Associated Business Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 219 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ASSOCIATED BUSINESS SERVICE 219
The Intervenor would exclude Norman Bean as a professional
employee. The Employer would include him, while the Peti-
tioner takes no position. Bean's primary function is develop-
ing new equipment and improving old, and he does considerable
research . He is required to exercise a high degree of inde-
pendent judgment and discretion in this specialized field. Bean
is a college graduate and has an engineering degree. In view
of the foregoing, we find that he is a professional employee and
shall exclude him.
We find that the following employees of the Employer con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production-department 5 and engineering -department em-
ployees at the Employer's television station at Miami, Florida,
including program-planning employees, but excluding company
officers, receptionist, administrative officer, clerical, per-
sonnel department and sales department employees, an-
nouncers, talent, film cameramen and news editors, profes-
sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 The Intervenor would exclude as supervisors program directors, Bruton, Johns, and Zinn.
As the record is inconclusive regarding their duties and authority, we shall permit them to
vote subject to challenge. The record indicates that all production-department employees
take turns as program directors.
DOROTHY E . FITZPATRICK d/b/a ASSOCIATED BUSINESS
SERVICE' and LOCAL 16, AMALGAMATED LITHO-
GRAPHERS OF AMERICA , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-
2052. November 25, 1953
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 Harold M.
Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer. 2
'The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 Louisville Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 28, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union of North America, AFL, submitted an adequate showing of interest
prior to the date of the hearing, but did not appear at the hearing when informed that it was
out of compliance with Section 9 (f) and (g) of the Act. Having effected compliance subsequent
to the hearing, it filed a motion with the Board to intervene in the instant proceeding and have
its name placed on the ballot in the election directed herein. We hereby grant the motion
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 87 NLRB 597
107 NLRB No. 65.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all lithographic production
employees. There is no history of collective bargaining at the
Employer's plant. The Employer agrees, and we find, that this
is an appropriate unit.3 However, the parties disagree as to
the unit placement of three employees.
Robert Staples: The Petitioner contends that Staples should
be included in the unit as a lithographic production employee,
while the Employer would exclude him. The record indicates
that Staples spends about 90 percent of his time driving a truck
or working in the bindery, and the balance of his time on
lithographic work. We believe that Staples is essentially a non-
lithographic worker and shall therefore exclude him from the
unit.
Mae Hall: The Employer asserts that Hall should be included
in the unit, while the Petitioner would exclude her. The record
shows that, while she spends the major portion of her time
operating a letterpress , working in the bindery , and perform-
ing other nonlithographic work, she regularly spends a sub-
stantial part of her time in lithographic work.
Rollie Tatum: The Petitioner would exclude Tatum, while
the Employer would include him. The record shows that he
spends approximately 50 percent of his time in lithographic
production work.
We shall include Hall and Tatum in the unit to the extent that
they do lithographic work and permit them to vote in the elec-
tion directed herein.
We find that all lithographic production employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding office-clerical employees, the accountant, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that Norman Lee Carter, an ap-
prentice lithograph pressman, has been only temporiarily
laid off and, hence, that he should be permitted to vote in the
election. The Employer asserts that he has been permanently
laid off. When laid off, he received a card stating that he was
terminated because of "lack of work" and that the Employer
"will rehire in future if feasible." Carter testified that he con-
siders himself only temporarily laid off. The Employer testified
that she preferred a• more experienced employee and that
Carter had been permanently separated from his job. The Em-
ployer further testified that Carter had received separation
pay, which is only given upon permanent termination of employ-
ment. Upon the entire record, we find that Carter has no
reasonable expectation of reemployment and that he is therefore
ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.4
3josten Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 189.
4C D. Beck & Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1130.
SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 221
The Petitioner contends that Clarence Thompson, a litho-
grapher, is not eligible to vote because be had not started work
at the time of the hearing, while the Employer contends that
he should be permitted to vote as he was already hired at the
date of the hearing. In accordance with our usual practice, we
will permit Thompson to vote if he was employed during the
payroll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction
of Election, 5 and meets the other conditions of eligibility set
forth therein.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 The Goldenberg Company, 77 NLRB 335.
6 The Petitioner requests that the Board fix the eligibility period as the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of the instant hearing. However, we perceive no reason for
departing from our usual practice in this respect.
SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOUIS
C. TATE, Petitioner and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION NO.
539 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL
SOUTHERN CAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner
and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION NO. 539 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON -WORKERS, AFL. Cases Nos . 10-RD-
116 and 10-RM - 115. November 25, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On August 4, 1953, pursuant to a Decisionand Order, issued
by the Board on July 14, 1953, an election was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit
found appropriate in the Decision.' Upon the conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which
showed that, of approximately 67 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots,
of which 33 were for, and 24 against, the Union and 1 was
challenged.
On August 10, 1953, the Employer and employee Tate jointly
filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the
election. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on
September 18, 1953, issued and served upon the parties his
report on objections, in which he found that the objections did
1106 NLRB 144.
2 An election had theretofore been held among the employees in this unit on March 3, 1953,
pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election. The Union filed objections
to that election and the Board issued the above-mentioned decision in which it sustained the
objections, set aside the election, and directed that a new election be held.
107 NLRB No. 66.
337593 0 - 55 - 16