The Ocala Star Banner

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 25, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 569 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE OCALA STAR BANNER 569 3. By restraining and coercing the employees of Cleghorn and Swaney in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, District 31 and Locals Nos. 4050, 4346, 1379, 2338, 4047, and 8327 have engaged and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Locals Nos. 6593, 4060, and 4740 ha` e not restrained or coerced the em- ployees of Cleghorn and Swaney within the meaning of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] THE OCALA STAR BANNER and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN ASSISTANTS ' UNION OF NORTII AMERICA , A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1365. July 25, 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 Paul L. Harper, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pusuant 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 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 Employer publishes and prints a newspaper. The Peti- tioner seeks a unit.of pressmen and stereotypers in the Employer's pressroom. The Employer takes no issue with the unit described in the petition. However, it contends that the unit is inappropriate asserting that there is only one full-time nonsupervisory employee involved. Of the three employees contemplated by the petition, the Employer contends that two should not be included in the unit, one because he is a supervisor, and the other because he works less than 50 percent of his time in the pressroom, the rest of his time being spent in other departments of the employer. 95 NLRB No. 74. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chief Printer 1 It is the contention of the Employer that this employee is a super- visor and should be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner disagrees. There are two full-time employees, including the chief printer, and one part-time helper in the Employer's pressroom. The full-time employees have much the same duties, consisting of clearing the press, placing paper on the press, casting flat casts, casting newspaper casts, and operating the press and also the stereotyping machine. Though both employees operate the press, it apeahs that the chief printer is responsible for its operation while the other pressman more frequently is engaged in removing papers from the press. Both employees are paid by the hour and receive time and a half for overtime. However, the chief printer is paid at about a 30-percent higher rate. He has had about 10 years' experience as a pressman as compared with 2 years for the other pressmen whom he instructed and trained in presswork. The chief printer does not have authority to hire or discharge the other employees in the pressroom, or to exercise any of the other statutory prerogatives of a supervisor. On the basis of the above facts and upon the entire record, we are of the opinion that the rela- tionship of the chief printer to the other printer and to their helper is that of the more skilled to the lesser skilled craftsman, and not that of supervisor to subordinate.2 Accordingly, we find that the chief printer is not a supervisor as defined by the Act.' Part-time Pressroom Employee 4 The Employer contends that this employee should be excluded from the unit because he works most of his time in departments of the Employer other than the pressroom. While admitting that this is so at the-present time, the Petitioner alleges that before the filing of the petition herein, the part-time employee worked over 50 percent of his time in the pressroom. The Petitioner has filed a charge' against the Employer alleging a discriminatory change in the duties of the part-time employee .5 In view of the pendency of this charge we will hold in abeyance the unit disposition of this employee and 1 This position is held by William Pooser . The parties refer to him by various titles. We think the title used is a fair description of his position. 1 1. S. Berlin, d/b/a I. S. Berlin Press, 93 NLRB 13 ; William H. Hill, d/b/a Johnson City Publishing Company, 81 NLRB 1341. 8 About seven or eight times a year the chief printer is in charge of four or five temporary employees hired to unload paper from railway cars and place it in the plant . This opera- tion usually takes about 5 hours. Whether or not the chief printer can be considered to be exercising the functions of a supervisor during this operation , these occasions are too trivial and sporadic to affect our finding. * This position is held by Elven Grubbs. Case No. 10-CA-1258 . The Petitioner has filed a waiver of the right to raise as objections to the election any of the matter alleged in its charge. ARKANSAS FUEL OIL COMPANY 571 will permit him to vote a challenged ballot in the election hereinafter directed. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All pressmen and stereotypers at the Employer's establishment in Ocala, Florida, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, pro- fessional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ARKANSAS FUEL OIL COMPANY and J. A. LEE. Case No. 16-CA-275. July. 25,1951 Decision and Order On April 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the charging party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and Respondent and the charging party filed briefs. The request for.oral argument is denied, because the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately set forth the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions. and recommendations. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by J. A. Lee, herein called the Charging Party, on June 5, 1950, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the 1 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 , Reynolds, and Styles]. 95 NLRB No. 75.