Dinuba Sentinel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1610 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William E. Locke, J. R. Locke, Gertrude E. Locke ( deceased), &
Vivienne C. Locke Burum, co-partners d/b/a Dinuba Sentinel
and Sentinel Printing & Publishing Co. and Fresno Typo-
graphical Union No. 144, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 20-RC-4754,
20-IBC-4755, 20-RC-4756, 20-RC-4757, f0-IBC-4758, and 2O-RC-
4759. July 23, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William F. Roche, 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer publishes a newspaper and does job shop printing
at its plant in Dinuba, California. The Petitioner seeks to represent
the Employer's mechanical employess including pressmen, linotypists,
teletypesetters, proofreaders, and stereotypers in separate craft or
departmental units of pressmen and composing employees. Alterna-
tively, it requests a single unit of all the foregoing employees. The
Intervenor seeks a craft unit limited to the pressmen, while the Em-
ployer contends that in view of the integrated nature of its operations
only a production and maintenance unit including mailroom and bind-
ery employees as well as those sought by the unions is appropriate.
'There is no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's
employees.
All the employees sought by the unions work, as do the bindery and
mailroom employees, under the immediate supervision of the plant
superintendent. It does not appear that they carry out their respec-
tive duties in separate areas or that the Employer has otherwise
organized its operations affecting these employees along what may
be considered departmental lines. However, the record does show
1 The Intervenor , Fresno Printing Pressmen ' s Local No 159, was permitted to intervene
,on behalf of the pressmen in the Employer 's plant on the basis of an adequate showing
•of interest.
137 NLRB No. 172.
DINUBA SENTINEL, ETC. 1611
that the pressmen and other classifications sought by the Petitioner
perform the usual duties of their craft. Additionally, it appears that
although the Employer does not maintain a formal apprenticeship
program, all the requested employees are required to undergo progres-
sive on-the-job training and that they become highly skilled in the use
of the machinery and processes associated with their craft classifica-
tions. Accordingly, we find that the requested employees are crafts-
men. We further find that, under such circumstances, separate craft
units of the Employer's pressmen and composing employees are appro-
priate despite the asserted integration of the Employer's operations?
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer,
at its Dinuba, California, plant, excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute separate units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b)
of the Act : 3
(a) All composing employees including linotype operators, tele-
typesetters, proofreaders, page and ad maker, and stereotypers 4
(b) All pressmen.
5. The Petitioner, over the Employer's objection, contends that the
following employees are not eligible to vote in the elections herein
directed.
Max L. Rue: Rue is employed as a page and ad maker, a composing
operation. The Petitioner contends that Rue was hired only as a
"strikebreaker," that his employment would last only for the duration
of the labor dispute, and that in consequence he is a temporary
employee and, thus, should be held ineligible to vote. The record
shows that Rue began his employment with the Employer on Septem-
ber 1, 1961, about 1 week after a strike had commenced at the Employ-
er's plant. Both Rue and the Employer testified at the hearing that
Rue had been employed as a permanent employee. However, some
support is found for the Petitioner's position in the fact, shown by
the record, that Rue has since 1953 worked for six different newspapers
2 See Josten Manufacturing Company and Josten Engraving Company, d/b/a American
Yearbook Company, 101 NLRB 189, 193; Nat Linzer and Paul Linzer, copartners doing
business as Everlast Process Printing Co , 98 NLRB 1313.
3 The Employer in urging that an overall production and maintenance unit is alone
appropriate contended, contrary to the position of the Petitioner, that bindery and mail-
room employees should be included. As those employees perform neither press nor com-
posing work, they are not included in either of the units found appropriate
Petitioner, over the Employer's objection, would exclude from both units Robert Raison,
assistant publisher and editor of the Sentinel. The record fails to show that Raison
spends substantial portions of his time performing work of that kind done by employees
in the units Accordingly, he is not included in either unit
4 The Petitioner took no firm position on the stereotyper, seeking his inclusion in either
of the appropriate units Stereotypers have been held to constitute a separate craft.
See, e g , Lloyd Hollister, Inc, 68 NLRB 733, 739 However, the record shows that at
the Employer's plant the stereotypers' normal line progression is to regular composing
operations. Consequently, as the unit placement of the stereotyper is not in dispute and
as be would otherwise be the only unrepresented printing employee, we have included
him in the composing unit.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in as many different cities and that, in each instance, he assumed his
job shortly after the employees of the newspapers had gone out on
strike.
The fact that Rue may have been hired as a replacement for strik-
ing employees is not a material factor in determining his eligibility to
vote.' Such eligibility is dependent, however, on his being a perma-
nent, rather than temporary, employee. In situations such as the
present one involving the right of an employee to vote for his bargain-
ing representative-one of the primary rights assured employees
under the Act-we will not resolve questions concerning the perma-
nency of employment status in derogation of this statutory right unless
it is affirmatively and clearly shown that the employee's tenure is
temporary.6 No such showing has been made in the present record.
At most, the facts of Rue's employment history suggest thathe may
not work for untold years for his present employer. They do not
show that at any time either Rue or the Employer considered Rue's
employment to be temporary or limited in duration to the period of
the strike in effect at the time of his employment. Under these cir-
cumstances, and in view of both Rue's and the Employer's testimony
on the permanency of employment, we find that Rue is a permanent
employee, and, thus, eligible to vote in the election for composing
employees.
Rosemarie Rue: Rosemarie Rue, wife of Max Rue, is employed as
a proofreader. The Petitioner contends, in effect, that she is a tem-
porary employee. However, both Rosemarie and the Employer testi-
fied that she has permanent employment status. The Petitioner in
support of its position does not rely upon independent evidence con-
cerning Rosemarie's employment history, but rather upon the not
unwarranted assumption that she would continue to follow her hus-
band in his changes of employment as she had done in the one instance
of such change since their marriage. Consequently, as we have found
that Max Rue is a permanent employee, no basis exists in the record
for coming to a contrary conclusion with respect to his wife. Accord-
ingly, we find that she is a permanent employee and, thus, eligible to
vote in the election for the composing employees.
William E. Foley: Foley is a linotype operator whom the Petitioner
would exclude as a temporary employee. Foley was hired as a replace-
ment in September 12,1961, and both he and his Employer considered
his employment to be "permanent." There is no evidence showing
that Foley is, in fact, a temporary employee. We find, therefore, that
he is eligible to vote in the composing unit election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 See Triangle Publication, Inc, Station ZVF1L-TV, 80 NLRB 835, 837.
Cf. Pacafic Tile and Porcelain Company, 137 NLRB 1358.