Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1300 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business of a third person who is wholly unconcerned 4 in the disagreement between
an employer and his employees," constitutes a mandate that it may be found that
the Act is violated only in those instances where the third person is completely
impassive.
There is a middle ground , a plateau of equilibrium.
The House Committee on Education and Labor reported that the intent of.the
provision was to alleviate the plight of an employer whose business might be "vir-
tually brought to a standstill by disputes in which . . . he himself has no interest,"
who is "powerless to comply with demands" and is "the helpless victim of quarrels
that do not concern (him) at all."
If any argument is needed to show that National was truly interested in any dis-
pute the Union might have with Edwards , the mere fact of its request to Steinberg
that he should not allow a strike against Edwards clearly establishes the fact that it was
indeed gravely concerned . I feel it would be completely unrealistic , in the light
of the special facts of this case , to conclude that National 's partners were powerless
to comply with the Union's request that they should urge or require their son-in-law,
brother -in-law , and employee to enter into a contract with it. It seems to me that
it would be quite absurd to conclude that the Fellabaums were helpless victims of a
quarrel which did not concern them at all. Finally I can not believe that the purpose
sought to be accomplished by the Congress when it enacted Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B ) was to protect , in such premises as these, any person standing in such a
relationship as do the Fellabaums to Edwards.
In view of my opinion on the merits of the case it is needless to dwell upon the
earnestly advanced arguments of counsel in oral argument and brief concerning other
aspects of the case which they believe should be controlling.5
My conclusion is that Respondents have not committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (A) or (B) of the Act. Therefore I will
recommend that the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Cement Products Co. of Toledo , Ohio (a partnership), is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
Union , Local No. 20, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act , and Lawrence Steinberg, No Erwin, Homer Mohler, Edward Sullenger,
and Jack Cassidy are its agents.
3. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL , Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
Union , Local No . 20, and Lawrence Steinberg, No Erwin , Homer Mohler, Edward
Sullenger, and Jack Cassidy have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act.
4 Emphasis supplied.
s There was some evidence and discussion by counsel , relating to the "hot cargo" clause
in the July 18, 1955, contract . Since, however, the Union's action was not taken for the
purpose of enforcing that clause by Inducing employees not to handle hot goods , the doc-
trine enunciated by the Board majority In Sand Door and Plywood Co., 113 NLRB 1210,
does not come into play.
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company i and Lorraine Bartel-
mehs, et al., Petitioners and Local No. 12, Office Employees In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-RD-146. May 10,
1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lyle C.
1 The name of the Employer appears above as amended at the hearing.
115 NLRB No. 207.
MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 1301
Howg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the Union
is no longer the bargaining representative, as defined in Section 9 (a)
of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is
a labor organization currently recognized by the Employer as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the 'employees designated
therein.
3. The Union contends that the instant petition should be dismissed
on the ground that Petitioners are adherents of the Intervenor and are
-acting in collusion with, if not actually fronting for, the Intervenor.
It is irrelevant, however, whether a decertification petition filed by an
individual is sponsored or inspired by a rival union,' as long as such
union is in full compliance with Section 9 of the Act' Accordingly,
we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a Delaware corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is engaged in the
business of publishing newspapers. The Employer and the Union have
bargained collectively for substantially the same unit of employees
since 1939 .1 Petitioners request an election in a 'unit composed of office
clerical employees, excluding all other employees. The Employer and
the Union contend that the only appropriate unit for purposes of de-
2 Local No. 2, Twin City Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Intervenor, was
permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a card showing However, after
the close of the hearing, the Intervenor notified the Board that it did not wish to appear
on the ballot. Accordingly, the issues raised by various objections of the Employer and
the Union to the Intervenor's intervention are now moot and need not be considered.
The hearing officer referred to the Board motions made by the Union and the Employer
at the hearing that the Board : (1) Dismiss the instant petition because it was instigated
by the Intervenor in violation of the AFL-CIO no-raiding pact; and ( 2) dismiss the
present petition on grounds of inappropriate unit. For reasons stated hereinafter in the
text, these motions are hereby denied.
8 Cf. Accurate Molding Corporation, 107 NLRB 1087.
AElltman Steel Company, 109 NLRB 465. We find that the Intervenor is in compliance
with Section 9 of the Act. As the Intervenor has withdrawn from the proceeding, the
contention that the petition was designed to circumvent the AFL-CIO no-raiding pact
appears to be moot. In any event, this contention, even if established , would not warrant
dismissal of the petition. Cf. Ma8on Can Company, 115 NLRB 105 ; General Telephone
Company of Ohio, 112 NLRB 1225.
6 On April 27, 1953, the Employer and the Union executed a contract to run until March
15, 1955. Thereafter, on May 11, 1954, the parties extended the terms of this contract
to March 15 , 1956 , and from year to year thereafter, absent notice to terminate. So far
as appears , no such notice has been given , but the contract is not alleged as a bar by any
of the parties to this proceeding.
In addition to approximately 64 office clerical employees in dispute in this case, and
discussed hereinafter, there are a number of other office clerical employees of the Em-
ployer who are represented by the Intervenor.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certification election is the existing contractual unit, and request that
the present petition be dismissed because the unit description con-
tained therein does not conform to that of the contract unit.
The essential difference between the unit positions of the parties
is that the Employer and the Union would exclude, while the Peti-
tioners would include, certain employees who are excluded from the
contract unit by the following language of article I, section 1, of the
most recent contract between the Employer and the Union :
... The words "employe" or "employes" when used herein-
after, means only those employees who are employed in general
office work . . . for a period of time in excess of thirteen (13)
consecutive weeks and whose normal work week consists of at
least twenty (20) hours... .
At the time of the hearing, the following employees, whose unit
placement is in dispute, were excluded from the contract unit under
the terms of the foregoing provision :
(a) Nineteen regular full-time or part-time employees who did
not meet the "13-consecutive-weeks" requirement; and
(b) Forty-five regular part-time employees who did not meet the
"20-hours-work-per-week" requirement.'
In representation proceedings, the Board will include all employees
in the same classifications in the unit found appropriate, including
all regular part-time employees.' However, it is now established
that, in decertification proceedings, only the existing certified or rec-
ognized unit is appropriate.' We shall, therefore, direct an election
in the present-contract unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employ-
er's plant in Minneapolis, Minnesota, constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
_(b) of the Act:'
9 There were approximately 225 employees in the contract unit at the time of the
heaung
T Sears Roebuck & Company, 112 NLRB 559, 568-569.
e Campbell Soup Company, 111 NLRB 234; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115
NLRB 530.
In Plastic Molding Corporation, 112 NLRB 179, likewise a decertification proceeding,
where the parties agreed to the general composition of the established contractual unit,
the Board considered whether certain working leadmen should be included in the unit
as employees or excluded therefrom as supervisors . In that case , however, the Board
was under a statutory mandate to make such determination , as the Board is precluded
by the Act from including supervisors in a bargaining unit. No such statutory directive
exists for altering the composition of the contract unit in the case at bar.
9 The Union and the Employer moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground
that the unit sought for decertification purposes was inappropriate because it included
categories excluded by the contract between the parties However , the Petitioners indi-
cated their willingness , at the bearing , to accept the Board 's determination as to the
appropriate unit Accordingly , we reject the contention that the present petition be dis-
missed on the above ground. ' -
HYDE PARK MILLS, INC. 1303
All employees who, on the date of the election' directed below,10 have
been employed in performing general office work for 13 or more consec-
utive weeks and whose normal workweek during such period has con-
sisted of 20 or more hours per week, excluding all employees not cov-
ered by the contract between the Employer and the Union of April 27,
-1953, as extended," department managers, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision
,and Direction of Election.
la In the interest of assuring the most nearly representative election, we will include in
the unit all employees covered by the contract of April 27, 1953, on the date of the elec-
tion herein directed, provided that they are otherwise eligible to vote.
u The contract specifically excludes certain categories of employees because of the
alleged confidential nature of their duties. The Intervenor took no position as to these
employees, but requested a determination by the Board on this point. The Petitioners,
likewise, took no position, while the Employer and the Union would exclude them. As
'these employees are not covered by the terms of the most recent contract between the
Employer and the Union, we exclude them for that reason alone.
-Hyde Park Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-909. May 11, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Vivan E.
.Burks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties are in disagreement as to the following, categories of
employees :
Employees in yarn-testing laboratory: These employees test ma-
terials to determine moisture content and other quality tests. No
special training or education is required. As these employees appear
,to perform the customary duties of inspectors, we include them in the
unit. .
?,The, Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is
inappropriate and because of the Petitioner's failure to present proper showing of interest.
The motion is hereby denied.
115 NLRB No. 211.