Chicago Typographical Union No. 16

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 231 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 231
closely affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, it
is an agent of labor organizations within the meaning of the Act and therefore
accountable as such for unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4).
The short answer to this is that for liability to attach to an agent, as an agent, the
acts for which he is liable must be performed as such agent and in that capacity.
In this instance, the alleged acts of picketing and threats to picket the various named
employers, if committed by the Tugmen, were committed in its individual capacity
and not as an agent. There are presented here neither allegation nor proof that
the Tugmen acted in behalf of either or both the Marine Firemen, the Dredge
Workers, the I L.A., or the AFL or any of them.
Moreover, mere affiliation with a labor organization does not in and of itself
make the affiliated organization a labor organization. Tugmen is a complete
organization standing alone. True, it derives certain benefits and support from its
affiliation with I L.A and through the I L.A. with the AFL-CIO. But, unless it
can be shown that Tugmen is an agent of I.L.A. or AFL-CIO in the commission
of the alleged unfair labor practices, it cannot be held answerable for these activities
unless and until such agency has been made out or until the Tugmen can be held
to be itself a representative of employees within the meaning of the Act.i5
Accordingly, as stated above, I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove
by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the Tugmen represents a sub-
stantial number of employees within the meaning of the Act. The General Counsel
having failed to prove that the Tugmen is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act, I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed.1e
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Twin City Barge and Towing Company, Norris Grain Company, and Pullman
Trust and Savings Bank are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Licensed Tugmen 's and Pilots ' Protective Association of America , AFL-CIO,
is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint heretofore filed in this proceeding be, and
the same hereby is, dismissed.
15 I do not find Matson Navigation Co v Seafarers Union, 100 Fed Supp 730, 29 LRRM
2354, dispositive of the situation here as contended by the General Counsel. That case
involved picketing by the Brotherhood of Marine Engineers, an affiliate of the Seafarers
International Union, which in turn was affiliated with the AFL. At that time rivalry
existed between AFL and CIO and between their affiliated unions and more specifically
between the AFL's Seafarers and CIO Marine unions The picketing ii as retaliation by
AFL against, and Seafarers against, CIO picketing and Marine Engineers' members were
doing the picketing. The court held that there the Marine Engineers were not immunized
because It represented only supervisors as it was an agent of Seafarers and AFL and that
the picketing was instigated at the instance of the Seafarers. We do not have such a
situation here. Neither the LL A. nor the AFL-CIO were in any way involved In the
activity which the complaint alleges constitutes unfair labor practices.
1e In these circumstances I do not find it necessary to discuss the alleged unfair labor
practices
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO and Central
Typesetting and Electrotyping Co. Case No. 13-CD-76. August
23, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 30, 1961, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
138 NLRB No. 32.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Azt, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Chicago Typo-
graphical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives,,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
any individual employed by Central Typesetting and Electrotyping
Co., Chicago, Illinois, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course
of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities
or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Company to assign the
operation of the camera or film development work on the Brightype
process to employees in the bargaining unit represented by Chicago
Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, rather than to employees in
the bargaining unit represented by Chicago Photoengravers Union
No. 5, International Photoengravers Union of North America.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post a copy of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" 3
in conspicuous places in its meeting hall and business office in Chicago,
Illinois, where notices and communications to members are custom-
arily posted and, the Employer willing, in conspicuous places and on
bulletin boards in the plant of Central Typesetting and Electrotyping
Company, Chicago, Illinois, where notices to employees are custoln-
I The Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied as , in our opinion, the record,
exceptions, and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties.
2 As requested by the General Counsel, the Order will be phrased in the existing
language of the Act, rather than in the language existing at the time the charge was
filed. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of Amersca, et al. (Overnite Transportation Company), 130 NLRB 1007, 1008-1009
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order."
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 233
arily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being signed by a
duly authorized officer of the Typographers, be immediately posted
and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 16,
AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CENTRAL TYPESETTING AND
ELECTROTYPING CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual
employed by Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Co., Chicago,
Illinois, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or
to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or
require Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Co. to assign the
operation of the camera or the film development work on the
Brightype process to employees in the bargaining unit represented
by this Union, rather than to employees in the bargaining unit
represented by Chicago Photoengravers Union No. 5, Interna-
tional Photoengravers Union of North America.
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 16, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago 3, Illinois,
Telephone Number, Central 6-9660, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 5, 1959, Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Co., herein called
the Employer , filed charges , and on December 8, 1959 , amended charges , against
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Typog-
raphers or the Respondent, alleging that the Typographers had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136. Thereafter, pursuant
to Section 10(k) of the Act, and Section 102.90 of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, a hearing was held before Benjamin K.
Blackburn, hearing officer, on January 21 and March 7, 1960. On June 24, 1960,
the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute (127 NLRB 1504) in
which it held inter alia that employees performing Brightype work, the subject
of the dispute, are appropriately included in the bargaining unit of the Employer's
employees represented by the Photoengravers Union and not in the bargaining unit
represented by the Typographers. The Board directed the parties to notify the
Regional Director within 10 days of the steps which they had taken to comply with
the Decision and Determination of Dispute.
On July 27, 1960, the General Counsel issued the instant complaint against the
Respondent alleging that the Typographers failed to comply with the Board's 10(k)
Decision and Determination of Dispute and violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
The complaint, as amended , alleged that on or about November 10, 1959 (or in
the alternative, a date of August 1959), and on or about November 2, 1959, and
at all times since, the Typographers has induced and encouraged employees of the
Employer to refuse to perform services in the Employer's Brightype department, with
an object of requiring the Employer to assign Brightype work to employees who are
members of or represented by the Typographers rather than to employees who are
members of or represented by the Photoengravers.
On September 8, 1960, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider at Chicago, Illinois, all parties appearing and being represented by coun-
sel. At this hearing the Trial Examiner declined, in sum, to receive further evidence
on any legal or factual issue litigated in the 10(k) proceeding and resolved by the
Board in its Decision and Determination of Dispute. However, after the close of
the complaint hearing, the Trial Examiner concluded, contrary to his initial ruling,
that the Board's decision in the case of International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, et al. (Worcester Telegram Publishing Company, Inc.), 125 NLRB 759, made
material and admissible in the unfair labor practice hearing further evidence rele-
vant to the issues raised by the complaint. The Trial Examiner therefore ordered
the hearing reopened for the reception of such evidence. Pursuant to that order
another hearing was held in Chicago on November 16, 1960, at which all parties
were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to offer additional evi-
dence bearing on those issues. The Typographers presented such evidence.
On January 9, 1961, while the case was pending before the Trial Examiner await-
ing the filing of briefs, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision
in the case of N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local
1212 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broad-
(asting System), 364 U.S. 573, which involved a determination as to the scope of
the Board's duties in resolving jurisdictional disputes of the kind here presented.
On January 19, 1960, the Typographers filed a motion with the Board requesting,
on the authority of the court decision, that the 10(k) hearing be reopened in the
instant matter. On May 5, 1961, proceedings before the Trial Examiner being
meanwhile stayed, the Board issued its order denying the Typographers' motion.
The parties were then granted until June 9, 1961, to file briefs with the Trial Ex-
aminer Briefs were filed on or before such date by the General Counsel, the
Typographers, and the Photoengravers, and have been considered.
Upon the record thus made, and after consideration of all the evidence, the
contentions of the parties, and from my observation of the witnesses who testified
before me, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Company is an Illinois corporation main-
taining its principal office and place of business in the city of Chicago, Illinois, where
it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of photoengraving typed forms and
electrotypes.
During the past calendar year, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
the Employer purchased and caused to be transferred and delivered to its place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000,
which goods and materials originated outside the State of Illinois.
During the past calendar year the Employer sold, shipped, and distributed goods,
products , and materials valued in excess of $100 ,000 directly to firms within the
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 235
State of Illinois , each of which during the same period sold and shipped goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly outside the State of Illinois.
It is admitted that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, and Chicago Photoengravers
Union No. 5, International Photoengravers Union of North America, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The case arises from a dispute between the Typographers and ,the Photoengravers
as to which union should perform the camera and film development work in connec-
tion with the Brightype process.
For a number of years the Employer has recognized and dealt with the Typog-
raphers as the collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's composing room
employees , and with the Photoengravers as the bargaining representative of the
Employer's photoengraving employees. Neither labor organization has been certi-
fied by the Board. By oral agreement the Employer follows, with some deviation,
the terms of the Typographers' contracts with the Franklin Association, an em-
ployer association-although the Employer is not a member of that organization
With respect to the Photoengravers, the Employer has been under a series of written
contracts with that organization by virtue of membership in the Chicago Photo-
engravers Association.
Brightype is a method, recently developed, of producing photoengraving plates,
involving the filming of a type or other print form from which protection nylon
plates for offset lithography and rotogravures may be produced. The equipment
consists of a camera , a darkroom setup , and a locking form or frame in which the
type is placed and photographed. The film is then developed.
The Typographers claim jurisdiction over the entire Brightype process. The Photo-
engravers claim the right to operate the camera and develop the film. The conten-
tion of the Typographers is that the reproduction of the Brightype image by camera
and film development is the equivalent of running a proof of the type-a function
historically that of the composing room; the position of the Photoengravers is that
the operation of cameras and development of film are tasks in this trade historically
and by contract those of a photoengraver . This conflict is reflected in the applicable
collective-bargaining agreements. Thus, the contract between the Photoengravers
and the Chicago Photoengravers Association gives the Photoengravers jurisdiction
over camera work; while the contract between the Typographers and the Franklin
Association for the years 1958-60 assigns to the Typographers jurisdiction over all
Brightype work prior to the making of the plate.
The Employer began to operate the Brightype on an experimental basis in Feb-
ruary 1958, using the employees of another employer. In June of that year both
unions notified the Employer of their claim to the work. The Employer informed
the Photoengravers that when the process ceased to be experimental a photoengraver
would be used. However, when production work tentatively began on July 12, 1958,
composing room personnel were assigned to do the entire operation , including oper-
ating the camera and developing the film.
This situation continued until January 1959 at which time the Photoengravers re-
minded the Employer of its claim to the camera and development work. In response
the Employer , on January 13, 1959, assigned a photoengraver to operate the camera.
The chapel chairman of the Typographers thereupon told the photoengraver, in
the presence of the composing room employee previously assigned to the Brightype,
that the Typographers had jurisdiction over the entire operation and that he (the
chapel chairman) would not permit a typographer to work on the Brightype process
if a photoengraver were present. The photoengraver thereupon withdrew and the
typographer completed the work.
The Employer then initiated discussions with the two unions in an effort to secure
an agreement regarding division of the work, but without success. The Typog-
raphers continued to insist that by contract and assignment the entire Brightype
process was under its jurisdiction ; the Photoengravers persisted in its claim to
operate the camera and to do the developing . Unable to secure agreement, and
disputing the applicability of the Typographers' contract claim, the Employer in
February 1959 announced its intention to award the camera ' and development
operations to the Photoengravers.
In the meantime the Photoengravers filed unfair labor practice charges, sub-
sequently withdrawn, and the Employer filed a representation petition with the
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board seeking an election to determine jurisdiction over the process. This petition
was dismissed by the Regional Director on the ground that the bargaining unit was
not appropriate, and no appeal was taken from the dismissal.
Finally, on October 14, 1959, the Employer notified both unions, by letter, that it
would assign members of the Typographers to the precamera portion of the
Brightype operation, and Photoengraver members to operate the camera and
develop the positives. On October 16, 1959, the Typographers replied by telegram
reiterating its claim, by right of assignment and contract, to the entire process.
In addition, the Typographers announced its intention to take "any and all steps
essential to protect our contractual rights." When the Employer thereafter assigned
photoengravers to the camera work, the typographers' portion of the operation was
not performed, under circumstances described hereinafter. These are the incidents
which, along with the Typographers' failure and refusal to comply with .the Board's
Decision and Determination of Dispute,' are alleged in the complaint as constituting
the violation charged. The briefs indicate that there has been no work performed
on the Brightype since these incidents occurred.
In early November 1959 the Employer filed the original and subsequently the
amended charge, followed in due course by the Board's 10(k) hearing and Decision
and Determination of Dispute. In that decision the Board found that there was
reasonable cause to believe that the Typographers had engaged in a violation of
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. With respect to the merits of the dispute the
Board, after examination of the Brightype process, relevant contractual history, the
skills of the crafts, the traditional duties of the employees, and historical develop-
ments, custom, and usage, determined that the employees operating the Brightype
camera and performing the film development are appropriately included in the
collective-bargaining unit represented by the Photoengravers and not in the col-
lective-bargaining unit represented by the Typographers. There has been no vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute.
Concluding Findings
The Typographers' defenses are procedural and substantive. The substantive
defenses, simply stated, are (1) that the Typographers are entitled by contract, initial
assignment, and the nature of the work to perform the whole of the Brightype oper-
ation; and (2) that there is no substantial evidence that the Typographers induced
employees of the Employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to perform
services.
The procedural points raised by the Typographers were disposed of by the Trial
Examiner by rulings during the course of the hearing, which are fully reflected in
the record. No useful purpose will be served by extended discussion of those
matters here, other than to indicate what was done. The various positions of
the parties, insofar as contrary to the Trial Examiner's rulings, are open to excep-
tion before the Board. In sum, these rulings, believed to state existing law, were
as follows: (1) That a decision by the Board as to which union shall perform
disputed work, made in a Determination of Dispute in a 10(k) proceeding, is not
open to review by a Trial Examiner in the 8(b)(4)(D) proceeding; (2) however,
in determining whether the General Counsel has met the burden of proof in the
unfair labor practice hearing the Trial Examiner is not bound by the factual findings
or conclusions of the Board in the 10(k) decision concerning the Respondent's
conduct, but is required to exercise his independent judgment and evaluation as to
whether the evidence preponderantly substantiates the complaint; and (3) that the
record of the 10(k) hearing, insofar as competent and probative, is available as
evidence to support or rebut the complaint in the 8(b) (4) (D) adjudication; but the
parties are free therein to offer new or additional evidence of appropriate bearing
on the allegations of the complaint?
'Admitted by the answer, confirmed by communication to the Regional Director, and
emphasized by the existence of the present litigation.
2Among the authorities believed_ supportive of these conclusions are the following:
(1) Section 102 92 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, which provides, in
sum, that the 10(k) record and the determination shall be part of the record in the com-
plaint proceeding and subject to Judicial review ; (2) the Board 's rule, self-imposed, to
the effect that the Board is required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a 10(k) determination
(Local 16, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union ( Denali-McCray
Construction Company ), 118 NLRB 109, 112 ) ; ( 3) Local 450, International anon of
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16, AFL-CIO 237
It is clear from the foregoing findings that the Typographers have not complied
with the Board's determination within the meaning of the Bechtel Corporation case,
112 NLRB 812, 814-819, and the Frank W. Hake case, 112 NLRB 1097, 1099-1100.
As previously stated, the Trial Examiner is bound by the Board's determination that
the Typographers are not entitled to insist upon being assigned all the Brightype
work. The only remaining question then is whether Section 8(b) (4) (D) was violated
on the occasions alleged in the complaint as amended, and what the remedy should be.
The Prusinski and Zamer Incidents
The original complaint recites two specific instances of violative conduct by the
Typographers during the period 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. These
were incidents alleged to have occurred, respectively, on November 2 and 10, 1959,
involving employees Ronald Prusinski and William Zamer.
The 10(k) record, as amplified by further evidence submitted by the Typographers
in the instant hearing, establishes the following with respect to such incidents. First
to state their background:
It has been seen that the Typographers have consistently declared their policy
of claiming all work involved in the Brightype process. Thus, in January 1959
when the Employer first attempted to have a photoengraver perform the camera
and film development work on the Brightype, the chapel chairman of the Typog-
raphers (an official whose actions in execution of the Typographers' policy are at-
tributable to the Typographers) refused to permit a typographer to work on the
Brightype under such conditions .3 On October 16, 1959, after the Employer had
announced its determination to divide the work between the two unions, the Typog-
raphers reiterated its claim to the entire operation, simultaneously warning the Em-
ployer that it would take "any and all steps essential to protect our contract rights."
Composing room employee Ronald Prusinski, a member of and a witness for the
Typographers in both hearings, testified, in substance, that successive chapel chair-
men, first Hunt (now president of the Typographers) and then Couture, instructed
him not to work on the Brightype unless he was permitted to perform the entire
operation .4 It was in this context that the incidents alleged in the complaint occurred.
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO ( Slane Industrial Painters ), 123 NLRB 1, 6, enfd. 275
F. 2d 408 (C.A. 5), holding inter alia-as I interpret it-that the Board' s award or
determination in a 10(k) proceeding, like its decision in a Section 9 matter (Morganton
Full Fashioned Hosiery Company and Hu f man Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., 115
NLRB 1267) is not subject to review by a Trial Examiner in a complaint action;
(4) Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (W. J. Hedrick
and H TV. Merschall, Jr, d/b/a Industrial Painters and Sandblasters), 117 NLRB 1301,
1305, and Local 595 , International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, A F.L., and its Business Agent, W. B. Sanders (Bechtel Corporation),
112 NLRB 812, 814, holding inter alia that if the 10(k) proceeding falls to produce an
adjustment or settlement of the dispute, the only issue to be decided in the 8(b) (4) (D)
proceeding is "whether an unfair labor practice was committed and, if so, what the appro-
priate remedy should be"; (5) International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, et at.
(Worcester Telegram Publishing Company, Inc), 125 NLRB 759, 761, holding-as I
Interpret it-that in determining whether an unfair labor practice was committed , because
of the different standards of proof none of the Board 's findings or conclusions in the
10(k) decision relating to the existence of possible violation are binding on the Trial
Examiner ; that the 10(k) record may be used to establish the allegations of the complaint;
and that new or additional evidence bearing thereon is admissible.
8 A union is responsible for the acts of its steward within the scope of his authority
in the prosecution of union policies . Local # 1150, United Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers of America, etc ., et al . ( Cory Corporation), 84 NLRB 972 ; Service Trades Chauf-
fers. Salesmen , and Helpers , Local 145 , etc. (Howland Dry Goods Company ), 85 NLRB
1037 , footnote 2; Local 761, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Company ), 126 NLRB 123, 125 . See also N.L.R.B. v.
Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Independent (Montauk Iron & Steel Corp .), 290 F. 2d 99 (C.A. 2).
In the Present case Typographers ' President O'Neill notified the Employer in February
1959 , that he had "instructed our chapel chairman to see that all provisions of the
Franklin Association contract are enforced at Central Typesetting Co."
'Specifically, Prusinski 's testimony, from the 10 ( k) proceeding, was that he was told,
"I was not to operate unless I could do all complete process as per contract."
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Zamer Incident
The first, I find, took place around August 1959. This was the occurrence in-
volving Typographer William Zamer.5
The substance of the incident, as reflected in the testimony of Foreman Fiedler
and employee Zamer, not significantly conflicting, is as follows. Zamer, assigned
by Fiedler to operate the Brightype, found a photoengraver at the machine prepared
to operate the camera. As related by Zamer, Foreman Fiedler asked Typographer
Chapel Chairman Couture, "What do we do?" Couture replied, "We go upstairs."
Couture further said that "If the man from the photoengravers is there, we can't
operate . . . the camera . . . because we [are] handling the whole thing." Zamer
did not operate the Brightype that day, "because Mr. Couture thought that as long
as there is a photoengraver down there, we are not supposed to work so we went
upstairs." Foreman Fiedler then assigned Zamer to other work.
The Prusinski Incident
On or about November 2, 1959, Composing Room Foreman Fiedler assigned
typographer Ronald Prusinski to operate the Brightype. When Prusinski arrived at
the darkroom he found a photoengraver there. Informed that the photoengraver
proposed to operate the camera, Prusinski called his chapel chairman, Couture, who,
as Fiedler testified, declined to permit Prusinski to perform any work on the
Brightype under such conditions. Prusinski's testimony, in substantial agreement
with that of Fiedler, is that Couture "told [Fiedler] that it was within our contract
jurisdiction to do the complete processing. If we were not allowed to do the com-
plete process, we wouldn't do any of it " Foreman Fiedler thereupon reassigned
Prusinski to other duties and the Brightype was not operated on that day.6
These two incidents involving Prusinski and Zamer constituted violations of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (D) of the statute. The evidence reflects a policy of the Typographers
Union not to permit Typographers to do any work on the Brightype unless they
performed the complete operation. This policy was implemented at the direction
of the Typographers' authorized representatives, as a consequence of which the
Typographers refused to perform or to permit any work by its members on the
Brightype In this posture of fact, the contention of the Typographers to the effect
that there was no specific direction to Zamer and Prusinski to perform only part of
the Brightype operation is without substance. The position stated by the Typog-
raphers chapel chairman constituted a clear refusal to allow performance of any
portion of the Brightype operation by Typographer members unless they performed
all of the process. Foreman Fiedler thus had no alternative but to reassign Zamer
5There is no doubt that such an incident took place The only question is as to the
time. The original complaint alleged a date of November 10, 1959, based on the testimony
of the Employer's vice president, Edward Christensen , and Composing Room Foreman
Fiedler in the 10( k) hearing . Zamer , a witness for the Typographers in both hearings,
denied that the incident occurred in November. His testimony in the 10 (k) hearing was
that the incident occurred not in November but in July ; In the complaint hearing he
placed it as "around August, I guess, or something like that " In view of Zamer ' s testi-
mony the General Counsel amended the complaint to allege an alternative date of August
1959 for this incident. Both dates are within the statute of limitations, Section 10(b).
'The contents of the charges seem to lend support to Zamer's dates. The first charge,
which alleged the Prusinski Incident of November 2, related hereinafter, was filed by the
Employer on November 5, 1959, and a second on December 8, 1959. The latter reiterated
the Prusinski occurrence and added a further allegation to the effect that on other un-
specified occasions the Typographers caused members to refuse to work on the Brightype.
If the Zamer incident had occurred in the interim between the filing of the two charges, it
seems likely that it would have been specifically mentioned in the second one Upon
consideration of the record evidence , observation of Zamer, and the inherent probabilities,
I conclude that the incident occurred around August 1959, rather than on November 10,
as apparently found by the Board in its 10 ( k) decision
E The quotations are from Prusinski 's testimony in the 10 ( k) hearing In the later
complaint hearing, Prusinski at first testified that he could not remember Couture mak-
ing the statement related . When his previous testimony was called to his attention,
Prusinski testified that he could not remember having given such an answer. Pressed
about the matter, Prusmski stated that his memory would have been clearer on the oc-
casion of his prior testimony It is found that the incident occurred as described in the
test above
LOCAL 4, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 239
and Prusinski to other duties. The incidents constituted (1) a strike, partial in nature,
by the Typographers, and (2) successful inducement and encouragement of em-
ployees to engage in a strike and concerted refusal to perform employment services;
the object being to force or require the Employer to assign camera and film develop-
ment work on the Brightype to the Typographers rather than to the Photoengravers.
Such conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D). The cases of N.L.R.B. v. Inter-
national Rice Milling Co., Inc., et al., 341 U.S. 665; and Joliet Contractors Asso-
ciation, et al. v. N.L.R.B., 202 F. 2d 606 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 346 U.S. 824, cited
by the Respondent, are inapposite. The Joliet Contractors case did not involve a
strike or concerted refusal by employees to refuse to perform services in the course
of their employment (id. 609). The instant case does. In International Rice Milling
the respondent union did not engage in a strike against the employer of the employees
involved or encourage concerted action by them. Here it did both.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Typographers set forth above, occurring in connection with
the operations of Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Company, previously re-
ferred to, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent, Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-
CIO, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, it will be recommended that it
cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO, and Chicago Photoengravers
Union No. 5, International Photoengravers Union of North America, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By engaging in a strike and by inducing and encouraging employees of Central
Typesetting and Electrotyping Company to engage in a strike or concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to perform services with an object of forcing or
requiring Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Co. to assign the operation of the
camera and the film development work on the Brightype to the typographers rather
than to the photoengravers, the Typographers has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
Local No. 4, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO and Charles H. Norman , John Karoly and George
J. Moran, a partnership , d/b/a Tri-Cities Broadcasting Com-
pany. Case No. A0-39. August 23, 1962
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Local No. 4, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Petitioner or
Union, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98
and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
138 NLRB No. 37.