Triangle Publications, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. avd AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. I. O.
Case No. 16-R-1678.-Decided July V, 1946
Mr. E. G. Cloud, of Houston, Tex., for the Company.
Mr. W. B. Melody, of Houston, Tex., for the Union.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Newspaper Guild, C I. O.,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Triangle
Publications, Inc., Houston, Texas, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board on April 18, 1946, conducted a pre-
hearing election pursuant to Article III, Section 3, of the Board's
Rules and Regulations,' among employees of the Company in the
alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to
be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished to the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 11 eligible
voters and that 11 voters cast ballots, of which 9 were for the Union,
none were against the Union, and 2 were challenged.
Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10, of the Rules and
Regulations,2 the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon.
due notice before Earl Saunders, Trial Examiner. The hearing was
held at Houston, Texas, on May 24 and 25, 1946. The Company and
the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
' By amendment of November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules now permits the con-
duct of a secret ballot of employees prior to hearing in cases which present no substantial
issues.
' As amended November 27, 1945, this Section provides that in instances of prehearing
elections, all issues, including issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct
affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots, shall be heard at
the subsequent hearing.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 95.
780
TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. 781
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY
Triangle Publications, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates
plants in the cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Hous-
ton, Miami, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The Houston plant is
solely involved in this proceeding. The Company is engaged at its
Houston plant in the printing and distribution of a periodical devoted
exclusively to race news and the development and advancement of
horse breeding and horse racing. During the calendar year 1945,
and the first 4 months of 1946, the raw materials used by the Company
at its Houston plant exceeded $25,000 in value, all of which was
received by the Company from points outside the State of Texas.
During the same period the material printed by the Company at its
Houston plant exceeded $50,000 in value, of which more than 30 per-
cent was shipped to points outside the State of Texas.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Newspaper Guild is a labor organization affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to- membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until
the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of all employees of the editorial department
of the Company's Houston plant, including the copy holder and assist-
ant editor, but excluding the editor and all other supervisory em-
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees. Although the Company is in substantial agreement with
the Union, contrary to the Union's position it objects to the inclusion
of the copy holder, on the ground that he is an employee in the com-
posing department, and the assistant editor, on the ground that he is
a supervisory employee.'
The copy holder reads to a proofreader copy prepared by the edi-
torial department. The proofreader in turn checks this against the
galley proof prepared by the composing department. The copy
holder is located in the editorial department, which is physically
separated from the composing department, and his wages are com-
parable to those of the employees in the editorial department.4
Although the Company states that the copy holder is under the direct
supervision of the composing department foreman, this foreman
testified that he has no control over the copy holder. This testimony
is corroborated by the fact that the copy holder was assigned to his
job by the editor, who is in charge of the editorial department. In
addition, the copy holder's off days are scheduled by the editor, who
appoints editorial department employees to substitute for the copy
holder on these occasions. We also note that the Company has a
collective bargaining agreement with another union covering all em-
ployees in the composing room, yet the copy holder is excluded from
the coverage of this agreement. Under all the circumstances we
shall include the copy holder in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
The assistant editor aids the editor in running the editorial depart-
ment. He is in sole charge of the department in the editor's absence,
which occurs approximately 25 percent of the time. The assistant
editor performs copy reading work and also coordinates the work
of the sub-divisions of the department so that the periodical will be
issued on schedule. He has the authority effectively to hire and dis-
charge employees in the department. In addition, he has the author-
ity to sign checks. Furthermore, except for the salary of the editor,
his weekly salary is $20 higher than that of any other employee in
the editorial department. We find from the above facts that the as-
sistant editor is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our
customary definition of that term. Therefore, we shall exclude him
from the unit hereinafter found appropriate .5
8 The ballot of Anthony Jebbia, the copy holder , was one of the two challenged at the
election ; the other challenged ballot was cast by an employee who, the Company contended,
had been permanently discharged, apparently as of the eligibility date or before the day of
the election . The assistant editor , Henry G . Mahan, did not vote in the election.
4 The copy holder receives $35 a week, whereas the proofreader, who is a composing
department employee , receives $63 a week.
5 The Union contends that the assistant editor, if found to be supervisory, should never-
theless be included because of a purported custom in the industry . But there is nothing in
the record to indicate that it is the custom in the newspaper industry to include assistant
editors with the supervisory powers of the assistant editor in this case in units comprised
of non-supervisory editorial department employees. Cf. Matter of The Chicago Daily
News, Inc., 56 N. L. R. B. 274.
TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC. 783
We find that all employees of the editorial department of the Com-
pany's Houston plant, including the copy holder, but excluding the
assistant editor, editor, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Union has received a majority of the valid votes cast, and that.
the challenged ballots are, insufficient to affect the election results. We
shall, therefore, certify the Union as the collective bargaining repre
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.'
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0.,,
has been designated and selected by a majority of all employees of the
Houston plant editorial department of Triangle Publications, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, including the copy holder, but excluding the assist-
ant editor, editor, and all other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that,
pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the ex-
clusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment,and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
9 As the challenged ballots do not affect the outcome of the election we find it unneces-
sary to direct that the ballot of Jebbia , whom we have included in the unit , be opened and
counted , nor do we deem it necessary to pass upon the validity of the remaining challenged
ballot.