Free Press Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1047 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of FREE PRESS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and E. D. MCLEAN,
PETITIONER and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF THE TWIN CITIES, AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 2, CIO, UNION
Case No. 18-RD-2.-Decided March 31, 1948
Mr. Jared How, of Mankato, Minn., for the Employer.
Mr. E. D. McLean , of Mankato , Minn., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Lee Loevinger and John J. Biddison , of Minneapolis , Minn.,
for the Union.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case
was held at Mankato, Minnesota, on October 14, 1947, before Clarence
A. Meter, hearing officer. At the hearing the Union moved to dismiss
the petition on various grounds,' which the hearing officer referred to
the Board for disposition. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion
is denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the National Labor Relations
Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TI-iE 13USINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Free Press Company, a Minnesota corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in Mankato, Minnesota, where it is engaged
I The Union contends , inter alia, that it has been denied "due process" and has not been
properly served , in that the Petition , as originally filed, included an additional statement
containing the names of the employees desiring decertification , winch was detached by the
Regional Office when copy of the petition was served on the Union with the Notice of Hear-
ing. Thus, it is urged , the petition does not show on its face that a question concerning rep-
resentation exists, nor does it properly state the issues We find no merit in this conten-
tion As we have frequently held the Board s requirement that a petitioner submit proof of
snbst,intial intejost is purer an administrative expedient . Failure to introduce into evi-
dencea report of such showing , cannot preludiie the Union ' s rights heiem See Matter
of II' cs'tinqlo,se ET c.' r Cam pom at on, 73 N L It Ii 818 Mattel of 0 D . Jeni, spa l Cons-
voice. 68 N L It 13 516
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man panel , consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Houston]
76 N. L. R. B., No. 152.
1047
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the publication, sale, and distribution of a daily paper, the Mankato
Daily Free Press. During the 6-month period ending July 31, 1947,
the Employer purchased for use at its Mankato, Minnesota, plant, raw
materials valued in excess of $28,000, of which amount over 50 percent
represented shipments to this plant from sources outside the State of
Minnesota. During the same period, the Employer circulated daily
from its plant, in excess of 15,000 copies of the Mankato Daily Free
Press, of which number 1.6 percent was delivered to points outside
the State of Minnesota. The Employer sold and published adver-
tising in an amount valued in excess of $141,000, of which over 13
percent was sold to customers located outside the State of Minnesota,
and used wire services and syndicated material from outside the State
of Minnesota, at an average cost of $742.00 per month.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an individual representing employees of the
Employer, who asserts that the Union is no longer the representative
of the Employer's employees as defined by Section 9 (a) of the amended
Act.
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, was certified by the Board on August 2,
1946, as the bargaining representative of employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Petitioner seeks decertification pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On August 2, 1946, following a consent election,3 the Union was
certified as the bargaining representative of the Employer's employees
in the editorial and commercial departments (including advertising,
business, and circulation). Thereafter, the Union and the Employer
entered into a collective bargaining contract to terminate on Septem-
ber 1, 1947. The Petitioner, on September 10, 1947, filed the present
petition with the Board. On September 11 or 12, 1947, the Petitioner
advised the Employer by telephone that an employee petition had been
executed and that a petition for decertification had been filed.4
:The No 18-R-1604.
4 The Union attempted to offer in evidence an undocketed charge, alleging violation under
Sections 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act This was propeily rejected by the hear-
ing officer Likewise, this issue was raised on motion to dismiss the petition However,
the Board does not receive evidence of unfair labor practices at representation hearinge
See ifntte, of Domnmaiit, Inc, 74 N. L R B 85; Dayton, Price & Company, Ltd, and
rimier C Phipps (Asia), Ltd, 73 N I, It B 149, Grinnell Company of the Pacific, 71 N L
it B 1370.
1`he same mule applies to decertification cases Matter of Magnesium Castings, 76 N L.
R B. 251 , Matter of Underwriters' Salvage Co , 76 N L It B 601
FREE PRESS COMPANY 1049
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
repiesentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1)5 and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner, in agreement with the Employer, claims as appro-
priate for purposes of this proceeding a unit consisting of all em-
ployees in the newspaper business of the Employer in Mankato, Minne-
sota, excluding publisher, managing editor, advertising manager, cir-
culation manager, office manager, and other management personnel;
also carriers, out-of-town and/or part-time correspondents, and other
circulation agents; and further excluding proofreaders, all employees
of the mechanical departments recognized in the industry as being
within the jurisdiction of the allied printing trades and mailer's
unions, employees of the Employer's job printing shops and employees
of the Employer's retail stationery store." The Union disagrees with
the Petitioner concerning the appropriate unit, upon the ground that
the previously established and recognized unit is inappropriate under
the amended Act because it includes editorial employees.
The evidence shows that the editorial employees involved consist
of the wire editor (part-time), sports editor, society editor, two re-
porters, and a clerk typist. The Union contends that "editorial" em-
ployees are "professional" employees within the meaning of Section
'.) (b) (1) of the Act and that such employees may not, without an
affirmative vote by a, majority thereof, be included in the same unit with
lion-professional employees. There is no evidence that any of these
employees perform work that requires knowledge of an advanced
type, in a field of learning customarily acquired by a course of special-
ized intellectual instruction in an institution of higher learning, as
(llstnnguished from a general academic education. They do not fall,
The Union urges, among other grounds, that the Board failed to comply with Section 9
(c) (1) in making the investigation In other words, it is argued that there was no reason-
able cause to believe a question of representation existed. Further, it is urged, the em-
ployees signed the petition with misunderstanding as to the nature of the document The
record is clear that the Regional Office made an investigation in the usual manner As a
result, the Regional Office determined administratively that there were sufficient properly
identified signatures on the petition to justify a hearing. We have held repeatedly that a
petitioner's prima facie showing of representative interest is solely a matter of adminis-
trative procedure to be determined by the Board itself This motion is therefore denied
See Matter of Davis Lumber Company, Inc., 75 N L. R. B. 851, Matter of Mascot Stove
Company, 75 N L. R. B. 427.
6 This is the unit for which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative in
1946, on the basis of its own agreement The Petition alleged that the unit involved was
a unit of "editorial" employees. The Petitioner was, however, permitted to amend the
petition, of er objection by the Union, to conform to the above. Such action was not preju-
dicial to the rights of the Union, which knew in advance of the hearing the description of
the unit claimed by the Petitioner. See Matter of Detroit Edison Company, 73 N L R B
1328.
1 050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore, within the meaning of a "professional employee" as defined
by Section 2 (12) of the Act.'
We find that all employees in the newspaper business of the Em-
ployer in Mankato, Minnesota, excluding publisher, editor, advertising
manager, circulation manager, office manager, and other management
personnel; excluding also carriers, out-of-town and/or part-time cor-
respondents, and other circulation agents ; and further excluding proof-
readers, all employees of the mechanical departments recognized in
the industry as being within the jurisdiction of the allied printing
trades and mailer's unions, employees of the Employer's jDb printing;
shops and employees of the Employer's retail stationery store, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union further moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Petitioner , an individual , has not complied with the registra-
tion and filing requirements of Sections 9 (f) and ( h) of the Act.
However, we have recently held that these sections expressly prohibit
the Board from investigating a question concerning representation
only when that question is raised by a labor organization which has
failed to meet the registration and filing requirements of the Act.'
Since, in the present case , the question concerning representation has
been raised , in fact as well as in form , by an individual seeking
decertification , rather than by a labor organization , the motion is
hereby denied . Accordingly, we shall conduct an election and shall
place the Union 's name on the ballot in such election.°
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Free Press Company, Mankato,
Minnesota, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Eighteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
See Hatter of Jersey Publishing Company, 76 N. L. R B. 467
See Matter of Hal, is Foundry d- Hachure Company, 76 N L R B. 118
The Union will he certified if it wins the elect7mi, promded that at that time it is in com-
pliance with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act Absent such compliance, the Board will
only certify the arithmetical results of the election
FREE PRESS COMPANY 1051
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and any em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by the Newspaper Guild
of the Twin Cities, American Newspaper Guild, Local 2, CIO, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.