Capital Times Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 174 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Capital Times Company, Employer-Petitioner
and Local 64, Madison Newspapers Guild, AFL-
CIO-CLC. Case 30-UC-118
January 10, 1978
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On April 26, 1977, the Regional Director for
Region 30 issued his Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he clarified the
existing bargaining unit, as requested by the Employ-
er, inter alia, by excluding the head librarian, Diane
Woodstock, on the basis that she is a supervisor.
Thereafter, the Union timely filed a request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
grounds that, in resolving certain of the Employer's
clarification requests, he made erroneous findings of
fact and conclusions of law. The Employer filed
opposition thereto.
On August 22, 1977, the Board by telegraphic order
granted the request for review only as to the issue
raised concerning the head librarian and denied it in
all other respects.' Thereafter, the Employer and the
Union filed briefs on review.
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 Board has considered the entire record with
respect to the issues under review, including the
briefs on review, and makes the following findings:
The Regional Director found that Head Librarian
Woodstock assigns work to her assistants, schedules
their hours, grants time off, approves vacation time
requests, and enforces the city editor's work rule
requiring that the library be covered until the
deadline time of 12:30 p.m. He also found that she
has effectively recommended the hire of an assistant
librarian and has recommended a replacement for
absent employees. On the bases of these findings, the
Regional Director concluded that Woodstock is a
supervisor.
The Employer is engaged in the publication of an
afternoon newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin, and the
adjacent rural areas. Since 1934 the Employer has
recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative for all editorial department employees,
excluding one editor, one executive editor, one
associate editor, one managing editor, one city
editor, and two confidential employees. The latest
contract expired December 8, 1976, and, at the time
I Chairman Fanning, dissenting in part, would also have granted review
as to the other individuals involved in the underlying proceeding.
234 NLRB No. 28
of the hearing herein, the parties were negotiating for
a new contract.
Diane Woodstock has been president of Local 64
since 1974 and is currently a vice president of its
parent international union. The record shows that
she has been a librarian since 1965 and the head
librarian since 1969, when it was agreed among the
three librarians, with Executive Editor Maraniss'
approval, that she would be head librarian and work
4 days per week, and the other two librarians would
each work 3 days per week.
The Union contends that in making his findings
the Regional Director ignored the testimony of
Woodstock. The Union argues that, in the light of
that testimony, there is not sufficient evidence in the
record that she should be removed from the existing
unit as a supervisor. We agree.
Woodstock reports to City Editor Zweifel. She and
the other librarians cut stories from the Capital
Times daily papers and file them in accordance with
established categories. Whenever new categories are
needed the three librarians jointly determine them.
They also pull the files for the reporters and members
of the public. The Employer's managing editor,
Robert Meloon, testified that Woodstock determines
when the other librarians will work, grants time off,
approves the vacation schedule, and has effectively
recommended individuals for hire. However, Wood-
stock testified that she and the other librarians decide
collegially which days each will work, which floating
holidays each will take, and when each will take time
off. Even after the work schedule is set, the other
librarians sometimes exchange days or hours with
each other without notifying Woodstock. They also
work out their vacation schedule subject to the
approval by City Editor Zweifel.
Shortly after Woodstock became head librarian,
one of the other librarians quit. Woodstock recom-
mended that Maraniss hire Judy Klongland. Maran-
iss interviewed Klongland and hired her without
further reference to Woodstock. Woodstock also
recommended to Managing Editor Meloon that
Virginia Christianson, who was once the Employer's
head librarian, be used on a temporary basis as a
replacement for librarians who are absent because of
illness, vacation, or other reasons. Although Wood-
stock has been required to get permission from the
city editor each time she wishes to employ Christian-
son, she testified that she has not been refused such
permission when she has a valid reason for making
the request.
The Employer's last three city editors (Maraniss,
Meloon, and Zweifel) promulgated the rule that the
library must remain open until after the 12:30 p.m.
174
CAPITAL TIMES COMPANY
deadline for submission of -,ories by reporters.
Woodstock testified that she notified the other
librarians of this rule but did nr' in any way enforce
it.
It appears from the testimony of Woodstock, which
is contrary to the conclusionary testimony of Me-
loon, and from our reading of the record as a whole
that Woodstock does not responsibly direct assistant
2 Although the Employer at the outset of the hearing contended, in the
alternative, that Woodstock is a managerial employee, it introduced no
evidence-and we find none in the record-to support that contention.
librarians in their work, effectively recommend their
hire, or make work assignments or other decisions
affecting their status. Accordingly, we conclude,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the record
evidence does not support a finding that Woodstock
is a supervisor as defined in the Act. We shall
therefore deny the Employer's clarification request as
to Woodstock.2
Chairman Fanning agrees with his colleagues' conclusions as to Woodstock,
but would not restrict the Board's review solely to this issue. See fn. I, supra.
175