Sheridan Peter Pan Studios, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SHERIDAN PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. 3
tion over retail or nonretail enterprises and that, therefore, the Board
would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with
respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.'
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Advisory Opinion.
2 The Board , as in El Pa8o and Chartiers , is not here deciding whether or not it would
assert jurisdiction over country clubs which do meet the retail or nonretail standards.
Sheridan Peter Pan Studios, Inc. and Office Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 13-IBC-9170.
August 19, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P. Gethner , hearing
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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a home photographic portrait business in
the Metropolitan Chicago area. The Petitioner seeks to represent a
unit limited to the photographers, of whom there are about 23, on the
ground that they are a craft or departmental group entitled to sepa-
rate representation. The Employer disagrees and urges that an ap-
propriate unit should comprise, in addition to the photographers, the
darkroom technicians including retouchers, colorists, and finishers,
all of whom constitute its technical department. The Employer also
suggests as an alternate appropriate unit one consisting of all em-
ployees in the three departments in which its operations are con-
144 NLRB No. 5.
727-083-64-val. 144-2
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted-technical, sales, and office. There is no history of collective
bargaining for any of these employees.'
The Employer solicits potential customers by telephone and by sales-
men. When an order is placed, arrangements are made for a sitting
at the customer's home. Notification of the sitting is then given to one
of the Employer's photographers who comes to the home, poses the
subject, and takes the required number of exposures. The film is then
mailed or brought in by the photographer to the Employer's studio
where it is developed and proofs made. The proofs are taken to the
subject's home by a salesman, and after selection is made, the negatives
are retouched and developed, and the finished prints are colored.
The photographers are expected to make about 20 home calls per
day. They are paid a fixed amount per call plus a bonus for exceed-
ing the specified quota. They drive their own automobiles, but are
supplied with a camera , film, lighting equipment, and backdrops. The
cameras are preset, requiring no adjustment by the photographer of
lens openings or exposure time. The number of poses to be taken is
fixed by the Employer, and procedures as to other matters involved
in taking pictures are also prescribed. Lighting is supplied through
an electronic strobe, and each photographer must bring his camera
back to the studio once a week in order to have the size of the lens
opening adjusted to compensate for the decreased power of the strobe.
These .adjustments are made only by Mr. Laney, who supervises both
the photographers and the darkroom technicians. No prior experi-
ence, either in taking or developing pictures, is required of the photog-
raphers, and they are fully trained in 2 or 3 weeks to carry out their
assigned duties. No particular educational qualifications are required
for this work.
Without deciding at this time whether portrait photography may
require the exercise of craft or technical skills, we consider it obvious,
in view of the limited skills and training required of these photog-
raphers, that they are not entitled to separate representation either
as craftsmen or as technical employees. Nor is there any basis for
finding that the photographers alone constitute an appropriate depart-
mental group. They constitute only a segment of an administrative
department of the Employer which is engaged in an integrated proc-
ess, the reproduction of an image through the exposure and develop-
ment of film. The fact that the photographers perform their work
outside the studio and under different conditions from the darkroom
technicians is not itself a sufficient ground for permitting them to be
Some of the photographers went on strike in April 1962 and thereafter met with the
Employer in one or more meetings . The strikers neither requested nor were accorded recog-
nition as the representative of all the photographers , and no agreement as to terms or con-
ditions of work was entered into.
LOCAL 3, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 5
represented separately from other employees who share like interests
with them through participation in a common endeavor 2
As a unit limited to the photographers alone is inappropriate and
as the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election for any
other unit, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 The Board has treated photographers and darkroom technicians as a single category
for unit purposes . Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Redstone Division, 123 NLRB 888, 892;
Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Union Switch & Signal Division, 119 NLRB 1391, 1394.
Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO and Jack Picoult and Al Picoult d/b/a Jack Picoult. Case
No. 2-CP 192. August 19, 1963
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On April 26, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit handed down its decision declining to enforce the
Board's initial Decision and Order,' and remanding the case for
"more adequate findings in the light of this opinion." 2 After a re-
appraisal of the record in the light of the court's opinion, we reaffirm
our previous conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (7) (C)
of the Act.
A. The applicable principles
The court remanded the case to the Board primarily because it was
doubtful whether the Board had properly applied the second proviso
to Section 8(b) (7) (C). Section 8(b) (7) (C) bans picketing for
recognitional or organizational purposes which has been conducted
for more than a reasonable period of time (not to exceed 30 days)
without a representation petition having been filed. But the second
proviso to (C) states :
That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to
prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of
truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an
employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with,
a labor organization, unless an effect of such picketing is to in-
duce any individual employed by any other person in the course
of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods
or not to perform any services.
1137 NLRB 1401.
2 N.L.R.B. v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack
Picoult ), 317 F. 2d 193, 196 (C.A. 2).
144 NLRB No. 9.