Union Tribune Publishing Co.

In the Matter Of UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY and AMER- ICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL No. 95 Case No. R-489.-Decided February 16, 1939 Newspaper Publishing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : contro- versy concerning representation of employees-Unit Appropriate forr*Collective Bargaining : employees in the editorial , accounting, credit and collection, and maintenance departments-Representatives : proof of choice: comparison of pay roll with union list-Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority representation. Mr. William R. Walsh and Mr. Charles M. Brooks, for the Board. Williamson, Hoge cfi Sargent, by Mr. Willis Sargent and Mr. Emil Steck, Jr., Los Angeles, Calif., and Gray, Cary, Ames aQ Driscoll, by Mr. William P. Cary, of San Diego, Calif., for the Company. Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 22, 1937, American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, herein called the Guild, filed a petition with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California, herein called the Company, and requesting an in- vestigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 15, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation of representatives and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice; and acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c), and Article II, Sec- tion 37 (b), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the 11 N. L. R. B., No. 36. 388 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY ET AL . 389 case be consolidated for the purpose of hearing with another pro- ceeding based upon a complaint alleging that the Company was engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a joint hearing upon the petition and the com- plaint was held in San Diego, California, on November 29 and 30, December 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, 1937, and in Los Angeles, California, on December 8, 1937, before Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. On December 28, 1938, pursuant to the order of the Board to reopen the record, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. On January 5 and 6, 1939, further hearing was had before Albert L. Lohm, Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were repre- sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to in- troduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. We have reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and the motions and objections, and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. His rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow- ing : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a California corporation and has its principal office and place of business in San Diego, California. It owns, prints, and publishes two newspapers, namely the San Diego Union, herein called the Union, and the Evening Tribune, herein called the Tribune. The editorial and mechanical departments of both news- papers are located in the same building. The Union is a daily morning newspaper with a weekday circulation of 28,000 and a Sun- day circulation of 39,000. The Tribune is an evening paper, pub- lished daily except Sunday, with a circulation of 30,000. All of the stock of the respondent is owned by Copley Press, Inc., an Illi- nois corporation, with its principal office in Aurora, Illinois. Cop- ley Press, Inc., has a branch office in Los Angeles, California. The stock of Copley Press, Inc., except for qualifying shares, in turn is owned by its president, Ira C. Copley. The Copley Press, Inc., owns three newspapers in addition to the Union and the Tribune.- Ira C. Copley owns and controls the Southern California Associated Newspapers which publishes 10 newspapers, and he also owns and publishes the Illinois State Journal. Newsprint, the largest single item of physical property that the respondent uses, is purchased by Ira C. Copley in Sweden, and sold 164275-39-vol x,--26 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by him to the respondent in California. In 1937 the respondent used approximately 5,240 tons of newsprint. The revenue derived from national advertising, that is, from advertising originating out of the State, amounts to approximately 25 per cent of the total advertising revenue of the Union and to 21 per cent of that of the Tribune. The respondent is a member of the Associated Press and uses the International News Service. The Associated Press Association main- tains and operates two teletype machines in the respondent's plant in San Diego, and has the privilege of transmitting items of news col- lected and edited by the respondent's employees for transmittal to the various members of the Associated Press throughout the country. The Associated Press furnishes the respondent with news items amounting to 150,000 words per day, which are sent from all parts of the country and from foreign countries through its main trunk lines to Los Angeles and from Los Angeles transmitted to the re- spondent's plant together with California news gathered by the Associations. News items amounting to an average of 150 words per day emanate from the respondent which find their way to the main line from the Los Angeles Associated Press Office. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Newspaper Guild. It admits to mem- bership employees of the respondent and of the San Diego Sun, another local newspaper. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In the summer of 1937 the Company agreed to the terms of a document known as the Bulletin Board Agreement, which granted salary increases, shorter hours, and other improvements in condi- tions of employment to the employees in the editorial departments of both papers. During a conference held between the Company and the Guild, on September 16, 1937, the Guild demanded recognition as bargaining agent for the accounting and maintenance departments. The respondent maintained the position that it was not opposed to such recognition if the Guild could show that it represented the majority of the employees in the departments. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY ET AL. 391 relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In its petition filed on September 22, 1937, the Guild alleged that the employees in the bookkeeping, circulation, advertising, and edi- torial departments constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. At the hearing in December 1937, the Guild amended its pe- tition, without objection, alleging that an appropriate unit comprised the employees in the editorial department of the Union and the Tribune, the accounting department, exclusive of the credit and col- lection division, and the maintenance department. At the hearing held on January 5 and 6, 1939, the Guild claimed that the employees of the editorial, accounting, credit and collection, and building-main- tenance departments constitute an appropriate unit. The Guild's claim at the hearing upon the reopening of the record, that the credit and collection department should be included in the appropriate unit, was a reversal of its former position. The com- pany objected to the attempt to make the department part of the unit in this manner. However, the evidence in the record establishes the close affinity between the credit and collection and the accounting departments. The work handled by the accounting department is im- mediately passed on to the credit and collection department and their work is very similar. The company raised no objection, other than the one mentioned above, to the inclusion of the credit and collection department in the unit, and did not dispute its appropriateness. The Guild desires to exclude from the bargaining unit the follow- ing employees on the ground that because of their confidential and supervisory positions, their interests lie with the employer as against the employees: (1) In the editorial department, the editor-in-chief, the editor of the Tribune, the editor of the Union, the manager of the art and photographic section, and the confidential secretaries; (2) in the accounting department, the auditor and the chief clerk; (3) in the credit and collection department, the credit manager; and (4) in the building-maintenance department, the head janitor. The Company agreed that the enumerated employees should be ex- cluded from the unit. However, it vigorously objected to the omis- sion of its editorial writers from this list of confidential employees. At the present time the respondent employs only one editorial writer, Charles M. Rockwell. He is a part-time employee, who does his work at home, and the editorials written by him are supervised generally only by the president of the Company. The Guild has not ruled on his eligibility for membership, and in its prior dealings with the Company, it had not sought to bargain for the editorial writer. The 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD record establishes the fact that his interests lie more with the em- ployer than the employees. Thus, according to the test of eligibility applied by the Guild, the editorial writer should be excluded from the bargaining unit. We find that the employees in the editorial department, excluding the editor-in-chief, the editor of the Union, the editor of the Tribune, the editorial writer, the confidential secretaries, and the manager of the art and photographic section; the employees in the accounting de- partment, excluding the auditor and the chief clerk; the employees in the credit and collection department, excluding the credit manager; and the employees in the building-maintenance department, exclud- ing the head janitor, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES During the course of the hearing, the Company's pay roll as of January 5, 1939, for the editorial, accounting, credit and collection, and building-maintenance departments was introduced in evidence. In addition a copy of said pay roll, wherein Guild membership and payment of dues of each employee was designated, was introduced. An examination of these exhibits reveals that out of the 107 employees within the appropriate unit, 83 employees are members of the Guild. The Guild's financial records were produced at the hearing and counsel for the Company was given opportunity to examine them. We find that the Guild has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represent- ative for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The employees of Union Tribune Publishing Company in its editorial department, excluding the editor-in-chief, the editor of the Union, the editor of the Tribune, the editorial writer, confidential secretaries, and the manager of the art and photographic section; UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY ET AL . 393 the employees in the accounting department, excluding the auditor and the chief clerk; the employees in the credit and collection depart- ment, excluding the credit manager; and the employees in the build- ing-maintenance department, excluding the head janitor, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, is the exclusive rep- resentative of all employees in the unit designated in paragraph 2 above, for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that the American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, has been designated and selected by a majority of all em- ployees of the editorial department, excluding the editor-in-chief, the editor of the Union, the editor of the Tribune, the editorial writer, confidential secretaries, and the manager of the art and photographic section; the employees in the accounting department, excluding the auditor and the chief clerk; the employees in the credit and collection department, excluding the credit manager ; and the employees in the building-maintenance department, excluding the head janitor, of Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.