Prentice-Hall, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 92 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of PRENTICE-HALL, INC. and BOOK & MAGAZINE GUILD,
LOCAL 18, UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. O.
In the Matter Of PRENTICE-HALL, INC. and BOOR & MAGAZINE GUILD,
LOCAL 18, UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS of AMERICA,
C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R-3406 and R-3407, respectively.Decided
February l1, 1942
Jurisdiction : publishing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : dis-
pute as to appropriate unit; refusal of Company to accord union recognition
until certified by the Board; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all shipping clerks at Company's
main office; loose-leaf service editorial employees held, inappropriate.
Practice and Procedure : one of the petitions dismissed where no appropriate
unit within scope of petition.
Chadbourne, Hunt, Jaeckel cC Brown, by Mr. Clinton DeWitt Van
Siclen and Mr. John Powers, of New York City, for the Company.
Boudin, Cohn cC Glickstein, by Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, of New
York City, for the Union.
Miss Melvern R. IKrelow, of counsel to' the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 24, 1941, Book & -Magazine Guild, Local 18, United
Office & Professional Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called
the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region
(New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting coin-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of the shipping
clerks at 75 Varick Street, New York City, of Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
New York City, herein called the Company, and requesting an in-
39 N L R B., No. 19. -
92
PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 93
vestigation and' certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. On November 1, 1941, the Union filed a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees in the loose-leaf service editorial
department at 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City,, of the Company.
On December 5, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
Article III, Section 3 and Section 10 (c) 2, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered
an investigation in each case, authorized the Regional Director to
conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice, and ordered that the cases be consolidated.
On December 8, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the
Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 15, 16,
and 17, 1941, at New York City, before Frederick R. Livingston, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Company and the Union appeared by counsel and participated in
the hearing.' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine, witnesses, and' to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the,
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 3, 1942, and on January 14, 1942, the Union and the
Company, respectively, filed briefs which the Board has duly con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Prentice-Hall, Inc., is a New York corporation engaged in the
State of New York in the publishing business.2 During the period
I At the opening of the hearing , the Allied Printing Trades Council Organizing Com-
mittee and the International Brotherhood of Book Binders , claiming an interest in the
proceeding , moved orally to intervene The Trial Examiner stated that in accordance with
Article III , Section 4 , a motion to intervene must be in writing , and withheld his ruling
until such written motion was filed, but allowed the representatives to participate in the
interim . After the noon recess during the first day , no appearance was made by any
representative for these organizations , nor did anyone appear thereafter
' The Company also has offices in Chicago , Illinois ; San Francisco, California ; Wash-
ington, D C .; and Dover , Delaware.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from April 1, 1941, to October 1, 1941, the Company purchased raw
material , which consists of paper, valued at $100,000, 50 percent of
which was shipped to it from points outside the State of New York.
During the same period the Company received substantially in excess
of $1,000,000 from the sale of finished products consisting of books
and loose-leaf services, 80 percent of which were shipped by it to
points outside the State of New York. The Company admits that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE' ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Book & Magazine Guild, Local 18, United Office & Professional
Workers of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union has'requested the Company to recognize it as the
exclusive representative for two units of employees: (1) its shipping'
clerks at 75 Varick Street, New York City, and (2) its loose-leaf
service editorial department employees located at 70 Fifth Avenue,
New York City. The Company denied the requests on the ground
that the units alleged are inappropriate and that until-the Union
is certified by the Board, the Company would not recognize it.
From the statement of the Regiontil Director introduced in evi-
dence at the hearing, it appears that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the units alleged by it to be
appropriate.'
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of the shipping-department employees of the Company.
In view of the fact that we hereinafter find the loose-leaf service
editorial employees do not constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, we find that no question has
arisen concerning the representation of those employees of the
Company. -
*The Regional Director reported that the Union presented 15 application cards of ship-
ping department employees ; 1 undated , 1 dated July 30, 1941, and 11 dated July 31, 1941.
Of the 15 application cards submitted , 13 bear the apparently genuine signatures of persons
on the Company 's pay roll of September 30, 1941. There are 16 employees on the, Com-
pany 's pay roll of September 30, 1941, in the alleged unit. . '
The Regional Director further reported that the Union presented a petition containing
42 apparently genuine signatures of employees in the loose -leaf service editorial depart-
ment. A notation appears on the petition, "collected September 25 to October 2, 1941."
Of the 42, 41 are names of persons who appear on the Company 's pay roll of September 30,
1941, in the alleged unit . There are 79-employees on the Company 's pay roll of September
30, 1941, in the alleged unit
PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 95
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that (1) the shipping department, at 75
Varick Street, New York City, and (2) the loose-leaf service edi-
torial department, excluding supervisory employees, constitute
separate appropriate units.
The Company contends that all employees of the Company in-
cluding those who are employed outside of New York City (Wash-
ington, D. C.; Dover, Delaware; Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco,
California; and Los Angeles, California) excluding supervisory
employees, constitutes the appropriate unit.
The Company gathers, publishes, and sells textbooks, mail-order
books, syndicated literature, and trade books. It also publishes
various cumulative loose-leaf services which are sold under contract
to subscribers.
The management of the entire business is centralized at the main
office which is located at 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City. The
president personally passes on all matters relating to personnel.
There is a company-wide system of seniority, and all collective bar-
gaining negotiations must be handled by the president.
The Company employs 577 employees, of whom 437 are located
in New York City. The classifications of employees include those
engaged in the "services," for which work the Company employs
editors, secretarial assistants, and proofreaders; those engaged in the
book editorial work, for which work the Company also employs edi-
tors, secretarial assistants, and proofreaders; those engaged in
clerical work, mail-order work, advertising, sales, purchasing, credits
and collections, multigraphing and multilithing, and shipping.
Shipping Department. The record discloses that the Union con-
ducted a special organizational drive in the industry in the sum-
mer f 1941, specifically covering shipping employees. The testi-
mony' indicates that the shipping clerks came to the Union in a body
and requested representation. During the latter part of August 1941,
the Union attempted to obtain from the Company recognition on
beha]f of the Company's shipping employees at 75 Varick Street.
448105-42-vol 39-8
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After conferences with the Company, and its refusal to grant such
recognition, the Union called a strike of these employees. As a re-
sult of informal negotiations through the State Mediation Board,
the strike was settled. The Company agreed to allow the employees
to return to work without discrimination, but steadfastly refused to
recognize the Union until the Board certified it.
There are 16 shipping clerks. They receive cases of books and
put them away in respective bins allocated for each book. As or-
ders are received, they pick the books from bins and lay them out
on the packing table ; put the books into cartons and sometimes into
cases ; stamp the cartons or mark the cases ; and ship them out. The
work of these employees, which is substantially manual, is clearly
distinguishable from the work of the other employees of the Com-
pany, who are engaged in editorial, clerical, and proofreading work.
Moreover, these shipping-department employees have indicated a
desire to organize as a separate unit and have requested the Union
to represent them. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the
shipping clerks at 75 Varick Street constitute an appropriate bar-
gaining unit.
The Company and the Union stipulated that Hecht, who directs
the work of the shipping employees and who also works with them,
be included in the shipping department in the event the Board finds
this unit appropriate. We will include Hecht in the unit.
We find that the shipping clerks at 75 Varick Street, New York
City, including Hecht, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that such unit will insure to employees
of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and to collective bargaining and otherwise will effectuate the policies
of the Act. I
Lopse-leaf Service Editorial Employees. There are approximately
80 employees in the "loose-leaf service editorial department," which
is located at 70 Fifth Avenue,,New York City. It is engaged in a
number of projects ranging from a service on Federal income taxes
to a service on food, drugs, and cosmetics. These services in loose-
leaf form are continually supplemented. There are editors, secre-
tarial assistants, and proofreaders engaged in this work. The edi-
tors gather information from various sources; organize and rewrite
that information ; put it in suitable editorial headings ; and allocate
material to the various headings. The editors in the "book edi-
torial department" 4 in the main edit material on books submitted
by authors who are not employed by the Company and in many
instances organize and rewrite the material submitted. The Com-
' The Company does not recognize any departmental distinction between book editorial
and loose -leaf service editorial work. The designation of "department" has been made
by the Union.
PRENTICE-HALL , INC. 97
pany makes no distinction between the two groups of employees
for any managerial purposes . The same degree of professional
training and ability is required of both groups. The secretarial as-
sistants do some stenographic work, file, and index the material given
them by the editors, do occasional proofreading , paste up pages, and
look through court reports for citations . The proofreaders hold copy,
read against galleys , correct page proofs as they come back, and
mark up the original copy. These three groups of employees per-
form substantially the same work as, and frequently supplement the
work of, employees in the same classifications in the "book editorial
department ." Editorial work on books published by the Company,
other than loose-leaf books, is performed by both the book and service
editorial- employees . Transfers of employees from 'service editorial
work to book editorial work have occurred . The service ' editorial
proofreaders Lnd the book editorial proofreaders are given the same
tests to determine their qualifications for employment with the Com-
pany. There is a community of interests between the book editorial
employees and the service editorial employees, and the activities of
both groups are interrelated and interdependent.
Since the other employees whom the Union would exclude perform
the same kind of work and there is frequent interchange of duties
we conclude that a unit of so -called loose -leaf service editorial em-
ployees is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and
we so find. We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case No.
R-3407.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation can best be
resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in the
appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York City, within
-the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. All shipping clerks of the Company at 75 Varick Street, New
York City, including Hecht, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. No question concerning the representation of the loose-leaf
service editorial employees of Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York City, in a
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
has arisen within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, and pursuant' to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to. ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York City, 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations,
among all shipping clerks'of the Company at 75 Varick Street, New
York City, including Hecht, who were employed during-the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this 'Direction, including
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or train-
ing of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by Book & Magazine
Guild, Local 18, United Office & Professional Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of the
loose-leaf service editorial employees of Prentice-Hall, Inc., New
York City, filed by Book & Magazine Guild, Local 18, United Office
& Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Election, and Order.