Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 782 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All salaried technical, clerical, and professional employees at
the Lima, Ohio, facilities of Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
located at Wapak Road, and 325-327 South Main Street, includ-
ing the senior internal auditor and industrial relations assistants,
but excluding cashiers, shop production clerks, secretaries to di-
vision general managers, assistant division general managers,
managers of manufacturing, managers of accounting, industrial
relations managers, managers of union relations, all other em-
ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act as amended.
Knoxville News -Sentinel Company, Inc .' and Knoxville Mailers
Union, Local 83, International Mailers Union (Ind.), Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-5112. September 21, 196
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 Aaron Z. Dixon, 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 funds :
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 certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is a newspaper publisher in Knoxville, Tennessee,
where it publishes morning, evening, and Sunday editions and em-
ploys approximately 30 regular and 33 part-time employees in the
mailroom. The mailroom is under the overall supervision of the cir-
culation manager, but is separately supervised at the lower echelons.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of mailroom employees at Employer's
plant, excluding the part-time mailroom employees. The Intervenors
agree that the unit sought is appropriate, while the Employer con
teilds that only an overall unit of all employees in the circulation
department is appropriate.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2As the testimony shows that Knoxville Mallets Union, Local 83, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor herein on the basis of a proper showing of interest,
exists for the purpose of collective bargaining with employers concerning wages, hours,
and conditions of employment on behalf of its members , we find Intervenor is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act Lancaster Welded Products,
130 NLRB 1478
138 NLRB No. 91.
KNOXVILLE NE WS-SENTINEL COMPANY, INC. 783
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called ITU,
was allowed to intervene for the sole purpose of developing its con-
tention that mailroom employees in the newspaper constitute an appro-
priate craft unit. The mailroom employees receive newspapers
from the presses by means of conveyors and they process these papers
for distribution. The bundles of papers for local distribution are
manually lifted from the conveyor to a handtruck. One or more
employees physically push this truck to a semiautomatic tying ma-
chine where the papers are placed in position for tying. Another
employee loops a wire around the bundle, places a catch on the wire,
and the machine then automatically ties the bundle. The bundle is
then dropped down one of four chutes to the loading platform and
loaded on trucks or cars for delivery. Papers to be mailed are taken
by handtruck to the wing mailer which cuts the address from a pre-
viously prepared address tape and pastes it on the individual copies
of the paper. These addressed papers are then bundled and tied and
dropped into a mailbag with a tag affixed showing the destination.
The mailbag is then dropped down a chute to the loading dock and
from there it goes to the post office.
The record shows that no prior experience is required to perform
the duties of the mailroom, and that there is no predetermined pro-
gression, either from or to jobs in the mailroom. The Employer has
no formal apprenticeship training program, some employees are hired
as beginners, and the job assignments are rotated among experienced
mailers and beginners alike.
The Board, in Case No. 10-RC-4757 (not published in NLRB
volumes), found that these identical mailroom employees "do not
constitute a craft unit...." We reaffirm this holding since the
record herein does not support a finding that these employees possess
the attributes of craftsmen. However, for the reasons set forth below,
we find, contrary to the prior decision, that this unit of mailroom
employees, is appropriate.
The ITU, which was formed in 1852, and the International Mailers
Union (Ind.), herein called IMU, and their respective locals, organize
and represent mailroom employees. These mailroom locals, which
now number about 50 affiliated with ITU and about 70 affiliated with
IMIIU, have their own bylaws, officers, and dues; their membership is
limited to persons working as mailers, and they negotiate contracts
involving mailingrooms and mailingroom employees of newspaper
publishers in most of the larger cities throughout the United States.
This pattern of bargaining for separate mailer units was followed
in Knoxville as well, from 1935 to 1959. At this time there are two
separately owned newspapers in Knoxville, Tennessee, the Knoxville
News-Sentinel and the Knoxville Journal. In 1957 the Knoxville
News-Sentinel Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, took over the
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
managerial functions, all of the advertising and mechanical functions
and circulation functions of the Knoxville Journal, and the Knoxville
News-Sentinel Company prints the Knoxville Journal on an agency
basis. Since then the printing and handling of both newspapers have
been performed by the News-Sentinel.
Commencing in 1935, and continuing until 1948, collective-bargain-
ing contracts were in effect between the Intervenor and each newspaper
covering mailroom employees of each. In 1948, mailroom employees
of both newspapers withdrew from the Intervenor and joined the
Petitioner, and from 1948 to 1954, Petitioner represented both mail-
room units. In 1954, and until 1957, the Journal mailroom unit was
represented by Local 111 of the International Typographical Union.
After the aforementioned merger in 1957, mailroom operations of both
newspapers were combined at the News-Sentinel plant, and the Peti-
tioner represented all of the mailroom employees until decertified in
October 1959 .1 Since that time, these mailroom employees have been
unrepresented.
Considering, among other factors, the long and separate bargain-
ing history for the mailroom employees herein from 1935 to 1959
which clearly demonstrates the administrative feasibility of such a
unit, we find that the unit of mailroom employees as set forth below
constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. We do not
agree with our dissenting colleague that the controlling basis for our
decision is extent of organization, and we believe that he also mis-
places reliance on Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al., 102 NLRB 800. Un-
like the unit sought in that case, the present mailroom unit consists
of a well-defined group of employees with common interests who have
been accorded bargaining rights in numerous major cities and such
a unit has been approved by the Board in uncontested representation
cases .4
Part-time employees: The Petitioner and the Intervenor would ex-
clude, while the Employer takes no position on the unit placement of,
part-time employees who work on Saturday solely in connection with
'the Sunday edition. They work only as inserters, loaders, and carriers.
Thus, their functions constitute but a minor portion of the regular
duties of mailroom employees. They are not carried on the same
payroll, do not participate in the benefits given to regular full-time
employees, and have never been included in the unit. Virtually all
of them are students or have other jobs. There is no showing that any
of these employees become permanent. We find that under these
circumstances these part-time employees do not have a sufficient com-
munity of interest with the permanent employees. Accordingly, we
shall exclude them from the unit.'
s Case No 10-RD-232 (not published in NLRB volumes)
4 Detroit News , 119 NLRB 345.
5 But cf. Evening News Pubhshinp Company, 93 NLRB 1355.
KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL COMPANY, INC. 785
The day foreman: The parties stipulated that Victor Moxley, the
day supervisor, and Douglas Holt, the night foreman, are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and the Petitioner and the Intervenor
both contend that Edwin Bodenheimer, the day foreman, is also a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, while the Employer takes
no position on Bodenheimer's supervisory status. It is clear from the
record that day foreman Bodenheimer has complete supervisory au-
thority in the absence of Moxley, who is generally away about 2 days
a week. As he serves in this capacity for fixed and substantial periods
of time, we find him to be a supervisor and, as such, exclude him from
the unit.'
We find that all employees who perform mailing work in the mail-
room at the Employer's plant at Knoxville, Tennessee, such as tagging,
bundling, operating bundling or tying machines, checking, wrapping,
routing, stamping, preparing lists to wrappers, distributing and count-
ing of papers leaving or returning, addressing, sacking, tying, operat-
ing addressograph machine in the mailingroom for mailing room pur-
poses of dispatching of papers and handling of papers from conveyers
attached to presses, but excluding part-time inserters, loaders and
carriers in the mailroom, office clerical employees, guards, foremen,
professional employees and supervisory employees as defined in the
Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitfed from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting :
I do not agree with the decision of my colleagues herein that a unit
of mailroom employees constitutes a "feasible, homogeneous, and
historical unit," appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
In my opinion, my colleagues fail to advance any real or convincing
justification in support of their position.'
The Employer's operations are divided, along functional lines, into
several departments. One of these is the circulation department
which includes single mail employees (9 employees), circulation em-
e Evening News Publishing Company, supra
7 The Regional Director dismissed the petition in this case on the ground that the unit
sought was inappropriate, citing a prior unpublished decision involving the same em-
ployer in which the Board dismissed a petition seeking the identical unit . The Board
granted the request for review filed by the Petitioner and reinstated the petition on the
ground that " the history of this case " raised "substantial and material issues of fact "
The record now before the Board contains no new facts , and it is quite clear, as my
colleagues now seem to admit, that there never has been any factual issue in this case
It would therefore appear that review was erroneously and improperly granted in the
first instance , and that my colleagues are now reversing the Regional Director , although
his decision on the factual issues was not "clearly erroneous on the record." See the
Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended,
Section 102 67(c).
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees (about 100 employees), garage employees (6 employees), and
mailroom employees (30 regular and 33 part-time employees). All
these employees are under the supervision of the circulation manager.
The function of this department is, as described below, the circulation
and distribution of newspapers.
The papers are received in the mailroom from the presses. There
the mailroom employees prepare the papers for delivery. The bundles
of papers are then dropped down a chute leading to the loading dock.
Circulation or garage employees (distribution employees or loaders)
take the bundles as they come down the chute from the mailroom, and
load them on trucks or cars for delivery. Papers to be mailed are
addressed and prepared for mailing by the single mail employees.
The circulation employees, inter alia, perform the sales and clerical
duties.
It is apparent that the mailroom employees do nothing more than
lift bundles of newspapers, move them around the room on handtrucks,
and wrap, tie, and address them, in preparation for delivery, ship-
ment, or mailing. In short, they are unskilled laborers.
The position of the petitioning and intervening unions, both in this
case and in a previous one involving this employer,' has been that
these employees constitute a craft unit or a quasi-craft departmental
unit. In the previous decision, the Board found that the mailroom
employees "do not constitute a craft unit, nor a separate complete
departmental unit." [Emphasis supplied.] My colleagues at least
agree that it cannot seriously be argued that these employees are
craftsmen.
Nor does it in fact appear that the work that is performed in the
mailroom is functionally distinct from that being performed by other
employees in the circulation department. Rather, it is clear that the
work of the entire circulation department is functionally integrated.
Accordingly, the mere fact that the mailroom employees work in a
separate room and have separate immediate supervision is not a suffi-
cient basis for finding that they constitute a separate appropriate
unit.
My colleagues implicitly recognize the inappropriateness of the
unit on the foregoing grounds, for, in finding the mailroom unit
appropriate, they rely solely on "the long and separate bargaining
history," and the history of the unions seeking to represent these
employees. But it is established Board doctrine that where a unit is
not, of itself, appropriate, a history of bargaining for that unit can-
not make it so.9
s Knoxville News Sentinel Oo., Inc, Case No. 10-RC-4757 ( not published in NLRB
volumes).
9 See A'aheuser-Busch, Inc, et al., 102 NLRB 800, 803-813 , where the Board , in spite
of a 50 -year bargaining history, found that the contractual units did not group the em-
ployees together on the basis of organizational structure of job titles, but rather that their
SUBURBAN DRUGS, INC., ETC. 787
In short, it is clear to me that my colleagues are making the Unions'
extent of organization the controlling factor in this case-contrary to
the specific prohibition of Section 9(c) (5) of the Act.
Accordingly, as there is no legal basis upon which the mailroom
employees may be found to constitute an appropriate unit, I would
affirm the Regional Director's dismissal of the petition.10
placement had been determined by "arbitrary and vague " criteria , and that, accordingly,
such units were not appropriate . See also Newport News Forms Company, Inc, 110
NLRB 471; Owens -Illtmois Glass Company , 112 NLRB 172.
1° My colleagues have also excluded from the unit , on various irrelevant grounds, part-
time employees who work as carriers , inserters , and loaders . The carriers and inserters
work in the same room , doing exactly the same "kind " of work, under the same super-
vision, as the other employees in the unit my colleagues have established . They carry
the papers to and from the various tables and insert the Sunday supplements and maga-
zine sections into the paper. The loaders work on the loading dock with the other distribu-
tion employees . These employees work on Saturday for about 8 to 12 hours. Of the
approximately 39 part-time employees , approximately 30 have worked every Saturday
for the past 6 months.
Accordingly , as these employees are performing the same work as the employees in the
unit, on a regular , as opposed to a casual , basis, I would find they are regular part-time
employees and would include them in the unit. V.I P Radio Inc , 128 NLRB 113, 116
(students who worked on weekends , and part-time employees who worked on Sunday, and
had full-time jobs elsewhere , held regular part-time employees ). Giordano Lumber Co.
Inc., 133 NLRB 307 (students who worked only on Saturdays , 9 months of the year, held
regular part-time employees ). Brown Cigar Co, 124 NLRB 1435, 1437 ( part-time em-
ployees who worked at least 8 hours per week held regular part - time employees).
Suburban Drugs, Inc., and La Grange Highland Drugs, Inc. and
Building Service Employees International Union , Local 189,
AFL-CIO
Hometown Drugs, Inc. and Building Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 189, AFL-CIO
New Lawrence Drugs, Inc. and Building Service Employees
International Union , Local 189, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-
4536, 13-CA-4639, and 13-CA-4640. September 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 11, 1962, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report together with a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
'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 [ Members Rodgers , Fanning,
and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 96.
662353-63-vol 138-51