Reedley Exponent

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

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.]