Call Printing & Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 153 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

CALL PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY 153
ployees will be taken to have indicated their desires to constitute a
separate bargaining unit and the Regional Director conducting the
election is instructed to issue a-certification-of representatives to the
Machinists for such' unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds
to be,appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. However, if
a majority of the employees in voting group (a) does not vote for the,
Machinists, such group will appropriately be included with the em-
ployees in voting group (b) and-their votes will be pooled with those
in voting group (b).' The Regional Director conducting the election
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor or-
ganization elected by a majority'of the employees in the pooled group
which the Board in such circumstances finds to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4 If the votes are pooled they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
the Machinists shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against the Boilermakers
or the Independent which seek to represent these employees in the more comprehensive
production and maintenance unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value
whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive unit or for no union.
Call Printing & Publishing Company and American Newspaper
Guild , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-IBC-754. September 21,1955
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 I. L. Broadwin ,' hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
-1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims 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 Petitioner and Employer generally agree that a unit of edi-
torial department employees is appropriate. However, contrary to
1 In its brief the Employer requested the Board to remand this proceeding to the Rgeional
Office so that the Employer could examine the petition and its supporting signature cards
to determine whether or not the Petitioner has in fact obtained the necessary signatures
to warrant the Board's proceeding in this matter. The request ,is hereby denied, for it is
well settled that the sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest is a matter for
administrative determination and is' not litigable by the parties _ General Electric Com-
p iny, Dastrabutwn Transtormer Department, 110 NI I B 992 . Moreover, the Board is
administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
114 NLRB No. 33.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer's position, the Petitioner seeks, as a first choice, the ex-
clusion of all suburban space correspondents. As a second choice,
it seeks to exclude only those suburban correspondents paid on a cur-
rent lineage basis; and, as yet another alternative, it will accept the
unit the Employer contends is alone appropriate, i. e., a unit including
all the suburban space correspondents.
The Employer receives articles from a number of space correspond-
ents located in outlying areas where it would not be practical for the
Employer to maintain regular reporters. These correspondents,
whose work is similar to that of regular reporters included in the unit
by, agreement, are expected to cover all local events of any conse-
quence in their areas and to submit copy regularly for publication
either in person or by telephone. They work for the most part in
their own homes and with their own equipment. They are under the
immediate supervision of the suburban editor with whom they regu-
larly communicate for instructions. Some of these correspondents are
paid on the basis of the lineage actually published from the copy they
submit, while others are paid a flat monthly rate based on their lineage
earnings for the same month the previous year. Though there ap-
pears to be no explicit rule that the correspondents must report their
stories first to the Employer rather than to another newspaper, fail-
ure to do so would be, cause for reprimand by the suburban editor.
Furthermore, if a correspondent failed to submit copy regularly or
failed to cover adequately his area, the suburban editor would discon-
tinue his services to the paper. However, the record shows that nor-
mally a correspondent may expect, so long as his work is satisfactory,
to maintain his position with the Employer indefinitely. In view of
the foregoing, we find that these correspondents are regular part-time
employees of the Employer, and thus, in accordance with our usual
practice, we shall include them in the unit and allow them to vote in
the election herein directed.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All editorial depart-
ment employees, including part-time employees and the ' suburban
space correspondents employed by the Employer, but excluding the
managing, editorial page, city, sports, and suburban editors, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text and Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 112 NLRB 299; Allstate Insurance Company,
109 NLRB 578.
$ The Petitioner originally sought to have all "part-time summer personnel " excluded
from the unit. As it is clear from the record that there are no such employees employed
by the Employer , we hereby grant the Petitioner 's motion made in its brief that such
exclusion be deleted from the unit description.
0