Reedley ExponentDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 15, 1975220 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1975) Copy Citation REEDLEY EXPONENT 1279 Glenn Hage and Norma Hage , a Partnership, d/b/a Reedley Exponent and Fresno Typographical Union No. 144, International Typographical Union, Peti- tioner. Case 20-RC-12677 October 15, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 9, 1975, the Acting Regional Director for Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which she found, contrary to Petitioner's contention, a unit of "all full-time and regular part-time employees at the Employer's facilities in Reedley and Sanger , Califor- nia, excluding office clerical employees , advertising managers , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act," to be appropriate. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review in which it urged that the Acting Regional Director de- parted from Board precedent in not finding appro- priate Petitioner's requested unit of all mechanical department employees; and that the Acting Regional Director erred in including in the unit editors Budd Brockett and Rock Kendall and assistant editors El- sie Brewer and Helen Johnson. By telegraphic order dated June 12, 1975, Petitioner's request for review was granted with re- spect to its unit contentions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the publishing of newspapers at its two locations involved herein. There are approximately 17 employees employed at the Reedley facility and 9 employees at the Sanger location. There is no history of bargaining among these employees. As stated by the Acting Regional Director , Petitioner sought a unit of those employees engaged in composing , press , bindery, and mailing work .' Petitioner asserts that the unit sought is ap- propriate and the unit found, as described by the Acting Regional Director , would include such classi- fications as editorial, advertising, janitorial, circula- tion, and possibly others which it does not seek to represent . We find merit in Petitioner's contentions. In reaching her unit determination of "all full-time and regular part-time employees," the Acting Re- gional Director included the two editors and two as- sistant editors at the respective locations on the basis that, in addition to their principal duties, they also engaged in mechanical duties which were sufficiently extensive to qualify them as dual function employ- ees? Thus, while implicitly recognizing the appropri- ateness of a unit of all mechanical employees, the Acting Regional Director broadly described the unit as stated above, since with the addition of the editors and assistant editors, apart from other excluded cate- gories not in dispute, the unit would in fact include all of the Employer's employees. Petitioner asserts that the editors and assistant edi- tors are primarily employed for their editorial and reportorial qualifications and that their salaries and working conditions are predicated upon those skills. It argues that any duties they perform related to me- chanical work are only incidental to their primary jobs and that, contrary to the basis for the rule enun- ciated in Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516 (1963), the terms and conditions of their employment will not be affected by any collective bargaining which may ensue for the unit employees. As found by the Acting Regional Director, the principal duties of the two editors are reporting and writing copy. In addition, each spends about 8 to 10 hours per week performing pasteup work. They are salaried and have offices of their own. Assistant edi- tor Brewer, whose duties are comparable to those of assistant editor Johnson, is salaried, has her own in- quiring reporter column, and writes news and feature stories. She also does art work on commercial print- ing jobs and performs some layout and pasteup work of her own copy which the record shows requires only a few hours per week. Based on the record evi- dence concerning the duties and other working con- ditions of the editors and assistant editors, we find that the limited time they devote to noneditorial work is insufficient to demonstrate that they have such a community of interest with the mechanical employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Inasmuch as the remaining employees comprise the traditional mechanical employees in the newspa- per industry which the Board has found may consti- tute an appropriate unit, absent requests for separate craft representation,' we shall revise the unit as de- 2 Also included as a dual function employee was Dixie Coleman who performs proofreading and pasteup duties in addition to other duties in Although Petitioner sought a unit limited to the Reedley , California , classified ad taking , circulation , and maintenance of the mailing list. Peti- location it has not sought review of the Acting Regional Director 's finding tioner has not sought review of her inclusion in the unit. of the two-location unit . 3 Garden Island Publishing Co., Lid, 154 NLRB 697 , 702 (1965). 220 NLRB No. 194 1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD scribed by the Acting Regional Director to read as follows: All full-time and regular part-time mechanical employees including those engaged in compos- ing, press, bindery, and mailing work at the Employer's facilities in Reedley and Sanger, California, excluding office clerical employees, advertising managers, editors, assistant editors, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re- gional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that imme- diately preceding the date of issuance of this Deci- sion on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation