Foote & Davies

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES , A PARTNERSHIP CONSIST-
ING OF ALBERT I. LOVE ; SOL I. GOLDEN ; JULIA S. LOVE, ALBERT I. LOVE,
ISIDORE BOGOSLAW, JULIA S. LOVE, AND SOL I. GOLDEN AS TRUSTEES FOR
JUDITH LOVE AND DIANA LOVE; ALFRED E . GARBER , SYKES H. YOUNG
AND EARLE SANDERS, CO-PARTNERS D/B/A FOOTE & DAVIES1 and AMAL-
GAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 51 and ATLANTA
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION No. 8, SUBORDINATE TO
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PARTY TO CONTRACT and INTERNATIONAL
PHOTO ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 26, A. F.
OF L., PARTY TO CONTRACT and INTERNATIONAL ALLIED PRINTING
TRADES ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO CONTRACT
Case No. 10-C-1693.-Decided March 8, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 1, 1945, the Trial Examiner 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 copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to the reinstate-
ment of Luther W. Smith, Sr., Mack F. Chandler, and Nellie Bobbie
Blackmon, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to
them. Thereafter, the respondent, the Amalgamated, the Pressmen,
the Engravers, and the A. F. of L., filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report; supporting briefs were filed by the respondent, the Amal-
gamated, and the Pressmen. On January 17, 1946, the Board heard
oral argument at Washington, D. C., simultaneously with further
argument in Matter of Pacific Press, Inc., Cases Nos. 21-R-2823, 2826,
and 2947, 66 N. L. R. B. 458, decided this day. All parties, including
'The complaint was amended at the hearing by including Sol I . Golden as a partner
in Albert Love Enterprises ; and by adding Isadore Bogoslaw' s name as a Trustee, to the
title.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 53.
416
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 417
Lithographers National Association, Inc., and National Association
of Photo-Lithographers, which were permitted to intervene for the
purpose of presenting oral argument and filing briefs, appeared by
counsel and participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, the contentions made at oral argument, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modi-
fications and additions hereinafter set forth :
1. The respondent, the Pressmen, the Engravers, and the A. F. of
L. urge that the Board should, in its discretion, dismiss the complaint
because there existed at the time of the charged unfair labor practices
a jurisdictional dispute between the Amalgamated and the Pressmen,
and the Amalgamated and the Engravers, and a jurisdictional award
made by the A. F. of L. to the Pressmen and Engravers? In support
of this position, a few early representation cases in which the Board
declined to determine representatives in the face of a jurisdictional
dispute, have been called to our attention,3 and the argument is made
that a similar attitude should be assumed by us in unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings.
But as far back as 1937 the Board indicated that a dispute between
co-affiliates did not justify refraining from proceeding in representa-
tion cases when the parent organization could not secure from the dis-
putants compliance with its orders.4 The primary reason underlying
the Board's reluctance to entertain petitions filed under Section 9 (c)
of the Act in the presence of a jurisdictional dispute, is the strong
likelihood that all contention will be eliminated by complete submis-
sion to the authority of the parent body.
That the A. F. of L. was unable to effectuate a settlement between
the Amalgamated on the one hand, and the Pressmen and 'Engravers
on the other, was well known to the Board before the actions of the
respondent which gave rise to the instant case. In a number of repre-
sentation proceedings decided before 1945, the Board directed elec-
tions to designate bargaining agents despite the jurisdictional dispute
and award, the records in those cases having disclosed the A. F. of L.'s
We take judicial notice of the fact that on or about October 2, 1945, the Amalga-
mated withdrew from affiliation with the A. F. of L. Thus, as conceded by the A. F of
L. at oral argument, there is at present no jurisdictional dispute or binding jurisdic-
tional award
8 Matter of Axton-Fisher Tobacco Co , 1 N. L R B 604; Matter of Aluminum Com-
pany of America, 1 N. L. R B 530
*Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation, 2 N L R B 1036 ; Matter of Federal Knitting
Mills Company, 3 N. L. R B 257
686572-46-28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inability effectively to adjust the controversy.5 We perceive no reason
to depart now from the course we pursued in these other matters
treating with the historical conflict between the Amalgamated, and
the Pressmen and the Engravers, especially since the present proceed-
ing more directly concerns an employer accused of engaging in unfair
practices directed against its workers, rather than labor organizations
vying for the favor of employees."
We reject the contention that, because the Amalgamated refused
to abide by the A. F. of L.'s award although it was an affiliate of the
A. F. of L. at the time of the respondent's alleged misconduct, the
Amalgamated deserves no consideration from this Board. Consider-
ing the fact that it was unenforced for all practical purposes for ap-
proximately 30 years, the award, we are convinced, lost the stature
of an adjudication demanding respect.7
Nor can we accept as datum the assertion that, if the Board en-
tertains representation and unfair labor practice cases in spite of the
existence of a jurisdictional dispute and award, industrial unrest will
ensue because the parent organization will be unable to resolve
clashes among its affiliates and give assurances to employers that its
determinations are definitive. Just as in instances in which labor
organizations owing no allegiance to a common parent are rivals,
conflicts between sister unions may sometimes result in labor strife
where, as here, one of the parties to a jurisdictional dispute has not
acceded to the wishes of its parent. Certainly an award so long
denied serious consideration and lacking the force to command obedi-
ence was not calculated to achieve industrial peace. Furthermore,
in proceedings instituted under the Act, we do not determine the juris-
diction to be enjoyed by the affiliates of a parent organization.,, And
it is information respecting jurisdictional lines that is usually im-
parted to employers by parent bodies.
We find that dismissal of the complaint as a matter of discretion
is not warranted by the jurisdictional dispute and award.
6Matter of The IV. H Kistler Stationery Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 978, decided July
31, 1943; Matter of Con P Curran Printing Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 185, decided July
11, 1944; Matter of Midwest Printing Co., 58 N. L. R. B. 673, decided September 30,
1944; Matter of George Banta Publishing Company, 59 N. L. R B. 669, decided Novem-
ber 30, 1944.
6 "We are not called upon in this case to decide whether the Guild was , either techni-
cally or realistically , affiliated with the A. F. of L. at the time of the removal of the 20
Guild members from their regular jobs . The question as to the proper jurisdiction over
the disputed jobs is not presented to us for decision. Our sole inquiry is as to the
alleged unfair labor practices of the respondent in removing the men from their regular
jobs and in refusing them any guarantee of regular employment. The acts complained
of occurred on July 2, 1937, and it is on the basis of those acts that we must make our
decision." Matter of Star Publishing Company, 4 N. L R B. 498, 504-505, enf'd 97
F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9).
?During the 30-year period , the Amalgamated , as a member of the A. F. of L, con-
tinued to organize and represent the employees who were the subject of the jurisdictional
controversy.
'See footnote 6, supra.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 419
2. The Pressmen, the Engravers, and the A. F. of L. also insist
that the jurisdictional award had the effect of an arbitration award,
thereby estopping the Amalgamated from respresenting the respon-
dent's offset pressmen and platemakers at the time of the charged
illegal activities and precluding the Board as a matter of law now
from finding unfair labor practices.
With this we do not agree. It is highly questionable whether the
Amalgamated was in any way bound by an award which lay virtually
dormant for about 30 years preceding the claimed misconduct of the
respondent. Quite apart from this consideration, moreover, the Board
has exclusive power under the Act to prevent unfair labor practices
irrespective of determinations such as that made by the A. F. of L.9
3. The respondent contends that it is absolved from all liability
for its conduct because (a) it allegedly relied upon the jurisdictional
award; (b) it was compelled to act as it did in consequence of threats
of economic coercion made by the Pressmen and the Allied; and (c)
the Amalgamated failed to arbitrate the issue of representation, al-
though there was an arbitration clause in the existing contract be-
tween that organization and the respondent.10
(a) and (b) : It is clear from the record, and we find, that the
respondent was truly motivated in its actions by the threats of
economic reprisals made by the Pressmen and the Allied, and was
not independently influenced by the jurisdictional award.1' This
is underscored by the following statement in the respondent's brief
before the Board, read in the light of evidence disclosing that only
a strike called by the Allied and the Pressmen could stop the opera-
tions at the respondent's plant :
Faced by the certainty that no matter which way it acted it would
be damned, and by the irresistible force of a shut down, the
[respondent] accepted the award of jurisdiction by the American
Federation of Labor. * * *
That fear of economic reprisals by a labor organization cannot serve
to exonerate an employer from responsibilty for the commission of
unfair labor practices, is well-established doctrine.12
6 Section 10 (a) of the Act reads • "The Board is empowered , as hereinafter provided,
to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice ( listed in Section 8)
affecting commerce . This power shall be exclusive and shall not be affected by any other
means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement,
code , law, or otherwise." ( Emphasis supplied ) See also N . L. R. B. v. Star Publishing
Company, 97 F. (2d) 465, 470-471 (C C. A. 9).
» April 27, 1945, was the expiration date of this agreement , not March 27, 1945, as
inadvertently stated by the Trial Examiner.
n Or, for that matter, by any other considerations.
N L R. B v. Star Publishing Co, supra ; McQuay-Norris Mfg Co v N. L. R. B.,
116 F. (2d) 748 (C. C. A. 7) ; South Atlantic Steamship Co. v. N L. R. B, 116 F. (2d)
480 (C. C. A. 5), cert. den 313 U. S .182 , rehearing ( pet. for cert .) den. 314 U. S. 705;
Warehousemen's Union V. N . L. R. B, 121 F. ( 2d) 84 (C. A. D. C. ), cert den. 314 U. S.
674; N. L. R. B. V. Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F ( 2d) 528 (C. C. A. 6) ; N. L. it. B. v.
Weirton Steel Co., 135 F. ( 2d) 494 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. it. B. v. Poison Logging Co., 136
F. (2d) 314 ( C. C. A. 9).
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Even assuming that the award separately determined the respond-
ent's course of action, the respondent is in no position to assert that it
believed in good faith that it was complying with the law. Undis-
puted credible testimony reveals that it was aware of the Board's
jurisdiction to ascertain the appropriate unit and to designate a
bargaining representative, and that it was cognizant of its right in
the circumstances to petition the Board to resolve the conflicting
claims of representation which had been made.13 Our decisions before
1945 plainly indicate, moreover, that the jurisdictional dispute and
award would not have foreclosed the entertainment of such a peti-
tion.14 Having taken matters into its own hands with full knowledge
of the Board's function and the right to invoke the Board's processes,
the respondent may not avoid the consequences of its actions.
Accordingly, we find that neither the purported reliance on the
jurisdictional award, nor the apprehension of economic coercion, con-
stitutes a valid defense to this proceeding.
(c) Predicated upon the Consolidated Aircraft case,15 the respond-
ent argues that, because the Amalgamated refused to arbitrate the
controversy which had arisen, despite the arbitration clause in its
agreement with the respondent,1' the respondent should be relieved
of all liability.
There is evidence that the respondent unsuccessfully attempted to
have the Amalgamated arbitrate the question of its right to a new
agreement according it continued recognition as the bargaining agent
of the offset pressmen and platemakers. But to construe the existing
contract as requiring the arbitration of this matter would be a strained
construction indeed. Inasmuch as the controversy was one of recog-
nition for a period following the expiration of the current agreement,
it was wholly unrelated to that contract. In addition, we have grave
doubt that it was an arbitrable subject under any collective agreement.
Amicable settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and
administration of a collective contract between an employer and a
recognized bargaining agent is the real purpose of an arbitration
provision. Yet, here, the crucial issue did not involve the interpreta-
tion and administration of a contract with a recognized representative.
13 See National Labor Relations Boaid Rules and Regulations--Series 3, as amended,
Article III , Section 1 , Section 2 ( b) and Section 3 (Eniplo } er petitions.)
1s See footnote 5, supra
15 47 N L. R. B. 694.
"This clause read :
Theie shall be no strikes or lockouts in the plant coveted by this agreement during
the period of this agreement and in case of any dispute the shop chairman or shop
committee shall take up the matter in dispute with the management ; and in case
of the event of failure to adjust the matter in dispute the officials of the local
Union shall be called in to seek an amicable adjustment of the differences , should
no settlement of the dispute be reached between the last mentioned parties then an
arbitrator shall be agreed upon by both parties and the arbitrator shall render a
decision which shall be final
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 421
Recognition itself was the issue. In these respects, furthermore, the
present proceeding differs entirely from the Consolidated Aircraft
case. We consequently find no merit in this argument.
4. As the Trial Examiner concluded, we find that at all times
material herein, all the employees of the respondent's lithographic
department constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act. More specifically, this unit includes all offset press-
men and platemakers, the respondent's lithographic employees.
Operating what is known as a "combination shop," the respondent
performs both letter press and lithographic printing. Production
operations take place on one floor of its plant. All offset presses are
located in a row near the front of the plant; next to these presses is
the hand transfer section ; and following, about 30 to 40 feet from
the offset presses, is the platemaking section, which is partitioned off
from the rest of the plant.17 Non-offset presses are located in the
rear of the plant and are separated from the offset presses by the
bindery section. There are separate foremen over platemaking, offset
presses, job presses, and cylinder presses. And general supervision
over the offset presses is exercised by the plant superintendent.
It appears that the offset presses, the hand transfer section, and
the platemaking section comprise the respondent's "lithographic
department." Plates are prepared in the platemaking section, are then
sent to the hand transfer section, and from there to the offset presses.
Occasionally, when a plate is defective, an employee from the plate-
making section will work with the offset pressmen in an attempt to
adjust it while it is on the offset press.18
Thus, the offset pressmen and the platemakers do related work, are
segregated from other employees, and are separately supervised. In
addition to these considerations, our unit finding is premised upon
the important factors emphasized by the Trial Examiner-the absence
of interchange between offset and other pressmen preceding the
charged unfair labor practices; the distinct skills and duties of the
offset pressmen and platemakers; the history of organization and
collective bargaining by the Amalgamated throughout the litho-
graphic industry; and, more particularly, the 6-year history of col-
lective bargaining between the Amalgamated and the respondent on
the basis of a single unit of lithographic workers.19
"The only employee in the hand transfer section is considered, together with each
employee of the platemaking section, as a platemaker.
19 We note that the respondent does not have a photoengraving department in connec-
tion with its letterpress operations, but that it relies on an outside concern for its
photoengravings
1B Although contracts executed by the Pressmen and the respondent during the 6-year
history seemingly embraced all pressmen, including offset pressmen, this was merely a
"paper coverage " Offset pressmen and platemakers were actually encompassed within
the terms of the Amalgamated ' s contracts with the respondent for these 6 years, and the
respondent recognized the Amalgamated under the contracts as the bargaining represen-
tative of such employees in a single unit.
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Putting aside for the moment this bargaining history at the
respondent's plant, the facts in the instant case are much like those
present in other proceedings affecting lithographic employees in
which the Board took the position, in effect, that such workers form
an indivisible grouping.20 With the bargaining history here as an
added element, the conclusion is inescapable that the respondent's
offset pressmen and platemakers constitute a single unit appropriate
for collective bargaining purposes.
5. Inasmuch as we have found that the appropriate unit consisted
and is comprised of both offset pressmen and platemakers, we con-
clude, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's closed-shop
contracts with the Pressmen and the Engravers, executed on or about
January 1, 1945, and on July 13, 1945, respectively, are invalid under
the Act in regard to these employees. Offset pressmen were improp-
erly included with other pressmen in the contract between the
respondent and the Pressmen; and platemakers alone were wrongfully
embraced by the agreement between the respondent and the En-
gravers. Neither of these agreements consequently covered an appro-
priate unit as required by the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act.
For this reason both are invalid insofar as offset pressmen and
platemakers are concerned 2'
Furthermore, it is conceded by all parties that the Amalgamated
represented the eight offset pressmen and the three platemakers from
December 1944 to May 7, 1945. From May 7, 1945, until May 22,
1945, all these employees continued their affiliation kith the Amal-
gamated; after the latter date the eight offset pressmen apparently
persisted in their allegiance to that organization.22 Hence, neither
the Pressmen nor the Engravers represented a majority of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit of offset pressmen and platemakers
when it executed its contract with the respondent. This, too, failed
to satisfy the proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act, and renders these
agreements illegal as to the offset pressmen and platemakers.23
For the same reasons, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent's closed-shop contract with the Allied, made on May 22,
1945, is also invalid with respect to offset pressmen and platemakers.
This agreement provided that the respondent was to employ only
members of affiliates of the Allied. Although the Pressmen and the
Engravers were among the Allied's affiliates, the Amalgamated was
so See footnote 5, supra.
2. See International Association of Machinists v. N. L R B, 110 F. (2d) 29 (C. A. D C.),
aff'd 311 U. S. 72
za On May 22 , 1945, the platemakers joined the Engravers, returning to work 6 days
later. May 28, 1945, is inadvertently stated b y the Trial Examiner to be the date the
platemakers applied for membership in the Engravers
23 See International Association of Machinists v. N. L R 11, supra; Warehousemen's
Union v. N. L . R. B., supra.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 423
not. And so far as the Allied was concerned, the Pressmen had juris-
diction over offset pressmen and the Engravers had jurisdiction over
platemakers. In reality, therefore, the Allied's agreement benefited
the Pressmen and the Engravers, and was no more than the counter-
part of the respondent's contracts with them.24
6. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent
violated Section 8 (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively
with the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the above-found appropriate unit.
As already indicated, from December 1944 to May 22, 1945, and
thereafter, the Amalgamated represented a majority of the employees
in the unit found appropriate. It cannot be gainsaid, moreover, that
at various times during this period the respondent declined to recog-
nize the Amalgamated as the bargaining agent of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
7. Having concluded that the respondent's closed-shop contract
with the Pressmen is invalid under the Act as to the eight offset press-
men, it follows, as the Trial Examiner found, that the respondent dis-
criminatorily locked out and discharged these employees on May 7,
1945, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
On that day the eight offset pressmen left the plant when the re-
spondent posted a notice announcing that only employees who were
members of the Pressmen would be permitted to operate offset presses.
By so enforcing the closed-shop provision in its invalid contract with
the Pressmen, the respondent imposed upon the offset pressmen a dis-
criminatory condition of employment which they were not required to
accept 25
8. In its brief before the Board the Amalgamated intimates that
the discrimination practiced against the eight offset pressmen so vi-
tally affected the rights and interests of the three platemakers as to
constitute an illegal lock-out and discharge of the platemakers as well.
So far as the record shows, however, the platemakers were free to
continue their employment with the respondent, the notice of May 7,
1945, having been directed solely to the offset pressmen. Therefore,
by leaving the respondent's employ on May 7, 1945, the three plate-
makers merely struck in protest against the respondent's unfair labor
practices concerning the offset pressmen, and cannot be considered
as having been discriminatorily locked out and discharged.26
" Viewed as recognizing the Allied as bargaining representative of the offset pressmen
and platemakers , the Allied's agreement is nevertheless invalid because, at the time of
its execution , that organization did not represent a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit of offset pressmen and platemakers.
25 Matter of Louis F. Cassoff, et al., 43 N. L. R. B. 1193, enf'd per curiam 139 F. (2d)
397 (C. C. A. 2).
86 Significantly , only a discriminatory refusal to reinstate the platemakers as strikers
is alleged in the complaint , and not a lock -out and discharge of these employees.
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the platemakers were
not discriminatorily refused reinstatement in contravention of Section
8 (3) of the Act. Three days following May 7, 1945, the Amalgamated
informed the respondent by letter that "all of the lithographic work-
ers" were ready and willing to return to work, but were still its
members and refused to join the Pressmen "as a condition to further
employment." As regards the striking platemakers, this was but an
application for reinstatewent conditioned upon the respondent's cessa-
tion of its unfair labor practices respecting the offset pressmen. As
it was no more than a declaration that the platemakers would continue
their strike unless the respondent desisted from its unfair labor prac-
tices against the offset pressmen, the application was not an uncon-
ditional request for reinstatement which, if rejected, results in such
a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act as warrants an award of back
pay. 27
Thereafter, on May 14, 1945, another letter was sent to the respond-
ent by the Amalgamated. This letter again advised the respondent
that all lithographic employees were ready and willing to return to
work, but were members of the Amalgamated. Although the letter
did not expressly state that all such employees were unwilling to
affiliate with the Pressmen as a condition to further employment, this
was implicit in its language. Unquestionably, therefore, the plate-
makers did nothing more than to renew their conditional application
of May 10, 1945. '
Inasmuch as they joined the Engravers on May 22, 1945, the same
day on which the respondent made its closed-shop agreement with
the Allied and before the date on which the respondent executed its
closed-shop contract with the Engravers, it is manifest that no dis-
crimination was practiced against the three platemakers entitling
them to back pay.
9. Before the discrimination against the offset pressmen , on April
29, 1945, as the Trial Examiner found, the respondent attempted to
persuade these employees to join the Pressmen. As the Trial Ex-
aminer also found, after May 7, 1945, the respondent approached
Andrew E. Lewis, one of its offset pressmen, and endeavored to induce
him to become a member of the Pressmen. A similar effort was made
subsequent to May 7, 1945, with respect to Fletcher W. Stone, another
of the respondent's offset pressmen. In view of the fact that its
closed-shop contract with the Pressmen has been found to be invalid
regarding the offset pressmen, the respondent, we conclude in the
circumstances, by these actions interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.28
a* Cf. Matter of Harter Corporation , 8 N L R B 391
29 Contrary to the Trial Examiner 's finding , no attempts were made by the respondent
following May 7, 1945, to persuade the platemakers to join the Engravers.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 425
10. Because the respondent felt compelled to yield to the threats
of economic pressure made by the Allied and the Pressmen, the re-
spondent and the A. F. of L. assert that at 'most there was a "tech-
nical" violation of the Act. They insist, therefore, that under the
principles of the New York and Porto Rico Steamship case 29 the
respondent should not be ordered to reinstate the eight'off set pressmen
with back pay.
That case, however, was later distinguished in the Greer Steel Com-
pany case,30 and never thereafter followed s1 No line of demarcation
is drawn in the Act between a "technical" and "non-technical" viola-
tion, either by expressed or implied provision. Norj in defining un-
fair labor practices, does the Act make any allowance or qualification
for the coercion which may have impelled their commission .32 There
is consequently no foundation for any distinction between "technical"
and "non-technical" misconduct.
If this Board were to establish an area of conduct in which discrim-
inatory action would be privileged to the extent that reinstatement
with back pay would not be demanded, it could never be clearly de-
limited. Time and time again we would be called upon in varying
fact patterns to determine how much or how little pressure excuses
an employer from the requirements of our usual reinstatement and
back-pay order.33 And the creation of such a zone of immunity might
open the door to collusion between an employer and a labor organi-
zation, leading to difficulties in detection and the possibility of de-
priving wronged employees of proper relief. It would, in addition,
encourage the use of force, and succumbing to force.34
In this case the respondent was undoubtedly placed in a difficult
position. Nevertheless, as between an employer who elected to follow
a course of action violative of the Act, and employees who were guilty
of nothing more than adhering to a union of their own choosing, it
is only reasonable that the burden of the illegal conduct fall upon
the former.
29 34 N . L.R B 1028
." 38 N. L. R B 65 we observe in passing that the circumstances in the present
case parallel those in the Greer Steel Company case , in which the Board directed that
employees discriminatorily discharged as a consequence of threats of economic reprisals
by a labor organization , be reinstated with back pay. Unlike the facts in the New York
and Porto Rico Steamship case, here and in the Greer Steel Company ebse there wds no
actual exercise by a union of its economic power to the demonstrated financial detriment
of the respondent.
n See e g, Matter of Gluck- Brewing Company, etc ., 47 N L R. B. 1079 , enf'd with
modifications not pertinent to this discussion 144 F (2d) 847 (C C A 8) ; Matter of
Fred S West, Fred C West and Leonard R .' West, co -partners , doing business as Peerless
Pattern Works, 64 N L. It. B 1473.
= See footnote 12, supra
33 See e.g., the New York and Porto Rico Steamship and Greer Steel Company cases,
supra
'* See the rationale in Mattes , of Mill Road Live Poultry Market , Inc., 5 New York
S. L. R B , 822, 835-840,
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the immediate victims, the effect of unlawful discrimination is
obvious. Beyond question, moreover, such discrimination also leaves
its coercive mark upon the fellow employees of the victims, bringing
home to them the danger of joining or assisting a labor organization.
To deny affirmative relief when discrimination has occurred would not
promote the policies of the Act. A mere direction to cease and desist
from discouraging membership in the particular union concerned
would fall far short of reestablishing freedom of self-organization.
This can be accomplished only by restoring to work and making whole
financially those employees who were penalized for exercising a right
which the Act guarantees, and thereby assuring their coworkers that
the Act carries sufficient force fully and properly to protect this right.
Thus, the impress of the harmful effects of the discrimination upon
the victims and their fellow employees will truly be eradicated.
All the foregoing reasons warrant the conclusion that, as recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, the respondent should be ordered to
reinstate the eight offset pressmen with back pay.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Albert Love Enterprises, a
partnership consisting of Albert I. Love; Sol I. Golden; Julia S.
Love; Albert I. Love, Isadore Bogoslaw, Julia S. Love and Sol I.
Golden as Trustees for Judith Love and Diana Love; Alfred E. Gar-
ber, Sykes H. Young and Earle Sanders, co-partners d/b/a Foote
& Davies, Atlanta, Georgia, and their agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, Local 51, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in its lithographic department with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, Local 51, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by locking out or discharging any of its employees pursuant
to any contractual provision requiring, as a condition of employment,
membership in any labor organization which does not represent a ma-
jority of the employees in an appropriate unit;
(c) Giving effect to its contract, made on or about January 1, 1945,
with Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 8, sub-
ordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 427
Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, or to any extension, renewal, revision, modification or supple-
ment thereof, insofar as it affects any of the respondent 's employees
in its lithographic department;
(d) Giving effect to its contract, executed on July 13, 1945, with
International Photo Engravers Union of North America, Local No.
26, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or to any ex-
tension, renewal, revision, modification or supplement thereof;
(e) Giving effect to its contract, executed on May 22, 1945, with
International Allied Printing Trades Association, or to any extension,
renewal, revision, modification or supplement thereof, insofar as it
affects any of the respondent's employees in its lithographic depart-
ment ;
(f) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with Atlanta Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 8, subordinate to the Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any successor
thereto, as the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, of any of the
respondent's employees in its lithographic department;
(g) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with International
Photo Engravers Union of North America, Local No. 26, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, or any successor thereto, as
the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, of any of the re-
spondent's employees in its lithographic department;
(h) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with International
Allied Printing Trades Association, or any successor thereto, as the
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to grievances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, of any of respondent's em-
ployees in its lithographic department.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, Local 51, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in its lithographic department, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment;
(b) Offer to Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Park Steele, Fletcher W.
Stone, Bennie L. Brier, William T. Garret, Wyman A. Calloway, Paul
Wilson, and Robert Cox, immediate and full reinstatement to their
42 DECISIONS OF NA[TONAL LKI O t 'f ELA'TIONS BOARD
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any
se'hiority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(c) Make whole the said employees named in paragraph 2 (b) of
this Order for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a'sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his, net earnings during such period;
(d) Post at its plant at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto,'mai'ked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by it
imfiiodiately upon receipt thereof and maintaind by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to iiisure that 'said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND rr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Luther W. Smith, Sr.,
Mack F. Chandler, and Bobbie Nellie Blackmon, in violation of Sec-
tidn 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
N0PWE 'I"O ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER
of th® National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our
employees that :
We will not discourage membership in the Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, Local 51, or in any other labor organization
of our employees, by locking out or discharging any of our em-
ployees pursuant to any contractual provision requiring, as a
weoi' dition of employment, membership in any labor organization
which does not represent a majority pf the employees in an ap-
propriate unit.
We will not give effect to our contract made on or about January
1, 1945, with Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
No. 8, subordinate to the `international Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of,North America, affil{aced with the American
Federation of Labor; or'to any extension, renewal, revision, mo'di-
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 429
fication or supplement thereof, insofar as such contract affects
any of our employees in the lithographic department.
We will not give effect to our contract executed on July 13, 1945,
with International Photo Engravers Union of North America,
Local No. 26 , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
or any successor thereto, or to any extension , renewal , revision,
modification or supplement thereof.
We will not give effect to our contract executed on May 22, 1945,
with International Allied Printing Trades Association, or any
successor thereto , or to any extension , renewal, revision , modifi-
cation or supplement thereof, insofar as such contract affects any
of our employees in the lithographic department.
We will not recognize or in any manner deal with the Atlanta
Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union, No. 8, subordinate to
the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
or any successor thereto; or International Photo Engravers
Union of North America, Local No. 26, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, or any successor thereto ; or Interna-
tional Allied Printing Trades Association , or any successor
thereto, as the representative of any of our employees in the
lithographic department for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment.
We will , upon request , bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Lithographers of America , Local 51, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the appropriate unit, consisting of all the
employees in our lithographic department , with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
We will offer to Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Park Steele, Fletcher
W. Stone. Bernie L. Grier, William T. Garrett , Wyman A.
Calloway , Paul Wilson, and Robert Cox, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed and will make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination , by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount they
normally would have earned as wages from May 7 , 1945, to the
date of our offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such
period.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 51, or any other
labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire or
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
FooTE & DAV>ES,
Employer,
Dated .................. By....................................
(Representative ) (Title)
NoTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Albert D. Maynard and Paul S. Kuelthau, for the Board.
Mr. Sol I. Golden, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. Benjamin M. Robinson, of New York, N. Y., and Mr. Robert Bruck, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. John S. McLellan, Pressmen's Home, Tenn., Messrs. George 0. Baker
and H. L. Mette, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Pressmen.
Messrs. George L. Googe and W. M. Alexander, of Atlanta, Ga., for the
Allied.
Mr. Edward At. Wetton, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Engravers.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Associate, of Washing-
ton, D. C., for the A. F. of L.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed by Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local 51, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board , by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
issued its complaint dated July 12, 1945, against Albert Love Enterprises, a
partnership consisting of Albert I. Love ; Sol I. Golden ; Julia S. Love ; Albert I.
Love, Julia S. Love, Isadore Bogoslaw and Sol I. Golden as Trustees for Judith
Love and Diana Love ; Alfred X. Garber, Sykes H. Young and Earl Sanders,
co-partners, d/b/a Foote & Davies, Atlanta, Georgia, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3),
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent ; the Amalgamated ; Atlanta Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 8, subordinate to National Printing Press-
men and Assistants ' Union of North America, herein called the Pressmen ;
Local 26, International Photo Engravers Union of North America, herein
called the Engravers ; and George L. Googe, Southern Director for the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 431
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges in substance: (1) that all employees of the respondent in
its Lithographic Department constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act ; that
for a long time prior to January 1, 1945, and thereafter, a majority of the
employees in said unit had designated the Amalgamated as their bargaining
representative and by virtue thereof the Amalgamated, for a long time prior
to January 1, 1945, and at all times thereafter, has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining;
and that the respondent from on or about March 27, 1945, and on various dates
thereafter, has refused and failed to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated
in good faith; (2) that on or about January 1, 1945, the respondent entered
into a closed-shop agreement with the Pressmen covering, inter alia, most of
the employees in the unit described above ; that said agreement and any exten-
sion, renewal, or modification thereof, is invalid and in violation of the Act
in that it does not cover the employees in an appropriate unit as defined in the
Act, and in that the Pressmen did not represent a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit at the time the agreement was consummated; (3) that
on or about May 7, 1945, the respondent locked out and discharged eight named
employees,' and thereafter refused to reinstate them for the reason that they
were members of the Amalgamated and refused to join the Pressmen; (4)
that from on or about December 1944 to date of the complaint through certain
of its officers, agents, and supervisory employees, the respondent urged, per-
suaded, threatened, and warned the employees in the unit described above to
refrain from remaining members in the Amalgamated and urged Amalgamated
members and adherents to become members of the Pressmen ; and questioned
the employees in said unit concerning their membership in and activity in
behalf of the Amalgamated; (5) that on or about May 7, 1945, three named
employees,' went on strike because of, and as a result of the unfair labor
practices of the respondent above referred to ; and the respondent from May 7,
1945 to on or about May 28, 1945, refused to reinstate said Smith, Chandler,
and Blackman to their former or equivalent positions because of their mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Amalgamated; (6) that during May
1945,' the respondent recognized the Engravers as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the plate making section of its Lithographic Department
and entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Engravers cover-
ing said employees ; that said agreement is invalid and in violation of the Act
since it does not cover an appropriate unit as defined by the Act, and since
the Engravers did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees when
said agreement was made; (7) that on May 22, 1945, the respondent entered
into a contract with the International Allied Printing Trades Association,
herein called the Allied, whereby the respondent agreed, inter alia, to employ
only members of unions affiliated. with Allied; and (8) that by the acts
described above the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On or about July 24, 1945, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged ; admitted
entering into contracts with the Pressmen and the Engravers above referred
1 Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Parks Steele , Fletcher W. Stone, Bennie L . Grier, William
T. Garrett, Wyman A. Galloway, Paul Wilson and Robert Cox.
9 Luther W. Smith, Sr., Mack F . Chandler , and Nellie Bobbie Blackman.
" The record disclosed that while this contract was not executed until on or about July
13, 1945, it became effective as of May 28, 1945.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIO14AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to and affirmatively alleged, in substance (a) that it took the action that it
did as a result of information from the A. F. of L. that jurisdiction of the
Amalgamated's lithographic pressmen belonged to the Pressmen; and (b)
that it had no' alternative as a matter of business other than to accede to the
demands of the Pressmen which threatened to strike the plant. On July 23,
1945, the ' Pressmen and the International Allied Printing' Trades Association,
herein called the Allied, each filed Petitions to Intervene in the instant case.
On July 27, 1945, such petitions were granted by an order of the Trial Exam-
iner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, to consider such petition.
At the outset of the hearing the Engravers made a motion to intervene herein,
which motion was granted by the undersigned.
On July 23, both the Pressmen andi,the Engravers filed answers to the com-
plaint., At'the outset of the hearing, counsel for both organizations moved to
withdraw such answers. While the undersigned ruled that the answers should
remain as part of the formal files in the case, the record will show that the
Pressmen and Engravers had abandoned the answers so filed.
During the hearing the A. F. of L. filed a motion to intervene herein. The
motion 'was granted by the undersigned.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Atlanta, Georgia, on various dates
from July, 30 to August 9, 1945, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the
Amalgamated, tho Pressmen, the Engravers, the Allied, and the A. F. of L.
were represented by counsel. All participated in the hearing Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing
counsel for th0 Bdat'd, without objection, moved that the complaint be amended
in formal matters to conform to the proof. The motion was granted.
The parties waived oral argument and were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the undersigned. Briefs have been filed by the Amalgamated, the
respondent, the Pressmen; the Engravers, and the A. F. of L.
Since the close of the hearing the respondent, the A. F. of L, the Pressmen,
and the 'Engravers have filed motions, supported by briefs, to dismiss the
complaint 'herein.
For reasons set forth below said'Inotions are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS' OF FACT
•
1. THE BUSINESS dF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, doing business as Foote & Davies, and constituted as
described above, has its principal office and place of business at Atlanta,
Georgia,, where it,is engaged in the business of printing, lithographing, engrav-
ing, and book-mailing. For the year 1944, the respondent purchased raw
materials consisting, chiefly of paper, ink, gold foil, and metal, valued in excess
of $100,000, more than 90 percent of which was purchased and shipped to the
respondent in Atlanta, Georgia, from points outside the State of Georgia.
During the same period the respondent manufactured and sold finished prod-
ucts, valued in excess of $100,000. Thirty percent of the respondent's finished
products are shipped to points outside the State of Georgia .4
* The findings in this section, are based on the allegations of the complaint and admitted
by respondent 's answer, as amended at the hearing'
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES
II. THE ORGANIZATION S INVOLVED
433
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 51; Atlanta Printing Press-
men and Assistants' Union No. 8, subordinate to National Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America ; International Photo Engravers Union
of North America, Local No. 26; and International Allied Printing Trades
Association, all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor ; 6 and the
American Federation of Labor are each and all labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Historical background; sequence of events
Since the charges herein are, in the last analysis, the outgrowth of a juris-
dictional dispute between the Amalgamated Lithographers of America, A. F.
of L., on the one hand, and the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants
Union of North America, A. F. of L., and International Photo Engravers Union
of North America, A. F. of L., on the other hand, an outline history of the
dispute, together with a sequence of events pertaining thereto, is necessary in
the consideration of the issues and contentions of the parties in the instant
case
The record discloses that the Lithographers International Protective Bene-
ficial Association, of the United States and Canada, herein called LIP & BA,
now known as the Amalgamated Lithographers of America, was organized in
1882 and thereafter on or about April 14, 1906, it made application for a
certification of affiliation with the American Federation of Labor. Such
application described the character of work at which its members were
employed, as follows :
Our members are employed in all the various branches for the production
of lithography. Drawing, engraving on stone, zinc, and aluminum . Provers
and hand-press printers on stone, zinc, and aluminum . Transferers from
steel, copper plates to stone, zinc, and aluminum . Steam press feeders,
multi-color printers, and transfers, all of the lithographic processes.
The application further stated that the LIP & BA had 25 subordinate asso-
ciations with a total of 3016 members at that time.
Prior to 1909, the Pressmen claimed no jurisdiction over employees engaged
in the lithographic processes. During that year, however, it amended its con-
stitution to include "offset presses of any description," along with its claim to
jurisdiction over letter or relief printing presses.
Thereafter the Pressmen competed with the Amalgamated 4 in an attempt
to organize offset pressmen. The Pressmen operated a school in Rogersville,
5 Since the close of the hearing and on October 23, 1945, the Amalgamated filed a
motion to amend the charges and the complaint herein by eliminating therefrom any
and all references in the name of the Amalgamated to the A . F. of L . on the grounds set
forth in an accompanying affidavit of its president to the effect that between September
12, 1945, and October 1, 1945, the Amalgamated had, by proper procedure , withdrawn
from its affiliation with the A. F. of L. For the reasons set forth in an Order issued on
October 30, 1945, the undersigned denied said Motion to Amend.
9 On or about 1915 the LIP & BA amalgamated with International Stone Papers
Organization, International Association of Press Feeders, International Association of
Poster Artists, and the International Association of Lithographic Workmen under the
name of Amalgamated Lithographers of America . The A . F. of L . never formally recog-
nized this amalgamation.
686572--46-29
414 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LAB6R RELATIONS BOARD
Tennessee , at which it offered various courses to its members . Sometime
prior to November 1913, the Pressmen installed an offset press at such school
and offered courses in the operation of this type of press to other pressmen.
At the 33rd Annual Convention of the A. F. of L. held in Seattle, Wash-
ington, in November 1913 , the Amalgamated by. proper procedure complained
that the Pressmen having established a trade school , above referred to, was,
through its official journal and otherwise "offering every inducement to teach
operating a lithographic offset press , and to teach lithographic transferring,
through the assistance of non-union lithographers." The complaint charged
that such action was a direct encroachment under the Amalgamated rights and
privileges as guaranteed by its charter and requested that the Executive
Council be instructed to arrange a conference of representatives from both
organizations to take place within 30 days after adjournment of such Conven-
tion. The Committee on Adjustment recommended that a conference among
the officers of the Amalgamated, the Pressmen, and the Engravers be held to
consider the matter . The recommendation of the Committee was adopted by
the Convention.
At the 35th Annual Convention of the A. F. of L., held in San Francisco in
November 1915, the Executive Council made a, report with reference to the
Amalgamated's claim against the Pressmen and intervening printing trades
unions and the proffered resolutions of intervening printing trades unions and
concluded such report with recommendations as follows :
We, therefore, recommend that the Executive Council of the American
Federation of Labor shall , within a period of 90 days from the adjourn-
ment of this Convention , select a committee of 3 to make a thorough
investigation of the whole subject matter contained in these resolutions
with power to make recommendations to the Executive Council and that
the Executive Council upon' such recommendations made to it, and in
accordance with the opinions expressed in this report , is authorized to
bring about upon an equitable basis an amalgamation of the unions in-
volved in this controversy , and the terms of such amalgamation and juris-
diction claims of the various organizations involved shall be determined
and decided upon by the Executive Council.
The motion made and seconded to adopt the report of the committee was
carried.
The next action taken on the jurisdictional dispute was taken at the 36th
Annual Convention at Baltimore in November 1916 at which the Committee
appointed pursuant to action at the San Francisco 1915 Convention made a
report of its findings and recommendations on the jurisdictional dispute. It
recommended , inter aha , and in substance that lithographic pressmen and
press feeders should be members of the "International Pressmen and Assistants'
Union" ; that lithographers, artists, transferers, and those engaged in the
processes of providing plate from which printing is done should be members
of the "Photo Engravers Union." The report added :
In making these recommendations we realize that we are dividing a union
by placing its membership into two international unions, but we believe
that under the present Allied Printing Trades organization and the joint
movement of the printing trades to protect the workers in the different
branches in the printing industry , that the interest of these men will be
best served by carrying out of these recommendations , and under the cir-
cumstances it will in our opinion add strength to these workers and tend
to improve their condition of employment.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 435
Pending consummation of the amalgamation of these trades as herein
proposed, we recommend that the jurisdiction of the offset press be con-
ceded to the International Pressmen and Assistants' Union. That the
jurisdiction of the making of plates to be used on offset presses be con-
ceded to Photo Engravers.
Following the report of committee, next above referred to, appears the
following :
We directed President Gompers to call a conference of the organizations
in interest for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations contained
in the committee's report. Efforts were immediately made after our July
meeting to call a conference, but by reason of the departure of President
Woll of the Photo Engravers Union for England to attend the British
Trade Union conference as fraternal delegate from the A. F. of L., the
conference was postponed until after his return.
Insofar as is disclosed by the record no further action toward approving the
report was taken by the 1916 Convention in connection with the jurisdictional
dispute.
The dispute was next taken up by the 37th Annual Convention of the A. F.
of L. held at Buffalo in November 1917. The Convention adopted the report
of Committee on Adjustment requiring the Executive Council to draw up,a
plan of amalgamation to be put in effect by April 1, 1918, "or as soon there-
after as the Executive Council may decide, and that the organization or organi-
zations failing to become a part of the Amalgamation, as laid down by the
Executive Council, shall stand suspended."
At the 1918 Convention of the A. F. of L., held at St. Paul, the plan of
amalgamation proposed by President Gompers was submitted and the com-
mittee recommended the adoption of the plan by the Convention with the
provision that the organization or organizations failing to comply therewith
be suspended on August 1 (1918). The Amalgamated delegates objected to
the proposed plan and in substance proposed that the Amalgamated, the Press-
men, and the Engravers would amalgamate in a new international union, which
proposal was not accepted by the Convention, and the motion to adopt the
report of the committee approving the plan of amalgamation as prepared by
President Gompers was adopted.
Insofar as the record discloses, no further action was taken on the jurisdic-
tional dispute by any A. F. of L. Convention from 1919 to 1935. At the 1935
Convention held at Atlantic City in October, the dispute was reviewed and
a resolution offered by the Printing Trades Unions (other than the Amalga-
mated) requiring the president of the A. F. of L. to bring all parties directly
concerned into a conference for the purpose of securing observance of the
decisions reached at previous conventions, "or to negotiate such understandings
or arrangements as may prove mutually acceptable, and in the event no such
agreements or understandings be reached within a period of six months after
the adjournment of the 55th Annual Convention of the American Federation
of Labor, that the Executive Committee of the Federation be and is hereby
authorized to suspend the charter of the International Lithographers Protec-
tive and Beneficial Association-also known as the Amalgamated Lithographers
of America-until the previous decisions of the American Federation of Labor
are observed, or to take such other and further action as will seem to the
Executive Council best suited to bring about the desired result."
The record discloses that during each of the American Federation Conven-
tions from 1937 to 1943, inclusive, the jurisdictional dispute has been discussed
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and sundry resolutions adopted but no action resulting in the suspension of
the Amalgamated's charter has been taken.
The Amalgamated contended, down through the years, that since the 1916
Convention did not adopt or approve the report of the committee recommending
that the Pressmen have jurisdiction over lithographic offset pressmen and that
the Engravers have jurisdiction over lithographic plate makers, the subsequent
conventions were without authority and jurisdiction to approve recommenda-
tions made to the 1916 Convention, in addition the Amalgamated contended
that the A. F. of L. was without authority to transfer jurisdiction from one
union to the other without a referendum of the membership of the organization
to be transferred.
The record discloses that while the A. F. of L. has not suspended the Amal-
gamated, it has by a series of letters written by its president, William Green,
served notice that the 1916 "Award of Jurisdiction" will be recognized by the
A. F. of L.
The Pressmen contend, in part, and in effect, that since by the "offset" or
lithographic method, (1) Ink is put on paper, and (2) since images are pro-
duced that cannot be distinguished from like images produced on "printing"
presses, that offset presses properly belong in the "Relief" printing process, and
hence are subject to the jurisdiction of the Pressmen
In the Graphic Arts, three major industries have long been recognized, which
are related to three different processes or methods of reproduction of graphic
arts products.
The United States Labor Department, Wages and Hours Division, in a report
issued September 12, 1942 stated:
Three basic processes are used in the production of graphic arts products.
They have been described, for the purposes of easy explanation to the
layman, as the "elevated", "street level", and "subway" systems. To the
trade they are known as relief printing, lithographic printing, and intaglio
printing, respectively.
Relief printing Is the process of printing from raised type.
Lithographic printing is the process of printing from a plane or flat
surface. Two methods are used , direct and offset lithography. In the
former, the paper (or metal, etc.) comes Into direct contact with the
printing plate . Offset lithography involves the transference of the design,
by means of rollers to a rubber blanket, which in turn transfers the design
to the material being printed.
Intaglio printing is the process of taking an impression from a plate
or roll where the design or characters are cut below the plate surface.
That the foregoing division in the graphic arts has been long recognized is
made further apparent from the Code of Fair Competition for the Graphic
Arts Industry as approved on September IT, 1934, under the National Recovery
Act, wherein Section 22 A, an autonomous section, was set up to establish condi-
tions of work for lithographic employees and all employees engaged in carrying
on the lithographic processes, as one unit.
The Amalgamated Is the only one of the principal labor unions engaged in
the graphic arts organized on an industrial basis and the one which has tradi-
tionally for more than 30 years bargained for a unit composed of all employees
engaged in the lithographic processes . In the Matter of Con P. Curran Printing
Company T the Board stated , in part :
7 57 N. L. R. B. 185.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 437
The record discloses that printing by the lithographic process has long
been recognized as a separate branch of the printing industry . As distin-
guished from letter-press printing, which constitutes the other principal
branch, lithography involves printing from a plane surface and depends
for its operation upon a chemical difference between various portions of
the surface of the plate used in making the impression. Except for the
initial step of photographing the image to be reproduced, each step in the
process of lithographic printing is separate and distinct from that of letter
press. Throughout the process of preparing lithographic plates and their
use in lithographic, or offset presses , special skills, peculiar to the litho-
graphic process, are required. Likewise, plates prepared for lithographic
printing cannot be used in letter press reproduction, nor can plates pre-
pared by photoengraving be used in lithographic presses.
By reason of the distinct and separate nature of lithographic printing,
there exists a considerable history of separate bargaining by employees
in the lithographic branch of the printing industry. Although in both the
lithographic and the letter press divisions of the industry, bargaining was
conducted originally by separate organizations limited to the various crafts,
for approximately 30 years employees engaged in the lithographic process
have been bargained for as a group by the Amalgamated. The record
discloses that throughout the printing industry as a whole, as well as in
the St. Louis area, lithographic employees are now organized almost
exclusively upon an operational, or so-called "industrial," basis , and are
represented by the Amalgamated rather than by an organization which
is limited in its jurisdiction to a portion of the lithographic process, such
as the Photo-Engravers. . . . In view of the almost universal preva-
lence of the broader type of organization for collective bargaining in the
lithographic branch of the printing industry, and the difference in skill
and duties between lithographic employees and those engaged in other
types of printing, it is apparent that employees engaged in the lithographic
process constitute a distinct group possessing a community of interest
such as to warrant our finding that they constitute a separate appropriate
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. (Emphasis added)
That the Amalgamated, notwithstanding the jurisdictional dispute referred
to above, has, down through the years successfully organized employees engaged
in the lithographic process is further disclosed by a report of the United States
Department of Labor, Wages and Hour Division Issued September 12, 1942
t eading in part as follows :
It is estimated that one-third of the total number of workers in the Print-
ing and Publishing and Allied Graphic Arts Industry are covered by union
agreements. Forty-five percent of the production workers are union mem-
bers. The percentage in the newspaper field is considerably higher while
in the book and job branch it is somewhat lower.
There are nine international trade unions in the Printing and Publishing
and Allied Graphic Arts Industry, who report their combined membership
to be approximately 240,000 workers.
The names of these unions and their membership follows :
The International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union : Includes
pressmen, assistants, feeders, and unskilled help in letterpress rooms.
60,000 members
The International Typographical Union : Comprises all skilled typesetting,
proofreading and mail room employees. 83,000 members
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The International Photo-Engravers Union : Members of this union make
"cuts" for illustrations . 11,000 members
The International' Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union : Includes plate
makers in stereotype and electrotype plants. 10,000 members
The International Brotherhood of Bookbinders : Includes principally
bookbinders and bindery women. 27,000 members
The Amalgamated Lithographers of America : Covers employees engaged
in the various photo-lithographic occupations. Eighty-five percent of the
total number of lithographers , are organized in this union.
14,140 members
and 3 others not material herein.
The record discloses that there are about 5500 offset presses in the United
States distributed throughout 2200 shops; 75 percent or about 1650 have one
or two small presses only ; six and one-half percent of all shops or 150 shops,
have 21 percent of all presses In numbers and a much larger percent in capacity
because these shops have the large multi -color presses such as 4 color presses ;
that the largest concentration are in cities of New York , Chicago, San Fran-
cisco, Cleveland , Cincinnati , Boston, Detroit , and Philadelphia in about the
order named . New York City with from 165 to 200 shops employs approxi-
mately one -third of all lithographic workers in the United States. The Amal-
gamated New York local has 5135 members , Chicago with 150 lithographic
shops employs 2250 lithographic workers, of which the Amalgamated local has
1978 members ; San Francisco has about 37 lithographic shops and the Amal-
gamated local there has 785 members ; at Cleveland with 21 lithographic shops
(80 presses ) the Amalgamated local has 330 members ; Cincinnati has 26
shops (85 presses ), which employ 425 Amalgamated members; and Milwaukee
with 23 shops operating 71 presses, all of which are operated by 468 Amalga-
mated members.
Many offset plants also have printing departments ; these are called mixed
or combined shops. In some shops the printing department is larger, and in
some shops the offset department is larger. In many of the mixed shops the
Amalgamated has exclusive bargaining rights for lithographic workers and the
Pressmen have the same rights for printing pressmen .8 This condition exists
generally through the United States.
While the record does riot disclose the number of offset pressmen affiliated
with the Pressmen , it wrould appear from the record that the latter have or-
ganized as members a comparatively small percentage of offset pressmen.
On the other hand the record discloses that the Amalgamated has organized
a very large majority of all available lithographic workers in many cities, for
example,
'For example, The Rand -McNally Company of Chicago ; R. R. Donnelley and Sons,
Chicago ; Manz Corporation , Chicago ; Regensteiner Corporation , Chicago ; Magill-Wein-
sheimer, Chicago ; I. S. Berlin Company, Chicago ; Fort Wayne Printing Company, Fort
Wayne, Indiana ; Western Printing and Lithograph Company, Racine, Wisconsin ; Rey-
nolds and Reynolds , Dayton, Ohio ; E. F. Schmidt Company, Milwaukee , Wisconsin ;
Meisenheimer Printing Company, Milwaukee ; W. B. Burford Company, Indianapolis ;
Evans-Winter-Robb Company, DetroAt ; Smith & Sitron Printing Company, Cleveland ;
U. S. Playing Card Company, Cincinnati ; Western Printing Company, Cincinnati ; C. T.
Dearing Printing Company, Loul ville ; Courier Journal Job Printing Company, Louis-
ville ; A. L. Garber Printing Company, Ashland, Ohio ; Warner P. Simpson Company,
Columbus, Ohio ; S. C. Toof and company, Memphis ; Cullom & Chertner Company, Nash-
ville ; The Stein Printing Company, Atlanta ; Frankliug Printing Company, Miami ; and
so forth. '
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 439
New York ........... 95% plus Akron ........ .. .... .. 100%
Cleveland ............. 98% Ashland, Ohio ... .... ... 100%
•Cincinnati ...........9711%o Racine, Wis .. . ...... 100%
Louisville ............ 97% Columbus . ..... ...... 97%
Dayton .. ... ........ 94% Nashville . .. ..... ... 100%
Toledo ............... 100% Chicago .................. 90%
In the instant case the A P. of L, the Pressmen, the Engravers, and the
respondent take the position that the proceedings herein should be dismissed
in view of the "Award of Jurisdiction" by the A F. of L referred to above.
In its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1943, the Board said
The Board is reluctant to undertake the resolution of a jurisdictional
dispute between two or more unions affiliated with the same parent or-
ganization . It will, however, proceed with an investigation of representa-
tives in a case involving a dispute between coafliliates where a union not
a party to the jurisdictional dispute is a party to the case, or where it
appears from the circumstances that there is little substantial prospect
that the controversy will be resolved by the parent organization. Thus,
elections have been ordered in cases where the affiliated unions involved
had agreed that the Board should settle the controversy since the parent
organization was unable to do so, and where the dispute was of such long
standing that effective resolution by the parent body appeared unlikely'
In its Annual Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1944, in this inaiue con-
nection, the Board said:
While the Board is somewhat disinclined to proceed to a determination
of a bargaining representative in the face of a jurisdictional dispute be-
tween two or more unions affiliated with the same parent organization,
it does so where a union not involved in that dispute is a party to the
representation case, or where the disputants have failed to submit to
their parent organization for settlement a controversy of long standing
Recently, the Board, without comment, denied a motion to dismiss a
petition made by a union on the ground that it was involved in a juris-
dictional dispute with a sister union which was the only other labor or-
ganization in the case.10
From the foregoing it appears that, notwithstanding the A. F. of L 's "Award
of Jurisdiction" of lithographic offset pressmen to the Pressmen and litho-
graphic plate makers to the Engravers, a very large proportion of lithographic
workers have chosen the Amalgamated as their bargaining representative and
refused recognition of the Award of jurisdiction by the A. F. of L. "Under
such circumstances the Board is charged with fulfilling its statutory duty of
certifying to the parties the name of the representative designated or selected
by the employees involved, and this mandate cannot be supplanted by any a r-
rangments concerning jurisdiction worked out by non-statutory bodies.""
In view of the above it appears that employees of the respondent employed
in its Lithographic Department, as described and found below, are not bound
by the Award of Jurisdiction referred to above, and it is so found.
°In this connection the Board cited Matter of Montgomery lVaril & Co Inc, 50
N. L it. B 163 ; Matter of Iowa Electric Lrght & Power Coinpany, 49 N. L R B 230;
see also Matter of Fitzhugh, Inc, 47 N L it. 13 606; and Metter of IV II Iii.tler Sta-
tionery Company , 51 N. L. It B. 978
"'In this connection the Board cited Matter of B F Gilmour Co . Inc, 55 N L R It
767, Matter of Sherman White Company , 58 N L. R B 1024; see also Matter of
Moraine Products Div., General Motors Corp., 56 N. 1, R. B 1887
u Quotation from letter of May 15, 1945, sent to William Green, President A. F. of L
by Chairman Millis, on behalf of the Board.
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all employees of the respondent in its Litho-
graphic Department constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The Amalgamated contends for the unit described in the complaint. The
Pressmen contend, in substance, that since offset pressmen operate "printing
presses" and since the A. F. of L. has awarded jurisdiction over lithographic
presses to the Pressmen , such offset pressmen appropriately belong in a unit
with other printing pressmen , particularly in view of the fact that the Press-
men had entered into a closed-shop contract" with the respondent covering
such offset pressmen under date of January 1, 1945. The Engravers contend
that the employees of the plate making section of the respondent's Lithographic
Department belong in a unit of engravers as a result of the closed-shop con-
tract entered into between the Engravers and respondent under date of July
13, 1945.
It is undisputed that beginning in 1939 and continuing until on or about
May 7, 1945, when, as is found below, the respondent discriminatorily locked
out and discharged its offset pressmen , and by such act caused the lithographic
plate makers to leave their work, the Amalgamated and the respondent op-
erated under a closed-shop contract whereby the respondent recognized the
Amalgamated as bargaining agent for all lithographic employees. During this
same period respondent had a closed-shop contract with the Pressmen and
other printing unions covering all other employees in its plant. During the
same period there was no interdependence or interchange of employees between
the offset presses and the letter or relief presses in the respondent's plant.
The Pressmen sought to show that since its members took over the offset
presses (after the lock-out), that there had been frequent interchanges of em-
ployees between the two types of presses" From the record it is clear that
such interchange is the exception rather than the rule in the lithographic in-
dustry. The Pressmen offered some testimony that such interchange is the
usual practice in the industry. This testimony is not credited by the under-
signed inasmuch as the credible evidence in the record is to the contrary.
The Engravers, in support of their contention that lithographic plate makers
belonged in a unit of photo engravers, introduced testimony to the effect that
it represented employees of 13 plants in the United States where they had some
members doing "some offset work." Witnesses for the Engravers' local testified
that they were unfamiliar with offset plate making and that prior to the lock-
out of the respondent's plant the Local had made no attempt to organize plate
makers in Atlanta"
In view of the above and the record and particularly in view of the bargain-
ing history between the Amalgamated and the respondent from 1939 until
May 1945, together with the history of organization and collective bargaining
by the Amalgamated in other plants in the lithographic industry as found in
Section III , A, above, and the difference in skill and duties between litho-
graphic employees and those engaged in other types of printing, it is apparent
" The validity of this and other contracts is discussed and considered below.
"The Pressmen introduced four witnesses who so testified.
14 The record discloses that the Engravers was unable to furnish the respondent with
plate makers until after it succeeded in inducing Smith, Sr., Chandler, and Blackman
to join the Engravers following the lock-out.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 441
that employees engaged in the lithographic process constitute a definite group
possessing a community of interest such as to warrant a finding that they
constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The undersigned therefore finds that all employees of the respondent engaged
at work in its Lithographic Department, including employees engaged on its
offset presses and in lithographic plate making,30 constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
2. Representation by the Amalgamated of a majority in the appropriate unit
During the hearing, and after counsel for the Board and the Financial Secre-
tary of Local 51 of the Amalgamated, had checked the Local's record, all parties
stipulated that the three lithographic plate makers and the eight offset press-
men involved in the instant hearing were members of the Amalgamated from
December 1944 to May 7, 1945. As is set forth above, Local 51 of the Amal-
gamated operated under a closed-shop agreement with the respondent from
1939 to May 7, 1945.
The undersigned finds that, for a long time prior to January 1, 1945, and at
all material times thereafter, the Amalgamated was, and now is, the duly desig-
nated representative of a majority of employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, and that, bf virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Amalgamated at all
times was, and now is, representative of all the respondent's employees in such
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
a. Sequence of events
The respondent operates a printing plant in which it maintains a printing
department and a lithographic department. It is undisputed that during 1939
the respondent entered into closed-shop contracts with the Amalgamated on
behalf of its employees in its Lithographic Department and with the Pressmen
on behalf of those operating letter or relief presses and other employees, td-
gether with contracts with Typographical employees and other unions whose
members were employed by the respondent.
The Pressmen uses a "printed form" contract which lists offset presses along
with other types of presses. Such form also has a section providing for the
gether with contracts with Typographical employees and other unions whose
scale may be entered on offset and other presses. From 1939 until January 1,
1945, in the contracts between the Pressmen and the respondent, the portions
applicable to offset presses were either left blank entirely, or, if any insertions
were included applicable to the wage scale or complement of men on the offset
presses, they were deleted.
In the January 1, 1945, contract" the blanks applicable to offset presses, the
complement of men to work on offset presses and the wage scale applicable to
such presses were filled in. The contract was submitted to Earl Sanders, Man-
15 The only supervisory employees in respondent 's Lithographic Department are working
foremen who normally and traditionally have been included in the appropriate unit.
Is This contract, effective as of January 1, 1945, was apparently signed on January 3,
1945.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aging Partner of the respondent; who signed the contract and did not note
that it gave the Pressmen jurisdiction over the offset pressmen.
Under date of February 3, 1945, the Pressmen, by letter, notified Sanders
that It was going to insist that on and after April 1, 1945, that all types of
presses in the respondent's plant "shall be manned only and exclusively by
members of this (Pressmen's) union
The Amalgamated, whose closed-shop contract would not expire until March
27, 1945, and which provided that it would continue in effect for a 30-day
period thereafter for the purpose of negotiating a new contract, was not in-
formed of the Pressmen's January 1, 1945, contract. During the latter part of
February, Albert Love, an official of the respondent, and Superintendent J. D.
Harris called Andrew E. Lewis, a lithographic pressman, and asked if he had
been approached by the Pressmen to join their union. Love then read the
letter from the Pressmen, stating that on and after April 30 only members of
the, Pressmen could be employed on offset presses, but did not inform Lewis
of the Pressmen's January 1, 1945, contract.
The Amalgamated learned of the contract in March 1945, at which time
members of the Pressmen began contacting members of the Amalgamated and
stating that they had a contract with respondent giving the Pressmen juris-
diction over the offset pressmen." The Amalgamated then took the matter up
with the respondent and after considerable discussion with Sol I. Golden, the
respondent's attorney, the respondent admitted that it had given the Pressmen
jurisdiction over lithographic pressmen for which reason it could not renew
its contract with the Amalgamated.18 On April 29, 1945, at a meeting called by
respondent's officials at the plant the latter advised the offset pressmen of the
contract made with the Pressmen covering the lithographic presses and sug-
gested that the Amalgamated members join the Pressmen's union. While Amal-
gamated officials were present at the plant, Sanders insisted upon talking to
the offset pressmen in the absence of such officials. During this meeting
Sanders advised the offset pressmen that a notice would be posted on April 30
to the effect that all employees operating offset presses had to be members
of the Pressmen's union. A notice was not posted on April 30 and Sanders
asked Amalgamated officials whether they would suspend the membership of
the offset pressmen for 30 days and allow them to join the Pressmen so that
during the 30 days the respondent officials might be able to work out a solution
of the dispute satisfactory to all. The Amalgamated officials refused to sus-
pend the Amalgamated members employed in the Lithographic Department.
On May 4 the respondent posted a notice that effective May 30 only litho-
graphic pressmen who were members of the Pressmen's would be permitted to
17 During March 1945, the Pressmen contacted the offset pressmen and their helpers
by letters, enclosing application for membership forms The letters informed the litho-
graphic employees of the Pressmen's January 1, 1945, contract ; offered to accept them
as members of the Pressmen "without initiation fee or cost of entry"; and advised
that after April 27, 1945, only members of the Pressmen would be expected to be
employed on respondent's presses, regardless of type.
181t is undisputed that after the execution of the Pressmen's contract in January
.1945, and the receipt of the Pressmen's letter of February 3, 1945, advising the respond-
ent that the Pressmen would insist on exercising jurisdiction on the offset presses, the
respondent referred Amafgamated representatives to its attorney, Sol I. Golden, when
these representatives sought a bargaining conference with it
It is further undisputed that on or about March 27 and 30, April 18 and 26, 1945,
and at all times thereafter, Golden, on behalf of the respondent, advised the Amalgamated
in substance, that the respondent, having recognized the jurisdictional claim of the
Pressmen, could not bargain collectively with the Amalgamated.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 443
operate offset presses On May 7 a new notice'' was posted by the respondent
repeating substantially the May 4 notice , but instead of becoming effective on
May 30, it became effective at noon May 7.
Following the posting of the May 7 notice , the eight offset pressmen and the
three plate makers, hereinbefore referred to, left the plant at noon on that day.
Thereafter the offset presses were taken over by members of the Pressmen.
Following the lock-out and on May 10, 1945, the Amalgamated informed the
respondent , by letter , that the plate makers and offset pressmen were willing
on May 7 and were still ready and willing to return to work, but were un-
willing to become members of the Pressmen as a condition to further employ-
ment. On May 14, 1945, the Amalgamated again informed the respondent, by
letter , that all "lithographic workers" were still ready and willing to return
to work . The respondent made no reply to either of the two letters.
On May 22, 1945, the respondent entered into a contract with the Allied
whereby the respondent agreed, inter alia, to employ only members of the
Union, affiliated with the Allied.20
After the lock-out of May 7, officials and supervisory employees of the re-
spondent made efforts to get the offset pressmen to join the Pressmen and
endeavored to have the plate makers join the Engravers . The efforts were
unsuccessful with reference to the offset pressmen ; with reference to the plate
makers , however, respondent's officials and Engravers ' representatives were
successful in having the plate makers join the Engravers . On July 13, 1945,
respondent entered into a collective bargaining contract (effective as of May
28, 1945 ), whereby respondent recognized the Engravers as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the plate making section of the respondent's
Lithographic Department , and further provided that the respondent employed
only members of the Engravers in this section.
b. Respondent's contentions and testimony as to the refusal to bargain
Respondent contends in substance (1) that it relied upon the Award of
Jurisdiction made by the American Federation of Labor granting jurisdiction
to offset pressmen and plate makers, and (2) that it was led to, and did believe
that unless it complied with the demands of the Pressmen, its business would
be interfered with by a strike of the members of that union with the ultimate
result, in view of its commitments to the armed forces of the United States
and Governmental agencies, that it would be forced into financial ruin.
As to the first contention, the Board has heretofore had occasion to resolve
similar situations in the Star Publishing Company case21 where, as here, the
respondent received an official statement from the A. F. of L. that jurisdiction
belonged to a rival union. In this connection the Board and Court held that
MAY 7, 1945
1' IN accordance with the terms of a contract entered into between Foote & Davies
and Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No. 8 subordinate to the Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, and pursuant to
the jurisdictional award of the American Federation of Labor of which Foote & Davies
was officially advised, the Company will employ, effective May 7th, 1945 at noon only
members of or applicants to the above Union on its offset presses.
THIS WILL SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS NOTICE WHICH GAVE THE EFFEC-
TIVE DATE AS OF MAY 30th, 1945.
FOOTE & DAVIES
By Earl Sanders
20 The record discloses that the Amalgamated had, on divers occasions , requested affilia-
tion with the Allied, which request was denied
21 N. L. R. B. v Star Publs6hing Co., 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9), 1938.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"while the alleged unfair labor practice may have been caused by a jurisdic-
tional dispute between unions, the act forbids unfair labor practices without
regard to factors causing them. The ;ecord herein discloses that the respon-
dent was advised that it might petition the Board for a determination of the
disputed issue of jurisdiction. This it refused to do. In the instant case,
there was no stoppage nor In fact a real threat of stoppage, in that the Press-
men had not taken a strike vote under the Smith-Connally Act. Since the
respondent had bargained collectively with the Amalgamated for some 6 years,
and since the Act provides that employees in an appropriate unit may choose
their own bargaining representative, and since the respondent did not see fit
to submit the issues to the National Labor Relations Board, the only agency
recognized by law to determine appropriate units for the purposes of collective
bargaining, the respondent is not justified in relying upon the Award of Juris-
diction by the A. F. of L. This contention is without merit.
As to the second contention, the record discloses that the respondent being
confronted with a jurisdictional dispute elected to submit to the demands of
the Pressmen and sought to induce members of the Amalgamated to join the
Pressmen's and the Engravers' unions. The undersigned is convinced that the
respondent believed that if it did not submit to the Pressmen's demand that
they would cause a work stoppage, and since the Pressmen and Allied group
members greatly outnumbered the Amalgamated members, it decided to cast Its
lot with the Pressmen. Similar situations have been before the Board and
Courts, and the Courts have consistently upheld the Board' s refusal to recog-
nize even extreme business exigency as an excuse for unfair labor practices?'
In the Star Publishing case the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the Board
stating:
The respondent further contends that it was necessary to make the
transfer, and thus engage in the unfair labor practice, because its business
would otherwise be disrupted, and therefore, under all the facts, the trans-
fer was excusable. We think, however, the Act is controlling. The Act
prohibits unfair labor practices in all cases. It permits no immunity be-
cause the employer may think that the exigencies of the moment require
infraction of the Statute. In fact, nothing in the Statute permits or jus-
tifies Its violation by the employer.
This contention is without merit.
c. Contentions of the A. F. of L. in support of the position of respondent
In its motion to dismiss the complaint, the A. F. of L. contends in substance
(1) that the complaint should be dismissed because respondent's attitude
toward labor has always been good; (2) that its unfair labor practice against
the Amalgamated resulted from a threat of business disruption on the part of
the Pressmen's union ; and (3) that the question of jurisdiction should be left
by the Board to the A. F. of L. inasmuch as the unions involved are affiliates of
the A. F. of L.
As to contention one, the record discloses that the respondent's attitude to-
ward labor has always been a good one. However, in view of the unfair labor
practices found herein to have been committed by the respondent' s officers
'B See N. L. R. B v. G lueh Brewing Co, 144 F. ( 2d) 847 (C. C. A. 8 ) (1944) ;
N. L. R. B. v. John Engelhorn & Sons , 134 F. (2d) 553 (C C, A. 3) ( 1943 ) ; N. L. R. B.
v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F. ( 2d) 528 (C. C A. 6) ( 1942 ) ; N. L R. B . V. Star
Publishing Co, 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9) ( 1938).
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 44S
and agents, such conduct may not be condoned because of respondent's past
favorable attitude towards labor. This contention is without merit.
As to contention two, in view of the findings above to the effect that the
threat of business disruption by the Pressmen do not justify a commission of
unfair labor practices under the Act, this contention is likewise without merit.
As to contention three, the record discloses that the labor dispute herein is
one that has existed for upwards of 30 years during which time the A. F. of L.
has been unable to effectively adjust the dispute. Since the National Labor
Relations Board is the only agency legally authorized to determine appropriate
units for the purposes of collective bargaining, and while it may, in its discre-
tion, refuse to take jurisdiction concerning such disputes, having done so it
may proceed to determine the issues . This contention is without merit.
From the above and the record as a whole, the undersigned concludes and
finds that the respondent, on or about March 27 and 30, 1945, on April 18 and
25, 1945, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the
Amalgamated as exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate
unit, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
From the above and the record, it appears and the undersigned finds that
the contract entered into between the Pressmen and the respondent on or
about January 1, 1945, insofar as such contract required the respondent to
employ only members of the Pressmen in its Lithographic Department on off-
set presses ; and the contract entered into between the Allied and the respon-
dent on May 22, 1945, insofar as it required the respondent to employ only
members of unions affiliated with the Allied in the respondent's Lithographic
Department ; and the contract between the Engravers and the respondent dated
July 13, 1945, are each, to the extent indicated, contrary to the Act, illegal
and invalid and of no effect under the Act.
C. The discriminatory lock-out and discha?ges; interference, restraint, and
coercion
Prior to the May 7, 1945, lock-out of the respondent's offset pressmen, as found
above, J. D. Harris, plant superintendent, called a meeting of all lithographic
employees at the plant on Sunday, April 29. Employee Luther W. Smith, Sr..
a plate maker, informed Walter M. Robinson and Oliver Mertz, International
Representatives of the Amalgamated, of the proposed meeting and time thereof.
Robinson and Mertz went to the plant and were present when the lithographic
employees arrived. Sanders, former Vice-President Cooper, and Superinten-
dent Harris appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Sanders insisted on talking to the employees in the absence of the Amal-
gamated representatives, and the latter consented to remain outside. The re-
spondent's officials talked to the lithographic employees for over an hour, dur-
ing which time Sanders described the dispute as being a quarrel between the
two unions. While the respondent's officials stated that they were not there "to
try to sway you fellows," they advised the lithographers that they had decided
to post the notice demanded by the Pressmen.
Thereafter Robinson and later Mertz were called into the meeting. Harris
suggested that Robinson permit offset pressmen to belong to both unions for
30 days. Robinson refused to agree to this.
Following the lock-out, James Swann, respondent's production manager,
talked to offset.pressman Lewis and, after asking if he was tired "loafing," at-
tempted to get him to return to the plant as a member of the Pressmen. Swann
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked if he would come "if it meant a personal benefit" to him. Lewis replied
in the negative. Swann then sought to induce Lewis to call at either Love's
home or Swann's home for a talk. Lewis23 declined the request.
As found and set out above, the respondent posted a notice to the effect that
on and after noon May 7 , 1945, all employees engaged in operating offset presses
would have to be members of or applicants for membership in the Pressmen,
thereby locking out and discharging the eight" offset pressmen. By such action
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The alleged discrimination against the plate makers
The complaint alleges that by reason of the respondent 's unfair labor prac-
tices in refusing to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated ;•by on January
1, 1945, entering into an illegal contract with the pressmen ; and by the lock-out
and discharge of the offset pressmen on May 7, 1945, Luther W . Smith, Sr.,
Mack F. Chandler , and Nellie Bobbie Blackman , employed in the respondent's
lithographic department as plate makers , on May 7, 1945, ceased work con-
certedly and went on strike ; that thereafter from May 7 to May 28, 1945, the
respondent refused to reinstate them to their former or equivalent positions
because , of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Amalgamated,
and thereby the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
their employment in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
It is undisputed that the three plate makers were members of the Amal-
gamated on and prior to May 7, 1945, and that they left their jobs at the same
hour the offset pressmen did on May 7.
It is further undisputed that the plate makers made no application to the
respondent for reinstatement other than that contained in the letters of the
Amalgamated sent to the respondent under date of May 10 and 14, 1945. The
first letter informed the respondent that the lithographic workers were all mem-
bers of the Amalgamated and all were willing to return to work but were
unwilling to become members of the Pressmen as a condition to further em-
ployment. The second letter stated in substance that all lithographic workers
were members of the Amalgamated and, all had been ready and willing to
work on May 7, and were still ready and willing to return to work. The con-
dition,contained in the May 10 letter was neither iterated nor withdrawn. ..
On or about May 28, 1945, the plate makers applied for membership in the
Engravers and returned to work on May 28. As found elsewhere herein, the
respondent and Engravers entered into a contract under date of July 13, 1945
(effective as of May 28, 1945 ), covering the plate -making section of respondent's
lithographic department.
Insofar as the record discloses, the plate makers at no time informed the
respondent that they, as members of the Amalgamated, or otherwise, had
abandoned the strike.
From the above and the record it appears and the undersigned finds that the
plate makers in question were on strike from May 7, 1945 to May 28, 1945; that
the plate makers at no time made an unconditional offer to 'return to their
jobs ; that under such circumstances the respondent was not required to offer
21 Lewis was the working foreman in charge of offset presses for 2 to 3 years pi1or
to the lock-out.
24 See footnote No. 1.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 447
them reinstatement ; and that the plate makers are not entitled to back pay
for the period they were on strike 25
The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of the plate makers within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act. The complaint insofar as it so alleges should be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, B and C, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of respondent described in Sec-
tion 1, 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 certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the respondent on March 27 and 30, 1945, and on April
18, and 25, 1945, and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively
with the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Amalgamated.
It has been found: (1) that on or about January 1, 1945, the respondent
entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Pressmen, whereby the
respondent was required to employ only members of the Pressmen in its Litho-
graphic Department, covering, inter alia, a majority of the employees in the
unit herein found to be the appropriate one ; (2) that on or about July 13, 1945,
the respondent entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Engravers
(effective as of May 28, 1945), whereby the respondent recognized the En-
gravers as the exclusive representative of the employees in the plate-making
section of respondent's Lithographic Department and further provided that the
respondent employ only members of the Engravers in such section of its Litho-
graphic Department; and (3) that on or about May 22, 1945, the respondent
entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Allied, whereby the
respondent agreed, inter alia, to employ only members of unions affiliated with
the Allied.
It has been found above that each of said contracts described are invalid and
of no effect insofar as they prevent or seek to prevent the respondent from
employing members of the Amalgamated in its Lithographic Department. It
will be recommended: (1) that the respondent cease giving effect to its said
contract with the Pressmen, or to any extension, modification, or renewal
thereof, insofar as said contract affects respondent's Lithographic Department ;
(21 that the respondent cease giving effect to its said contract with the En-
gravers or to any extension, modification, or renewal thereof; and (3) that
the respondent cease giving effect to its said contract with Allied; or to any
extension, modification, or renewal thereof, insofar as said contract requires
the respondent to employ only members of unions affiliated with Allied in Its
Lithographic Department.
m See Matter of Morris Harris and Anna Harris, co-partners, doing business as union
Manufacturing Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 254.
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been further found that on May 7, 1945, the respondent discrimina-
torily locked out and discharged Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Park Steele, Fletcher
W. Stone, Bennie L. Grier, William T. Garrett, Wyman A. Calloway, Paul
Wilson, and Robert Cox, pressmen employed in its Lithographic Department,
for the reason that they refused to join or become members of the Pressmen,
thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated and discriminating In
regard to their hire and tenure of employment. In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent offer to the
eight offset pressmen named above, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the re-
spondent make whole the said eight named offset pressmen for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
normally have earned as wages from May 7, 1945, to the date of offer of re-
instatement, less their net earningsz' during said period
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
of the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
1. Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 51; Atlanta Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 8, subordinate to International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America ; International Photo En-
gravers Union of North America, Local No. 26; International Allied Printing
Trades Association ; all affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
and the American Federation of Labor are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees of the respondent employed in its Lithographic Depart-
ment, at all times material herein, constituted and they now constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. The Amalgamated was at all times material herein and now is the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the above-stated unit, the respondent
has engaged In and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure and employment of
Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Park Steele, Fletcher W. Stone, Bennie L. Grier, William
T. Garrett, Wyman A. Calloway, Paul Wilson, and Robert Cox, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged In
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
w By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his
unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. It. B. 440. Monies received for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be
considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L It. B., 311 U. S. 7.
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 449
6. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. By refusing to reinstate Luther W. Smith, Sr., Mack F. Chandler, and
Nellie Bobbie Blackman , during the time they were on strike , the respondent
has not violated Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent constituted as hereinbefore described
and doing business as Foote and Davies, at Atlanta, Georgia , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Lithographers of
America , Local 51, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees engaged in its Lithographic Department at its Atlanta plant , in respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Lithographers of Amer-
ica, Local 51, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees by
locking out, discharging , and refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manger discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment , and any terms or conditions of their employment ;
(c) Giving effect to its contract dated on or about January 1, 1945, with the
Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 8, subordinate to the
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America,
A. F. of L., or to any extension , modification , or renewal thereof , insofar
as said contract affects respondent's Lithographic Department employees ;
(d) Giving effect to its contract dated July 13, 1945, with the International
Photo Engravers Union of North America, Local No. 26, A. F. of L ., or to any
extension , modification, or renewal thereof ;
(e) Giving effect to its contract with the International Allied Printing
Trades Association , dated on or about May 22, 1945 , or to any extension, modi-
fication , or renewal thereof, insofar as said contract requires the respondent
to employ only members of unions affiliated with the, International Allied
Printing Trades Association in the respondent's Lithographic Department.
(f) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with the Atlanta Printing Press-
men and Assistants Union , No. 8, subordinate to the International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A. F. of L., or any suc-
cessor thereto, as the representative of its employees in its Lithographic De-
partment for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment ;
(g) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with the International Photo
Engravers Union of North America, Local No. 26, A. F. of L., or any successor
thereto, as the representative of its employees in its Lithographic Department
for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages, 'rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of em-
ployment ;
686572-46-30
4SO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(h) Recognizing, or in any manner dealing with the International Allied
Printing Trades 4.ssociation, or any successor thereto, as the representative
of its employees in its Lithographic Department for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of, pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment ;
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing Its em•
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 51,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, to bargain collectively with Amalgamated' Lithographers
of America, LOCal 51, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of ari the
respondent's employees engaged in its Lithographic Department at its Atlanta,
Georgia, plant, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions ' of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Offer to Andrew E. Lewis, Otis Park Steele, Fletcher W. Stone, Bennie
L. Grier, William T. Garrett, Wyman A. Calloway, Paul Wilson, and Robert
Cox immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously ' enjoyed ;
(c) Make whole the said Lewis, Steele, Stone, Grier, Garrett, Galloway,
Wilson, and Cox for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them In the manner provided in 'the Sec-
tion entitled "The remedy" ;
(d) Post at its plant at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report herein marked "Appendix A." Copies of said 'notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the 'respondent
immediately ' upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for' sixty '(60) con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including ail places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the' ¢ate of the receipt of this Intermediate Roport what
steps the respondent'has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges discrimination by the. respondent against Luther W. Smith, Sr:, Mack
F. Chandler, ,ano Bobbie Nellie Blackman. '
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
ALBERT LOVE ENTERPRISES 4S1
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building , Washington , D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all
motions or objections ) as he relies upon , together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file
a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (ID ) days from the
date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
Dated November 1, 1945.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE RECQMMENDATIONS OF A
TRIAL EXAMINER
of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 51, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full re-
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
criminatioh.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described herein with respect to rates of pay , hours of employment or
other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All employees of the respondent in its Lithographic Department.
The employees referred to above are Andrew E. Lewis , Otis Park Steele,
Fletcher W. Stone, Bennie L. Grier, William T. Garrett , Wyman A. Cal-
loway, Paul Wilson , and Robert Cox.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract dated on or about January 1,
1945, with the Atlanta Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 8,
subordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
of North America , A. F. of L., or to any extension , modification, or re-
newal thereof, insofar as said contract affects respondent 's Lithographic
Department employees ; we will not give effect to our contract dated July
13, 1945, with the International Photo Engravers Union of North America,
Local No. 26, A. F. of L, or to any extension , modification , or renewal
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereof ; and we will not give effect to our contract with the International
Allied Printing Trades Association, dated on or about May 22, 1945, or to
any extension, modification, or renewal thereof, insofar as said contract
requires the respondent to employ only members of unions affiliated with
the International Allied Printing Trades Association in the respondent's
Lithographic Department.
WE WILL NOT recognize or in any manner deal with the Atlanta Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants Union, No. 8, subordinate to the International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, A. F. of L., or
any successor thereto, as the representative of its employees in its Litho-
graphic Department for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment ; we will not recognize or in any other
manner deal with the International Photo Engravers Union of North
America, Local No. 26, A. F. of L., or any successor thereto, as the repre-
sentative of its employees in its Lithographic Department for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; we
will not recognize or in any other manner deal with the International
Allied Printing Trades Association, or any successor thereto, as the repre-
sentative of its employees in its Lithographic Department for the purpose
of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
FOOTE & DaviEs
Employer.
Dated .................... .... By ........................................
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE: ANY OF THE ABOVE-NAMED EMPLOYEES PRESENTLY SERV-
ING IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE
OFFERED FULL REINSTATEMENT UPON APPLICATION IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AFTER DISCHARGE FROM
THE ARMED FORCES.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.