San Francisco Progress

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 996 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry F. Budde Publications, Inc., d/b/a San
Francisco Progress' and Office & Professional
Employees International Union, Local 3, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-UC-131
August 31, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On March 18, 1977, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Order in this
proceeding finding that the editorial employees
employed by the Employer at its San Bruno,
California, facility do not constitute an accretion to
the unit of editorial employees who work at the
Employer's San Francisco, California, facility and
ordering that the petition for unit clarification be
dismissed. Thereafter, in accord 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 of the Regional
Director's Decision on the grounds that the Regional
Director departed from officially reported Board
precedent and made erroneous findings as to
substantial factual issues. The Employer filed a
statement in opposition to the request for review.
On May 2, 1977, by telegraphic order, the request
for review was granted. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs of the parties, and makes the
following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the publication of
newspapers. Since 1973 Petitioner has represented
the Employer's San Francisco reporters and editorial
personnel; Petitioner and Employer are parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement, executed in May
1975, covering said employees. The San Francisco
facility publishes The San Francisco Progress. In late
1975 the Employer began publication, out of its San
Bruno facility, of three San Mateo County newspa-
pers, one for San Bruno, one for South San
Francisco, and one for Daly City.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Subsequent to the heanng, the Petitioner requested the Board to admit
into evidence exhibits consisting of the logos of the San Mateo County
papers reflecting a change therein between the end of July and the first part
of August. The Employer opposed the request. The new logos, as submitted
231 NLRB No. 166
The Petitioner seeks to clarify the San Francisco
editorial unit (some six employees) by adding to it
the three San Bruno editorial employees. For the
reasons below, we find, in accord with the Regional
Director, that the San Bruno employees do not
constitute an accretion to the existing unit and shall
dismiss the petition herein.
The Employer's operations involved herein are
highly centralized. All newspapers are printed at and
distributed from the San Francisco facility. Account-
ing, purchasing, recordkeeping, and payroll functions
are centralized at the San Francisco facility. Each of
the newspapers consists of approximately 70 percent
advertising and 30 percent news content. Each paper
publishes three editions per week-on Wednesday,
Friday, and Sunday. The Sunday papers are the
same for each newspaper. Many of the news items
and advertisements are the same in each of the
newspapers. Even the logos of the papers are
similar.2
Although the Employer has central administration
and the papers have considerable common news and
advertising content, the individual papers retain
separate identities. Editor Thomas Watson testified
that at least 25 percent of the news in the San Mateo
papers differs from the news in the San Francisco
paper. Each paper has different stories of interest to
the particular community in which it is distributed.
The Employer's policy with respect to advertising is
to permit an advertiser to buy ads in any one of the
papers, all of the papers, or any combination of
papers. In fact, the San Francisco edition maintains
five advertising zones. Although much of the adver-
tising is common to all papers, some differs,
especially in the classified ads.
In overall charge of the newspapers is Marvin
Johnson, president and publisher of Progress Publi-
cations. Thomas Watson is editor of the Progress
papers. He has full responsibility for all editorial
content, preparation, and handling of the San
Francisco paper, but only ultimate responsibility and
coordinating functions for the San Mateo County
papers. Although Watson is responsible for the
common news content of the papers, he is not
directly responsible for gathering news at the San
Mateo papers. He does not routinely assign stories
for the San Mateo editors to cover. Instead, the San
Mateo editors (Charles Wilfong for Daly City,
Margie O'Clair for San Bruno, and Susan Percy for
South San Francisco) decide what stories to cover,
what the headlines will be, and plan the layout of the
by the Petitioner, show that each of the San Mateo newspapers is now
identified as "The San Francisco PROGRESS" with the particular city
noted at the side. Exhibits admitted at the hearing show that the San Mateo
papers were identified as "PROGRESS" with the particular city noted. We
do not view the difference as material to the resolution of the issue herein.
996
SAN FRANCISCO PROGRESS
papers, particularly with respect to those items which
do not appear in the San Francisco paper. Wilfong
coordinates the layout of the San Mateo papers. The
work of the San Mateo employees is not supervised,
except in the broadest sense, by Watson.
Watson, however, directly supervises the unit
employees, who are involved with the San Francisco
paper. Watson decides which stores will be covered,
which reporter will cover them, which will run, and
where they will be placed. Watson edits all stories
written by unit employees, writes headlines, and
determines which stories will carry bylines. Watson
also determines the layout and oversees the pasteup
of the San Francisco paper.
The San Mateo editors work out of the San Bruno
facility which is located about II miles from the San
Francisco facility. Watson only infrequently meets
with the San Mateo editors. With the exception of
Wilfong, the San Mateo editors rarely go to the San
Francisco facility. Wilfong does go twice a week to
oversee the pasteup of the three San Mateo papers,
when he sees Watson who may be seeing to the
pasteup of the San Francisco paper. Watson,
however, does not direct Wilfong in the pasteup of
the San Mateo papers. While at the San Francisco
facility Wilfong does not meet with unit employees
and does not discuss business with them. In fact,
there is virtually no person-to-person contact be-
tween the San Mateo editors and unit employees.
There is some telephone contact, but it is infrequent
and irregular. It is generally limited to the prevention
of dual coverage of a story, such as one of areawide
interest which occurs in the distribution area of one
of the San Mateo papers.
The San Mateo employees were all hired from
outside; none came from the unit. There have been
no transfers or interchanges between the two
locations. The salaries or wages paid San Mateo
editors are somewhat higher than wages paid to those
unit employees who have worked for a year or two.
There are also some differences in benefits and other
employment conditions. The unit employees are
covered by the collective-bargaining agreement
which sets forth various benefits, provides a formal
grievance procedure, and uses the Union's pension
fund. The San Mateo editors do not have a formal
grievance procedure and are covered by the manage-
ment pension plan. San Mateo editors have unlimit-
ed sick leave and greater vacation benefits.
In conclusion, we find, on the record as a whole
and the facts as stated above, that the San Mateo
employees do not constitute an accretion to the San
Francisco editorial unit. Although there are common
interests between the two groups of employees, as
evidenced particularly by the similarity of the
newspapers, there are also significant differences.
The San Mateo editors, although subject to the
ultimate supervision of Watson, work relatively
independently from supervision, while the unit
employees are directly supervised by Watson. The
two groups of employees work out of geographically
separate locations and have only minimal contact
with each other. There have been no transfers or
interchanges between the two groups, and all the San
Mateo editors were hired from outside the unit. For
the foregoing reasons, we find that the San Mateo
editors have interests separate and distinct from the
unit employees and shall, accordingly, dismiss the
petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
997