Capitol JournalDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 10, 195193 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation CAPITAL JOURNAL 1321 engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not violated the Act with respect to its employee, Mamie Marshall. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] GEORGE PUTNAM, D/B/A CAPITAL JOURNAL and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP- ERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 324, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 36-RC--548. April 10, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Melton Boyd, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner requests a unit limited to four district managers in the circulation department of the Employer's Salem, Oregon, news- paper publication company. The Employer contends that the pro- posed unit is inappropriate, because it excludes other employees in the circulation department who have the same interests and working conditions as do the district managers, and also because the district. managers are supervisors. The Employer has 83 employees, divided among 4 departments t mechanical,' editorial, advertising, and circulation. The circulation i The employees in the mechanical department , about one-half of the total personnel, are represented by two other unions which did not appear at the hearing. 93 NLRB No. 234. 1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department is responsible for the sale and distribution of the daily newspaper. Its 20 nonsupervisory employees include 4 district man- agers, 3 roadmen, 8 motormen, 3 mailers, and 2 office clericals. The mailers and office clericals work in the office, wrapping bundles and keeping records of accounts and deliveries. The remaining employees work outside, looking after sales and deliveries. The duties of the district managers and roadmen are virtually identical. Each district manager works in a separate district of the city of Salem, which is divided into four districts; each roadman works in a rural district, the towns adjacent to Salem being grouped into three districts. Both managers and roadmen solicit customers directly; they do not make deliveries themselves, but utilize news- boys-also called carriers-who receive bundles of newspapers and make daily deliveries to subscribers.2 Both managers and roadmen investigate and adjust complaints, hire and instruct the carriers, and assist them in keeping accurate accounts of deliveries. The sole dif- ference in their work is that district managers deliver bundles of newspapers to their carriers and sometimes to city newsstands, while roadmen do not. Both groups are paid a salary plus a fixed fee for automobile expenses; the base salary of roadmen is higher than that of district managers, but, unlike roadmen, the managers receive commissions on new subscriptions. The motormen work in all the rural areas outside the city. They carry newspaper bundles to the newsboys working under the road- men; they also deliver bundles of mail subscription papers to rural post offices throughout the Employer's circulation area. In addition to these tasks, motormen maintain their own -retail "tube delivery" routes along roads which they must travel each day. Like the district managers and roadmen, motormen must provide their own cars, but they are compensated by mileage, not by fixed weekly sums. Motor- men are part-time hourly paid employees. Upon the foregoing facts, we agree with the Employer's contention that the proposed unit is too limited in scope and therefore inap- propriate. It is true, as the Petitioner asserts, that in this industry the Board has established units limited to a single major department,' despite its recognition that the optimum unit is a multidepartment unit embracing all nonmechanical departments.4 Here the Petitioner seeks to represent only a segment of the circulation department. Moreover, the record clearly shows that, except for very minor aspects, the duties and working conditions of the district managers are similar to those of other employees in the circulation department. In these 2 The record indicates that the carriers may be independent contractors who retail papers to their assigned subscribers. No contention is made as to their inclusion in the unit. s Star Publishing Company, 74 NLRB 120; Chicago Journal of Commerce, 85 NLRB 482. Record Publishing Company, 91 NLRB No. 215 THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 1323 circumstances, we do not believe that the district managers have in- terests in working conditions sufficiently different from those of the remaining employees in their department to warrant placing them in a separate bargaining unit. As the only unit sought by the Peti- tioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. IIn view of the above findings, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the alleged supervisory status of district managers. THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., CHARLESTON, SOUTH CARO- LINA and FTA LOCAL 15, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, D. P. O. W. A.' Case No. 10-RC-1003. April 10, 19,51 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to the terns and conditions of a stipulation for certifica- tion upon consent election, entered into by The American Tobacco Company, Inc. (Charleston plant), herein called the Employer; by FTA Local 15, Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, herein called Local 15; by the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Steelworkers; and by the Tobacco Workers International Union, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. of L., an election was conducted on September 14, 1950, among the employees in the unit which the parties agreed was appropriate. As the results of the election were inconclusive, no choice on the ballot having received a majority of the valid ballots cast, and as no objections to the election were filed, the Regional Director, in ac- cordance with Section 102.62 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, directed that a runoff election be held on October 11, 1950, to determine whether the employees desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local 15 or by the A. F. of L., these organizations having received the, largest and second largest number of votes, respectively. At the close of the runoff electiona tally of ballots was furnished each of the parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally shows that 543 valid ballots were cast for Local 15, 489 were cast for I The name of this organization has been changed in accordance with the evidence 93 NLRB No. 225. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation