Community Publications, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 855 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

COMMUNITY PUBLICATIONS, INC. 855
fall of 1964 it learned that a competitor had decided to raise its wages; and, that
Respondent decided to increase the starting hourly wage rate to meet these prob-
lems. It is undisputed that Respondent received complaints by experienced phar-
macists in early and late fall of 1964 that newly recruited pharmacists were being
paid at the same or a higher rate than they , and Respondent decided to rectify the
situation by affording a wage adjustment in excess of the wage increase which was
programed for January 1965 under the 5-year plan. Again , considering both the
circumstances and chronology , I am unable to conclude that the higher wage
increases granted in January 1965 were intended to impede the Union 's organiza-
tional drive or were related to that drive, and I therefore conclude that the grant
of these increases did not violate Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions , I shall order that the com-
plaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Community Publications , Inc. and San Francisco , Web Pressmen's
Union , Local No. 4, International Printing Pressmen's and
Assistants ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 20-RC-6938. January 10, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Burton I. Meyer of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hear-
ing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
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 [Members Fanning, Jenkins, and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer is a California corporation with its principal
office located in Mountain View, California, where it is engaged in
publishing weekly newspapers and other printed matter. In May
1965, it purchased Sunnyvale Standard, Inc., which is now its wholly
owned subsidiary. Sunnyvale was also engaged in printing news-
papers and other publications. The Petitioner is the uncertified bar-
gaining representative of the pressmen at the Sunnyvale plant but
now seeks a single, two-plant unit including not only its Sunnyvale
162 NLRB No. 74.
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pressmen but also the unrepresented pressmen at the Mountain View
plant. The Employer contends, however, that a current contract
between the Petitioner and Sunnyvale Standard, Inc., which it has
assumed, is a bar to the petition. We find no merit in this contention,
for the Board has long held that a petition filed by an uncertified
bargaining representative seeking the benefits of a certification is
not barred by an existing contract.' Consequently, even assuming the
contract would otherwise be effective as a bar, the contract between
the Petitioner and Sunnyvale is not a bar to the present petition.2
For the reasons noted below, however, we find that no question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As noted, the Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit the
pressmen at both the Mountain View and Sunnyvale plants. The
Employer contends that the two-plant unit is inappropriate because
of differences in the method and manner of operation of the two
plants and because the Petitioner seeks only a segment of the press
employees at the Mountain View plant. The Petitioner argues, how-
ever, that the Employer's purchase of the Sunnyvale plant and cer-
tain subsequent changes in operations made a single two-plant unit,
such as it requests, alone appropriate.
Since the purchase, Mountain View and Sunnyvale have had the
same officers and overall direction, and the chief executive, a Mr.
Tucker, handles labor relations for both locations. Also, following
the purchase, the composing room work and part of the stereotype
processing have been moved from Sunnyvale to Mountain View.
Although there is no interchange of personnel, and for the most part
each plant is an independent operation with its own separate immedi-
ate supervision, during emergency situations there is an exchange of
work between the plants. The two locations are only 3 miles apart.
While we agree with the Petitioner in view of overall direction
and supervision of labor relations, the exchange of work during
emergency periods between the plants, and their close geographical
proximity, the Sunnyvale and Mountain View plants together would
be an appropriate unit, there are factors establishing the separate
identity of the Mountain View plant. As indicated, the Mountain
View employees have separate immediate supervision, do not inter-
change with Sunnyvale employees, perform work which can be dis-
tinguished from that of the Sunnyvale operations, and have had no
bargaining history. Indeed, the Petitioner does not contend that the
1 General Dynamics Corporation , Electric Boat Division , 148 NLRB 338; Ottawa Machine
Products Co., 120 NLRB 1133, 1134; General Box Company , 82 NLRB 678.
2 The Employer and Petitioner negotiated a contract to succeed the Sunnyvale agreement
The new contract had not been signed at the time the petition was filed.
SPERRY PIEDMONT COMPANY 857
collective-bargaining agreement covering the Sunnyvale employees
should apply to Mountain View, or that the Mountain View opera-
tions should be an accretion to Sunnyvale. Accordingly, we find that
the employees at Mountain View possess interests which are suffi-
ciently separate from Sunnyvale to warrant their establishment in a
separate unit if they so desire. We, therefore, find that such unit
may also be appropriate and employees therein entitled to a self-
determination election to ascertain whether they wish to be included in
a multiplant unit.' However, the Petitioner has made no showing of
interest among the Mountain View employees, nor has it requested
an election limited to the Sunnyvale employees. We shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition .4
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3Fruehauf Corporation, d/b/a Hobbs Trailer Division, Fruehauf Corp., 157 NLRB 28.
Cf. Bell Bakeries of St. Petersburg of Ward Baking Company, 139 NLRB 1344; Straits
Aggregate d- Equipment Corp., 133 NLRB 108, 112; Essex Wire Corporation, 130 NLRB
450, 452-453 ; Research Craft Mfg. Corporation, 129 NLRB 723, 725.
4 In view of our Decision here, it is unnecessary to pass on the parties ' contentions with
respect to the proper composition of a two-plant unit.
Sperry Piedmont Company, Division of Sperry Rand Corpora-
tion and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-5641. January 10,
1967
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer George B. Levasseur. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Zagoria].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
162 NLRB No. 78.