Packer Displays, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

PACKER DISPLAYS , INC. and INTERNP .TIONAL ALLIANCE
OF BILL POSTERS , BILLERS &DISTR . BUTORS OF UNITED
STATES & CANADA, LOCAL # 89, MIP .MI, Petitioner. Case
No. 10-RC-2319 . July 6, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allen
Sinsheimer, Jr., 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 Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson].
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit confinec to all billposters of
the Employer. The Employer contende that the unit should
include its maintenance and construction employees. There
is no history of collective bargaining at the Employer's opera-
tions.
There are 10 billposters, also knou n as route men, who
are engaged in placing advertising mat•:er on billboards with
the use of paste and brushes and the tacking of signs on
telephone poles. The Employer also has about 10 other em-
ployees who construct and maintain the billboards. They
also spend about 20 percent of their time in performing
billposting duties. Conversely, the biLposters spend about
10 to 15 percent of their time in maintenance and construction
work. Both groups of employees receive the same rate of
pay. A light patrolman, whose duties are divided between
electrical work and repairing torn or loose posters, is also
employed.
In view of the absence of evidence that the billposters
constitute a highly skilled group and because of the inter-
change of duties between them and the construction and main-
1 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co , 90 NLRB
106.
106 NLRB No 1
1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance employees, we find that a unit confined to billposters is
inappropriate.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 See Montgomery Ward and Company, 99 NLRB 1490; Arnold Hoffman R, Co., Inc., 91 NLRB
1371; cf. National Transitads, Inc., 67 NLRB 511.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, C. I. O. Case
No. 16-CA-435. July 6, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 15, 1953, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5 ) of the Act, as alleged in the amended complaint, and
recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter , the charging Union filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report. The charging Union duly filed a brief
in support of its exceptions , and the Respondent duly filed a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was
committed . With the exception noted below , the rulings are
hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report , the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in
IThe Respondent requested special leave to file additionally a reply brief in answer to the
charging Union's exceptions and brief, and submitted copies thereof together with its request.
The Union opposed the request. As the Respondent has failed to give sufficient reason for
granting such special leave, its request is refused and its reply brief is hereby rejected.
2During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, acting upon the Respondent's
motion, dismissed paragraph 8, A, of the amended complaint without considering the merits
thereof. The Trial Examiner's ruling was based upon the :act that the unfair labor practice
alleged in the said paragraph had not been brought to the Respondent's attention within 6
months after its occurrence. The event in question occurred on or about November 30, 1951,
some 2 months after the filing of the charge. The Board has frequently pointed out, however,
that Section 10 (b) does not preclude inclusion in the complaint of acts believed violative of
the Act where they occur subsequent to the filing of the charge. Cathey Lumber Company,
86 NLRB 157, affirmed on this point in 185 F. 2d 1021 (C.A. 5), reversed on other grounds
in 189 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 5); Shen Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated, 105 NLRB 491. We
have accordingly reinstated this allegation of the amended complaint and have considered
it on the merits.
The record shows that the conduct complained of in paragraph 8, A, of the amended com-
plaint involved the Respondent's reprimand of a number of employees who left their work to
discuss the progress of the bargaining negotiations in which the Respondent and the charging
Union were then engaged. There is no evidence that the Respondent's reprimand was either
improperly motivated or reflected any interference with the exercise of rights guaranteed to
employees under the Act. Stibbs Transportation Lines, Inc., et al., 98 NLRB 422. Accord-
ingly, in adopting the Trial Examiner's ultimate determination dismissing this portion of
the amended complaint, we do so for the above reasons, rather than for those motivating
the Trial Examiner.
106 NLRB No. 5