Kenosha News Publishing Corporation

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kenosha News Publishing Corporation, Employer- Petitioner and Kenosha Newspaper Guild, Local #159, TNG, AFL-CIO. Case 30-UC-173 September 29, 1982 DECISION ON REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION OF BARGAINING UNIT BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZIMMERMAN On April 22, 1981, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued his Decision and Order Denying Petition for Unit Clarification in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found, contrary to the Em- ployer's contentions, that the area editor,' sports editor, Horizons editor,2 and chief photographer were neither supervisory nor managerial employ- ees, and he dismissed the unit clarification petition. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that, in finding the four disputed individuals not to be supervisors, he departed from precedent and made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous. The Union filed opposition thereto. By telegraphic order dated June 11, 1981, the National Labor Relations Board granted the Em- ployer's request for review as to the three disputed editors and denied it as to the chief photographer. The parties filed as briefs on review their briefs previously submitted to the Regional Director. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the parties' briefs, and makes the following findings: The Employer contends that the three disputed subeditors, sports editor James Kornkven, Horizons editor Elaine Edwards, and area editor Barbara Colicki, are supervisors as defined in the Act as the record supports findings that, inter alia,3 the sports i The area editor is responsible for a section of the Employer's news- paper which covers events within Kenosha County such as meetings of city councils, school boards, etc. 2 The Horizons editor is responsible for a section of the newspaper which covers family-oriented news. This section once covered "society news," was later changed to cover "women's news," and now covers news and events of general interest to members of the community I The Employer also contends that the disputed editors control em- ployee work hours, and can therefore effectively terminate part-time em- ployees and determine the amount of overtime worked by full-time em- ployees. However. as it appears that hours of work are generally dictated by the duration of scheduled events which employees ciove r and. as found by the Regional Director, the Employer has a policy of minimizing 264 NLRB No. 50 editor has authority to hire part-time employees working in his department, the Horizons editor ef- fectively recommends the hiring of employees in her department, and all three disputed editors re- sponsibly direct employees in their respective de- partments. The Employer publishes a daily newspaper, The Kenosha News, and a weekly advertising supple- ment, The Courier. The Union's existing bargaining unit covers all employees in the Employer's edito- rial department, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. The record reveals that the editorial de- partment has 25 full-time and 9 part-time employ- ees. Reporting to the publisher, editor Dick Martin is responsible for the overall supervision of the edi- torial department. The managing editor shares overall supervisory responsibility with Martin and acts for him in his absence. The edtiorial depart- ment has nine subdivisions, each headed by a subeditor. Three of the subeditors, the city, week- end, and news editors, are excluded from the bar- gaining unit as agreed-upon supervisors. The above five editors with admitted supervisory authority are referred to in the record as exempt editors.4 The other six subdivision heads have been included in the unit, and, as indicated above, the supervisory status of three of them is here at issue. Sports Editor As found by the Regional Director, sports editor James Kornkven has held his position since 1963 and at present works with two other full-time em- ployees and two or three part-time employees. overtime hours which is closely monitored bh the editor, Dick Martin, vre find ample record suppport for the Regional D)irector's finding that the assignment of overtime by the disputed editors is routine. The record does reveal one occasion, approximnately 3 years ago, when area editor Colicki stopped assigning work to a newly hired part-time employee, Tierny. Editor Martin, who hired Tierny, told Colicki that she could assign work to Tierny if she needed him Colicki gave Tierny several work assignments, but thereafter ceased assigning him further stories We find no merit in tile Iislployer's contention that this incident illustrates Colicki's power to terminate part-time employees, and thus her supervi- sory status We note that there is no cvidence that Tierny worked only on stories for Colicki, or that Colicki had authority to formally dismiss Tierny from employment In ally event. even assuming that this incident amounted to the exercise of the posser to terminate a part-time employee, we find that this single incident which occurred about 3 years agi is in- sufficient to establish supervisory status Rather. Colicki's action appears to be an isolated incident which does not provide a sufficient basis for a finding of supersisor5 status Willis Shaa' FrozeLn Food Express, Inc.. 173 NLRB 487 (196f) The Employet also asserts that these editors are all responsible for the content of their particular section of the newspaper. including the determilation of v hich stories should he covered and who would cover them, and how much wire cops would be printed Howev- er, for the reasons stated by the Regional Director, these responsibilities do not constitute indicia of either supervisory or managerial authority, hut are elements of "new s judgment" recosgnized by the Board as profes- ,ional expertise rather than sLipersisors authority, The Washington Post Company. 254 NlRB l68 (19811 It is not clear from the record what an exempt editor is The record irLdtates olly that subeditors must have authoriwltion from an exempt eduilor to have photographs t Ikel inl coiluncti[ n vsith stories written for their sectionls 270 KENOSHA NEWS PUBLISHING CORPORATION Kornkven testified he has no authority on his own to hire full-time employees. However, the record reveals that he has hired all three of the part-time employees now working with him on the sports section. Randy Donais, hired by him about a year ago, usually works 3 days a week from 6:15 until about 10 p.m., part of the time in the office and the rest of the time covering sports events. Kornkven referred to Donais as a regular part-time employee, and to the other two part-time employees working with him as "stringers."' One of the latter, Brad Weinstock, had previously worked full time for Kornkven for 10 to 12 years and had left to work in his own business, but 4 or 5 years ago Kornkven engaged him to cover games; the other, Jean Tenuta, hired by Kornkven about 5 years ago, had previously worked for the Employer as a part-time employee in the office. The above evidence does not support the Re- gional Director's conclusion that Kornkven's exer- cise of hiring authority with regard to part-time employees has been sporadic. To the contrary, it appears from the record that Kornkven hired all the part-time employees who work for him. Ac- cordingly, on the basis of his exercise of authority to hire part-time employees, we find that Kornkven is a supervisor as defined in the Act. Horizons Editor Elaine Edwards, Horizons editor, has held her position since 1950. At present she works with two other full-time employees and one regular part-time employee. The Employer asserts that Edwards ef- fectively recommended the hire of four full-time employees (three of whom were hired and one de- clined the offer) and one part-time employee cur- rently working in her section. However, the record does not support the Employer's assertions. Martin, describing the hiring process, testified that, after examining applications received in re- sponse to an advertisement, he gave Edwards the ones he considered the top applicants to look over, and the one which they mutually agreed would perhaps make a good employee was interviewed by both of them. Afterwards, Martin stated, he asked Edwards if she was interested in "hiring" the par- ticular applicant, and, as she was, he offered that applicant the job. As to the present part-time em- ployee, Joanne Remberg, Martin testified Edwards came to him and said the workload in her depart- ment was so heavy she would like to add another person, and that, since Remberg had worked for the Employer in the past, she would like to have her come in I day a week to do weddings and en- Kornkven defined a "stringer" as a part-time employee who did not saork ill the office but as assigned sole!l to cos er sports eernts. It ap- pears thai th thee trilngers are coL ered h. the exlsilng contract gagements. Martin approved her request. Martin also testified he would not hire or transfer anyone into Edwards', Colicki's, or Kornkven's depart- ments over their objections. Edwards testified that Martin did the hiring or made the transfers of em- ployees for her department, but that she was asked her opinions as to their qualifications and whether they would fit in. We are not persuaded from our review of the record that the participation of Edwards in the in- terviewing and hiring of applicants for employment confers upon her authority effectively to recom- mend hiring. Martin's policy of not hiring or trans- ferring anyone over the subeditors' objections does not confer on the subeditors authority, in the inter- est of the Employer, to hire or transfer employees or to effectively recommend the same. Rather, in our opinion. the subeditors' role under Martin's policy is to act principally in their own interest to ensure the suitability of the applicant as a working companion in a small department. and thus pre- serve harmonious working relationships. See Willis Shaw Frozen Food, supra at 488. While Edwards ap- pears to have selected Remberg as a regular part- time employee, she did so only after the approval of Martin and in large part on the basis of Rem- berg's previous employment by the Employer. In any event, Edwards' hiring of Remberg appears to have been an isolated case and thus not a predicate for finding Edwards to be a supervisor. Alleged Responsible Direction by Colicki, Edwards, and Kornkven The Employer also argued that all three disputed subeditors are supervisors within the meaning of the Act because they responsibly direct other em- ployees. However, the record shows that they assign stories or areas of news coverage to employ- ees in their departments generally in an attempt to accommodate individual interest, which in some cases involves taking assignments themselves, and often assignments of certain specialized areas are routinely made to the same persons unless work- load or some other reason, such as the policy of minimizing overtime, requires assignment to an- other.6 Although the Employer asserts that these subeditors require employees to rewrite stories, there is no evidence that this has ever happened. The record indicates that the disputed editors edit the stories of others in their departments and, if re- writing is necessary, they either do it themselves or another employee in the department does it. Based R Area editor Colicki testified thit ste checks with reporters to see if they would like to coixier certain rsents and to coordinatle schedules Ito- rizons editor Edssards testified that a.ssignmilnllt outside otf regular duties are made to reporters after checking wuith the reporter to see if they s would like to and hase time to coiser tile stor% 271 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the foregoing, we find no support for the Em- ployer's contentions that the disputed subeditors re- sponsibly direct employees or make assignments which require the exercise of independent judg- ment. 7 Accordingly, as we have found, for the reasons set forth above, that the Horizons editor is not a supervisor as defined in the Act, and we have found wanting the only possible indicia of supervi- sory authority possessed by area editor Colicki, we conclude that both are statutory employees and affirm the Regional Director's denial of the Em- ployer's request that the unit be clarified to exclude them. However, in view of our finding that sports editor Kornkven is a supervisor as defined in the Act, the unit is clarified to exclude him. MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, concurring in part and dis- senting in part: I agree with my colleagues that sports editor James Kornkven is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act, and that he therefore should be excluded from the bargaining unit. How- ever, contrary to my colleagues, and for the rea- sons set out below, I find that Horizons editor Elaine Edwards and area editor Barbara Colicki are also supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and that they should likewise be excluded from the bargaining unit. We have found sports editor Kornkven to be a supervisor on the grounds that he has authority to hire employees. Indeed, he actually exercised his hiring authority twice about 5 years ago, and once again about 1 year ago. But just as we have found Kornkven to have hiring authority, so too do I find, contrary to my colleagues, that Horizons editor Edwards has such authority, or at the very least the authority effec- tively to recommend hiring, so as to constitute her a supervisor and exclude her from the unit. The Employer's editor, Dick Martin, testified that in April 1977 he screened several applications for an advertised full-time job opening in Edwards' department, and then gave the best of the applica- tions to Edwards for her review. Thereafter, Martin and Edwards "decided mutually" that ap- plicant Nancy Curtis should be interviewed for the position. At the interview, Martin first met briefly with Curtis to discuss general matters. Then Edwards spoke with Curtis about the specific requirements of the position for which she was being inter- viewed. Martin, Edwards, and Curtis then went to lunch together. 7Ihe )'cww s-Jnrolirml (oCipuaty. 227 NI.RI 568, 570 (1976): Suburban ,%'cr-ppcpr Pthl lattontm. Inc, 226 Nl RB 154. 15t (1976) Later, Martin asked Edwards whether she was interested in hiring Curtis and Edwards replied that she thought Curtis would make an excellent em- ployee. So, according to Martin, "on Elaine's [Ed- wards] recommendation, I offered the job to Nancy [Curtis] and she took it."8 Subsequently, in early 1978, there was another full-time job opening in Edwards' department. Ac- cording to Martin, Edwards was in favor of offer- ing it to one particular applicant, who was offered the job, but declined the offer. Thereafter, Jean Korten was hired to fill the opening in Edwards' department. According to Martin, the procedures used in the hiring of Korten were very similar to those used in the hiring of Nancy Curtis, as de- scribed above. Specifically, following an interview and a trip around town with Korten, Martin asked Edwards if she wanted to hire Korten; Edwards replied that she did, and that "she thought [Korten] would work out fine." Martin thereafter offered Korten the job, and she accepted. 9 In early 1980, another full-time position became available in the Horizons department. Martin asked Kay Jones, at that time a part-time employee in an- other department, whether she would be interested in working in the Horizons department. Jones said she might be interested, and Martin told her to speak with Edwards. Jones and Edwards met, and Martin subsequently asked Edwards whether she thought Jones would be a good employee. Ed- wards said yes, and told Martin that she thought Jones ought to be hired for the position. She was. 10 There is also a part-time employee in the Hori- zons department, Joanne Remberg. Martin testified that Edwards told him that she would like to add another person in her department due to an in- creased workload involved in covering weddings and engagements. Edwards told Martin that Rem- berg had previously worked for the Employer, and that Edwards would like to hire her on a I-day- per-week basis, to do just weddings and engage- ments. According to Martin, Edwards subsequently 8 In her testimony about the hiring of Curtis. Edwards first acknowl- edged that she had recommended that Curtis be hired, and then testified "Well, I don't think I would call it a recommendation I gave my opinion which was that I thought she was fine." 9 In her testimony about the hiring of Korten, Edwards acknowledged that, following Korten's joint interview with Martin and herself, Martin asked her whether she liked Korten, whether she thought Korten could fit in and be a good reporter. Edwards replied affirmatively, and Korten was hired. In this respect, Edwards. like Martin. testified that the proce- dures followed in hiring Korten were similar--"the same thing"--as those used in hiring Nancy Curtis. i' In her testimony about the hiring of Jones. Edwards stated that she did not sit in on Martin's interview with Jones. and that "I didn't make the decisions. Other than my opinion was requested." 272 KENOSHAX N[W'S PUBI SHING C(ORP)RAT1ION hired Remberg on that basis. " Subsequently, ac- cording to Martin, Edwards has employed Rem- berg on a more expanded basis, as a substitute for absent full-time members of the Horizons depart- ment, or when the wvorkload in the department has become particularly heavy. Martin candidly acknowledged that he had the final authority to hire employees in the overall edi- torial department, encompassing, inter alia, the sports, area, and horizons departments under dis- cussion in the instant case. 12 Martin further testi- fied that, while new employees are hired fairly in- frequently by the Employer, when hiring is done the departmental editors participate in the inter- viewing process and thereafter make recommenda- tions to Martin. Although Martin is not required to follow such recommendations, he has always done so, on the theory that he would not hire anyone whom the departmental editor did not want in his or her department; in this regard, he has never re- fused the recommendation of a department editor. 3 Based on all of this substantial evidence of the repeated exercise by Edwards of her authority ef- fectively to recommend the hiring of employees, '4 I find her to be a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and thus not properly in- cluded in the appropriate bargaining unit in this case. ' 5 " In her tes limon~ about the hiring of Reimbelrg. [d lard, ackno'el- edged that she had asked Marlin if Rerlberg coiuld be hired rto ssrk part time. (n weddings ;and ltegagemientr ,2 Or. as N.Marlill himself more aceuraielt l sIaltes "I s.ould sa5 I do ha'se Ihl filnal authoril ) It oerride ansone els.', decoinin ion hillng : In retecting this is clear exidence of Ihe esercise i'f Fdssards' all- thority effectlisely to recommend hiring, my colleagu, etuphemistlically refer to Martinl's potlie 5 or notl hilring .anly)Ie oll er anl editor's. objection a, simply a case of an editor a!ilig "printipall, in their oIll interest 1o ensure the suitabilit, of the applicant as a .inking cormpantion in a small departmenti and thus preserve harmonimous orking relalionships " lere. my colleagues rel' on Wi//t, Shu/w Ir.rozn Food x i.prei. In,. 173 NI RH 487 I 1968) Hut su.h reliance is clearls misplaced on the facl, of this case In H'illis Shat,. two-man coast-io-clast truckdrisig learn, droice long hauls of 12 23 da)s' diritur; n i l Ih designated head 1drixcrs ofI tIlese tsAw- man teams activels engaged Ili the recruitmenil if their assistant drisers. l'he employer permitted the head dri ers to choose their assistants front ans available employees ont the hbasis of "comnipaliihl."'' It is clealr that Ille special. unique nleed sshlih exisled il Wil/l S'lih, for a "harmonious relationship h.tuseenl lbead driscr,) arld their assistants during the lengthy periods ,shen the s will he alhrre on the truck arid asas from their homes arid friends" simpls docs nolt exist ill the instanl caie Nor does, accordimglN. thie spei;al hiring emphasls on personall com- patibllitl between drisers s\ hich existed in 'ilil n l hu its, the exercise bs Eds. ards of hi'r antllorits eflecti.eil tIo rcillnnirend the hiring of staff journalists on a da;il) lne.sspapel can ha;rdlN hb equared ssl:h the exercise by the he:ld drlxers il I i//li Sha4 of lheir preriogatlisc to nliphasize per- sona.l compatihitiy inl the scrtlcon of their coasi-t,, -c' s ! i ii tll ontim- paniurns ,4 Which eidicnc e is, icident.alll, similar il mans respects to lhe c i- delce relied *i11 bh nlm' coletluei', i, wecl l rilLe toi f/ild spores edilor Korilk.ren tl he a lpe r xr isor. '" In adddition Ii eil;lhlishing ihait FdIsarlds ha Ihs aitltrhorii (ffectlx c- 1) to recommend I he h lrieg if crniptole-,. Ilii rexuid aldso -csi Wlslish s thIa [i\siards has lil e atlthe irtl hril ,sl'r '.,n rk a.'.issr r renrliniTe, and eftlecie - I also disagree w ith my colleagues' conclusion that area editor Barbara Colicki is not a supervisor. According to editor-in-chief Martin, Colicki de- termines which events are newsworthy, so as to be covered, and she then assigns three employees in her department to cover those events. My colleagues contend that Colicki's exercise of her authority to assign work to, or direct the activ- ities of the, employees in her department is not done with responsibility or in the exercise of her independent judgment. But the record evidence is to the contrary. Martin testified that Colicki determines which events will be covered, on the basis of how many reporters she has available, as well as how much newspaper space she has available-in addition, of course, to her assessment of the newsworthiness of any particular event. Thus, according to Martin, "The only limit she has [with respect to the making of assignments] is to exercise her own judgment as to what should be done, including assigning her- self." Neither of the part-time employees in Colicki's department work a set minimum number of hours per week. Thus, Colicki, by virtue of making spe- cific work assignments, also effectively determines how many, if any, hours per week these employees work. Indeed, Colicki exercised this authority effective- ly to terminate the employment of part-time em- ployee Gene Tierny, to whom, because of his gen- erally poor performance, she simply stopped as- signing any work at all. Tierny had been assigned to Colicki by Martin. Because Colicki found Tierny's work to be unsatisfactory, she assigned him no further work and his employment was eventually terminated. ' ly reconimend the gralting t' time off all further inlldiia of her status as aI supec'sior ]" k'i clleagues, ointitt that (C oliki's decision li slop assigring work to part-timer Tiern . thus eflectlivel terminating his emplo!ment. does not illustIrale Colicki's pos.er to terminate parl- tme empnliheers ut there is no better illustlration ofr ieIC's lauthortll e'fe. ill, Sc Il cri llinate lhe empl)lment of an : emplobse, part-rime (or otheriie. ihatn Ihte aciual exercise of that authority. as in this case Neverlheless. mns colleagues relect the significance ,of this esidence itf Colicki's superlssro authority. on the basis thit there is no indication !hba iernyI worked only o)t stories for C olicki. or th at Collcki had authhorit) to ftrmnia/i, dismiss Tiern. front employmeini As to the I nflrler grounild the lncoilHrovered l estimin) of Martin is lhat I[Tier',] sas assignled lo [Co hikic I told her thait she , ouild he able to use him as mnnch as she needed to It, see how he sv orked out: see shlat kind of a reporter he vi ould make as a part-tilner. and shat kind of in cmnplhoee As .a result of lisurffclreiiI ql.Iartit iand qualiiil tf xitork] \is ( '. hiki lecitded li i to uste hint Martin als t etfivel rilar [ierlr ss as an emrplisee o.r s horn Co Ic kl ciould assign il rk alad !hail it sits Icr decisiOll ti .ease doing r s. "hIli direc- Is resllted in the IeSllnl hi t is emplhmint sm Ierti s,.isi not reassigned else.shert ..ithin the rConrpairis, men Ihir(lgli. aicording to Martin, ''Anonie miilll hics use(d irll is ;i part-rlmi r cho ; a .lncd tio' I here is ( ntimdri DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Colicki is also responsible for assigning overtime work to the employees in her department, as well as assigning photographers (who do not work in her department) to particular photographic respon- sibilities in conjunction with stories she plans to run in the paper. (The only qualification on Co- licki's authority to assign photographers is that she must check with one of her superiors to insure there is no duplication of assignments.) n1o, i, id n II,' thm 1 1ICr,, (Iid ; v , I i t Ik at I iI I l, . aiI \ .. upC.\ iI cll hI III I 11,l Cl'ti k li, t; lil 1 Iti l h 1 it'1 II III. C PT.II P1t' 1N I -i dle;lLx 11 Ifi ll t11 II tsallit! II' till c\\ idcll IC axilah:llls [Jl.l I J't'11, I )I .1 xo 1 k lll 1;f l C liki duIdrionn 11. tIun hcf , l)lkCL df l I,, , tI oI IIINC' I \s l;i tlil tc.lill C ei l t1 1111 it Iliial (Ot litki 11.ad 1i allt ilith It) /l )- lttlll . t lilt l A ts ip ite l Ait tI ttl' II' r AIIi tl liltll li t1 s'i ipi; t 1ih all.holil c l eitl d CItc'Il ti' ced 1is dJJllrg' A lIllrL COIIL'IIL C\1,Pilllpl l' 1 1(hth C \L'ICS' (O) Ihf ;IeIa htlI ilho II' CI'el'.Ii V) rN WoIl llll'lld' ' iS dillLlilll I0) illl;lg- NlN IOfleg 5 ll i'; s lll ' l l1l ll th a hC'iI1IIS. COliuki s LlSSII;log, Of' I writ N ~ 'C- I.Il Id "lhoul .1 3 \'ar% LJgt" it IS ria'lfi'i'ltll tim I' Jl*'isth l %Ipet' l S- l)N '4LatLIS i:lrst, C_'oh.ki 1L.s:f t. 1 slin1lal-Cs tIh;H s11il gil. I iJicrn' hlis filn;l a,,- %ip1n1CilltI ill 'illl" ' 'l 1'7)7 . \% JlicLh i. d1 mloll. Onxl\ ;i little 1IleOIC I.lll 2 Nu';ll' I pL ,11O I h' t l',Luh I')8I lhearlllg ill 1llts IIrOCu'u'ding SC'u(I-III. IhIlC' is 1()qOiL l k' IllMt AJl~ li ' ITI h k'sbee dis1liMlllgCd h o11i ('ohiki's th1'L'' u'l- Based on the record evidence outlined above, I find that Colicki has the authority to assign em- ployees, responsibly to direct them, and effectively to discharge them, all in the exercise of her inde- pendent judgment. Accordingly, I conclude that she is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and that, like her fellow editors Kornkven and Edwards, she should be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit in this case. il!ia' ItI* l/i.'1 sl'lltlillCII ' I ti 'll I t r P 111 ". 11P. t h (IIiI:t tit LP 11 ll 1 P7't 11 It. Il, I.Iethod)l hl \v15h (Colski ..'fl'ilixIl .0NIcllnln ;ICd1 ]In.'rn:,", C' mpi¢ .lltl '.lcall in dINi lguitsihll e rlinl lrom Iis 'ft, illd it Il t lhus il)ppost ic I h1 l.. 2 of Il'PIiix'IIM;hIClt I i8( .ll iiI\ertt hditl 1(hi tir e IhCil ailssistit d1t xcrs 1t il.d- JOIllL' hdLtLIS n ,,r dI'll11k'Illl w hic h IcldcI ud lh L A1%S1%1;1111, lu1lp;lult '1 tOitiltlUig thelir .l rixiiig dutipip hlt c Ih e .llf i ld fIotpllt I lll 1t}ltS I[ ti ln- still.t c io dlishla.igi ft tel' PIstt pill-;ldlit .1 Pit ' I' ;.iltilhOril N It kpllltl- %ipt(l - \ils r t1;lllls II ;IJll Of O' lhe IlCt.ll II1\CI1s SLIrCI\ . 1t I'lrL . tIlrlkidli\ cl hu- .llt. ie it it dt.i hllniik I1t keep dtlltng .. t;illlltIl Itt;ksthl;bl hbe triiildt ;I CX'\1IWsLXL' -'C;lI c f11CE q' LII'C ' l \ 1X1! 1II ILTIl CI It I. i L, h l,, 1 ;, k1, 1 ;\ildjhII sohlluIn l] Il .d1] Oh\ l , ll Ip hlllltHlllll plh,11.cll ]T , M ci1 . ill Ih 111 illlStillli .~d any respontsible driver swould be fourced to take It is in an) event not comparable to area editor Colicki's determinationl that Tierny did not have the ' riting skill or ability to be a reporter. 274