Denver Publishing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 3, 1957117 N.L.R.B. 1465 (N.L.R.B. 1957) Copy Citation DENVER PUBLISHING COMPANY 1465 craft unit of welders employed by this Employer because of our ruling in Clayton f Lambert Manufacturing Company, Ordnance Division, 111 NLRB 540 , that welding was no longer to be considered a separate and distinct craft appropriate for severance , and because of the fact that our decision in Hughes Aircraft Company ( Tucson Operations), 117 NLRB 98 , which reexamined that question and held to the con- trary, had not yet issued . In these circumstances we shall remand this proceeding for the taking of additional testimony concerning the Petitioner's alternative unit requests. [The Board remanded this case to the Regional Director.] Denver Publishing Company and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 775, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1267. May 3,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION - Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, hear- ing 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer! 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-, tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged at its Denver, Colorado, plant in the printing, publication, sale, and distribution of The Rocky Mountain News. Its nonmechanical operations are divided into the editorial, circulation, classified, business office, and building, maintenance, de- partments. Except for the mailers who are represented by the In- ternational Mailers Union, the Intervenor represents the remainder of the employees in these departments in a multidepartment unit. The Petitioner seeks to sever from this unit a unit composed of truck- 1 Denver Newspaper Guild, Local No. 74, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor herein, intervened on the basis of a contract covering the employees involved. 117 NLRB No.190. 1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD drivers and helpers who work in the circulation department. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance on the ground that there is no functionally distinct group of truckdrivers, and on the further ground that the unit requested by the Petitioner does not in- clude all employees with similar interests and working conditions. There are a number of truckdrivers in the circulation department whose sole function appears to be to deliver bundles of newspapers to residential carriers and other destinations in the city, including railroads , bus stations, and truck line terminals . In addition to these drivers, there are three drivers who haul newsprint from railroad terminals to the Employer's warehouse and plant. These newsprint drivers spend approximately 45 percent of their time actually driving trucks and the remainder of their time loading, unloading, and storing newsprint . These latter functions are also performed by four other employees , not sought by the Petitioner, who work in the newsprint division, which is also supervised by the manager of the circulation department. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate be- cause a segment of a newspaper's circulation department may not con- stitute an appropriate unit. Although the Board has recognized that a unit of all circulation department employees may be appropriate, it has also recognized that inside and outside circulation department employees have interests and duties which are sufficiently diverse to warrant their placement in separate units 2 We find, accordingly, that a segment of the Employer's circulation department may be an appropriate unit. The Employer and Intervenor further contend that motor routemen, district managers, street circulators, newsprint handlers, and shag boys, are all circulation department employees who have interests and working conditions similar to those of the truckdrivers. They argue, accordingly, that the exclusion of such employees from the proposed truckdrivers unit makes that unit inappropriate. We find no merit in this contention. The record shows that the motor routemen, who deliver individual papers to subscribers in outlying areas that are not sufficiently compact for carrier delivery, are independent contractors who cannot be included in the unit. The record also shows that al- though district managers and street circulators also deliver newspapers by truck and private car to newsstands, news vendors, and other down- town selling points, such deliveries are only incidental to their princi- pal work which involves the supervision of delivery boys and street vendors, the collection of subscriptions and sales money, and the re- cruitment of vendors and places for locating stands in hotels and other places; that the four newsprint handlers who load, unload, stock, and 2 Chtcago Daily News, Inc, 98 NLRB 1235, 1237, The Peoria Joatnal Star, Inc., 117 NLRB 708. DENVER PUBLISHING COMPANY 1467 prepare newsprint for the presses rarely drive trucks; and that the shag boys are employees hired as extra casual labor for such duties as carrying bundles of newspapers. We find, therefore, contrary to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor, that the employees in these disputed categories have interests and duties which are clearly different from those of the truckdrivers. Accordingly, their exclusion from the. unit does not render the unit inappropriate. As it is clear from the record that the truckdrivers here sought, in- cluding the newsprint drivers, spend a major part of their time in driv- ing and in loading and unloading trucks, which latter functions are incidental to driving, we find that these employees constitute a func- tionally distinct group such as the Board has traditionally accorded the right of self-determination, notwithstanding a history of bargain- ing on a broader basis 3 Furthermore, the Petitioner is a union which has historically represented truckdrivers. We find, therefore, that the Employer's truckdrivers may, if they so desire, constitute a sep- arate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Petitioner also seeks to include in the unit part-time drivers, and helpers who drive trucks. The Employer and Intervenor do not object to their inclusion. It appears that the part-time drivers are regularly employed on Thursday and Saturday nights, when they perform the same duties and work under the same supervision as the full-time drivers. In accord with usual Board policy, we shall in- clude the part-time drivers in the un'it.4 It further appears that the helpers assist the drivers on Thursday and Saturday nights and at other times when an extra large paper or adverse weather conditions necessitate their assistance. It is not clear, however, whether these helpers also have other duties, or whether they are regularly assigned to assist the drivers. In accord with established Board practice, helpers, regularly assigned to assist drivers are included in the unit, whether or not they also drive trucks; all other helpers are excluded.' We shall direct an election among the following group of employees : All truckdrivers and their helpers at the Employer's Denver, Colo- rado, newspaper plant, including newsprint drivers and regular part- time drivers and helpers, but excluding motor routemen, district man- agers, street circulators, newsprint handlers, shag boys, and all other employees's guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. s Painesville Works, General Chemical Division, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1784 ; Interchemical Corporation, 116 NLRB 1443 . Indianapolis Times Pub- lishing Company , 82 NLRB 1385 , relied on by the Employer , is not dispositive of this case, as the issue there was not the propriety of a unit composed solely of truckdrivers. 4 Mountain States Bean Company, 115 NLRB 1208, 1211; Sears Roebuck & Company, 106 NLRB 242, 244. 6 G Washington and Burnetts Division of American Home Foods, Inc., 114 NLRB 1352; cf. North American Aviation, Inc., 113 NLRB 1049, 1051, 1053. 6 Although it appears that other employees , including an advertising department em- ployee and a garage mechanic , occasionally drive trucks , it is clear that such driving is merely incidental to their other duties. 1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sep- arate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elec- tion is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Pe- titioner for the employees in the group described above which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of elec- tion to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Knit Goods Workers ' Union , Local 155, International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO and James Knitting Mills, Inc. Knit Goods Workers' Union Local 155, International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Production Service Em- ployees Union , Local 710, U. I. U.1 Cases Nos. 2-CC-391 and 2-CC-392. May 7,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On December 31, 1956, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, Local 155, had engaged in and was engaging in viola- tions of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after the Respondent Union and the General Counsel each filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additional comments. The General Counsel has objected to the failure of the Trial Ex- aminer to pass upon the credibility of testimony adduced by the General Counsel to establish that the Respondent Union's picketing activities actually succeeded in persuading truckdriver employees of employers other than James not to give James normal delivery service. ' The Respondent Union is herein referred to as Local 155 or "the Union,"` and Charging Union, as Local 710.' 117 NLRB No. 196. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation