Leaf-Chronicle Co.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leaf-Chronicle Company' and Nashville Typographi-
cal Union No. 20, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.2 Case 26-RC-5981
September 17, 1979
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held on April 30 and May I and 2, 1979, before
Hearing Officer William K. Harvey. Thereafter, pur-
suant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Regional Director for Region 26 trans-
ferred this proceeding to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for decision. The Employer and the Peti-
tioner have both filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this proceeding, including
the briefs, the Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated and we find that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The record shows that the Petitioner is a labor
organization claiming to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The petition originally filed sought an election
in an overall unit of the Employer's employees at its
newspaper publishing facility in Clarksville, Tennes-
see, including newsroom, composing room, camera
room, pressroom, and mailroom employees. In its
post-hearing brief, the Petitioner requests that the pe-
tition be amended to seek two units, one including
newsroom employees and the second, an overall me-
chanical unit, including composing room, camera
room, pressroom, and mailroom employees. The Peti-
tioner expressed willingness to represent a unit of all
editorial employees employed by the Leaf-Chronicle
I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing.
Company, including those employees in the news-
room in the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle and the edito-
rial employees working for its 13 other newspapers
located in nearby towns, excluding all advertising
salesmen and business employees, but only if the
Board finds the Leaf-Chronicle newsroom inappro-
priate.
The Petitioner contends that the composing room,
pressroom, camera room, and mailroom comprise an
appropriate overall mechanical unit of the kind fre-
quently found appropriate by the Board. It also con-
tends that the newsroom of the Leaf-Chronicle or,
alternatively, an overall editorial department unit
constitutes the kind of major departmental unit often
found appropriate by the Board in the newspaper in-
dustry.
The Employer contends that the composing room,
camera room, pressroom, and mailroom should be
separated into individual units. It further contends
there should be an overall multilocation editorial or
news department unit including newsroom employees
at the Leaf-Chronicle and editorial and so-called
"dual-function" employees at its other papers.
The Leaf-Chronicle Company owns and publishes,
either directly or through wholly owned subsidiaries.
a daily newspaper, I triweekly newspaper. 12 weekly
newspapers, and I monthly newspaper. All 14 papers
are printed at the central plant facility located in two
neighboring buildings in Clarksville, Tennessee. The
daily newspaper is the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle.
Five of the weekly newspapers are a group of news-
papers located in various suburban communities
around Nashville, Tennessee, and one is a legal publi-
cation in the city of Nashville. The balance of the
weekly newspapers and the triweekly paper are lo-
cated in various county seats throughout middle Ten-
nessee. The monthly newspaper is a trade publica-
tion, the Music City News. In addition, the Leaf-
Chronicle Company's central printing plant produces
the Fort Campbell Courier. The Leaf-Chronicle Com-
pany has no control over the news content of this
publication; its content is determined by the military
authorities.
Production of all 14 papers is identical. Both edito-
rial and advertising copy is prepared at the individual
newspaper offices, including the Clarksville Leaf-
Chronicle's newsroom. Thereafter, it is sent to the
central printing facility in Clarksville.
The Company is housed in two buildings on oppo-
site sides of one block. The composing room, the
camera room, and the business and news departments
are housed in the main building. The mailroom is
located on the second floor and the pressroom on the
first floor of the new building. Thus, all the mechani-
cal departments, including the composing room,
244 NLRB No. 172
1104
LEAF-CHRONICLE COMPANY
pressroom, mailroom, and camera room are located
on separate floors of the two nearby buildings. Each
department reports to the production manager
through its own superintendent. Budgets and wage
scales are separate for each department but fringe
benefits are identical. All the employees, except the
four camera room employees, work similar shifts.
Pressroom and mailroom employees wear uniforms;
the others do not.
Equipment used in the composing room consists of
keypunching, headline setting, photocomposition,
and advertising copy setting machines. The only skill
requirement for this department is typing. The record
contains no evidence that there are any skill or expe-
rience prerequisites for hire into any of the other de-
partments. All training is on the job. Employees in
the pressroom undergo a 90-day probation period.
The record reveals that soon the Employer plans to
change the content of the camera room work by mov-
ing the platemaking operations from the pressroom.
The record does not indicate whether this will involve
a transfer of employees. All departments, except the
pressroom, have part-time and student employees.
Employees are not shifted from one department to
another except in the emergency situation of equip-
ment breakdown. There is no evidence that any em-
ployees have transferred between departments, al-
though they would be permitted to do so if they so
desired.
The news and/or editorial employees of the Em-
ployer consist of the 14 newsroom employees at the
Leaf-Chronicle and the editorial employees at the
outlying papers. The Leaf-Chronicle newsroom has
wire editors, staff writers, sports writers, photogra-
phers, and a librarian, all under the supervision of the
Leaf-Chronicle's managing editor. The other papers
range in distance from Clarksville from 23 to 70
miles. Each of these papers is headed by an editor.
Some of the papers have staff writers who are super-
vised by the local editors or the business manager.
The number of staff writers at all of the outlying pa-
pers totals 19. These employees share the same bene-
fits as Leaf-Chronicle employees and vacation sched-
uling is handled by the personnel department of the
Leaf-Chronicle company. They do not have occasion
to go to the main plant in the course of their work;
only the editors, business or advertising managers,
and/or advertising salesmen go to Clarksville to su-
pervise the composition of their papers. There is testi-
mony that all the employees occasionally meet for
training seminars, but there is no mention of how of-
ten these take place. There is posting of vacancies for
editorial jobs. The record shows eight or nine em-
ployee transfers, but it does not indicate the period of
time in which these transfers occurred. There is one
employee, Evelyn Treader, who generally fills in for
ill or vacationing employees. Only very occasionally
is there any other such temporary interchange involv-
ing other employees. The editors of each of the pa-
pers, including the Leaf-Chronicle, in conjunction
with the publisher, handle hiring and wage determi-
nation. The editorial employees at all the papers gen-
erally work an 8-hour day; however, the record re-
veals that some of the weekly paper staff writers work
less than 40 hours a week. Editorial policy is consis-
tent among all the papers and all the papers share
support services, stories, and files.
As noted previously, the Employer contends that
there are at the weekly papers certain dual function
employees that should be included in an overall edi-
torial unit. Included in this group are editors who
have no staff writers working under them and must
perform these duties themselves and certain business
or advertising employees who sometimes perform
news writing and news gathering functions. The rec-
ord does not indicate how much time these employees
spend on the different duties.
The first issue to be decided in this case is whether
the mechanical departments of the Employer may be
joined in one overall mechanical unit. The Employer
correctly points out that the Board has held in past
cases beginning with Garden Island Publishing Co.,
Ltd.,3 that it will automatically find appropriate such
a unit when there is no objection to the joinder of
these crafts either by the employer or another union
claiming to represent any mechanical craft on a sepa-
rate basis. The Employer herein contends that since it
objects to such joinder the Board is precluded by
precedent from finding an overall mechanical unit ap-
propriate. We do not agree. In Garden Island, supra,
there was no objection to the joinder and the Board
found the overall unit appropriate without any ex-
amination of the facts. We do not interpret the hold-
ing in that case to mean that we would not find an
overall mechanical unit appropriate where the par-
ticular facts of a case demonstrate the appropriate-
ness of such a unit notwithstanding an employer's ob-
jection.
Thus, on the facts herein we find this to be a proper
case for joinder of all the mechanical departments.
These employees, although physically separated,
work only one floor away or in a neighboring build-
ing. There is no evidence that these employees are
required to have special skills before they are hired or
that there are any rigid apprenticeship programs as
found often in this industry. All the departments ex-
cept for the pressroom have part-time and student
employees. We also note that one traditional basis for
separate craft units has been eliminated by the
' 154 NLRB 697 (1965)
1105
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merger in 1978 of the Mailers Union with the Inter-
national Typographical Union. The fact that the Em-
ployer intends to transfer platemaking to the camera
room further blurs craft lines. The employees share
identical fringe benefits and, with the exception of the
four camera room employees, work the same shift
hours. There is common overall supervision. Thus, we
find that the employees in these departments do not
comprise sufficiently well-defined functionally distinct
groups so as to overcome the community of interest
that they share. Accordingly, we shall direct an elec-
tion among the employees in the following unit, as
requested:
All full-time and regular part-time mechanical
department employees employed by the Em-
ployer in its Clarksville, Tennessee, location in-
cluding the employees in the composing room,
camera room, press room and mail room, exclud-
ing guards and supervisors as defined by the
Act.4
We now turn to consideration of the proper scope
of the editorial unit. The Board often finds appropri-
ate major departmental units within a newspaper.
The dispute in this instance is as to the scope of the
news or editorial department. As noted previously,
the Employer contends that an overall multilocation
unit is appropriate. The Petitioner contends that the
single Leaf-Chronicle newsroom location is appropri-
ate.
We agree with the Petitioner that the editorial and
so-called dual function employees at the outlying pa-
pers should not be included in a unit with the news-
room employees of the Leaf-Chronicle. While there is
commonality of publication and of certain aspects of
personnel administration such as vacation scheduling,
hiring, and determination of salaries by the publisher,
we do not believe that these employees share a com-
munity of interest sufficient to warrant their inclusion
in an overall unit for purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The proposed unit employees at the outlying pa-
pers rarely, if ever, see each other or Leaf-Chronicle
newsroom employees. They are separately supervised
and produce a separate product. Accordingly, we
shall direct an election among the employees in the
following unit, as requested:
All full-time and regular part-time newsroom
employees employed by the Leaf-Chronicle
Company at its Clarksville, Tennessee, location
I The Employer has two commercial print shops in the outlying newspaper
offices. Although evidence was taken at the hearing with respect to these
employers. the petition does not seek their inclusion in the mechanical unit
and neither party takes any position thereon, We find no basis in the record
for including them.
for the Leaf-Chronicle newspaper, excluding
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
There remains for decision the supervisory status of
certain employees. The Employer contends that
Assistant News Editor Max Moss is a supervisor.
Moss performs basically the same functions as News
Editor Worden, an admitted supervisor, and acts in
his place when he is absent and is in charge of the
newspaper's Sunday operation. He generally directs
the reporting staff even when Worden is present and
at his own discretion assigns work to reporters. Moss
is a salaried employee and does not receive overtime.
The staff writers in the Leaf-Chronicle newsroom are
hourly paid and do receive overtime. Moss was pro-
moted from the position of sports editor, which was
stipulated to be supervisory. He continues to have the
authority to assign work, grant time off, recommend
promotions, and hire and fire. On the basis of these
facts we find that Max Moss is a supervisor and
should be excluded from the newsroom unit.
The Employer contends that Makeup Editor Jim
Monday is a supervisor. Monday evaluates employ-
ees working for him, has the authority to grant time
off and assign overtime, and can recommend dis-
charge or discipline. He directs the makeup desk
which includes the functions of writing headlines and
editing copy. He directly supervises the work of
makeup employee Green and can assign work to
other staff writers. He is salaried and does not receive
overtime. On these facts, we find that Monday is a
supervisor and should be excluded from the unit.
The Employer contends that Feature Editor Pam
Eldridge is a supervisor. She is responsible for the
newspaper's feature pages; she edits copy and decides
what goes into the features section. She assigns work
to at least one staff writer, but only if that employee
has not been directed to do something by someone
else. She has four "stringers" or correspondents who
are not employees that work under her direction.
There is testimony that she would be "in on" the
evaluation of the staff writer that sometimes does
work for her. The record is silent with respect to her
authority to hire or fire, discipline, or discharge.
Thus, we find the record evidence insufficient to es-
tablish that Pam Eldridge is a supervisor and we shall
include her in the newsroom unit.
The Employer contends that Mailroom Foremen
John Head and Tom Drumheller are supervisors.
These employees report directly to Mailroom Super-
intendent Winn. They alternate on a monthly basis
from day to night shift and therefore direct all of the
employees in the mailroom and when on the night
shift have sole responsibility for mailroom operations.
They do some unit work, but they have the authority
to suspend, fire, or otherwise discipline employees, as-
1106
LEAF-CHRONICLE COMPANY
sign work, and move employees on their respective
shifts from one machine to another. Their involve-
ment in hiring is limited, but the record reveals that
both of them have actually exercised their authority
to fire mailroom employees. Thus, we find that Head
and Drumheller are supervisors and should be ex-
cluded from the mechanical unit.
The Employer contends that Pressroom Shift Fore-
man David Moore and Gary Baker are supervisors.
Each foreman independently directs the work of his
crew and assigns breaks on a staggered basis. They
assign overtime and grant time off when necessary.
The wage scale in the pressroom was designed and
formulated by Moore and Baker. They are primarily
responsible for the determination as to whether press-
room employees advance to different levels on the
wage scales and after an employee completes a 90-
day probationary period, they recommend him for
retention or termination based upon his performance
and consult with the pressroom superintendent to de-
termine the wage rate for the retained employee.
They have the authority to fire employees under their
direction and the record reveals that Moore has actu-
ally exercised that authority. On the basis of the fore-
going, we find that they are supervisors and should be
excluded from the mechanical unit.
The Employer contends that Alice Butts, Linda
Springfield, Carl Ellis, and Nancy Bellamy are super-
visors in the composing room. They are all hourly
rated employees who may be assigned overtime. Butts
and Springfield direct employees in page makeup, but
spend 80 percent of their time doing unit work. While
they do have some input into disciplinary matters, it
is not clear that their recommendations are followed
in all cases. They initial the timecards of the people
they direct, but there is no evidence that they are
involved in hiring or firing. Carl Ellis directs employ-
ees performing the advertising makeup function, but
spends 50 percent of his time on rank-and-file work.
He has made recommendations regarding hiring, but
it is not clear whether they have been followed in all
cases. He has disciplined one employee, but the cir-
cumstances surrounding this incident or his authority
to do so in other cases is not clear. Nancy Bellamy
directs the typing department of the composing room.
She has some input in discipline, but it is not clear
how often her recommendations are followed. She
spends 80 percent of her time doing unit work. Thus,
we find that these four employees are leadpersons
rather than supervisors and should be included in the
mechanical unit.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from Publication.]
1107