Wave Publications, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of WAVE PUBLICATIONS, INC., EMPLOYER and CLAYTON
E. WHEELER, PETITIONER and Los ANGELES LOCAL No. 174, INTER-
NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL, UNION
Case No.21-RD-100.Decided June 9, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
in this case on April 12,1950, at Los Angeles, California, before Daniel
J. Harrington, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Union filed separate motions at the hearings to dismiss the pro-
ceeding on the grounds: (1) That the Board lacked or should not
exercise jurisdiction over the Employer's business; and (2) that no
question of representation exists in this case. For reasons stated be-
low, we deny the motion based on the first ground and grant the motion
based on the second ground. We also deny the Union's request for
oral argument as the record now before us is, in our opinion, adequate
for a determination of all relevant issues.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer:
The Employer is engaged in publishing and printing 6 community
newspapers in Los Angeles County, California. The Employer also
does a small amount of commercial printing. The periodicals pub-
lished by the Employer are known as "controlled circulation news-
papers" because revenue for their support is derived entirely from
advertising. Subscribers do not pay for the newspapers but do pay
carrier boys a small amount per month for their delivery. Four of
the newspapers, having a circulation of 81,000, are published twice a
week; the other 2 newspapers, with a circulation of 30,000, are pub-
lished once a week.
For the 12-month period ending in November 1949, the Employer
purchased materials and supplies, such as newsprint, pulp, matrices,
90 NLRB No. 50.
274
WAVE, PUBLICATIONS, INC. 275
and linotype, amounting to $255,000 of which approximately 70 per-
cent was shipped directly to the Employer from points outside Cali-
fornia. The Employer also pays approximately $3,000 a year for
syndicated cartoons and columns that are distributed on a Nation-
wide basis from points outside California.
For the same 12-month period, the Employer's gross income was
approximately $875,000, almost all of which represented advertising
revenue.' About $10,000 worth of this advertising was placed with the
Employer by national advertising agencies, chiefly located in New
York City, on behalf of national product advertisers. Another $10,000)
represented locally placed advertising for such advertisers. National:
chain store advertising, handled either by the local outlet or by the
national advertising agency, accounted for about $78,000 during this
period. The largest part of the Employer's advertising income,
amounting to over $500,000 was the result of cooperative advertising.
Although these advertisements, which feature national products, are
placed by local merchants, the local merchants are reimbursed for such
advertisements, in part, by the national manufacturer.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Union, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2
2. The Petitioner asserts that the Union no longer represents em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer and the Union had a contractual relationship for over
10 years prior to 1948. When the last contract expired at that time,
the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a new contract.
Finally in April 1949, the Union called a strike against the Employer.
That strike, and picketing in support thereof, is still continuing. The
Employer, without ceasing operations, permanently replaced all the
strikers. The petition herein was filed on January 9, 1950. It is clear
from the record that (1) the strike was, for economic reasons and was
not caused by any unfair labor practices on the part of the Employer;
'(2) the Union does not claim to represent any of the replacements;
(3) the Employer does not recognize the Union as the representative
of any of its employees, and (4) the Union has never been certified by
the Board.
Section 9 (c) (1) (A) (ii) of the Act empowers the Board to investi-
gate a petition for decertification of a "labor orgai ization which has
' The Employer has some income from its commercial printing business. In addition,
the Employer accepts Western Union telegrams at one of its offices on a dealer discount
basis. The income from these sources is negligible.
2 Southto2on Economist , Inc., 72 NLRB 1393.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been certified or is being currently reeogni ed" by the Employer (em-
phasis supplied). In this case, as the Union has never been certified
and the Union is not "currently recognized" by the Employer as the
representative of its employees, the Board is not empowered to enter-
tain a decertification petition under the aforesaid section of the Act 3
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
8 Davisville Hosiery Mill, Inc., 88 NLRB 738; Queen City Warehouses, Inc., 77 NLRB
268. Cf. Griffin Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB 1240.