Queensbrook News Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
loads in the shop, do all the necessary liaison work between the
engineering department and other departments, handle the issuing
of the manufacturing orders, and do considerable expediting in the
shop to see that the orders are completed on schedule. They have to
answer questions from the commercial department in regard to de-
livery commitments and determine whether new orders should be
taken or not, and if they are taken, what delivery can be main-
tained. Although these employees do 'no actual physical work, they
are under the same general supervision as the employees whom the
Petitioner seeks to represent, and their duties are closely connected
with the Employer's production operations. We find that they are
plant clericals. We shall therefore include them in the voting group.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group:
All dispatchers, material-move men, scheduling clerks,, and
employees in the stores and shipping and receiving departments at
the Employer's plant at Lynwood, California, excluding all other
employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
be included in the production and maintenance unit currently repre-
sented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director shall issue a.
certificate of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 By Order Granting Petition and Amending Decision and Direction of Election, dated
March 6, 1952 , the Board granted a petition by the parties to exclude scheduling clerks
from the voting group.
QUEENSBROOK NEWS CO., INC. and LOCAL 917, INTERNATIONAL Bno ni-
ERI3OOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-3895. February
14,1952
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 George Turitz, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
98 NLRB No. 21.
QUEENSBROOK NEWS CO., INC. 85
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's return room em-
ployees. The Intervenor, Newspaper and Mail Deliverers Union of
New York and Vicinity, contends that a separate unit of return room
employees would not be appropriate because an over-all unit has
already been found appropriate by the Board. The Employer and
the Petitioner urge the Board to reconsider the unit question in this
proceeding.
In an earlier proceeding, initiated in 1949, the Petitioner sought a
similar unit of return room employees.' The Board at that time found
appropriate a unit of all employees, "including drivers or routemen,
floormen, distributors, and current and return room employees at the
Employer's Brooklyn, New York, plant." The Intervenor, who also
intervened in the earlier proceeding,z had previously represented the
Employer's floormen, distributors, and drivers, and there urged the
over-all unit, including return room employees, which the Board
found appropriate. In that proceeding the Petitioner argued that
the Intervenor had shown a tendency to discriminate against return
room employees; the Board observed that denial by a union of equal
representation to employees would be curable by rescission of any
certification that might be issued to such union.3
On July 7, 1950, the Intervenor was certified in the earlier case.
Months after, during which the return room employees were advised
by the Intervenor that nothing could be done for them until a con-
tract had been negotiated for their members, the Employer and the
Intervenor entered into a contract on March 1, 1951, which, although
naming all certified classifications in its coverage, expressly stated
that no provision was made as to wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of return room employees.' Return room employees earn $59
a week, with lunch period on their own time; all other employees in
r Queensbrook News Co , lire, 2-RC-1394. May 25, 1950 , not reported in printed volumes
of hoard decisions , see Bronx County News Corporation , 89 NLRB 1567, there cited
I Other cases considered by the Board with , and decided on the basis of, Bronx County
News Corporation were Bt ooklyn News Co , Inc , 2-RC-1370, May 25, 1950, not reported
in printed volumes of Board decisions , Novick News Co , 2-RC-1934, May 25, 1950, not
reported in printed volumes of Boaid decisions . Seljan News Co , 2-RC-1732, May 25, 1950,
not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions , to all of which the Intervenor was a
party
See footnote 2 of Bronx County News Corporation , above.
This clause provided :
27 (a) Due to the differences between the parties which have not yet been resolved,
it is understood that the rates of pay, hours and conditions of work for Return Room
employees , will be separately negotiated.
Obviously there is no merit to the Intervenors contention that a contract with such pro-
vision bars this proceeding involving only return room employees The record indicates
that the Intervenor currently has similar contracts with Bronx County News Company,
Brooklyn News Co , Inc Novick News Co , and Seljan News Co.
998666-vol 98-5`3-- 7
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit earn $91 a week and their lunch is on company time. The
Intervenor states that it demands a uniform scale of wages for all
employees and cites the Employer's refusal to pay that scale to return
room employees as the reason for its inability to negotiate a contract
on their behalf. The Employer states that it cannot pay the higher
wage for work in the return room.
The record shows that the Intervenor is a union which limits its
membership to sons of members except in certain instances where
permanent employees in shops organized by it are granted member-
ship if the wage scale is appropriate, or membership after long serv-
ice-with restriction as to employment elsewhere-if the scale is not
appropriate. None of the return room employees of the Employer was
given a membership card by the Intervenor although some inquiry to
that end was made, and the Intervenor processed no grievances for
these employees, who considered it hopeless to ask for membership
unless a contract was negotiated.
It is clear that no equal representation was accorded to the Employ-
er's return room employees by the Intervenor although that union was
certified by the Board as their collective bargaining representative.-'
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the inclusion of
return room employees in a broader unit under our prior unit deter-
mination does not necessarily render inappropriate at this time a
separate unit of return room employees. Had the question of repre-
sentation for these return room employees arisen originally at a time
when no union sought to represent them in a single unit with other
employees, the Board might well have found appropriate a residual or
departmental unit of return room employees and directed an election
among them on that basis .6 Such a union is no less appropriate now.
Because of the absence of any previous bargaining for these return
room employees as a separate unit, we did not in our earlier decision
deem it necessary to give them a self-determination election. In the
light of developments since then we think the advisability of such an
election is apparent.
6 The Intervenor contends that this proceeding is not an appropriate one: that the
Petitioner, instead of the petition filed herein , should submit a motion in the earlier
proceeding to rescind the certification , or should petition for 'decertification . As we find
that a unit of return room employees may, in all the circumstances , be an appropriate
one, we deny the Intervenor 's motion to dismiss this proceeding . As to the decrease in
the Employer 's operations due to loss of one line of magazines distributed by it-also
urged by the Intervenor as a ground for dismissal-we note the Employer ' s testimony
that efforts were being made to get back this business . Nothing in this record would
justify a dismissal of or postponement of this proceeding on the ground of curtailed opera-
tions on the part of the Employer.
6 At Queensbrook News these employees work in a separate area with a high partition
and are separately supervised . They do not interchange with floormen , distributors, and
drivers The difference in wages has already been mentioned . Also their vacation privi-
leges and their working week differ from those of the other classifications in the over-all
unit.
THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. 87
If in the election directed herein a majority of the return room
employees vote for the Petitioner, they shall be deemed to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. In that
event the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for a unit of all return room employees
of the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, excluding all other
employees, and all supervisors 7 as defined in the Act, which unit the
Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining. We shall then modify accordingly the certifi-
cate issued to the Intervenor on July 7, 1950. If a majority vote for
the Intervenor, they shall be deemed to have elected to remain in the
unit originally found appropriate by the Board.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 Although the Petitioner would include the foreman of the return room in the unit on
the ground that he is a "mere messenger boy" for the Employer , we shall exclude him
from the unit as a supervisor . The record indicates that he makes effective recommenda-
tions concerning the retention of new employees and the discharge of employees , as well
as responsibly directing the work of the return room.
TIIE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. and WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER
GUILD, OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 5-RC--850. February 14,1952
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election
In our decision of October 9, 1951 (96 NLRB 673), in this matter,
the Board found that the unit sought by the Petitioner was inap-
propriate. In view of this conclusion, and as the Petitioner clearly
and emphatically 1 stated that it did not desire an election in any other
unit which the Board might find appropriate, the Board issued an
order dismissing the petition.
On January 15, 1952, the Petitioner filed a petition for reconsidera-
tion, and thereafter the Employer filed a memorandum in opposition
to the petition. In its request for reconsideration the Petitioner has
changed its position and has withdrawn its objection to an election,
among the employees it seeks to represent, to determine whether those
employees should be added to the unit of editorial employees which
the Petitioner now represents. As such a unit would be appropriate
for the reasons stated in our decision of October 9, 1951, in this matter
and in Record Publishing Company, 91 NLRB No. 215 (not reported
in printed volumes of Board decisions), the Board hereby reopens
1 The position of the Petitioner was so stated at the hearing and in the Petitioner' s brief
which concluded , "Because of the compelling circumstances in this case , the Guild believes
that the unit it requests should be neither reduced nor enlarged. It is not interested in,
nor does it request, the designation of any alternative unit as appropriate."
98 NLRB No. 26.