Hearst Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 4, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 324 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hearst Corporation, San Antonio Light Division and San Antonio Newspaper Guild , Local 25, The Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 23- RC-4233 November 4, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On June 13, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 23 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appro- priate a unit of all full-time and regular part-time employees in the Employer's circulation department, including students employed as part-time clerks. Subsequently, the Employer filed a Request for Review of the Regional Director's decision on the ground that he departed from officially reported Board precedent in finding that students were regular part-time employees and eligible to vote in the election. The Petitioner filed a statement in opposi- tion to the Request for Review. By telegraphic order dated July 9, 1975, the Board granted the Request for Review and stayed the election pending Decision on Review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with 'respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer argues that its Regional Director's decision in the instant case is in conflict with the Board's recent decision in California Inspection Rating Bureau, 215 NLRB No. 145 (1974), in which certain student clerical workers were excluded from a unit of office clerical employees. The Employer notes that the Board in that case relied on the following factors for the exclusion of students from the unit: students generally worked one or two semesters and rarely remained as permanent employees; they did not look upon their work as leading to a career; those who did decide to remain after graduation from school did not necessarily receive hiring preference; and the students were paid lower wages and worked different hours than other employees, and received limited fringe benefits. While the Employer would include regular part-time clerks in the circulation department, it contends that the students herein, who I The Employer prepared an exhibit of employee tenure which it contends shows that since January 1970 employees, students and nonstu- dents alike , worked on the "night complaint desk" an average of 8 9 months We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in the evidence as this factor 221 NLRB No. 67 worked on the "night complaint desk," are remarka- bly similar to the student employees excluded in the Rating Bureau case, in that they possess virtually all of the significant exclusionary traits. Though there are some similarities between the students here in dispute and those involved in Rating Bureau, there are also significant differences and we agree with the Regional Director that the students here should be included. The Employer is engaged in the publication and distribution of newspapers. The circulation depart- ment personnel sought 'by Petitioner are responsible for the sale, distribution, and collection for the Employer's newspaper. As part of its distribution function, the circulation department has employees whose principal duties are to receive customer service complaints and to correct them accordingly. Since the Employer is an evening newspaper, the employ- ees working on the service desk or the "night complaint desk" usually work evening hours from 4 to 9 p.m. This desk has been traditionally manned primarily by high school or college students, though other part-timers work there as well. The employ- ment of all night complaint desk employees is continuous throughout the year and some part-time student employees who have worked on the "night complaint desk" now hold permanent management positions. Several of the students presently employed have worked for the Employer continuously for more than 4 years and there is testimony by the Employ- er's assistant to the circulation operations manager, Deinringer, who is in charge of the "night complaint desk," that on the average they remain at the "night complaint desk" for about 3 years.' Most of the students plan to continue working for the Employer until their higher education is completed. "Night complaint desk" employees, be they stu- dents or not, are limited by the Employer to working a "standard" 19-1/2-hour workweek,2 are paid similar wages, have the same working conditions and supervision, and receive limited fringe benefits. Company policy is that employees who work less than 20 hours a week are not entitled to holidays, hospitalization, life insurance, and pension benefits, and the students on the "night complaint desk" are treated like all others occupying the same positions. As noted above, the Employer does not contend that nonstudent part-time employees should be excluded even though some have regular full-time employment elsewhere or are housewives. These other nonstudent, part-time complaint desk employ- ees are "moonlighting" in working for the Employer, is not controlling in our decision herein 2 There are four students referred to hereinafter , on the night desk, who work more than 19-1 /2 hours. HEARST CORP., SAN ANTONIO LIGHT DIV. and are paid a lower hourly rate, have earned less seniority, and work fewer hours than some of the students whom the Employer seeks to exclude. Four students, whom the Employer would exclude, regu- larly work from 30 to 40 hours a week. Based on the foregoing facts, we believe that the students herein are distinguishable from the excluded students in the Rating Bureau case relied on by the Employer. They appear indistinguishable from other, part-time "night complaint desk" clerks who are concededly properly within the unit, and the sole fact that they are students provides no basis for their exclusion. We find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the student employees herein share a sufficient 325 community of interest with the full-time and other regular part-time employees in the Employer's circulation department to be included in the unit. Display Sign Service, Inc., 180 NLRB 49, 50 (1969); Fairfax Family Fund, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Spiegel, Inc., 195 NLRB 306, 309 (1972). Accordingly, we hereby remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election,3 except that the payroll period for deter- mining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the issuance date of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 3 We further find that the unit, as described in the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election, is sufficiently clear to avoid confusion as to voting eligibility.