The American News Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE CONNECTICUT NEWS COMPANY, DIVISION OF THE
AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 443, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No.1-R-3099.Decided September 05, 1946
Mr. Walter B. Lockwood, of Stamford, Conn., for the Employer.
Mr. Mathew Ruoppolo, of New Haven, Conn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
Haven, Connecticut, on July 2, 1946, before Julius Kirle, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations.
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The American News Company, a Delaware corporation with its
principal office and place of business in New York City, is engaged
in the wholesale distribution of newspapers, magazines, and books.
It operates approximately 250 branches or divisions throughout the
United States. We are here concerned solely with the division lo-
cated at New Haven, Connecticut. This division is unincorporated
and is operated under the name of the Connecticut News Company,
Division of The American News Company.
During the year 1945 the Employer purchased for distribution and
sale in Connecticut newspapers and magazines valued in excess of
$100,000, of which approximately 95 percent was purchased outside
the State of Connecticut. During the same period the Employer sold
newspapers and magazines valued in excess of $200,000, all of which.
was sold within the State of Connecticut.
71N L R Bo9.
30
THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY 31
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the Employer's delivery truck
drivers. The Employer objects to this limitation, contending that
the scope of the unit should be extended to include the periodical
superintendent, promotion men, the distribution clerk, the return
clerk, and three mail clerks.
The drivers and the promotion men comprise the Employer's deliv-
ery department. As described at the hearing there would seem to
be little difference between the duties of the drivers and the duties
of the promotion men. Both categories devote approximately 80 per-
cent of their time to outside work such as driving trucks, making deliv-
eries, checking returns on the outside, and making collections. The
balance of their time is spent in the periodical and return department,
where they work with, and are in close proximity to, the inside group
of employees. They are hourly paid and are supervised by the period-
ical superintendent, who, in turn, is responsible to the branch manager.
The inside group of employees, composed of the distribution clerk,
the return clerk, and the three mail clerks, whom the Employer would
include in the unit, work in the periodical and return department,
where they regulate orders and check returns. On rare occasions,
when the volume of outside work increases or when one of the drivers
fails to report for work by reason of illness, one or more of the inside
employees may work on the outside with the drivers.' They, too, are
hourly paid and are under the same supervision as the drivers and
promotion men.
It is clear that the principal duties of the drivers and promotion
men differ from those of the inside employees. The drivers and pro-
This may occur on the average of once a month.
717734-47-vol. 71 4
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion men are chiefly engaged in driving trucks and related work,
whereas the inside employees regulate orders and check returns at the
plant. While it is true that the drivers and promotion men spend
about 20 percent of their time working with the inside group of em-
ployees, the latter spend little or no time in the performance of any
outside duties. Thus, it is apparent that the inside group has but
little interest in common with the drivers and promotion men. The
ditties of the promotion men, however, are so integrated with those of
the drivers as to appear substantially the same. It is true that the
periodical superintendent performs virtually the same duties as _the
drivers but, in addition, he is in charge of all the mail employees of
the Employer. Although he does not have the authority to hire or
discharge other employees, he can and does effectively recommend
such action, despite the fact that his recommendations are subject to
further investigation by the branch manager. We are satisfied that
the periodical superintendent is vested with sufficient indicia of sup-
ervisory authority to warrant his exclusion from a mint of rank and
file employees. In view of the foregoing facts we conclude that a
unit of drivers and promotion nnen, excluding inside employees and
the periodical superintendent, is appropriate.
We find that all drivers and promotion men, excluding the distribu-
tion clerk, the return clerk, the three mail clerks, the periodical super-
intendent, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mnean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
The Petitioner maintains that two drivers, nailed Joe Coppola and
Louis DePalma, should be declared ineligibile to vote, because they
were hired on April 18, 1946, allegedly for the sole purpose of voting
against the Petitioner and defeating it at the polls. We find nothing
in the record to support this contention. Moreover, both men worked
for the Employer prior to the outbreak of war and resigned in 1942,
Coppola to join the armed forces, and DePalna to enter defense work.
THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY 33
When rehired they were restored to their former positions as drivers.2
On the foregoing facts we find that these persons are eligible to vote in
the election hereinafter directed.
Also contested is the eligibility of another driver, named Charles
Peschel, who was permanently discharged shortly after Coppola and
DePalma were rehired. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer,
contends that he should be declared eligible to cast a ballot. No con-
tention is made that Peschel was discriminatorily discharged in viola-
tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act ; nor has any such charge been filed.
Inasmuch as we are utilizing a current pay roll to determine voting
eligibility in consonance with our usual practice, we conclude that
Peschel is ineligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Connecticut News Com-
pany, Division of The American News Company, New Haven, Con-
nectlcuf, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local 443, AFL, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
9 These employees were hired as di ivers, but are claimed to be promotion men by the
Petitioner As we include both drivers and promotion men in the appropriate unit, dis-
cussion of this difference is unnecessary.