Aronsson Printing Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of AROxssoN PRINTING COMPANY and DETROIT PRINT-
ING PRESSMEN'S AND ASSISTANTS' UNION No. 2 AND DETROIT BINDERY
WORKERS' UNION No. 20 AND DETROIT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 18
Case No. C-517.-Decided July 21, 1939
Commercial Printing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: ques-
tioning employees regarding progress of union membership campaign ; offer of
permanent employment for renunciation of union affiliation ; disparagement ;
expressed opposition to unions ; statements to employees , prior to making of
demands upon employer by unions , anticipating union demands and expressing
opposition thereto ; notice to employees that in going on strike they had
chosen "to resign" ; distribution to employees of literature denouncing union
representatives-Strike : going over heads of union representatives by appeal-
ing to individual strikers to return to work-Unfits Appropriate for Collective
Bargaining : three separate units for employees in composing room , pressroom,
and bindery , respectively ; person employed as part-time proofreader and part-
time office worker excluded ; proofreader included ; lithographer excluded-
Representatives : proof of choice : applications for membership signed prior to
strike ; strike -benefit rolls, dues records, and statements signed by strikers
show majority in each unit continued to desire representation by respective
unions during strike ; persons hired to fill jobs of strikers not considered in
determining question of majority representation -Collective Bargaining: re-
fusal , prior to strike , to sign standard union contracts , because of competi-
tive conditions , refusal , during strike , to recognize unions as exclusive bar-
gaining agencies , although expressing willingness to bargain with unions as rep-
resentatives of their members only ; announcement that company would not enter
into written agreement ; duty to embody understanding reached with unions
in binding agreement ; strike prolonged by refusal to bargain collectively-
Discrimination : charges of , dismissed-Reinstatement Ordered: of strikers,
dismissing if necessary employees hired after date of refusal to bargain ; prefer-
ential list ; offers of reinstatement during strike immaterial ; violence-Back
Pay : ordered , to employees who are not reinstated or placed on preferential list
within 5 days after application ; monies received by employees for work per-
formed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects
to be deducted and paid over to agency which supplied funds for said projects.
Mr. George J. Bott, for the Board.
Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Bills, by Mr. Victor W. Klein, of
Detroit, Mich., and Max Smitt and Orville H. Foster, Jr., by Mr.
Max Smitt, of Detroit, Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. J. H. Krug, of counsel to the Board.
13 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
799
Soo DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Detroit Allied Printing Trades Council,
and amended charges duly filed 1 jointly by Detroit Printing Press-
men's Union No. 2, herein called the Pressmen's Union, Bookbinders
and Bindery Workers Union No. 20, of the International Brother-
hood of Bookbinders, herein called the Bindery Union, and Detroit
Typographical Union No. 18, herein called the Typographical
Union,2 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit,
Michigan), issued its complaint dated January 6, 1938, against
Aronsson Printing Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondent, upon the Pressmen's Union, upon
the Bindery Union, and upon the Typographical Union. The Press-
men's Union, the Bindery Union, add the Typographical Union
are herein collectively called the Unions.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance
(a) that on July 26, 28, and 29, 1937, and at all times thereafter,
the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Pressmen's
Union, the Bindery Union, and the Typographical Union, as exclusive
representatives, respectively, of all the respondent's employees in
in the pressroom, bindery, and composing room, said employees
constituting separate units appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining; (b) that because of the respondent's refusal to bargain
with the respective Unions, a majority of the employees in each unit
went on strike on July 28, 1937; (c) that the respondent has indi-
cated that it never intends to reinstate certain of the strikers, namely,
Minnie Silverman, Daniel Lamson, Mrs. Daniel Lamson, Edwin
Markhoff, Sadie Markhof, and R. L. Borgis; (d) that between
February 15 and July 28, 1937, the respondent endeavored to dis-
1 The three labor organizations which filed the amended charges are members of the
Detroit Allied Printing Trades Council.
2 In the amended charges the first two labor organizations were incorrectly designated
as Detroit Printing Press Men and Assistants Union No 2 , and Detroit Bindery Workers
Union No. 20
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 801
courage membership in the Unions by various acts and threats; and
(e) that between July 28, 1937, and January 6, 1938, the respondent,
by issuing propaganda and by engaging in other acts directed against
the Unions, interfered with its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act.
On January 14, 1938, the respondent filed an answer, which, as
amended at the hearing, denied the alleged unfair labor practices
and set forth certain affirmative matter. The answer further alleged
that the respondent's business operations were local in character, and
challenged the jurisdiction of the Board.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan,
from January 27 to February 8, 1938, before Charles W. Whittemore,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
Act was not applicable to the respondent, its business, and its rela-
tions 'with its employees. The Trial Examiner reserved decision
upon this motion. After the introduction of evidence upon the
jurisdictional issue by the respondent and by the Board, and after
oral argument by counsel before the Trial Examiner, the motion was
denied. At the close of the Board's case the respondent again moved
to dismiss the complaint, urging: (1) that the Board had no juris-
diction, for the reasons stated in the original motion to dismiss; (2)
that the Board had failed to sustain the allegations of unfair labor
practices in the complaint by substantial and uncontroverted evidence
of its own witnesses; and (3) that the respondent had on several
occasions offered to reinstate the strikers and that those who had
failed to accept the offers were not entitled to reinstatement. The
Trial Examiner reserved decision upon this motion until the close of
the respondent's case, whereupon the motion was denied. At the
close of the respondent's case, the respondent again moved to dismiss,
upon substantially the same grounds. This motion was also denied.
At the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend paragraph
11 of the complaint by including the name of R. L. Borgis among
those strikers whom the respondent was alleged to have indicated that
it never intended to reinstate. This motion was granted, with the
understanding that the allegations in the answer relating to para-
graph 11 of the complaint be considered amended to include Borgis.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence; The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Exam-
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed.
On March 31, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port in which he found that both prior and subsequent to July 28,
1937, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act; that the employees in the
pressroom, bindery, and composing room of the respondent's plant
constitute three separate units appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining; that on July 26, 1937, and at all times there-
after, a majority of the employees in these units, respectively, had
designated the Pressmen's Union, the Bindery Union, and the Typo-
graphical Union, as their representatives for purposes of collective
bargaining; that the portions of the complaint alleging that the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Unions on July
26 and 28, 1937, should be dismissed; that on October 4, 1937, the
respondent refused to recognize the Unions as exclusive bargaining
agents for employees in the three appropriate units, thereby engag-
ing in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act; and that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees; that the re-
spondent offer reinstatement to all its employees in the three appro-
priate units who went on strike on July 28, 1937; and that the re-
spondent bargain collectively with the Unions as exclusive repre-
sentatives, respectively, of employees in the appropriate units.
Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and the Unions filed exceptions and amended exceptions there-
to. On October 6, 1938, oral argument was had before the Board
at Washington, D. C. The respondent and the Unions participated
in the argument. Briefs have been filed by the respondent and
by the Unions.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, and, except as indicated hereinafter, finds them to be without
merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Aronsson Printing Company, a Michigan corporation with its
sole office and plant at Detroit, is one of the largest printing estab-
lishments in that city. It produces a large variety of printed mate-
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 803
Tial, including advertising matter, factory forms, stationery, bill-
heads, legal briefs, and catalogues. It normally employs about 50
compositors, pressmen, and bindery workers and a number of sales-
men who solicit business in and about Detroit.
In 1937 the respondent purchased raw materials costing approxi-
mately $110,000. About 66 per cent of the raw materials consisted
of paper obtained from wholesale paper concerns in Detroit, which
filled the orders from stock maintained in their warehouses in that
city. From 8 to 25 per cent of the paper delivered to the respondent
by the wholesalers was, however, obtained by the 'wholesalers in
the first instance from sources outside the State of Michigan. In
1937 the respondent also purchased nine printing presses from Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, at a cost of $9,000, plus old equipment traded
in as part of the transaction, and purchased repair parts valued at
$1.000 from sources outside Michigan.
During 1937 the respondent's charges to customers for printed mat-
ter amounted to approximately $380,000. Although charges for
printed matter shipped to customers located outside the State of Mich-
igan amounted only to approximately $2,700, a large part of the
printed matter delivered by the respondent to customers in Michi-
gan was thereafter sent outside the State by these customers.3 Thus
the respondent delivered in 1937 to five of its leading customers
printed material for which it charged approximately $163,200. The
five customers shipped outside the State of Michigan approximately
70 per cent of such material.4
Approximately 15 per cent of the material printed by the 're-
spondent in 1937 consisted of advertising matter, such as advertising
leaflets, posters, handbills, and catalogues. Such advertising matter
3 The printed material supplied by the respondent to its customers is usually maintained
in stock for varying periods of time, but is shipped out constantly as the demands of
their business require. In some instances , in 1937, the respondent kept printed material
at its plant and shipped the material to localities outside the State of Michigan, upon
orders given from time to time by customers located in Detroit.
4 The disposition of the printed material supplied by the respondent to these customers
is indicated by the following table :
Percent of Approxi-
Total pur- such pur- mate value
chases chases of such
from the shipped out shipments
respondent of Michi- out of
gan Michigan
Rexair, Incorporated ------------------------------------------ $7,700 75 $5,775
Simons-Michelson Company--------------------------------- 11,500 60 7,000
Sales Equipment Company----------------------------------- 10,000 (') 5,000
Kelvinator Corporation (Division of Nash-Kelvinator Cor-
oration) --------------------------------------------------- 33,000 90 29,700r
Chrysler Corporation ----------------------------------------- 101,000 66 66,500
Totals-------------------------------------------------- 163,200 70 113,975
More than 50.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was used to a considerable extent by the purchasers- to stimulate the
interstate sale of various products, including liquor, automobiles and
trucks, and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Many of
the business forms printed by the respondent were also used in
connection with sales in interstate commerce.
In 1937 the respondent printed a large number of catalogues and
booklets which underwent finishing operations in States other than
Michigan. Thus, the respondent printed about 10,000 memorandum
booklets containing advertising matter for a concern which sent the
booklets to Chicago, Illinois, for binding and thereafter distributed
them in various parts of the United States. The respondent also
printed 20,000 copies of two catalogues for Sales Equipment Com-
pany which, in turn, shipped the catalogue covers to Cleveland, Ohio,
to be cellophaned. Thereafter, the catalogues were distributed in
various parts of the United States.
In 1937, at the time of the strike which began on July 28, the re-
spondent was engaged in building additions to its plant. With the
new equipment, and in view of orders on hand, the respondent ex-
pected to do a total business of $600,000 in that year. The actual
business in 1937 amounted to $380,000. The strike was the major
factor in the decline, although a general business depression in the
latter half of 1937 was partly responsible.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Detroit Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2 is a labor organization
affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America. It admits to membership printing pressmen and
press apprentices employed in the respondent's pressroom.5
Bookbinders and Bindery Workers Union No. 20, of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders, is a labor organization affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Bookbinders. It admits to mem-
bership persons employed in the respondent's bindery department.
Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 is a labor organization af-
filiated with International Typographical Union of North America.
It admits to membership all skilled employees in the respondent's
composing room, including compositors and also proofreaders who
are practical printers.
The three labor organizations are affiliated through their interna-
tionals with the American Federation of Labor, and are members of
the Detroit Allied Printing Trades Council. The latter organization
5 The respondent introduced in evidence the bylaws of Detroit Press Assistants' Union
No. 40 which admits to membership press assistants . There was no showing , however,
that it has any membership among employees of the respondent.
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 805
controls the use and issuance of the Allied Printing Trades Council
label, and considers problems affecting printing craftsmen in Detroit.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Early in 1937 the Unions began organizational activities among
the respondent's employees under the leadership of Harry Reifin,
president of the Detroit Allied Printing Trades Council and special
representative of the Typographical Union, Walter G. Wisdom, secre-
tary of the Pressmen's Union, and A. J. LaFramboise, local repre-
sentative of the Bindery Union. Numerous organizational meetings
were held during the early part of 1937 and a number of employees
became active in soliciting members for the Unions.
During the period from February to July 1937 Maurice Aronsson,
the respondent's president, general manager, and principal stock-
holder, called a number of employees to his office and inquired
whether they and other employees had joined the Unions. Jason
Harris, the respondent's superintendent, also questioned various em-
ployees regarding the progress of the union membership campaign.
Several witnesses testified that Aronsson and Harris took even more
active steps to discourage membership in the Unions. Raymond L.
Borgis, a linotype operator who had been a member of the Typo-
graphical Union since 1918 but whose dues were in arrears , testified
that in February 1937 Aronsson offered him a "lifelong contract"
if he would remain out of the Union, and that on subsequent occasions
both Aronsson and Harris urged him not to go back into the Union.
Thomas Williams, a pressman, testified that early in March 1937 he
was approached by Harris and that when he admitted his intention
to join the Pressmen's Union, of which he had been a member from
1911 to 1921, Harris stated :
You know how those fellows are . . . they are just looking
for their dues ... They are not interested in you whatever
... Before you join up, I think you better think it over .. .
It is going to be several raises come through this year . . . you
will be well taken care of.
Minnie Silverman, an employee in the bindery department, tes-
tified that in March or April 1937 Harris told her :
....I am depending on you to keep your nose out of this
business , and if any organizer approaches you you just tell them
you won 't have nothing to do with them.
Louis Gasper, one of the respondent' s witnesses , testified that
Harris told him that the Unions would not benefit anyone and that
they merely sought to obtain the workers' dues.
187930-39-vol 1 3--52
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both Aronsson and Harris..denied that. they had made, the,^state,
ments attributed to them by Borgis, Williams, and Silverman. The
Trial Examiner, who heard the witnesses and was in a position to
judge as to their credibility, concluded that the statements were
made. We also note that during this period Aronsson and Harris
made strenuous efforts to keep in touch with the progress of the
organizational efforts of the Unions. Under all the circumstances,
we conclude that the statements were made.
On July 23, 1937, Aronsson caused to be attached to each
employee's pay check a card, which reads as follows :
It has come to my attention that Some of our Employees have
signified their intentions of becoming members of the Union.
This of course is entirely within your own discretion, and I have
no objection for any Employee to do so. For many years past I
have had the respect, loyalty and cooperation of many of my
employees and their troubles to a great extent have been my
troubles, for which in turn I have endeavored to treat them
fairly and squarely, always considering their welfare.
If it is the intent to organize the plant as a closed shop, it
may cause some hardships not only upon me, but it may also
affect you, so before any action is taken I will be glad to talk
this matter over with you at any time you so state. I believe a
better understanding of our problems can be had by this
procedure.
Yours truly,
MAIIRICE ARONSSON.
On the same day, Aronsson called a meeting of the employees at
which, according to his testimony, he informed the employees that
they were free to join or refuse to join the Unions, but that if the
Unions insisted upon a closed shop they would force him to close
down the plant. At the hearing Aronsson testified that the card was
attached to the pay checks and the meeting was called because
industrial unrest existed at the time in Detroit and because he wished
to inform the employees that membership in the Union's ' was
immaterial to him.
On July 23, the Unions had made no demands upon the respondent
and were merely engaged in attempts to organize the employees. It
is clear from the wording of the card and from Aronsson's own
testimony regarding the statements he made at the meeting that
Aronsson did more than inform the employees that they were free to
join or refuse to join the Unions. By anticipating the demands to
he made by the Unions, and by expressing to the employees his atti-
tude as to these demands, Aronsson interfered with the organizing
,efforts of the Unions., Under such circumstances, , we think the
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 80 7
attaching of the cards to the pay checks and the statements made at
the meeting by Aronsson constituted' an interference with the rights
guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act and that they were
designed to do so.
On July 26 and July 28, 1937, representatives of the Unions con-
ferred with Aronsson and attempted to secure contracts with the
respondent calling for specified wages, hours of employment, and
conditions of employment, including a closed-shop clause. The facts
pertaining to the two conferences are discussed in detail in Section
III B below. It suffices here to point out that the negotiations proved
unsuccessful and that at about 2 p. in. on July 28 a majority of the
respondent's employees in the composing room, the press room, and
the bindery department went out on strike.. During the following
weeks, the Unions picketed the respondent's plant and instituted a
boycott campaign against the respondent. For the following three
or four weeks the plant was virtually shut down.
On July 29, 1937, the respondent placed in the pay envelopes of the
striking employees a notice which stated, in part, as follows :
The attached check is in full payment for services rendered
right up to the time of your ceasing operations.
We regret very much that you so chose to resign your position,
and as my intentions are to operate an open shop, this is to
notify you that if we so desire, we may replace your services.
Your insurance policy will be cancelled on August 1st .. .
Since the notice stated that the employees in going on strike had
chosen "to resign," it was designed to intimidate and coerce them
because they had taken part in the strike. We find, accordingly, that
the respondent, by giving such notice, interfered with the rights of
its employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Within a week after the strike was called, the respondent mailed
to each of its employees a printed booklet, "Facts As They Are," the
text of which was prepared by Aronsson. It contained denuncia-
tions of union organizers in general and of Reifin in particular. One
paragraph reads as follows :
If it is your desire to stay out and listen to strangers who have
no interest of yours at heart, you are free to do so, but remember,
you have known me and worked under me for many years and
know what I stand for, and now it is up to you to find out what
these so-called friends will do for your -future and what they
stand for.
The booklet was obviously designed to influence the employees
against the union organizers, and, coming from the employer, it
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore interfered with the employees in their exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
At a meeting on August 19 with representatives of the Unions,
Aronsson refused to meet the demands of the Unions but offered to
reinstate approximately half of the strikers, and to reinstate the rest
as the needs of his business required, at a 10-per cent increase in
wages. It was agreed that the representatives of the Unions should
present Aronsson's proposal to the strikers and that the decision of
the strikers should be reported to Aronsson on August 23. However,
without waiting for the union representatives to report, as agreed,
Aronsson on August 20 sent to each of the strikers, with the possible
exception of two, a special-delivery letter which stated in part as
follows :
... There did not seem to be any question but that these
organizers were not thinking of benefitting the employees as
much as they were of themselves and the Union for which they
were working.
... We are not going to agree to a closed shop as long as the
other shops in town are not placed in the same position, and of
course without a contract from us-"No Victory For The
Organizers."
Since having this meeting my attention has been called to cer-
tain promises and threats made against my employees by an
organizer of a Union . . . These organizers cannot and will not
keep their promises and their threats are just so many idle words.
... Please remember that these men are outsiders and total
strangers to you. They continually make soap-box speeches
for the sole purpose of inciting you .. .
This is not a battle between our employees and myself. I feel
very friendly toward you. I say definitely that as far as obtain-
ing a raise in wages or obtaining time and a half for overtime
and double time for Sunday, there will not be any trouble about
that but as to permitting these organizers to rule you and me,
that is a different question .. .
... Our shop is going to reopen. We prefer to have you
come back but if you choose not to, then, of course, we will do the
best we can to replace you. If you decide that you and your
families are better off by being loyal to me and that I will do the
right thing I want you to forget all about pride just like I am
doing, and come back to work while I still can offer you
your job . . .
At the end of each letter was a single line : "Your hourly rate
upon return to work will be $______." The blank space was filled in
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 809
with an ink notation, providing for an increase in pay of approxi-
mately 10 per cent for each employee. Aronsson testified at the
hearing that Harris had informed him that some of the strikers had
complained to him that they had not been given a correct account of
the conference on August 19, and that he sent the letter in order "to
give everyone a chance to know the facts." Since employees not
present at the conference would not appear to have been in a position
to know what was there said, it does not seem plausible that such
employees would state, as Aronsson asserts, that they had not been
given a correct account of the conference. Furthermore, it is signif-
icant that although the letter was replete with vigorous charges
against the representatives of the Unions, it failed to mention the
reason for sending the letter advanced by Aronsson at the hearing.
We conclude that the letter was an attempt by Aronsson to discredit
the chosen representatives of the employees and to break the strike.
Following the strikers' rejection of the proposals made by Aron-
son at the conference on August 19, Aronsson attempted to persuade
individual strikers to return to work. Charles W. Kramer, a striker
who returned to work in September and who was called as a witness
by the respondent, testified that in August he met with Aronsson
following receipt of a telegram from the latter; that Aronsson spoke
in "strong language" against the union organizers, urged him to
return to work, and promised him a steady job, a bonus at Christmas,
and a written contract if he so desired; and that he drove with
Aronsson in the latter's car to the home of another employee, Eric
Mattson, to discuss the matter but that Mattson was not at home.
Kramer also testified that at Aronsson's suggestion he destroyed the
telegram which he had received from Aronsson. Mattson testified
that on August 22 he received a telegram from Aronsson stating "Call
me at Longfellow 6779 just as soon as you get home Important"; that
he did not communicate with Aronsson at the time, but that subse-
quently following receipt of a second telegram he met Aronsson at
a designated street corner; that, at this meeting, Aronsson stated
that he had been informed that the strike had been called off and
that the strike benefits would be taken away; and that Aronsson
offered to pay him the union scale of wages and also offered a con-
tract for 5, 6, or 10 years if he returned to work.
Aronsson admitted at the hearing that he sent telegrams to Kramer
and Mattson and that he met with them, but stated that he did so
only after he had been informed by George Swartz, a striker, that
Kramer was ready to return to work, and after Aronsson's brother
had informed him that Mattson desired to talk with him. He denied
that he told Mattson that the strike was over and that the strike
benefits would cease. Swartz, who was called as a witness by the
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent, did not testify with regard to the statement which he
is asserted to have made to Aronsson. Aronsson's brother was not
called as a witness. The telegrams were sent shortly after the
August 20 letter, which appealed to the individual strikers, over
the heads of their representatives, to return to work. It is reason-
able to credit testimony that Aronsson endeavored to attain the same
end by personally contacting some of the strikers. Aronsson's testi-
mony that he sent the telegrams only after he heard from his brother
and from Swartz that Mattson and Kramer wished to talk to him
is unconfirmed and unconvincing.
In view of the entire record, we conclude that the testimony of
Kramer and Mattson is to be credited and that Aronsson by appeal-
ing to them and other employees to return to work and by the
statements made to the two men interfered with the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act.
We find that the respondent, by questioning employees regarding
the progress of the organizational campaigns of the Unions, by
attempting to persuade employees not to join the Unions, by the
distribution of the various cards, notices, booklets, and letters, by
appealing to individual strikers to return to work, and by the other
means set forth above has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. The refusals to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate units
The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent in the
composing room, the pressroom, and the bindery, respectively, con-
stitute three separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. There was introduced at the hearing evidence indicat-
ing that it is customary in Detroit and elsewhere for employees in
commercial printing establishments such as here involved to bargain
on the basis of such separate units. The evidence shows, moreover,
that the three groups of employees are distinguished by the character
of their duties and by their rates of pay. The duties of the em-
ployees in the composing room involve primarily setting type, by
hand or machine, and making up and locking the forms; the em-
ployees in the pressroom insert the forms in automatic or hand-fed
presses and operate the presses ; the bindery employees operate cut-
ters and folding machinery, assemble the sheets, and stitch and bind
the assembled matter.
The only substantial controversy at the hearing relative to the bar-
gaining units concerned the inclusion or exclusion of certain specified
employees in the three departments as of July 24, 1937. The Typo-
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 811
graphical Union sought to exclude from the unit for composing-room-
employees Joan Arends,° who was named by the respondent as an
employee in the composing room. Arends was a part-time proof-
reader and part-time office worker. She is ineligible to membership
in the Typographical Union. Under the circumstances, we conclude
that Joan Arends should not be considered as within the unit for
composing-room employees. Although the name of Robert Hoban
appeared on the respondent's list of composing-room employees, the
testimony of Reifin, the Typographical Union organizer, indicated'
that he felt that Hoban should not be included within the unit of
composing-room employees. Reifin testified that Hoban was a proof-
reader and that he doubted whether Hoban was eligible to member-
ship in the Typographical Union because he understood that Hoban
"didn't work at the printing trade prior to becoming a proofreader."
The evidence indicates that the Typographical Union admits to mem-
bership only "proofreaders who are practical printers." Since Reifin's
testimony is inconclusive, since Hoban works exclusively in the
composing room, and since his work is closely related to that of the
other composing-room employees, we shall include Hoban in the
composing-room unit. There also appears to be some question as to
the inclusion of Morton Shapiro within this unit. Reifin testified
that Shapiro "didn't work in the composing room to my knowledge."
On the other hand, the respondent listed Shapiro as a composing-
room employee • and Harris, the plant superintendent, testified to the
same effect. Under the circumstances, we shall include Shapiro in the
composing-room unit.
The Pressmen's Union sought to exclude Joe D. Claramunt from
the pressroom unit. Claramunt, who appeared on the respondent's
list as a pressroom employee, operated a lithographing press, and
worked in a room apart from the pressroom. He was a member of a
lithographers' union which was affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, and was ineligible to membership in the Pressmen's
Union. Under these circumstances, we, conclude that Claramunt
should not be considered as within the unit composed of pressroom
employees. Although John Engerer's name does not appear on the
list of pressroom employees, the Pressmen's Union contends that he
should be included within the pressroom unit. The evidence indicates
that Engerer has worked only one day for the respondent and then
only as a temporary employee. We shall, therefore, exclude Engerer
from the unit.
Agnes Holt appears upon the respondent's list of employees as of
July 24, 1937, as a pressroom employee. Other evidence shows, how-
ever, that she was regularly employed in the bindery department, that
6 Sometimes referred, to in the record as Joan Aarons.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was assigned to the pressroom only temporarily, and that on July
28, she was again employed in the bindery department. The Press-
men's Union made no claim that Holt should be included in the press-
room unit. The Bindery Union asked her inclusion within the unit
which it claimed as appropriate. Under the circumstances, we shall
include Holt within the unit of bindery employees. Although the
name of Louise Slater did not appear on the respondent's list of em-
ployees, the Bindery Union claimed that she should be included within
the bindery unit. The Bindery Union organizer testified that she was
regularly employed by the respondent as a bindery worker but had
been absent from work because of illness at the time the strike was
called. The strike benefit roll for the first week of the strike shows
that Slater received strike benefits for that week. Moreover, in a bill
of complaint for a temporary injunction which the respondent filed in
the Wayne County Circuit Court on September 2, 1937, Slater was
named as a striking employee. Under the circumstances, we find that
Slater should be included within the unit composed of bindery em-
ployees. The Bindery Union also claims as within its unit Gladys
Wiemoczyk, whose name was not included on the list of employees
prepared by the respondent. The Bindery Union organizer testified
that she "must have been working" for the respondent in July 1937.
There is no other showing, however, that she was employed by the
respondent during the periods here involved. We shall not, there-
fore, consider Wiemoczyk as within the bindery unit.
Subject to the conclusions above set forth, we find that the em-
ployees of the respondent in the composing room, the pressroom, and
the bindery, respectively, constitute three separate units appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said units will insure
to the employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Unions of a majority in the
appropriate units
The list of the respondent's employees, revised in accordance with
the conclusions set forth in subsection 1 above, shows that as of
July 24, 1937, the respondent employed 15 persons in the composing-
room unit, 19 persons in the pressroom unit, and 16 persons in the
bindery unit. No suggestion appears in the record that any change
in the number of employees included in the respective units occurred
prior to the strike beginning on July 28, 1937.
There were introduced in evidence applications for membership in
the Typographical Union signed prior to July 25, 1937, by 10 of the
employees in the composing-room unit. Evidence was also introduced
to the effect that Harry Friedenberg, another composing-room em-
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 8131
ployee, had been a member of the International Typographical Union,
since 1925 and that his application was at the national office in Indi-
anapolis, Indiana. The records of the Typographical Union, sub-
mitted in evidence, show payment of dues by Friedenberg for the
month of July 1937. It is clear, therefore, that the Typographical
Union represented a majority of the employees of the respondent in
the composing-room unit during the period from July 24 to 28, 1937,.
inclusive.
There were introduced in evidence applications for membership in
the International Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America
signed by 18 of the employees in the pressroom unit. Of the 18 appli-
cations, 11 bore' dates prior to July 23, 1937; 3 were dated either
July 27 or 28, 1937; and 4 were undated. Wisdom, secretary of the
Pressmen's Union, testified that the undated applications were signed'
on or prior to July 28. We find that the Pressmen's Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees of the respondent in the press-
room unit during the period from July 24 to July 28, 1937, inclusive.
There were introduced in evidence photostatic copies of applica-
tions for membership in the Bindery Union, signed by 14 employees
in the bindery unit. Of the 14 applications, 6 were dated prior to
July 27, 1937; 7 were dated "July 1937," and one was undated.
The undisputed testimony was to the effect that all the applications
were signed prior to July 28. We find that the Bindery Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees of the respondent in the bindery
unit on July 28, 1937.
The strike-benefit rolls of the Typographical Union and the Press-
men's Union, the dues records of the Typographical Union, and state-
ments signed in January 1938 by a majority of the persons employed
in the bindery department on July 28, 1937, show that a majority of
the persons employed on July 28, 1937, in the composing room, the
pressroom, and the bindery department, respectively, continued there-
after to desire to be represented by the respective Unions.
As we have noted above, a majority of the employees in the three
units went on strike on July 28, 1937, and the strike was still in
effect at the time of the hearing. Since Section 2 (3) of the Act
expressly provides that the term "employee," when used in the Act,
shall include any individual whose work has ceased "as a consequence
of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute," the persons
who went on strike retained their status as employees. It is clear
that the Unions continued to represent a majority of the employees
in the respective units at all times subsequent to July 28, 1937, unless
individuals who were taken on subsequent to July 28 to fill the jobs
of the strikers are also to be considered with regard to the question
of majority representation. The record shows that by October 1937
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent had taken on a number of such individuals, and there
is no showing that any of them desired representation by the re-
spective Unions.
We considered in a recent case T a question analagous to that here,
presented. We there held that individuals taking the jobs made
vacant by a current strike might not participate in the selection of
the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit which included the strikers. In reaching this conclusion, we
stated in part as follows :
If those who have, during the currency of the strike, replaced
the strikers are permitted to vote, and the strikers are also per
mitted to vote, possibly twice as many as can be employed may
participate in the election. This was not the intent of Congress.
Yet the intent that strikers should remain employees for the
purposes of the Act is clear. By preserving to employees who
go on strike their status as employees and the rights guaranteed
by the Act, the Act contemplates that during the, currency of a
strike, the employer and the striking employees may settle the
strike, with the striking employees returning to their former
jobs, displacing individuals hired to fill those jobs during the
strike. Strikes are commonly settled in this manner. The hold
of individuals who, during the currency of a strike, occupy po-
sitions vacated by striking employees is notably tenuous. To
accord such individuals, while the strike is still current, a voice
in the selection of the bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit would be contrary to the purposes of the
Act and the ends contemplated by it, since it might effectively
foreclose the possibility of the settlement of the labor dispute,
whether by the return of the striking employees to their jobs
and the displacement of the individuals occupying those jobs
during the strike, or by some other settlement agreement, a pos-
sibility which the Act contemplates should not be foreclosed
during the currency of the strike. Accordingly we hold that
such individuals are not eligible to participate in the selection
of the bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
We conclude on the basis of the principles above set forth that the
individuals taken on to fill the jobs of the striking employees may
not properly be considered in any determination of the question of
majority representation by the Unions.
7 Matter of A. Sartorius ci Co., Inc. and United Mine Worlcers of America , District 50,
Local 12090 , 10 N. L. R. B. 493.
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 815
We find that on July 24, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Typographical Union was the duly designated representative of the
majority of the employees of the respondent in the composing-room
unit. Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was therefore at all
such times the exclusive representative of all the employees'in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
We find that on July 24, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Pressmen's Union was the duly designated representative of the ma-
jority of the employees of the respondent in the pressroom unit.
Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was therefore at all such
times the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
We find that on July 28, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Bindery Union was the duly designated representative of the major-
ity of the employees of the respondent in the bindery unit. Pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was therefore at all such times the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusals to bargain
On the morning of July 26, 1937, Harry Reifin, Walter Wisdom,
and A. J. LaFramboise, representing the Typographical Union, the
Pressmen's Union, and the Bindery Union, respectively, went to the
office of Maurice Aronsson, the respondent's president, and talked
with him for about two hours. The testimony is conflicting with
regard to precisely what was said and done at the conference. We
conclude on the basis of the evidence as a whole that Aronsson stated
at the outset that he knew that the Unions wanted a closed shop and
said that he had ordered his superintendent to close the plant that
night; that the Union representatives requested Aronsson to sign con-
tracts which contained terms identical to those set forth in contracts 8
which the Unions had signed with a number of other printing estab-
lishments in Detroit; that Aronsson, although indicating that he had
no objection to certain of the terms of the contracts, stated that he
would not sign the agreements with the Unions until his principal
competitors also signed such agreements; and that Aronsson stated
that he would sign the union contracts and pay more than the union
S The contracts provided , among other things, for a closed shop, a 40-hour week,
minimum wage rates, and overtime pay.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scale of wages as soon as his competitors agreed to the union
conditions.
Reifin testified that at the conference on July 26 Aronsson not only
refused to sign the proposed agreements, but that he stated that the
respondent would not sign "any agreement" with the Unions until
his principal competitors had been organized. Aronsson denied at
the hearing that he had made such a statement. It is to be noted in
this connection that the contracts which the Unions had with other
printing establishments in Detroit contained identical terms and the
evidence shows that the efforts of the representatives of the Unions
on July 26 were directed towards having the respondent sign the
standard contracts. There is no indication in the record that the
Unions were on July 26 interested in obtaining any other type of
contracts. We conclude that even if Aronsson stated that the re-
spondent would not sign any agreement, he' meant thereby that the
respondent would not sign the proposed contracts.
Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the respondent did
not refuse to bargain collectively with the Unions on July 26.
Although the respondent on that date refused to sign the proposed
contracts and stated that it would not do so unless its principal com-
petitors agreed to the conditions set forth in the proposed contracts,
we think this was in effect a refusal based on the ground that the
respondent could not meet the proposed terms owing to the existing
competitive conditions. The evidence shows that under the proposed
contracts the respondent's operating costs would have been substan-
tially increased. The evidence does not establish that the respondent
refused to negotiate with the Unions on July 26 or that it would have
refused to consider the signing of contracts containing terms differing
from those set forth in the proposed contracts.
As noted above, the meeting on July 26 took place in the morning
and lasted for approximately 2 hours. That afternoon Reifin sent
Aronsson a telegram stating that the Unions understood that the re-
spondent intended to close its plant and that they would consider a
lock-out to be a hostile act. On receiving the telegram, Aronsson
communicated with Reifin by telephone and informed him that the
respondent did not contemplate closing its plant. Aronsson further
stated that he would call a meeting of the employees on the following
day, July 27, and notify them that the respondent had no objection
to their joining the Unions.
In accordance with Aronsson's statement to Reifin, a meeting of
employees was set for July 27 after working hours. Shortly prior
to such time, Reifin and a number of other union organizers appeared
at the plant to attend the meeting. Aronsson objected to the presence
of the union organizers and engaged in a heated discussion with
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 817
them. When the union organizers refused to leave the plant, Arons-
son called off the meeting and stated to some of the employees who
had gathered to listen to the discussion, "you can all go to Reifin for
your bread and butter."
Following the above incident, many of the employees met with the
union organizers at a nearby restaurant. At this time, an employees'
committee, consisting of two representatives of each union, was
selected and authorized to call a strike or take any other action it
deemed necessary if an agreement could not be reached with the
respondent.
On the morning of July 28, Reifin, Wisdom, and LaFramboise
again called upon Aronsson. Although there is a conflict in the testi-
mony as to precisely what occurred at this time, it appears that in
substance the parties adhered to the positions taken by them on July
26. At the close of the meeting with Aronsson, the union organizers
informed the1 employees' committee of Aronsson's position. It there-
upon ordered that a strike be called. Accordingly, a majority of the
employees in the composing-room, the pressroom, and the bindery
department, went on strike on the afternoon of July 28.
On August 9, 1937, Reifin wrote to Aronsson, seeking a meeting of
the union representatives and the respondent, "with the purpose in
mind of coming to a solution of our differences through collective bar-
gaining." Aronsson replied, stating "your letter of August 9 has been
conveyed to me over long distance and the contents carefully noted."
Aronsson thereafter agreed to meet with Reifin, Wisdom, LaFram-
boise, and the employees' committee on August 19. At this meeting,
Aronsson offered to reinstate approximately half of the strikers, to
reinstate the rest as needed, and to give a 10-per cent increase in
wages. He reiterated, however, his refusal to sign the agreements
proposed by the Unions until his competitors had been "signed up."
It was agreed at the meeting that Aronsson's proposal should be sub-
mitted to the strikers and that their decision should be reported to
Aronsson on August 23. We have noted above that Aronsson, with-
out waiting to hear from the Unions, sent on August 20 to each of
the individual strikers a letter attacking the union organizers, urging
the strikers to return to work, and stating that the respondent would
not agree to a closed shop. Under such circumstances, there exists
serious doubt as to whether Aronsson was in fact bargaining in good
faith with the Unions on August 19. In view of the facts and con-
clusions set forth below, we think, however, that no definite determi-
nation is necessary on this point.
On August 23 the union representatives reported to Aronsson that
the strikers had decided to reject the proposal made by Aronsson 'on
August 19.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 2, 1937, the respondent filed in the Circuit Court for
Wayne County, Michigan, a bill of complaint seeking a temporary
injunction to restrain the Unions and the striking employees from
picketing, boycotting, and various other acts. On the same day the
Court issued an order to show cause why the injunction should not be
granted and also issued a temporary restraining order pending a
hearing on the order to show cause.
On September 4, the Union representatives, Aronsson, and counsel
for the parties met in an attempt to reach an agreement. Aronsson
offered to reinstate certain of the strikers immediately at a 10-per cent
increase in wages and to reinstate others of the strikers as needed. He
also suggested a preferential hiring arrangement as a substitute for
the closed shop. He refused, however, to meet many of the terms
sought by the Unions. The meeting ended without an agreement
between the parties.
On September 21, 1937, the Circuit Court for Wayne County, after
a hearing granted a temporary injunction restraining the Unions
and the strikers from picketing the respondent's plant and from
boycotting.
On October 4, another conference was held at which Aronsson, the
union representatives, and attorneys for the respondent and for the
Unions were present. The Unions offered to abandon their request
for a closed shop if the respondent would agree to hire new employees
through the Unions, as Aronsson had suggested on September 4.
Aronsson, however, had changed his mind, and was no longer willing
to agree to a preferential hiring arrangement. After further dis-
cussion, Davidow, the attorney for the Unions, asked Aronsson to
recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining representatives of
the employees in the respective units, and suggested that a settlement
might be reached upon the basis of such recognition. Aronsson re-
fused to grant exclusive recognition and stated that he would not rec-
ognize the Unions as representing anybody except their own members.
He thereupon declared that he was through with the conference and
left the room where the conference was being held. At the insistence
of his attorneys, Aronsson returned and certain provisions of the
standard Pressmen's Union contract were discussed. It was finally
decided that the attorneys for the parties should attempt to reach an
agreement.
Although there is some slight indication in the'record that an elec-
tion was mentioned at the meeting on October 4, the undisputed testi-
mony is that the respondent did not at such time raise any question as
to the majority status of the Unions.
On October 5, 1937, Davidow sent to Max Smitt and Orville H.
Foster, Jr., attorneys for the respondent, a letter setting forth modifi-
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 819
cations of the agreements previously proposed by the Unions which
would be acceptable to the Unions. The agreements as thus modified
provided, among other- things, for preferential hiring through the
Unions and for recognition of the Unions as exclusive bargaining
representatives. By letter dated October 6, 1937, Smitt and Foster
rejected a number of the suggested terms, including the proposal for
recognition of the Unions as exclusive bargaining representatives.
Davidow replied by a letter dated October 9, 1937, in which he stated
his belief that Aronsson had not been dealing "in good faith with his
.employees, through the representatives of their own choosing." He
further stated that the Unions were, however, "ready and willing to
resume negotiations looking toward an amicable settlement of the con-
troversy with the hope of restoring peace." Smitt and Foster replied
by letter dated October 12, 1937, in which they stated, among other
things, that the respondent had never "refused to deal collectively or
separately with its employees" ; that it stood "ready and willing to
continue to do so"; that "anytime the company employees desire to
hold an election to determine who shall bargain for them . . . we
shall recognize such bargaining agency, providing, of course, that
the election be properly held and without influence upon the employees
by anyone." In conclusion, the letter stated :
... Also the irresponsibility of your union t lients is
evident from the fact that, in spite of the Court's Injunction,
they have continued to picket and boycott. Certainly you can-
not expect our client now to enter into a contract with anyone
who does not respect a judgment of the Court. It is self-
evident that if they do not respect a judgment or (sic) our
Courts, that we would be without an adequate forum in which
to seek relief if they should violate the contract.
It would, therefore, seem that the only safe course would be
for our client to refrain from entering into any written contract
at this time.
At the hearing, Aronsson testified that there was pending on
October 12, 1937, an order against Reifin to show cause why he
should not be held in contempt for violation of the injunction issued
by the Circuit Court for Wayne County against picketing and boy-
cotting and that this was the reason for the inclusion in the letter of
October 12 of the portion of the letter quoted above.
Late in November 1937, A. L. Faulkner, of the United States
Department of Labor, met with the respondent and the union repre-
sentatives in an attempt to settle the strike. As a basis of settlement,
Aronsson proposed that the closed shop should be "'out' at present" ;
that the respondent would reemploy such of the strikers as it could
use and might designate; and that the Unions would "discontinue all
.820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfavorable publicity, newspaper and otherwise . . ." The pro-
posal was rejected by the strikers. There is nothing in the record
which suggests that in these negotiations the respondent was willing
to recognize the Unions as exclusive bargaining representatives or to
enter into any contracts with the Unions.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that although the
respondent through its officers and attorneys met with and corres-
ponded with the representatives of the Unions, it refused on October
4, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Unions
as exclusive representatives of the employees in the appropriate units.
The refusal so to bargain was definitely and unequivocally stated at
the meeting on October 4 and in the letter of October 6. Although
the respondent's attorneys stated in their letter of October 12 to
Davidow that "anytime the company employees desire to hold an
election to determine who shall bargain for them . . . we shall
recognize such bargaining agency, providing, of course, that the
election be properly held . ..," this statement cannot in the
light of all the circumstances be construed as indicating a willingness
on the part of the respondent to bargain collectively with the Unions
on the basis of exclusive representation.9 Indeed, as noted above, the
concluding portion of the same letter stated definitely that the
respondent would not enter into any written contract at that time.
The contention of the respondent that it was justified in refusing to
enter into any written agreement because of the alleged "irresponsi-
bility" of the Unions 10 and because of the pending hearing on the
order to show cause which had been issued against Reifin 11 is without
merit. It is clear, therefore, that by October 12, the respondent was
not only unwilling to bargain with the Unions as exclusive bargain-
ing representatives of the employees in the appropriate units, but it
was also unwilling to embody any understanding reached in a bind-
ing agreement.
° The record shows that by the term "properly held" the respondent designated an
election in which the strikers would be ineligible to vote and the persons hired to fill their
places would be eligible.
10 There is evidence in the record that Reifin was responsible for the commission of
acts in violation of the injunction or of the restraining order Assuming, without find-
ing, that this was the case, we think the respondent was not thereby relieved of its
obligations under Section 8 (5) of the Act As we have held, "An employer is not
privileged to deny collective bargaining to his employees merely because he views the
union which represents them as irresponsible ; and the alleged irresponsibility is likewise
irrelevant in determining whether the respondent was under an obligation to embody
understandings in a signed agreement." Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin
Workers of North America, Lodge Nos 64, 1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R. B. 783, 802 See
National Labor Relations Board v. Remington-Rand, Inc, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A 2d,
1938) ; Matter of Rabhor Company, Inc., a Corporation and International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers Union, 1 N L. R. B. 470, 478.
It It is to be noted that even after the hearing on the order to show cause, the
respondent made no move to resume negotiations or to inform the Unions that it would
consider entering into written agreements.
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 821
As we have pointed out in numerous cases, an employer cannot
fulfill its obligation to a labor organization which is the exclusive
representative of the employees in an appropriate unit by offering
to bargain with that labor organization for its members only. 2 We
have also held that the Act imposes upon the employer not only the
duty to meet with the duly designated representatives of its employees
and to bargain with them in good faith in a genuine attempt to
achieve an understanding on the proposals and counterproposals
advanced, but also the duty, if any understanding should be reached,
to embody that understanding in a binding agreement.13
We find that on October 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Typographical
Union, the Pressmen's Union, and the Bindery Union, as the ex-
clusive representatives of its employees in the respective appropriate
units in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment. We find that the respondent
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that the respondent's refusal to bargain collec-
tively on October 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter, prolonged the
strike which began on July 28, 1937. On October 4, the parties
differed 'sharply on several important substantive questions, but
these questions did not appear to have been incapable of solution
had the orderly processes of collective bargaining in good faith been
pursued. Both at the October 4 conference and in Davidow's letter
of October 5 the Unions stated that a preferential shop, which
Aronsson had suggested at the September 4 conference, would be
acceptable to them. The Unions were prepared to depart from their
position of insisting upon the terms of the formal union contracts,
which they had assumed prior to the calling of the strike. The possi-
bility that continued negotiations would have resulted in an adjust-
ment of the differences between the parties was substantially less-
ened by the respondent's refusal to recognize the Unions as exclusive
bargaining agencies. This conclusion is readily apparent from a
reading of the correspondence between Davidow and the respondent's
attorneys dated October 5, 6, and 9. The prospects of a settlement
were even more seriously impaired by the respondent's blunt asser-
'2Nattional Labor Relations Board v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company , 98 F (2d) 18
(C. C. A. 9th, 1938), enforcing the Board 's Order in Matter of Biles -Coleman Lumber
Company and Puget Sound District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers , 4 N. L. R. B.
679; Matter of Fedders Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of
Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of N. A., Lodge 1753, 7 N L R. B 817; Matter of Burnside
Steel Foundry Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America, Lodge No . 1719, 7 N. L. R. B. 714.
Is Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America , Local Union No. 159, 2 N. L R. B. 39.
187930-39-vol. 13--53
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion that it would not come to a written agreement with the Unions.
This statement effectively put an end to the negotiations which had
been resumed at the beginning of October.14
C. The alleged discriminations with regard to hire and tenure of
employment
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent has dis-
criminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Daniel Lamson, Mrs. Daniel Lamson, Minnie Silverman, Edwin
Markhoff, Sadie Markhoff, and R. L. Borgis, in that it has indicated
by statements and acts that it never intends to reinstate said em-
ployees. The said six individuals were among those persons who
went on strike on July 28, 1937.
Reifin testified that at various of the conferences discussed above
the respondent took the position that it would never reinstate the
six persons in question. Although the evidence is conflicting as to
whether or not the respondent in fact took that position, we find
it unnecessary to make any determination on this issue. None of the
six persons applied for reinstatement at any time. We are con-
vinced on the basis of the evidence presented that the six striking
employees in question had determined not to return to work until
the strike as a whole was ended and hence that any position which
the respondent may have taken was not the reason they failed to
return to work.
We find that the respondent has not encouraged or discouraged
membership in a labor organization by discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure of employment of Daniel Lamson, Mrs. Daniel
Lamson, Minnie Silverman, Edwin Markhoff, Sadie Markhoff, and
R. L. Borgis.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent, set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to and have prolonged labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
14 See Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d) 134
(C. C. A. 4th, 1937), enforcing the Board 's Order In Matter of Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator
Company and Local No . 455, United Brick and Clay Workers of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 618;
National Labor Relations Board v . Carlisle Lumber Co., 94 F. (2d) 138 ( C. C. A. 9th,
1937), enforcing the Board 's Order in Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber &
Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington and Associated Employees of
Onalaska, Inc., Intervener, 2 N. L. R . B. 248, 276.
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
823
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the condition which)
existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that on October 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter,
the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Unions as
the representatives of the employees in the respective appropriate
units. We shall order the respondent, upon request, to bargain
collectively with the Unions as the exclusive representatives of the
employees in the respective appropriate units in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
We have found that the unfair labor practice of the respondent
in refusing to bargain collectively with the Unions on October 4,
1937, and at all times thereafter, prolonged the strike which began
on July 28, 1937. In order to restore the status quo as it existed
prior to the time the respondent committed the unfair labor practices
and in order to enable the processes of collective bargaining to func-
tion, we shall order the respondent to offer reinstatement, upon
application, to the employees who went on strike on July 28, 1937,
and who have not since been fully reinstated, to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, in the manner set forth below, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges: 15
All, or such number as may be necessary, of the persons hired by
the respondent on or after October 4, 1937,18 and not in the employ
of the respondent on said date, shall be dismissed to provide employ-
ment for those to be offered reinstatement. If thereupon, despite
such reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment available
for the employees to be offered reinstatement, all available positions
shall be distributed among such employees without discrimination
against _any employee because of his union affiliation or activities,
following such a system of seniority or other procedure to such
extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the respond-
ent's business. Those employees remaining after such distribution,
15 See Matter of McEaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
Tin Workers of North America, Local No , 1199,, 10 N. L. R. B 33; National Labor
Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Company, J4 F. (2d) 138 (C. C. A. 9th, 1937), en-
forcing Board ' s Order in Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber & Sawmill
Workers' Union, Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington, and Associated Employees of Onalaska,
Inc, Intervener, 2 N. L. R. B. 248; Black Diamond Steamship Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Board, 94 F. (2d ) 875 (C . C. A. 2d, 1938 ), enforcing Board ' s Order in
Matter of Black Diamond Steamship Corporation and Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Asso-
ciation, Local No. 33, 3 N. L. R. B. 84.
16 The date on which the respondent first refused to bargain collectively.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed
upon a preferential list with priority determined among them by
such system of seniority or other procedure as has been heretofore
followed by the respondent, and shall thereafter, in accordance with
such list, be offered employment in their former or substantially
equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and before
other persons are hired for such work.
We shall also order the respondent to make whole the employees
to be offered reinstatement for any loss of pay they may suffer by
reason of the respondent's refusal , if any, following the issuance
of the Order set forth below, to reinstate them or place them upon
a preferential list, as provided above, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally slave
earned as wages during the period from five (5) days after his
application for reinstatement to the date on which he is reinstated or
placed upon a preferential list, less his net earnings,17 if any, during
said period.
In its Exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial
Examiner, the respondent contends that the "strikers had been
offered reinstatement on four or five different occasions, and what-
ever right to reinstatement they might have had has been lost and
forfeited." This contention is without merit. Section 2 (3) of the
Act provides that the term "employee" shall include any individual
whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with,
any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice,
and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equiva-
lent employment. The individuals in question ceased work as a
consequence of a current labor dispute and, as we have found above,
the strike has been prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor
practices. Offers of reinstatement made under such circumstances
clearly do not affect the employee status of the strikers or their right
to reinstatement.
The evidence does not, moreover, establish that the conduct of
the strikers was such as to affect their right to reinstatement. We
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the un-
lawful refusal of his application for reinstatement and the consequent necessity of his
seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union,
Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State,
county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as
provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the
amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State,
county, municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for
such work-relief projects.
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 825
have in a number of cases in the exercise of our power, equitable in
nature, declined to order reinstatement of strikers. In one case, a
striker had been indicted for shooting and wounding a fellow
employee during the course of the strike.Y8 In another, six strikers
had pleaded guilty to a felony involving conspiracy to destroy
property, and two had pleaded guilty to the felony of bringing
stolen dynamite into West Virginia, and converting it to their own
use; all eight had been sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in jail .-
There is, however, no basis in the record for concluding that the
conduct of the strikers in the present case is analogous to the conduct
in these instances. The only testimony in the instant case concern-
ing violence was that of Aronsson to the effect that "a stone was
thrown through the door" and that there was "a fight between a
picket and one of the workers." 20 The other testimony at the hear-
ing relative to the conduct of strikers was to the effect that before
and after the injunction order issued by the Circuit Court for Wayne
County, Michigan, the strikers had engaged in picketing. We think
it clear, particularly in view of the unfair labor practices engaged in
by the respondent, that any such conduct should not be deemed a
bar to reinstatement of the strikers and that we would not be war-
ranted on the basis thereof to decline to order reinstatement. 21
It is to be noted that the respondent has not contended in its
answer to the complaint or in its Exceptions to the Intermediate
Report of the Trial Examiner that any acts of the strikers constitute
a bar to their reinstatement. Indeed, the offers of reinstatement
made by the respondent at various times as set forth in Section III
above show that the respondent has not considered any acts of the
strikers as being of a character which would bar reinstatement.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
18 Matter of Kentucky Firebrick Company and United Brick and Clay Workers of
America, Local Union No. 510, 3 N. L. R . B. 455.
18 Matter of Standard Lime & Stone Company and Branch No . 175, Quarry Workers
Internatsonal Union of North America, 5 N. L R. B. 106.
20 A number of the affidavits which were filed in support of the respondent 's bill of
complaint for an injunction alleged that specified strikers had assaulted persons making
the affidavits . The persons who made the affidavits did not testify at the hearing herein.
We think it clear that the allegations in the affidavits are not to be given weight in
the present case. Moreover , even if weight were given to such allegations , the con-
clusions set forth herein would not be affected
a See National Labor Relations Board v. Stackpole Carbon Company, 105 F. ( 2d) 167,
May 12 , 1939, enforcing the Board 's Order in Matter of Stackpole Carbon Company and
United Electrical & Radio Workers of America , Local No 502, 6 N. L. R. B. 171; National
Labor Relations Board v. Arthur J. Colten and Abe J. Colman , Co-Partners doing business
as Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company , 105 F. ( 2d) 179, June 28, 1939 , enforcing the
Board's Order in Matter of Arthur J Colten , and A . J Colman, co-partners, doing busi-
ness as Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, 6 N. L. R. B. 355.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONcr usIONS OF LAW
1. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Detroit Printing Press-
men's Union No. 2, and Bookbinders and Bindery Workers Union
No. 20, of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All the employees of the respondent in its composing room,
pressroom, and bindery, respectively, constitute three separate units
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Detroit Printing Press-
men's Union No. 2, and Bookbinders and Bindery Workers Union
No. 20 of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, respec-
tively, are and at all times since July 28, 1937, have been the exclu-
sive representatives of all the employees of the respondent in such
units, for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on October 4, 1937, and at all times thereafter, to
bargain collectively with Detroit Typographical Union No. 18,
Detroit Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2, and Bookbinders and
Bindery Workers Union No. 20 of the International Brotherhood of
Bookbinders, respectively, as the exclusive representatives of its
employees in such units, the respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, with-
in the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Aronsson Printing Company, Detroit, Michigan, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
ARONSSON PRINTING COMPANY 827
with Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 as the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in its composing room, with Detroit Printing
Pressmen's Union No. 2 as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in its pressroom, and with Bookbinders and Bindery Work-
ers Union No. 20, of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in its bindery;
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon application, offer to those employees who went on strike
on July 28, 1937, and who have not since been fully reinstated, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights or privileges, in the manner provided in the section entitled
"The remedy" above; and place those employees for whom employ-
ment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in the
manner set forth in said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer
them employment as it becomes available ;
(b) Make whole the employees specified in subsection (a) above
for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's
refusal, if any, following the issuance of this Order, to reinstate or
place them upon a preferential list, pursuant to subsection (a)
above, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages during the period
from five (5) days after his application for reinstatement to the date
on which he is reinstated or placed upon the preferential list, less
his net earnings during said period, deducting, however, from the
amount otherwise due to each of said employees, monies received by
said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over
the amount so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Detroit Typographical
Union No. 18, Detroit Printing Pressmen's Union No. 2, and Book-
binders and Bindery Workers Union No. 20, of the International
Brotherhood of Bookbinders, respectively, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representatives of the employees in its composing room, press-
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room, and bindery, respectively, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other conditions of employment;
(d) Immediately post in conspicuous places in its plant, and main-
tain for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, notices stating that
the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in,para-
graphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order and that it will take the affirma-
tive action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint,
in so far as they allege that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be,
and the same hereby are, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEIsERsoN took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.