Standard & Poor's Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 248 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
STANDARD & POOR 'S CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GuiLD OF NEW YORK,
LOCAL 3, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO, PETITIONER. Ca.4e
No. 2-RC-2751. July 17,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Rey-
nolds].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reason :
The Petitioner, having in the past represented certain employees
of the Employer's New York City and Orange, Connecticut, offices,
now seeks to represent them all in a single unit. The Intervenor,
Standard & Poor's Independent Association, contends that existing
contracts bar this proceeding'1 and that the proposed unit is inap-
propriate because of the bargaining history and an alleged lack of
functional integration of the Employer's operations. The Employer
is neutral.
The Employer is engaged in publishing financial information and
furnishing financial advice. This proceeding is limited to its main
office in New York City and a subsidiary office in Orange, Connecti-
cut. The New York City office has two main functional divisions :
printed service, which gathers and publishes financial information,
and planned investments, which gives financial advice to clients. In
addition, the New York City office houses the sales division and a
I The contracts asserted to be a bar were signed 3 nronths after the filing of the present
petition. Accordingly, we find that they are not a bar. The Plumbing Contractors Asso-
ciation of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., at al., 93 NLRB 1081.
95 NLRB No. 36.
STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION 249
number of housekeeping departments. All employees work ' iii' the
'same building, and have the same working conditions and benefits.
A single labor- committee formulates the Employer's labor relations
-policies. Among the housekeeping departments, many jobs are dup-
licated, and many promotions cross department lines.
The Orange, Connecticut, office receives written copy for purposes
of final correction and does most of the mailing of printed material.
Job classifications in this office are similar to some of those in the
.New York City office.
Collective bargaining in the New York City office began in 1940
when the Employer executed a contract with an- independent union
which, in the following year, assigned its contract rights to the Pe-
titioner. In 1942, in accordance with a stipulation of the present
parties, the Board found appropriate three separate units in the New
York City office, as follows: (1) editorial employees; (2) mailing and
distribution, library, central files, Raitori statistical employees, and
breakdown employees in the planned investments division; and (3)'
remaining employees.2 As a result of separate elections the Pe-
titioner was certified as bargaining representative of employees in
units (1) and (2), and the Intervenor as representative of those in
unit (3). Since 1942, the Employer has bargained with the Petitioner
for employees in units (1) and (2) and with the Intervenor for those
in unit (3). In. 1943 and 1944, the Employer and the Petitioner
extended the coverage of their contracts to editorial and circulation
employees working in the Orange office.
The evidence Of integration of the Employer's operations indicates
that the single unit requested by the Petitioner may be appropriate.
On the other hand, the 9 years of amicable bargaining on the basis of
the units found appropriate by the Board in 1942, indicates that sep-
arate units may also be appropriate. Under these circumstances, we
do not believe that we should join these groups of employees in a single
unit without first ascertaining their desires by means of separate
elections.3
Before directing an election, the Board must be administratively
satisfied that the petitioning union has a sufficient representative inter-
est among the employees in question.-' The Petitioner has failed to
make the necessary showing of interest among the employees now
represented by the Intervenor. In view of its apparent lack of desire
Standard ct Poor's Corporation, 41 NLRB 373.
This residual unit includes account executives in the planned investments division,
employees in the cleaning and maintenance , central transcribing, telephone, telephone
sales, and financial departments , and the sales division. '
New Jersey Brewers Association, et at., 92 NLRB 1404 ; Illinois Cities Water Company,
87 NLRB 109,
' See cases cited in footnote 3.
250 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for an election among the employees whom it now represents, ;we shall
dismiss the petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition at
such time as the required showing of interest can be made.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed without prejudice.
.HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY
WORKERS, PETITIONER . Case No. 34-KC-9289. July 17, 1951.
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 John H. Garver, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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. 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 Employer, who is engaged in the manufacture of women's full-
fashioned hosiery, owns and operates two plants in Charlotte, North
Carolina, a griege goods plant at Monroe Road and a finishing plant
at Brevard Street, located 4 miles from each other. In addition, the
Employer operates another griege goods plant in Shelby, North Caro
lina, some 50 miles distant from Charlotte. Raw materials are
shipped by the Employer to both griege plants, where the preliminary
process of throwing is carried on, followed by the knitting, looping,
sewing, inspecting, mending, and preboarding operations. Upon com-
pletion of these processes at each griege plant, the materials are trans-
ferred to the Brevard Street establishment, where the dyeing, final
boarding, inspecting, pairing, mending, transferring, folding, boxing,
and shipping operations are conducted.
The Petitioner contends that a' unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Monroe Road plant alone, excluding fixers,
95 NLRB No. 34.