Christian Board of Publication

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION and ALLIED PRINT-
ING TRADES COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Case No. C-660.-Decided July 12, 1939
Printing and Publishing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion-
Company-Dominated Union: interference with formation of; support ; organized
after election held by employer suggesting that employees might vote for "a
company union" ; circulation of petitions assisted by supervisory employees ;
disestablishment as collective bargaining representative ordered-Contract: with
company-dominated union , abrogated-Discrimination : charges of, dismissed-
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : compositors , mailers, pressmen,
feeders, and bookbinders-Collective Bargaining : charges of failure to , dismissed
upon failure to prove a majority.
Mr. Charrles'Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Mr. Francis M. Curlee, Mr. Richard F. Moll, and Mr. Alden A.,
Stockard, all of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. John G. Warrington, of St. Louis., Mo., for the Council.
Mr. William F. Guffey, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Allied Printing Trades Council of St.
Louis, Missouri, herein called the Council, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by Dorothea de Schweinitz, Act-
ing Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Mis-
souri), issued and duly served its complaint dated March 3, 1938,
against Christian Board of Publication, St. Louis, Missouri, 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), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act.
As to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
(1) that the respondent dominated, interfered with, and assisted' in
the formation and administration of a labor organization of its em-
ployees designated as the Employees Representation Plan, and con-
13 N. L. R. B., No. 62.
534
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 535
tributed financial and other support to it; (2) that the respondent
discharged and refused to reinstate 7 named employees for the reason
that they joined and assisted the Council and engaged in concerted
activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing; (3) that the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Council which had been duly chosen as the collective bargaining rep-
resentative by a majority of its employees in an appropriate unit; and
(4) that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
On March 9, 1938, the respondent filed with the Acting Regional
Director a demurrer to the complaint, an application for subpenas
daces tecwm requiring attendance at the hearing, as witnesses for the
respondent, of John G. Warrington and Orla George, president and
secretary, respectively, of the Council, and the production of the
Council's books, records, and papers. The respondent likewise filed
an application for the issuance of subpenas requiring the attendance
at the hearing of 114 of the respondent's employees as witnesses for
the respondent. On the same day the respondent filed an answer to
the complaint in which it denied the alleged unfair labor practices
and set forth an affirmative defense as to the discharges and the alleged
refusal to bargain collectively. The answer also raised numerous
constitutional objections to the proceedings.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the
Council, a hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10,
11, 12, 14, and 15, 1938, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel, and the Council was represented by its pres-
ident. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the
beginning of the hearing the Trial Examiner overruled the re-
spondent's demurrer to the complaint. The respondent then filed a
motion for a jury trial, which was denied by the Trial Examiner.
On the second day of the hearing the Trial Examiner denied the
respondent's applications for subpenas which had been filed with the
Acting Regional Director. On the last day of the hearing the Trial
Examiner likewise denied the respondent's application for a
subpena daces teem,, filed on that day, requiring the attendance at
the hearing of the Acting Regional Director, as a witness for the
respondent, and the production of all correspondence, records, re-
ports, statements, and papers in possession of the Board relating to
the respondent. The Trial Examiner denied the respondent's mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the Board's case
and renewed at the close of the hearing, and granted the Board's
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion to conform the pleadings to the proof.' These rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the re-
spondent's motion to strike from the record the testimony of George
M. Wagner. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence.2 The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Council, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (5) of the Act, but had not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. He accordingly
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair
labor practices; that it withdraw recognition from the Employees
Committee 3 as the representative of its employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining; that it advise the Council in writing that
it is ready and willing to bargain collectively with the Council as
the representative of its employees ; and that it post appropriate
notices throughout its plant. He further recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the respondent had
violated Section 8 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner in his In-
termediate Report denied the respondent's motion to strike the tes-
timony of George M. Wagner. Wagner's testimony explained the
operation of the "Men and Management Conference" which nego-
tiates labor contracts between the Council and the closed-shop em-
ployers in the St. Louis printing industry. Since this testimony
was not prejudicial to the respondent, the ruling is hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, and requested the privilege of oral argument before the Board.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the Coun-
cil, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was had on Decem-
ber 6, 1938, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent
appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Council
did not appear. The Board has considered the respondent's excep-
tions, and save as they are consistent with the findings of fact, con-
IIt appears from the evidence that the organization designated in the complaint as
the Employees Representation Plan is known to the respondent and its employees as the
Employees Committee. It is so designated herein . The Employees Committee has never
adopted a name or perfected an organization by electing officers and adopting a
constitution and bylaws.
2 The respondent objected to the testimony of John G . Warrington with respect to
negotiations between the Council and employers other than the respondent in the "Men
and Management Conference ." Admission of the testimony was not prejudicial to the
respondent.
s Variously designated in the Intermediate Report as the Employee Representation Plan
and the Committee.
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 537
clusions of law, and order hereinafter set forth, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FAOP
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Christian Board of Publication, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri gov-
erning the incorporation of religious, charitable, eleemosynary,
fraternal, and other similar corporations organized not for profit.
The sole offices and plant of the respondent are located at St. Louis,
Missouri, where it is engaged in the business of printing, publishing,
and selling religious books and pamphlets. It also publishes some
medical books and journals and does a small amount of job printing.
The raw materials used by the respondent consist chiefly of paper
and ink, all of which are purchased within the State of Missouri.
The respondent's finished products amount in value to approximately
$600,000 per year, of which approximately 45 per cent are sold and
transported outside the State of Missouri. During normal periods
the respondent employs approximately 165 persons, including 112 to
115 production employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Allied Printing Trades Council of St. Louis, Missouri, is a labor
organization composed of representatives of numerous labor organi-
zations in the St. Louis printing industry. It is affiliated with the
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, which in turn is affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor.
The Employees Committee is a labor organization composed of
representatives from each, department of the respondent's plant,
informally selected by the employees in the respective departments.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with and domination of the formation and adminis-
tration of the Employees Committee
It appears that the Council made no effort to organize the respond-
ent's employees until sometime after May 11, 1937 . During May and
Jurie a substantial number of the respondent's employees signed
authorization cards designating the Council as their collective bar-
gaining representative . In April 1937 , however, the Council en-
deavored to negotiate a contract with the respondent providing,
inter alia , for a closed shop and the union wage scale. Between April
,538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
13 and June 8, 1937, the Council and the respondent held four un-
successful conferences, the respondent contending that it could not
pay the union wage scale and could not operate its plant under a
closed-shop contract. The Council refused to compromise either of
these demands.
On June 10 and 11, 1937, the respondent, with the aid of Price,
Waterhouse & Co., certified public accountants, conducted an election
among its employees for the purpose of determining their choice of
collective bargaining representatives. Just prior to the election the
employees on the day shifts were addressed by Walter J. Taylor, the
respondent's plant superintendent, and William P. Shelton, the
respondent's general manager. The employees on the night: shift
were addressed by Taylor. Taylor and Shelton advised the em-
ployees in substance that the respondent had no grievance against any
union, that it was immaterial to the respondent whom the employees
designated as their bargaining agency, and that the employees should
vote as they desired without fear of discrimination. The ballots,
which were prepared by the respondent, enabled the employees to
vote "For Unions Affiliated With Allied Printing Trades Council," or
"For Company Union," or "For Present Method." The results of the
election were as follows:
For Unions Affiliated With Allied Printing Trades Council__ 62
For Company Union------------------ -__---------------- 24
For Present Method-------------------- _---------------- 29
Void----------------------------------------------------- 6
Total-------------------------------------- 121
The outcome soon became known throughout the plant, although
the respondent made no formal announcement relative thereto.
Some time during the week following the election Mike Snyder,
Albert Ilges, Charles A. Shull, one Battieger, and one Vogelbein, all
pressmen, constituted themselves a committee , under the leadership
of Shull. After obtaining from their foreman permission to leave
their presses, they called upon Taylor and requested a wage increase
in accordance with the terms of a petition 4 which had been circu-
lated in the pressroom and bindery department in February 1937
preparatory to a demand for a wage increase. When Taylor replied
that he could not bargain with them unless they represented a
majority of the employees, they circulated, during working hours, a
4 This petition is not in evidence , but the record indicates that it was substantially the
same as the "Yes and No" petition set out below . Although the February petition was
circulated in the plant during working hours, all the witnesses who testified with respect
to the petition disclaimed any knowledge as to who drafted or started the circulation
of it and were likewise unable to say who presented it to the respondent . It appears that
the petition was placed in the rear of the pressroom and as each pressman signed it,
he would inform the next pressman what was being done and ask him to sign . Shortly
after receiving this petition the respondent granted a small general wage increase
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 539
petition, herein called the "Yes and No" petition, which reads as
follows :
Will you be satisfied to receive a raise in salary to the extent
of $2.00 below the Union scale, said salary to remain within this
margin in proportion to the Union scale.
It appears that this petition, which was typed in the respondent's
offices, passed from hand to hand among the employees, including
foremen and other supervisory employees. Perry, the foreman of
the pressroom on the second shift, handed the petition to William H.
Bowman, a pressman, and asked him to "hand it to Charlie Shull
in the morning." One Schiefelbein asked Bowman for the petition
and after some argument with Schiefelbein, Bowman gave the peti-
tion to him. Schiefelbein agreed with Bowman that the petition
"was not worth the paper it was written on" but told Bowman that
he desired to show it to the other two men working with him.
Schiefelbein returned the petition to Bowman but later Schiefelbein
again requested Bowman to give him the petition, telling Bowman
that Joe Wilson, the chief lock-up man on the first shift, had told
Schiefelbein "to get that petition and sign it up." While Schiefel-
bein did not have the title of foreman he was in charge of the com-
posing room on the third shift and it was necessary to get his ap-
proval of all "make up" and "lay-out" work. The above findings
are based upon Bowman's testimony which stands uncontradicted.
We find that Schiefelbein is a supervisory employee. Bowman's
testimony concerning the activities of Perry and Schiefelbein was
corroborated by George J. Ehlen, a press feeder, who testified that
Foreman Perry and Charles Venn, a pressman, circulated the peti-
tion on the second shift. Thus it is clear that at least two super-
visory employees actively participated in the circulation of the "Yes
and No" petition. After 68 employees had written the word "Yes"
on the petition the committee of 5 pressmen showed it to Taylor
some time between June 11 and June 19 and claimed by virtue thereof
the right to represent the employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining. It does not appear from the record whether or not
Taylor at that time recognized the claims of the 5 pressmen.
Upon the suggestion of Shull the employees in each department
selected a representative to act for them in negotiations with the
respondent. The manner in which these representatives were chosen
is revealed by Shull's testim&ny :
In our department we asked for who would be a representa-
tive, and naturally I couldn't be their representative, because
I had taken the initiative, you might say, the spokesman-I was
left out and the other pressmen there suggested Mr. Geiselman
for their representative.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Al Roth, Harold D. Lewis, and Charles Venn were selected in the
manner described by Shull. Albert Ilges, who was chosen to replace
Geiselman, and William H. Smith both testified that they did not
know by what means they were selected as representatives. Joe
Bonkrud was selected to represent the linotype operators on the
second shift and later Bonkrud appointed J. B. Nicholls as the repre-
sentative. Nicholls has since been acting as such representative. As
to Bonkrud's selection Nicholls testified, "Well, we just got together
and talked it over and said Joe was to be our representative."
Nicholls' testimony was not denied. Shull acts as chairman of the
Employees Committee although, according to his own testimony
set forth above, he was not selected as a representative by any of the
respondent's employees.
Having obtained the permission of Taylor, the committee of 5
pressmen called a meeting of the employees which was held in the
assembly room of the plant on Saturday, June 19, 1937. This meet-
ing over which Shull presided was attended by about 50 employees
including the Employees Committee, the members of which attended
as "instructed delegates" of their respective departments. Shull re-
quested Shelton, Taylor, and J. P. Whittall, the respondent's auditor
and office manager, to hold themselves in readiness for a conference
with the Employees Committee at the close of the meeting. During
the course of the meeting the Employees Committee amended the
"Yes and No" petition by adding thereto the words: "for the period
of one year subject to renewal," and approved the petition as
amended. At the close of the meeting which lasted approximately
5 hours, the Employees Committee requested Shelton, Taylor, and
Whittall, who had remained in their offices all afternoon, to come
to the assembly room for a conference. Shull handed the "Yes and
No" petition to Shelton and stated that they were ready to bargain.
Shelton, in the presence of all the employees attending the meeting,
informed the Employees Committee that it would be necessary to
refer the requested wage increase to the respondent's board of direc-
tors but stated that the respondent would recognize the Employees
Committee as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees. Shelton, however, suggested that the "Yes and No" petition
be recirculated and signed by the employees. The Employees Com-
mittee accordingly circulated in each department of the plant sep-
arate copies of the petition, herein callej the June 19 petition, which
stated :
We the undersigned will be satisfied to receive a raise in salary
to the extent of $2.00 below the Union scale, said salary to re-
main within this margin in proportion to the Union scale for
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 541
same number of hours; also for a period of one year and subject
to renewal.
Power for committee to settle all grievances with the foreman
of the various departments.
Full seniority to prevail in all departments and on all shifts.
We also authorize our delegate_______________________ to sign
the original agreement with the Company.
In the blank space of the last paragraph of this petition was writ-
ten the name of the member of the Employees Committee represent-
ing the department in which the particular copy of the petition was
circulated. The various copies of the petition were signed in the
aggregate by 90 employees. Although it is dated June 19, 1937,
Shull's testimony discloses that it was prepared by the Employees
Committee on June 21 or 22 and was typed in the respondent's office.
Signed copies of the petition were submitted to Shelton at his re-
quest and on June 21 or 22, the respondent granted the wage increase
requested by the Employees Committee, making such increase effec-
tive retroactively as of June 18, 1937.
In addition to the activity of the respondent's supervisory em-
ployees in connection with the circulation of the "Yes and No" peti-
tion Edwin S. Wood, foreman in the composing room on the second
shift, made a statement which was calculated to discourage member-
ship in the Council. Bowman testified that Wood told him, "If some
of these men around here don't forget their unionization, they are
going to find themselves walking the streets shortly." Bowman's
testimony is corroborated by Stoffregen 5 and Albert O'Connell.
O'Connell fixed the time as the early part of June. Wood denied
having made this statement but on cross-examination admitted having
said "Well, if the union wins this, more than likely I will be on the
outside looking in on account of my age, on account of the fact I have
passed the age limit for admission to the union." We find that
Wood's statement was substantially that attributed to him by Bow-
man, Stoffregen, and O'Connell.
On July 6, August 3, and August 23, the respondent and the
Council again conferred and discussed the same demands which the
Council had made at the earlier conferences. The parties, however,
were unable to reach any agreement. On August 24, 1937, Shelton
addressed a letter to the members of the Employees Committee
formally recognizing them as the "exclusive representatives of all the
employees in the mechanical department for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and all other conditions of employment." The letter further
5 Incorrectly spelled Stoffregan in the complaint.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
set forth a wage scale together with other terms and conditions of
employment and concluded, "This agreement is for a term of one
year beginning September 3, 1937." The original copy of this let-
ter, which purports to be an agreement between the respondent and
the Employees Committee, was approved by the 10 addressees and
was returned to Shelton.
In January 1938 the Council again attempted to negotiate with
the respondent. Shelton and the respondent's attorney indicated that
the respondent was satisfied with the plan under which the plant was
then operating and desired no further negotiations with the Council.
B. Conclusions with respect to the Employees Committee
Prior to the June 10 election there was no thought among the
respondent's employees of forming an "inside" union, nor did they
see the necessity of forming a committee to represent them. On the
contrary in February they had relied solely on a petition demanding
a wage increase, which was not signed and which bore only the word
"yes" written by a number of the employees indicating their ap-
proval of it. The first suggestion of a "company union" appeared
on the ballot which was prepared by the respondent and used in an
election conducted by the respondent without the cooperation of the
Council. Immediately after the election the Employees Committee
was organized and soon was recognized by the respondent as the
collective bargaining representative of its employees. We find that
the respondent's suggestion that the employees might vote for a
"company union" furnished the inspiration for the organization of
the Employees Committee, two members of which were never selected
by any employees and the remaining eight members being selected
by acclamation of a small group within the various departments of
the plant.
As was evidenced by the Council's authorization cards as well as
the results of the June 10 election, a substantial number of the re-
spondent's employees desired the Council as their collective bar-
gaining agent. It was after the strong expression of sympathy for
the Council in the June 10 election that the proponents of an "inside"
organization were able to obtain substantial concessions from the
respondent. The circulation, with the aid of foremen and other
supervisory employees, of the "Yes and No" and June 19 petitions,
both of which were typed in the respondent's offices; the donation
of the assembly room for the June 19 meeting; the recognition of the
Employees Committee as the exclusive bargaining agency solely on
the basis of the "Yes and No" petition; and the granting of the
wage increase to within $2.00 of the union wage scale, after the
respondent had repeatedly told the Council that it could not afford
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 543
to pay wages as high as the union rates, all testify to the respond-
ent's desire to encourage the Employees Committee and to assist it
in making an effective appeal to the employees.
Considering the respondent's attitude in its negotiations with the
Council, we are led to the conclusion that its prompt recognition of
the Employees Committee and its granting of the Employees Com-
mittee's request for a wage increase were motivated by the respond-
ent's desire to encourage an organization of its employees within
the plant and to discourage any attempts of outside labor organi-
zations effectively to appeal to its employees. It is clear that the
only function of the Employees Committee has been to crystallize,
with the aid of the respondent, the fruits of the Council's organiza-
tion campaign and negotiations, and at the same time thwart the
Council's attempts to obtain the respondent's recognition of it as
the employees' collective bargaining representative.
We find that the respondent, by its activities described above, has
dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Employees Committee, and has contributed support thereto, and
has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged that the compositors, mailers, pressmen,
feeders, and bookbinders at the respondent's plant constitute units
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. The re-
spondent denied this allegation and averred that all the groups
named above constitute a single appropriate unit. The Council does
not claim to represent a majority of the employees in each of the
groups named above, and the evidence adduced at the hearing, upon
which the Council rests its claim to a majority representation, treats
the employees in all the named groups as a single unit. Thus, it is
apparent that both the Council and the respondent are contending
for a single unit composed of the employees in the groups named
in the complaint. There was no evidence adduced at the hearing in
support of the allegations of the complaint that the separate groups
constitute appropriate units.
We find that the compositors, mailers, pressmen, feeders, and book-
binders at the respondent's plant constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insures to
the respondent's employees the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the
policies of the Act.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The question of majority representation
To sustain the allegation that the respondent refused to bargain
with the Council, it was necessary to prove that the Council had
been designated the bargaining representative by a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit. The record does not conclusively
reveal the total number of employees in the appropriate unit. Shel-
ton testified that the respondent employs about 112 mechanical em-
ployees, and the Council's president testified that about 100 of the
respondent's employees are eligible to membership in the various
organizations comprising the Council.
At the hearing the Council submitted 48 signed authorization
cards, each designating the Council as the bargaining representa-
tive of the signer, and five slips of paper, each bearing the name,
address, and department of an employee but including no designa-
tion of a bargaining representative. This evidence does not pro-
vide the basis for a finding that the Council had been designated
by a majority of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
The allegation of the complaint as to the respondent's refusal to
bargain with the Council, and the Trial Examiner's finding to the
same effect apparently are predicated upon the results of the elec-
tion held in the plant on June 10 and 11, 1937. Since there is no
showing of the exact number of employees in the appropriate unit,
nor that the voting in the said election was confined to employees in
the unit found herein to be appropriate, we deem the results of the
said election to be indeterminative of the Council's claim to a ma-
jority representation. We find that the evidence does not sustain
the allegation of the complaint that the respondent refused to bargain
collectively with the Council as the representative of a majority of
its employees in an appropriate unit.
D. The discharge of Joseph H. Robinson
Joseph H. Robinson, who at the time of his discharge was employed
as a mailer, had worked for the respondent approximately 4 years.
He was discharged by Shelton on January 14, 1938, for the assigned
reason that his services were not needed after the installation in the
mailing department of a power-driven addressograph machine.
During the summer of 1937 the respondent began negotiations for
the purchase of an addressograph which was installed during the
first 2 weeks of January 1938. This machine is operated by Walter
Strothers who is senior to Robinson in point of service and the only
other mailer employed by the respondent. The respondent retained
in its mailing department two employees who have less seniority than
Robinson, and employed Harold Whittall, the son of the respondent's
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 545
auditor and office manager, for part-time work in that department
the day following Robinson's discharge. None of these employees,
however, are mailers nor do they receive mailers' wages. At the
time of the hearing no one had been employed to replace Robinson.
Although Robinson is a member of the Mailers' Union, associated
with the Council, it does not appear when he joined that organiza-
tion. On May 22, 1937, however, he signed a card authorizing the
Council to represent him for purposes of collective bargaining and
he was the only employee to speak in support of the Council at the
June 19 meeting in the assembly room. After the respondent granted
a general wage increase, pursuant to the "Yes and No" petition
referred to above, Robinson twice complained to Strothers, who has
charge of the mailing department, that his pay was less than that
provided for by the petition. On January 10, 1938, Robinson
addressed a letter to the Employees Committee in which he stated
that the respondent intended to employ someone other than a recog-
nized mailer to operate the new addressograph machine and suggested
that this matter be investigated by the Employees Committee. This
letter was given to Whittall who stated that the matter would be given
consideration.
Robinson's speech in support of the Council, his complaints con-
cerning his wage rate, and his complaint concerning the operation
of the addressograph raise a strong doubt as to the propriety of his
discharge. We are not satisfied from the evidence, however, that
Robinson was discharged because of his membership in or activity on
behalf of the Council. We find, therefore, that the allegation that
Robinson was discharged because of his membership in and his
activity on behalf of the Council is not sustained by the evidence.
E. The other discharges
On or about July 2, 1937, the respondent discharged or laid off
William Bowman, Jacob Koch, Albert O'Connell, George Ehlen,
Floyd Tully, and Adolph Stoffregen. All of the above-named per-
sons were employed for work on a temporary third shift which began
operating in February 1937.
It has long been the custom of the respondent to work the two
regular shifts overtime or to employ extra help for a temporary third
shift during unusually busy periods. Bowman, O'Connell, Ehlen,
and Stoffregen all testified that when they were employed on various
dates between February and May 1937 they either were informed or
knew from past experience that the work was temporary. It does not
appear that these six employees were more active on behalf of the
Council than were many other employees of the respondent. Nor
does it appear that the discontinuance of the third shift in July 1937
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was in any way a departure from the operating methods employed
by the respondent for many years.
We find that the respondent did not discharge William Bowman,
Jacob Koch, Albert O'Connell, George Ehlen, Floyd Tully, and
Adolph Stoffregen for the reason that they or any of them joined
or assisted the Council or engaged in concerted activity for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of
the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce 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 has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. Since, par-
ticularly, the respondent has dominated and interfered with the for-
mation and administration of the Employees Committee, we shall
order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Employees
Committee, and to disestablish it as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of any of its employees. Any contract entered into between
the respondent and the Employees Committee, whether it be the
contract in existence at the time of the hearing or another entered
into subsequent thereto, is void and of no effect. We shall order the
respondent to cease giving effect thereto.'
Having found that the respondent has not refused to bargain with
the representatives of its employees and has not discriminated with
regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, we shall dismiss
the complaint in so far as it alleges the commission of unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Allied Printing Trades Council of St. Louis, Missouri, and the
Employees Committee are labor organizations , within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
6 See Matter of Btackpole Carbon Company and United Electrical t Radio Workers of
America, Local No. 502, 6 N. L. R. B. 171, enforced in National Labor Relations Board v.
Btaokpole Carbon Company, 105 F. ( 2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3d).
CHRISTIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION 547
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of the Employees Committee, and by contributing support
thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) 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 respond-
ent, Christian Board of Publication, St. Louis, Missouri, and its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of the Employees Committee, or with the formation or admin-
istration of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing support to the Employees Committee or to any other
labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to any contract it may have entered into with
the Employees Committee, whether it be the contract in existence at
the time of the hearing in this case, or another entered into subse-
quent to said hearing;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing 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 and protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees Committee as
the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely disestablish the Employees Committee as such
representative;
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and
desist as aforesaid ; (2) that the respondent withdraws and will
refrain from all recognition of the Employees Committee as a rep-
resentative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment,
and completely disestablishes it as such representative ; and (3) that
any existing contract between the respondent and the Employees
Committee is void and of no effect;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , in so far as it alleges that
the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
.MR. WII.IaAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.