Los Angeles, California, is engaged in the business of publishing a daily newspaper and is a division of the Hearst Corpora- tion, a part of the Hillbro Newspaper Printing Company. Both the Employer and Hillbro maintain their principal place of business at Los Angeles, California, and both also maintain a printing plant at Buena Park in Orange County, California. The work of the approximately 45 truck (circula- tion) drivers begins after the printed newspapers are bundled and sent by chute to the loading dock. The newspapers are loaded on the truck by the drivers and then delivered to the Employer's various local branch offices. The Drivers spend approximately 25 percent of their work day in the plant, wherein they help load the truck and do related work. They generally take a half-hour lunchbreak in the Employ- er's cafeteria which is used by employees in other job classifications. The circulation drivers are given dispatch sheets which inform them of the number of papers to be delivered to each location and they load their trucks accordingly. Depending upon the desti- nation of the newspapers, circulation drivers make as few as one trip per day or as many as a half dozen trips. The only job requirements for circulation drivers are that they be high school graduates, have valid California driving licenses, good health, and clean work background. Through advertisements or refer- rals, prospective circulation drivers initially apply at the Employer's employment office, which services all departments. After completing the appropriate forms, the prospective applicants are sent to a driver- testing center for a driving test. If the preliminary screening is satisfactory, they are interviewed by the transportation manager, who is in charge of the circulation department, or, in his absence, by the assistant circulation manager or one of the approxi- mately seven dispatchers. The circulation drivers operate 1 ton or 1-1/2 ton leased trucks which are parked in the Employer's main parking lot. They are hourly paid and punch the same timeclocks as the Employer's other hourly paid employees. There is no significant history of work interchange with employees in other depart- ments. As a result of past collective-bargaining agreements, which included the circulation drivers in the overall unit, the drivers have identical benefits with all the editorial, advertising, promotion, circula- tion, and clerical and stenographic employees. Originally, in the 1930s, there were two newspapers operated by the Employer in the Los Angeles area: The Los Angeles Herald Express, a morning newspa- per, and the Los Angeles Examiner, and evening newspaper. The employees in the unit of combined editoral, advertising and circulation departments, 200 NLRB No 79 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD including the truckdrivers, on the Express were always represented by the Intervenor, while the Exanunct's truckdrivers up until 1956 were inde- pendent contractors. In February 1956, the Examiner terminated its independent contractor relationship w rth It truckdrivers and entered into a contract with the Petitioner covering the periods 1958-60 and 1960- 62 111 1962, the two newspapers were consoli- dated into the current Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, an afternoon paper, with the Intervenor continuing to represent the overall editorial, advertising, and circulation department, including truckdrivers. Soon after the merger, the Petitioner filed a petition for a unit of truckdrivers (Case 21-RC-7769), but the unit was held inappropriate by the Regional Director on the basis that it did not include all the drivers doing related work, namely, distributors, and the petition was dismissed. The Employer negotiated contracts with the Intervenor for periods of May 1962 to November 1963, November 1963 to November 1965, and January 1966 to November 1967, for a unit including the editorial department, the circulation department which includes truckdrivers, the advertising depart- ment, and the stenographic department. Prior to the negotiation of the January 1966 contract the Petitioner filed a petition to sever a unit of truckdrivers and distributors in the circulation department Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- tion Upon Consent Election an election was held and the Intervenor was certified in a unit including "all regular full time and part time drivers and distribu- tors in the circulation department" on February 2, 1966 (Case 2l-RC-9851). On December 15, 1967, a strike by various labor organizations, including the Intervenor, commenced at the Employer's business and is still continuing as of the date of the hearing. In September 1968, the Intervenor and other labor organizations involved in the strike filed representation petitions for various units of the Employer's employees. In the election held for the employees in the overall unit of editorial, advertising, and circulation departments including truckdrivers (Case 21-RC-10989), the Intervenor was certified. The Petitioner was not on the ballot or otherwise involved in that proceeding. Since the 1967 strike, the Employer and Intervenor have been engaged in continuous negotiations. From the commencement of the strike and through 1968, the parties have met two to three times a week-in 1969 once a week, 1970 once per month, and in 1972 semimonthly. The record indicates that there have been no changes in the circulation department during the 4-1/2 years of the strike. We note that the drivers in issue are local drivers who spend approximately 25 percent of their time at the Employer's main location loading their trucks and performing related functions, regularly use the same cafeteria, punch the same timeclock, and in most respects have common benefits and working conditions as other employees. As for the bargaining history, the record shows that the Intervenor has consistently represented the drivers in the overall unit since the 1930's. While for 4 years, 1968-62, the Petitioner represented the drivers separately while they worked for the Los Angeles Examiner, that paper went out of business in 1962 and the truckdriver unit was then merged with the Employer's overall bargaining unit. Significantly, in the only petition for a election to sever the truckdrivers, in 1967, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the truckdrivers voted against severance, and as recently as 1969 the Intervenor was certified to represent the employees in the overall unit including truckdrivers pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election. Although since 1967 the Intervenor, as well as most of the unions representing the Employer's other employees, has been on strike, there appears to be no bargaining impasse and the parties continue to meet regularly in an attempt to reach a collective- bargaining agreement. From the foregoing and the record as a whole we find that the local truckdrivers in the Employer's circulation department which the Petitioner seeks to sever and represent in a separate unit have a clear history of bargaining on a broader basis. Moreover, they have a community of interest with other employees in the overall unit. Accordingly, we conclude that the local truckdrivers involved herein do not constitute a homogeneous, functionally distinct group such as the Board has traditionally accorded the right to self-determination.' We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' See mete-Portland Flour Mills, Inc, 186 NLRB No 99, Cf Wright City Inc, 187 NLRB No 45, Downington Paper Co, a Division of Sonoco Displai Manufacturing Co, A Subsidiary of Permaneer Corporation ( Dela- Products Company, 192 NLRB No 42 Kare), 183 NLRB No 86, Western Pennsylvania Motor CarriersAs ociation,