Citizen-News Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 1, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

III the Matter of CITIzEN-NEws COMPANY, A CORPORATION' and Los
ANGELES TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, LOCAL No. 174
Cases Nos. C-606 and R-712.-Decided September 1, 1938
Newspaper Pabtishing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-
Company-Dominated Union domination of and interference with formation and
.administration; disestablished, as agency for collective bargaining-Investigation
of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees-Unit
Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: composing-room employees; history of
collective bargaining relations in industry-Election Ordeed
Mr. William R. Walsh, for the Board.
Williamson, Hoge, Sargent d Judson, by Mr. Willis Sargent and
Mr. Emil Steek, Jr., of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. Harlan G. Palmer,
of Hollywood, Calif., for the respondent.,
Mr. John F. Dalton, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. W. E. Phelps, of Hollywood, Calif., for the Association. -
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 4, 1937, Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No.
174; herein called the Union, filed charges with the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California) alleging that
Citizen-New-s Company, a corporation, herein called the respondent,
had engaged in and was engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
the same clay the Union filed with the Regional Director a petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the respondent and requesting an in-
vestigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
' In the complaint , as amended, the respondent is designated Hollywood Citizen-News
Company, a corporation, but at the heaiing the designation was specifically corrected to
that appearing in the caption above.
S N. L R 11, No. 123.
997
998 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (c) of the Act. Thereafter the Union filed amended charges,
omitting the allegations in the original charge that the respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
On January 11, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation of rep-
resentatives and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and
to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice; and, acting,
pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section
37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, further ordered that the two cases, based upon
the charges and upon the petition, be consolidated.
Upon the charges and amended charges filed by the Union, the
Board, by the Regional Director, issued a complaint, dated January
25, 1938, and an amended complaint, dated February 16, 1938, against
the respondent. The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance
(1) that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the for-
mation and administration of a labor organization, known as Citizen-
News Welfare Association, later known as Printing Trades Union,
Inc.,2 herein called the Association, and contributed financial and
other support to it and (2) that by these and other acts and conduct
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities
for their mutual aid and protection.
Copies of the complaint, and of the amended complaint, accom-
panied by notices of hearing of the consolidated cases, were duly
served on the respondent, the Union, and the Association. On
March 1, 1938, the respondent filed an answer denying the alleged
unfair labor practices. The respondent in its answer also asserted
that the Board lacked jurisdiction and prayed that the complaint,
as amended, be dismissed.
Pursuant to notice, a joint hearing upon the petition and the com-
plaint was held in Los Angeles, California, on March 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 28, 1938, before V. P. Lucas, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Board. The Board was represented by counsel, the
respondent by counsel and by its president, and the Union and the
Association by their duly designated representatives ; and all partici-
pated 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. The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the
2 The Association assumed a corporate form and changed its name to Printing Trades
Union, Inc.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 999
admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed.
On April 29 , 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2), and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent
cease and desist therefrom and, affirmatively, withdraw recognition
from the Association as a representative of its employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining , and completely disestablish it as such
representative.
On May 19, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report. On June 2, 1938 , oral argument was had before the
Board in Washington , D. C., on the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and on the record. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the argument. There-
after, the respondent filed a brief which the Board has duly con-
sidered. The Board has reviewed the respondent 's exceptions and
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a California corporation , with its principal office
and place of business in Hollywood , California . It owns, prints, and
publishes the Hollywood Citizen-News, herein called the Citizen,
and the Hollywood Advertiser. The average daily circulation of the
Citizen is over 26,000 copies of which the out-of-State circulation is
about one -half of 1 per cent. The respondent also does press work
and composition for several other publications.
The respondent is a member of the Associated Press. The Asso-
ciated Press maintains a teletype machine in the respondent 's plant
and has the privilege of using items of news and intelligence col-
lected and edited by the respondent 's employees , for transmittal to
the various members of the Associated Press. The respondent also
subscribes to the United Press service . The items of news collected
at points outside of the State of California and transmitted to the
respondent by the Associated Press and the United Press Association
comprise approximately 21 per cent of the reading matter in the
Citizen. The respondent receives syndicated materials from various
sources outside the State of California , which sources contribute about.
17 per cent of the reading matter of the Citizen. -
1000 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent uses about 350 tons of newsprint per month, all
of which is shipped to the respondent from British Columbia,
Canada. Twenty per cent of the total expense of all of the re-
spondent's publications is spent for newsprint. Approximately 10
per cent of other items of physical property used by the respondent
in 1937 were purchased in States other than California.
The revenue derived from national advertising, that is, from ad-
vertising originating out of the State, amounts to approximately 10
per cent of the total advertising revenue of the Citizen and of the
Hollywood Advertiser.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership composing-room employees of the respondent and other
newspaper publishers in the same area.
The Citizen-News Welfare Association is a labor organization
affiliated with the League of Independent Unions, admitting to mem-
bership all mechanical employees of the respondent employed in the
composing room, pressroom, and the stereotype department.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with the Association; interference,
restraint, and coercion
For a number of years prior to 1937, the Union made periodic
attempts to obtain a contract from the respondent, but without suc-
cess. In February 1937, John F. Dalton, president of the Union,
at the conclusion of a fruitless conference with the respondent, gave
notice of the Union's plan to initiate a drive for membership.
In March, before the Union began its announced organization com-
paign, the respondent conducted an election among its employees.
Without previous notice the respondent distributed ballots to each
mechanical employee 3 to designate whether lie was for or against
membership in the Union. Although at this time none of the re-
spondent's employees were members of the Union, 25 votes were cast
in favor of membership in the Union while 36 were against it.
Thereafter the Union declared an amnesty to apply to the respond-
ent's employees, that is,,former members were to be allowed to regain
their membership without payment of their accumulated dues and
fines, and new members to join on the payment of a minimum initia-
3 Mechanical employees are employed in the composing room, pressroom, and stereotype
department.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1001
tion fee. In April a group of employees gathered in the home of one
of them to meet with representatives of the Union. Before adjourn-
ing, the men agreed upon a further meeting where they could hear
from the management and the Union officials at the same time.
Griswold, night foreman of the composing room was present, and he
offered to secure the respondent's auditorium for this purpose. Ac-
cordingly a few weeks later, a notice was posted on the bulletin
board, signed by Winn, plant superintendent, announcing the meet-
ing which was held on May 20, 1937.
Winn presided over the meeting. Harlan G. Palmer, president
of the respondent was present and spoke to the employees. The
Union representatives were not invited, contrary to the original plan
of the employees. The men voiced their grievances and Palmer
promised adjustments. The discussion soon turned toward the sub-
ject of union affiliation. Palmer stated that he had had trouble
with the Union 16 years before and that he had continued to stand
by the men who had been loyal to him at that time. He also
remarked that he had no objection to employees joining the Union,
but that at the same time he would always protect the rights of
those who did not wish to join. Kurz, an employee, sought to
obtain a clarification of Palmer's position, which apparently puzzled
many of the employees who heard him affirm their right to join
the Union and at the same time express his gratitude and obliga-
tion to those who had stood by him when lie had had difficulties
with the Union. Kurz asked Palmer, "If you were in our shoes,
Judge, what would you do, join the Union or not join?" The sub-
stance of Palmer's reply was that he might join the Union if he
expected to work elsewhere, but that he would not do so if lie was
satisfied with his job at the Citizen.4
Palmer by indicating that in his opinion the only motive for join-
ing the Union was dissatisfaction with employment with the respond-
ent, used a subtle form of intimidation. Employees who were
desirous of continued employment in the respondent's plant would
hesitate to join the Union if that act would be construed as dis-
satisfaction- with their jobs. Kurz, the employee who asked the
question, was formerly a union sympathizer, but subsequently became
a member of the Association. Four days after the meeting the
respondent posted a notice on its bulletin board rectifying the
grievances mentioned at the first meeting and granting substantial
pay increases.
4 According to witness Hai ding 's testimony , Palmer said : "If he were in Mr Kurz's
place maybe he would loin the Union , but if I did , I don 't dunk I would continue to work
for the Citizen-News "
Kurz, who had become a member of the Association at the time of the hearing, testified
that the answer was "If I wine satisfied to work for the Citizen -News, it wouldn't be
necesaary'to take out a card, and if I wanted to move anonnd , I might take out a card "
1002 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AT. E. Phelps, formerly a foreman, and at this time in charge of
the outside publications , claims credit for originating the plan for the
Association , but at the same time, he admitted that: "The way that
I formed the Association was on my conversation I had with the
Judge (Palmer) was in regard to his attitude toward a committee,
if the committee was appointed , and was selected by his employees."
The notice announcing the meeting held on June 3, 1937, was signed
by Menard, a machinist in charge of the composing room in Winn's
absence. Phelps, who conducted the meeting, in his opening speech
related his previous experiences as an American Federation of Labor
organizer , presenting an unattractive picture of graft, dissension, and
high assessment . He told the men that if they decided not to affiliate
with the Union , they should have an organization of their own and
that he had already discussed the possibility with Palmer and found
him very agreeable to dealing with such a body. Meyer, a subfore-
man, spoke in the same tenor as Phelps about the American Federa-
tion of Labor and remarked that "as far as he was concerned he did
not want the Union to have anything to do with the Citizen."
After the discussion , blank slips of paper were passed out to be
used as ballots . A vote "yes" signified a vote in favor of union
affiliation , and "no" meant preference for an inside organization.
The "no" vote won 26 to 16 , and immediately a rapid -fire nomination
and election of candidates for the committee to form the Association
took place. Phelps and Wadsworth were nominated by the two
foremen, Butler and Griswold , and both were elected without any
contest. Two more men from the composing room were nominated
and elected in succession , only the fourth candidate being opposed.
Harding, a union sympathizer , stood up in an attempt to nominate a
candidate during the whole proceedings, but could not get recogni-
tion until after four committeemen were elected , at which time
Phelps announced that there were to be only four representatives
from the composing room, two from the pressroom and one from the
stereotype department . The voting, however, was not by depart-
ments, but all those present voted for each candidate.
At the next meeting, on June 24, the committee read the agree-
ments which it had drafted and signed. Only after the instrument
was read in its entirety were questions and discussion from the floor
allowed. Phelps asked for immediate approval to enable Palmer to
sign the contract before leaving for another appointment . Phelps
told the men : "We have taken up enough time already, and if this
agreement is good enough for the Judge , it should be good enough
for you."
Although the meeting was open to all mechanical employees, few
union men attended . Therefore , when the vote was taken an over-
whelming majority approved the agreement . Phelps left the room
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1003
and directly returned with Palmer, who, after paging through the
instrument, immediately signed it. While Palmer was writing one
of the men called out from the floor : "You'd better read it over, Judge,
and see what you are signing." Palmer replied : "I don't have to
worry about that, I trust this committee. You are all loyal em-
ployees, and I am willing to sign this agreement."
The contract was an exclusive bargaining contract and was to
remain in effect for 1 year. It contained no concessions on the part
of the respondent other than the recognition of the Union. Phelps
himself describes it as follows: "Our agreement was arranged and
arrived at by accepting pretty near in its entirety conditions that
already existed in the shop."
Following the adoption of the agreement, solicitation for member-
ship began and a majority of the employees in the composing room
joined the Association. Subsequently the Association incorporated
and changed its name to Printing Trades Union, Inc.
B. Conclusions as to respondent's unfair labor practices
The events leading up to and occurring in connection with the for-
mation of the Association show that the respondent pursued a course
of action designed to bring forth an organization acceptable to it
and thereby prevent the Union from gaining a foothold in its plant.
When the March election conducted by the respondent showed that
without any organization effort on the part of the Union, 25 out of
the 61 mechanical employees preferred the Union, the respondent
decided to forestall the possibility of the Union's obtaining a major-
ity and becoming the exclusive representative of such employees.
Palmer's remarks on May 20, and the interference by the respond-
ent with the employees' plan of a single meeting to hear both the
respondent and the Union representatives were steps directed toward
the diminishing of union sentiment. Phelps, who shouldered the
responsibility for originating the plan for the Association, admitted
that the basis for the plan was his discussion with Palmer, who
expressed his willingness to deal with the organization prior to its
formation. There was clearly no genuine collective bargaining with
the Association prior to the adoption of the contract. Palmer's
flattering comment on the committee and his immediate acceptance
of the agreement prepared the way for the subsequent successful
solicitation for membership.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support to it. We also find that by such acts, the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
1004 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We findcthat 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 several
States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce. o
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and con-
tributed support to it. We will order the respondent to cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices and to withdraw all recognition
from the Association as representative of its employees for the pur-
poses of dealing with the respondent concerning wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and to disestablish
it as such representative.
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The respondent claimed during its dealings with the Union, de-
scribed in Section III above, that its refusal to enter into collective
bargaining with the Union was due to the fact that it did not repre-
sent the majority of the employees within the unit claimed to be
appropriate by the Union. The Union maintains that if the re-
spondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair
labor practices , described in Section III above, and is ordered to
disestablish the Association and withdraw all recognition from it,
a majority of the employees in the claimed unit will in the exercise
of a free choice select the Union as their bargaining representative.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the company.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
1005
The Union claims that all the composing-room employees consti-
tute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The
Association contended that all of the mechanical employees consti-
tute a single unit. Since we have found that the respondent domi-
nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Association, we shall not take its preference into account., The history
of collective bargaining in the printing trades shows that composing-
room employees have been traditionally organized as a separate
group.
We find that the composing-room employees of the respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that said unit will insure to employees of the respondent
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bar-
gaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union claimed a substantial membership among the employees
in the appropriate unit, but introduced no other evidence in support
of its claim. We find that the question which has arisen concerning
the representation of employees can best be decided by holding an
election by secret ballot to determine whether or not the employees
desire to be represented by the Union. Neither the Union nor the
respondent suggested a pay-roll date for determining eligibility to
vote in the election. We are of the opinion that the respondent's
pay roll next preceding the date of the hearing should be used for
that purpose. Those eligible to vote shall be the employees within
the appropriate unit who were on the respondent's pay roll next
preceding March 7, 1938, excluding those who have since quit or
been discharged for cause. Since we have found that the Association
is dominated by the respondent, its name will not appear on the
ballot.
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. Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, affiliated with
-the American Federation of Labor, Citizen-News Welfare Association
and Printing Trades Union, Inc., are labor organizations, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Citizen-News Welfare Association and
Printing Trades Union, Inc., and by contributing support to said
1006 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent , by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
5. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
6. All composing -room employees of the respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) 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 Citizen-News Company, a corporation, Hollywood, California, and
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From dominating and interfering with the administration of
Citizen-News Welfare Association and Printing Trades Union, Inc.,
or with the formation or administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, and from contributing support thereto;
(b) From in any other 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 con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Citizen-News Welfare Asso-
ciation and Printing Trades Union, Inc., as a representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing- with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or conditions of work, and completely disestablish said
organization as such representative;
(b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at
least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1007
(1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner afore-
said, and (2) that the respondent withdraws all recognition from
Citizen-News Welfare Association or Printing Trades Union, Inc.,
as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely disestablishes it as such representative;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Citizen-News Company, a corporation, Hollywood, California,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted within forty-five (45)
days from the date of this Direction under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations,
among all composing-room employees of Citizen-News Company,
a corporation, during the pay-roll period next preceding March 7,
1938, exclusive of those who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
Mr. EDWIN S. SDIITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.