Mutual Newspaper Publishing Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 642 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in order to encourage membership in a labor organization, and thus to commit
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent
Unions, meaning the International and Local 363, have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents District Lodge 57 and Local 679 have
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication,]
MUTUAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, et al., and
OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
NO. 30, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3195. December
30, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The
hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The four enterprises involved in this proceeding are The
Mutual Newspaper Publishing Company, d/b/a Los Angeles
Daily Journal and the Los Angeles News; The Independent
Review Company; Telford Work, d/b/a City News Service
of Los Angeles; and The Los Angeles Newspaper Service
Bureau, Inc . The Mutual Publishing Company publishes a
daily newspaper which specializes in news of interest to
the legal profession and legal advertising . It also does a
small amount of commercial printing and prints under con-
tract The Independent Review, a weekly newspaper also
specializing in legal news and legal advertising . The City
News Service is engaged in the collection and dissemination
of news pertaining to the legal profession in Los Angeles
County on behalf of 45 newspapers in Los Angeles County.
The Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau is a local non-
profit advertising agency, all of whose stockholders are
newspapers located in southern California. It solicits legal
advertising on behalf of its stockholders.
The 3 corporations involved have common ownership and
common officers and directors. Mr. Telford Work, pro-
prietor of the fourth enterprise, owns no stock in any of
the corporations, but is secretary-treasurer of each, gen-
eral manager of the largest, the Mutual Newspaper Publishing
Company, and draws salaries from 2 of the 3. The 4 compa-
nies are housed in the same building and there is some di-
vision of employees' time between companies. For the purpose
107 NLRB No. 127.
MUTUAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY , et al. 643
of disposing of the jurisdictional issue we shall treat the 4
enterprises as a single employer. 1
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the grounds
that its operations do not affect commerce within the meaning
of the Act , and that it would not effectuate the policies of the
Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein.
In the conduct of its operations , the Employer purchases
newsprint , directly from outside the State of California, in
the value of approximately $ 18,000 per annum. The news-
print is used in the publication of the 2 newspapers published
by the Employer . It purchases a weekly mail service from the
United Press office in Sacramento , California , and from the
Associated Court and Commercial Newspapers of Chicago.
Together these services cost the Employer approximately
$400 a year . Fourteen of the Daily Journal's 4,200 subscribers
are located outside the State of California . The Employer sells
advertising and other services to firms engaged in interstate
commerce, of the value of approximately $ 30,000 a year. The
Employer , through the City News Services , supplies the United
Press with tips on local stories involving the legal profession,
which the United Press may or may not follow up . For this
service the United Press pays the Employer $ 50 a week.
On the basis of the above factors we find that the Emplo; er's
operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
However, neither the Employer ' s indirect out-of-State sales,
which amount to approximately $ 32,000, nor its direct out-of-
State purchases which amount to approximately $ 18,000,
considered separately or together , are sufficiently large in
volume to warrant a finding that its operations have a sub-
stantial enough impact upon interstate commerce for us to
assert jurisdiction in this case . Nor do we believe the Em-
ployer properly can be called an instrumentality or channel
of interstate commerce. Upon the basis of the above factors
and on the record as a whole, we find that it would not effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.2
Members Murdock and Peterson agree with this finding
because the commerce data does not meet the Board's juris-
dictional standards 3 as to inflow and outflow requirements or
combinations thereof and because the Employer does not
qualify as an instrumentality or channel of interstate commerce
as delineated in WSBR, Inc .* In this latter connectionthey note
that the Employer subscribes to none of the interstate wire
services or syndicated feature services available to publishers.
Less than 2 percent of the total news content of the Employer's
lCf. Industrial Lamp Corp., 97 NLRB 1021; Florida Jafra Steel Co., 94 NLRB 387.
2 Cf. Palm Springs Community Television Corporation , 106 NLRB 1144.
3See Hollow Tree Lumber Company , 91 NLRB 635; Federal Diary Inc., 91 NLRB 638;
Rutledge Paper Products Company, 91 NLRB 625.
491 NLRB 630.
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
daily newspaper consists of material supplied it by the 2
interstate weekly mail services referred to above. The
Employer receives only $210 a year from out-of-State sub-
scribers and only $50 a week from the United Press for the
sale of news tips to that agency.
Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition
is granted.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
NASH KELVINATOR CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-
3572. December 30, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Kenneth L.
Keith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 1
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, an independent guard union, seeks a
unit of employees classified as watchmen at the Employer's
Kenosha, Wisconsin, plant, on the ground that the watchmen
are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
The Intervenor opposes the unit on the grounds that: (1) Its
current contract with Employer is a bar to this proceeding;
(2) the watchmen are not guards within the meaning of the Act;
and (3) the watchmen perform duties similar to those of
safety employees whom the Petitioner has not requested to be
included in the unit. The Employer takes no position concern-
ing the requested unit.
The Intervenor's current contract effective until October 1,
1954, includes the watchmen in the bargaining unit with the
Employer's production and maintenance employees. Because
we hereinafter find that the requested unit of watchmen is an
appropriate guard unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
1Local 72, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
CIO, herein called Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding upon the basis
of its current contract with Employer.
107 NLRB No. 137.