Capitol Journal

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CAPITAL JOURNAL 1321
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act with respect to its employee, Mamie
Marshall.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
GEORGE PUTNAM, D/B/A CAPITAL JOURNAL and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 324, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 36-RC--548. April 10, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Melton Boyd, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
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 Petitioner requests a unit limited to four district managers in
the circulation department of the Employer's Salem, Oregon, news-
paper publication company. The Employer contends that the pro-
posed unit is inappropriate, because it excludes other employees in the
circulation department who have the same interests and working
conditions as do the district managers, and also because the district.
managers are supervisors.
The Employer has 83 employees, divided among 4 departments t
mechanical,' editorial, advertising, and circulation. The circulation
i The employees in the mechanical department , about one-half of the total personnel,
are represented by two other unions which did not appear at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 234.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department is responsible for the sale and distribution of the daily
newspaper. Its 20 nonsupervisory employees include 4 district man-
agers, 3 roadmen, 8 motormen, 3 mailers, and 2 office clericals. The
mailers and office clericals work in the office, wrapping bundles and
keeping records of accounts and deliveries. The remaining employees
work outside, looking after sales and deliveries.
The duties of the district managers and roadmen are virtually
identical. Each district manager works in a separate district of the
city of Salem, which is divided into four districts; each roadman
works in a rural district, the towns adjacent to Salem being grouped
into three districts. Both managers and roadmen solicit customers
directly; they do not make deliveries themselves, but utilize news-
boys-also called carriers-who receive bundles of newspapers and
make daily deliveries to subscribers.2 Both managers and roadmen
investigate and adjust complaints, hire and instruct the carriers, and
assist them in keeping accurate accounts of deliveries. The sole dif-
ference in their work is that district managers deliver bundles of
newspapers to their carriers and sometimes to city newsstands, while
roadmen do not. Both groups are paid a salary plus a fixed fee for
automobile expenses; the base salary of roadmen is higher than that
of district managers, but, unlike roadmen, the managers receive
commissions on new subscriptions.
The motormen work in all the rural areas outside the city. They
carry newspaper bundles to the newsboys working under the road-
men; they also deliver bundles of mail subscription papers to rural
post offices throughout the Employer's circulation area. In addition
to these tasks, motormen maintain their own -retail "tube delivery"
routes along roads which they must travel each day. Like the district
managers and roadmen, motormen must provide their own cars, but
they are compensated by mileage, not by fixed weekly sums. Motor-
men are part-time hourly paid employees.
Upon the foregoing facts, we agree with the Employer's contention
that the proposed unit is too limited in scope and therefore inap-
propriate. It is true, as the Petitioner asserts, that in this industry
the Board has established units limited to a single major department,'
despite its recognition that the optimum unit is a multidepartment
unit embracing all nonmechanical departments.4 Here the Petitioner
seeks to represent only a segment of the circulation department.
Moreover, the record clearly shows that, except for very minor aspects,
the duties and working conditions of the district managers are similar
to those of other employees in the circulation department. In these
2 The record indicates that the carriers may be independent contractors who retail
papers to their assigned subscribers. No contention is made as to their inclusion in
the unit.
s Star Publishing Company, 74 NLRB 120; Chicago Journal of Commerce, 85 NLRB 482.
Record Publishing Company, 91 NLRB No. 215
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 1323
circumstances, we do not believe that the district managers have in-
terests in working conditions sufficiently different from those of the
remaining employees in their department to warrant placing them
in a separate bargaining unit. As the only unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
IIn view of the above findings, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the alleged
supervisory status of district managers.
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., CHARLESTON, SOUTH CARO-
LINA and FTA LOCAL 15, FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, D. P. O. W. A.' Case No. 10-RC-1003.
April 10, 19,51
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to the terns and conditions of a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, entered into by The American Tobacco
Company, Inc. (Charleston plant), herein called the Employer; by
FTA Local 15, Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers
Union of America, herein called Local 15; by the United Steelworkers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Steelworkers; and by the
Tobacco Workers International Union, A. F. of L., herein called the
A. F. of L., an election was conducted on September 14, 1950,
among the employees in the unit which the parties agreed was
appropriate.
As the results of the election were inconclusive, no choice on the
ballot having received a majority of the valid ballots cast, and as no
objections to the election were filed, the Regional Director, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.62 of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, directed that a runoff election be
held on October 11, 1950, to determine whether the employees desired
to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local 15
or by the A. F. of L., these organizations having received the, largest
and second largest number of votes, respectively. At the close of
the runoff electiona tally of ballots was furnished each of the parties
in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations. The tally
shows that 543 valid ballots were cast for Local 15, 489 were cast for
I The name of this organization has been changed in accordance with the evidence
93 NLRB No. 225.