Ray Patin Productions, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1172 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Voting group 1 The three employees working in the powerhouse
who are represented by the Petitioner 5
Voting group 2 - All firemen, oilers, maintenance mechanics, and
helpers represented by Local 56
As both labor organizations have an adequate showing of interest
among the employees in voting group 2, we shall place, the names of
both organizations on the ballot in the election among these employ-
ees 6 As Local 56 has no showing of interest among the employees
in voting group 1, we shall place only the Petitioner's name on the
ballot in the election among these employees
If the Petitioner wins the elections in both voting groups, the em-
ployees in these groups will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a single combined unit and the Regional Director con-
ducting the elections directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such combined
unit, including therein the employees in both voting groups 1 and 2,
which the Board, in the circumstances finds to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining 7
If, however, Local 56 wins the election in voting group 2, or the
Petitioner wins in voting group 2 alone, when the employees in vot-
ing group 2 will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certifica-
tion of representatives to the bargaining agent so selected for such
separate unit, which the Board, in the circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining In this event,
the Regional Director shall issue a certification of results of the elec-
tion in voting group 1, and the employees in voting group 1 shall
remain in the unit in which they are now represented
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ]
5 ,Voting group 1 is so described because the record does not indicate which of the em-
ployees represented by the Petitioner work in the pumphouse or which work in the
powerhouse
6 Local 976-4 has no showing of interest among the employees involved, nor has it
indicated a desire to represent any of the employees involved
7In this event, the four employees from the pumphouse who are represented by the
Petitioner in its existing unit shall continue to be represented by the Petitioner
Ray Patin Productions, Inc. and Edd Hearn, Petitioner and
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Tech-
mcians,, AFL-CIO. Case No 91-RD-382 October 1, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman
121 NLRB No 152
RAY PATIN PRODUCTIONS, INC. 1173
H. Greer, 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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the bargaining representative as defined in Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act of the employees designated in the petition. The
Union is a labor organization currently recognized by the Employer
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees designated
therein.
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 Employer is engaged in the production of animated and live
action TV commercials at 6650 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and
Technicians, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the Employer
have had a contract from March 10, 1956, until March 8, 1958. Al-
though the Union contends that the terms and conditions of the con-
tract are still in effect, it does not urge the contract as a bar. Petitioner
filed this petition on May 28, 1958.
The Employer has approximately 31 regular employees, the majority
of whom are cartoonists or animators represented by the Screen
Cartoonist Guild. The contract unit covers six staff employees whose
job classifications are film editor, assistant film editor, janitor, recep-
tionist, shipping clerk, and a delivery boy, and free lance employees
who are hired by the Employer when needed.
All parties agree that the appropriate unit is all film production,
office, and maintenance employees of Ray Patin Productions, Inc.,
excluding cartoonists and supervisors, but disagree as to the eligibility
of free lance employees to vote in the election, and as to the status of
John Mattias, film editor.
Most of the Employer's work deals with animation, but at times
live action work is necessary. Although the regular staff is capable
of doing such work, it sometimes becomes desirable to employ free
lance people to assist them. In 1957, such assistance was required
three times : on February 9, 2 free lance employees worked a total of
16 hours; on June 1, 3 free lance employees worked a total of 24 hours;
and, on November 30, 3 free lance employees worked a total of 24
hours-making an aggregate total of 64 hours, or 8 employees each
working an 8-hour day during the entire year.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has held that in decertification proceedings, the recog-
nized or certified unit is the only appropriate, unit,' absent statutory
exclusions . In a representation proceeding, we would not include
such intermittent casual employees as the free lance employees ap-
pear to be in the appropriate unit, but it is evident from the contract
that the Employer has recognized the Union as the representative of
the free lance employees as well as of the regular staff employees. We
shall therefore direct an election in the present contract unit. As
the free lance employees are found to be a part of the recognized unit,
we permit them to vote if they are otherwise eligible. However, we
find no reason to extend the eligibility date as requested by the Union,
and shall adhere to our customary eligibility provisions.
The Employer and the Petitioner contend that John Mattias is a
supervisor. The Intervenor asserts that he is not-that many of his
acts which appear to be supervisory are done because of his position
as shop steward. Mattias is the film editor and when free lance em-
ployees are used, acts as director of photography. About 11/2 years
ago, the Employer distributed to employees and posted on the bulle-
tin board a notice naming a supervisor in each production section to
approve compensatory time and overtime. The Employer refers to
these men as supervisors and the employees are aware of this desig-
nation. Mattias was named for the group here involved. The record
shows that Mattias directs employees in their work, authorizes over-
time, and prepares vacation schedules. One admitted supervisor to
whom Mattias reports, spends less than 1 hour each day in this sec-
tion. Additionally, Mattias determines when free lance employees
are necessary, the size of the crew, hires them, and prepares their time
sheets. We find that Mattias is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act and exclude him from the unit .2
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining with-
in'the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All film production, office, and maintenance employees, at the Em-
ployer's Los Angeles, California establishment, including all free
lance employees who are otherwise eligible but excluding cartoonists,
the film editor (John Mattias), and other supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, 115 NLRB 1300.
9 Although Mattias is included in the contract unit, the Board is under a statutory
mandate to exclude supervisors from the bargaining unit. See Minneapolis Star and
Tribune Company, 115 NLRB 1300, 1302, footnote 8. '