Hastings & Sons Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
area some 60 feet distant from the polling place ; that he did not solicit at
that time either for or against the Company or the Petitioner ; that he appeared
in the polling place a few minutes prior to the time the polls closed for the
purpose of determining whether he could be present at the count of the ballots ;
that on being ordered to do so he immediately left and that he retired to the
east room known as the laboratory , the same room to which eligible voters had
retired; that the Board agent and the observers took cognizance of the fact
that the voters after having voted remained in the vicinity of the polling place,
but not within view of the polling place, and that the Board agent , together
with the observers , decided that they would not be asked to leave and that no
request was made by the Board agent that they leave the laboratory room.
Conclusions
Assuming arguendo that Lamb had endeavored to interfere with the election
in the parking lot area , the undersigned entertains grave doubt that under the
circumstances here involved the Company should be afforded an opportunity
to use this to its own advantage, since it was peculiarly within the power of
the Company to enjoin such interference by instructing its supervisory per-
sonnel either before or during the election that they should remain neutral
in the present case' The chief engineer was present in the parking area at
the same time and observed Lamb , yet took no steps to correct any claimed
inappropriate action on the part of Lamb . His brief visit to the polling place
and his leaving immediately on being ordered to do so does not , in the opinion
of the undersigned , constitute interference justifying setting aside the election.
Dumont Electric Corporation , 97 NLRB 94. Nor is there anything objectionable
in his remark to Kaster wondering "if everyone would vote ," Silver Knit Hosiery
Mills , Inc., 99 NLRB 422 . Likewise , I conclude that the presence of the persons
who had voted , together with Lamb , for the last few minutes of the election
in the laboratory as hereinabove described was not objectionable to the extent
that the election should be set aside.
Recommendation
Upon the basis of all the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, it is the
recommendation of the undersigned that the objections be overruled.
As provided in the order of the Board directing hearing on objections, any
party may, within 10 days from the date of the issuance of the report file with the
Board in Washington, D. C., an original and 6 copies of exceptions thereto.
Upon filing such exceptions, the party filing same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file 1 copy with the Regional Director.
If no objections are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendation of
the hearing officer.
4 N. L. R . B. v. Underwood Machinery Company, 1719, F. 2d 118.
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING COMPANY and LYNN NEWSPAPER GUILD,
LOCAL 55 AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GIIILD, C. I. O. Case No. 1-CA-
1124. January 27,1953
Decision and Order
On September 29, 1952, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
102 NLRB No. 75.
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING CO. 709
the Respondent 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Hastings & Sons
Publishing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate units by refusing to furnish to the Union information
as to the names, job classifications, and salaries of all employees in the
following units :
(a) All employees in the editorial department at the Lynn plant,
exclusive of executives, the executive editor, the managing editor, the
city editor, the news editor, and all supervisors as defined in Section
2 (11) of the Act.
(b) All employees in the advertising department at the Lynn plant,.
exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which we find will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, furnish to the Union data concerning names,,
job classifications, and salaries of all employees in the said units.
(b) Post at its plant at Lynn, Massachusetts, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
First Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof , the words "A Decision and Order ." In the
event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the notice
shall be further amended by substituting for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order,"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order."
250983-vol. 102-53-46
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge filed by Lynn Newspaper Guild', Local 55,
American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , herein respectively called the General
Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston,
Massachusetts), issued the complaint herein dated March 18, 1952, against
Hastings & Sons Publishing Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein
referred to as the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charges, and a notice of
hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent on or about August 17, 1951, and at all times thereafter,
refused to furnish the Union with certain wage information requested by the
Union for its use and assistance in connection with collective-bargaining nego-
tiations. In its answer, the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the
complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Prior to
the hearing Trial Examiner George A. Downing denied the Respondent's motion
to dismiss the complaint and denied the Respondent's motion which was entitled
"Motion for a Separate Hearing" but actually was a motion for postponement
of the hearing.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Boston, Massachusetts,
on April 17 and 18, 1952. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. At the close of the hearing, motions by the General Counsel and the
Respondent to conform the pleadings to the proofs for the purpose of correcting
names, dates, and other matters not involving the issues of the case were granted.
At the conclusion of the evidence the General Counsel and the Respondent par-
ticipated in oral argument. The General Counsel and the Respondent waived
the filing of briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witness, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hastings & Sons Publishing Company at all times herein mentioned is and
has been a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintaining an office and place of business at
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING CO . 711
38 Exchange Street in the city of Lynn, county of Essex, and Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, hereinafter called the Lynn plant, where it has been and now
is continuously engaged in the printing, publication, sale, and distribution of a
newspaper known as "The Daily Evening Item" which is published daily, except
Sunday, having a circulation daily of approximately 22,000 copies. The Re-
spondent's purchases annually exceed $100,000 for newsprint, ink, and mats and
are purchased from sources outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
Respondent subscribes to the Associated Press News Service, nationally syndi-
acted articles from the Newspaper Enterprise Association, and other nationwide
newspaper services. The Respondent causes and continuously has caused at all
times herein mentioned substantial quantities of newspapers to be sold and trans-
ported from said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States
other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Respondent concedes and
I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Lynn Newspaper Guild, Local 55, American Newspaper Guild, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate units
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that all employees of the
Respondent employed in the editorial department at its Lynn plant, exclusive of
executives, the executive editor, the managing editor, the city editor, the news
editor, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I
further find that all employees of the Respondent employed in the advertising
department at its Lynn plant, exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors
as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
B. The majority and representation by the Union of employees in the units
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that since in or about the
year 1939 a majority of the employees of the Respondent in the unit in the edi-
torial department, as described above, and since on or about October 1950 a ma-
jority of the employees of the Respondent in the unit in the advertising depart-
ment, as described above, designated or selected the Union as their represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent, and that at
all times since the Union has been the representative, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, of a majority of the employees in said units and, by virtue of
Section 9 (a) of the Act, has been and is now the representative of all the em-
ployees in said units for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
0. Introduction and background
There are 14 or 15 employees in the editorial unit and 4 or 5 employees in the
advertising unit. The record does not disclose the number of employees in these
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
units who are members of the Union . There are approximately 5 job classifica-
tions in the editorial unit and 3 job classifications in the advertising unit. From
November 3, 1950, to April 6, 1952, the Respondent and the Union had in effect a
collective-bargaining agreement with respect to the employees in the editorial
unit ; and from March 7, 1951 , to April 6 , 1952 , a collective -bargaining agree-
ment was in effect with respect to the employees in the advertising unit. Both
agreements , like all preceding contracts since 1944 between the Respondent and
the Union , contain provisions for minimum starting pay for the various classifi-
cations , with yearly step-rate increases for the first , second , third , fourth,
and fifth years . No increases were provided beyond the fifth year and there
was a provision permitting individual bargaining for increases as follows :
"Nothing in this agreement shall prevent employees from bargaining individually
for pay increases in excess of the minimums established herein ." It was further
provided in all contracts that 60 days prior to the expiration date negotiations
may be opened for a new contract during which negotiations the contract is ex-
tended and if a new contract is arrived at after the termination date, then such
new contract becomes retroactive to the termination date of the last contract.
No names of individuals correlated to the classifications and salaries are con-
tained in the agreements . The Union 's proposals for a new contract and the
Respondent 's counterproposals contain the same clause relative to minimum
wages, classifications, and years of experience , without the names of individual
employees , which is contained in the last contract to terminate on April 6, 1952.
D. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleged that the Respondent , by its refusal on or about August
IT, 1951, and at all times thereafter , to furnish information requested by the
Union on or about August 14, 1951 , November 6, 1951 , and February 5, 1952, as
to the names , job classifications , and salaries of all the employees in the said
units, for the use and assistance of the Union in connection with collective-bar-
gaining negotiations with the Respondent in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment , or other conditions of employment , thereby violated Section 8
(a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act. The answer, in substance, stated that the Respond-
ent received the Union 's request contained in a letter dated July 13, 1951, more
than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge herein and more than 60 days
prior to the termination date provided for in the existing agreement ; and that
the other letters referred to containing requests for the information were all re-
ceived prior to 60 days before the termination date of the contract , except the
letter dated February 5, 1952 , which it contends was mailed on February 7, 1952,
and had enclosed therein the Union 's proposals for a new contract to become
effective April 6, 1952 , "containing minimum salaries , names, job classifications
and salaries , which was the information hereinbefore requested and which infor-
mation was similarly contained in eight annual Agreements previously signed by
the parties ." The answer further averred that the subject matter of these de-
mands had been discussed in prior bargaining negotiations , following which an
accord was reached and contracts arrived at ; that the information demanded
either was in the possession of the Union or within the power of the Union to
secure ; that the demands were irrelevant because not made by the Union at
proper or appropriate times , and that on the dates on which the demands were
made, there was no obligation to bargain on the part of the Respondent. The
answer further averred that at the negotiation sessions then being held there
has been no suggestion or intimation by the Union that the information is mate-
rial, essential , or relevant to the negotiations or that it was necessary and perti-
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING CO. 713
Went to intelligent bargaining or that the negotiations had been impeded or af-
fected by the lack of the requested data ; and that the information is sdught
solely for the purpose of harassing the Respondent.
On July 13, 1951, the Union requested the Respondent to furnish the names,
job classifications , and salaries of all employees in the unit as of the payroll
periods ending nearest October 1, 1950, November 15, 1950, March 1, 1951, and
July 1, 1951. The Union repeated its request for the same information on
August 14, 1951. The Respondent on August 17, 1951, refused to furnish the
information.
On November 6, 1951, the Union again requested payroll information but
modified its previous requests by requesting the information for the payroll
periods ending nearest January 15, 1950, and January 15, 1951. On November
8, 1951, the Respondent's attorney replied in a letter in which he questioned
the relevancy at that time of the requested information ; ' stated that the contract
between the parties had no reopening provision ; that the names of the em-
ployees were within the knowledge of the Union ; and that job classifications
and salaries are contained in the contract. On November 26, 1951, the Union,
pointing out that negotiations for a new contract would begin a little more than
2 months hence, repeated its request for the information for the payroll periods
ending nearest to January 15, 1950, and January 15, 1951, claiming such informa-
tion was necessary for it to frame its proposals for a new contract to be effective
on April 6, 1952. On November 28, 1951, the Respondent's attorney replied that
'whatever information and data the Union was entitled to have at the times
of negotiations would be furnished ; and that the Respondent would furnish
necessary information to which the Union may be entitled. On February 5, 1952,
pursuant to the contract, the Union wrote to the Respondent to open negotiations
for a new agreement and requested payroll information as to names, job classi-
fications, and salaries for the payroll periods ending nearest January 15, 1950,
January 25, 1951, and February 1, 1952. That request was contained in a letter
sent by registered mail, as registered article number 1650, on February 5, 1952,
which was received by the Respondent on February 6, 1952. In that letter the
Union also enclosed its proposals for the new contract. The Respondent did not
reply. On February 7, 1952, the Union prepared the charge in its office and
mailed it to the Regional Office with a copy thereof to the Respondent? On
February 8, 1952, the charge was filed in the Regional Office.
Thomas J. McManus, called by the General Counsel and the sole witness in this
proceeding, testified that he was president of the Union from January to February
1952, and prior to becoming president had no occasion to participate in collective-
bargaining sessions. Since February 29, 1952, he has been vice president of the
Union. For the past 20 or 25 years he has been an employee of a competitive
newspaper in the Lynn area. He testified that the requests for the payroll
information were made in order that the Union might "police" the agreement;
that the information was necessary for the Union to have with respect to
increases permissible under the Wage Stabilization Board formula and that the
Union might be in a position to propose increased minima and bargain intelli-
gently in contract negotiations. At no time has the Respondent ever supplied
to the Union any information as to the names, job classifications, and actual
1 With respect to the payroll information requested for the period ending nearest Janu-
ary 15 , 19,50, the letter also stated : "This information might have been [relevant] at the
time of collective bargaining, and may be at the negotiations for a new contract after
the fixed period."
2 Respondent 's Exhibit No. 3 which is an envelope for registered mail , number 1751, has a
date stamped thereon of February 7, 1951 . Whether that envelope is the one which en-
closed a copy of the charge to the Respondent on February 7, 1952 , is unnecessary to decide.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
salaries being paid to the employees in the units ; nor has it ever supplied the
Union with information as to new employees, separations from the payroll,
or whether salary increases have been given.
The first meeting of the negotiation sessions began on February 25, 1952. At
the time of the hearing seven meetings had been held and were still in progress.
At that first meeting, the Union again requested that the Respondent furnish the
information requested but the Respondent, through Frank Phillips its chief nego-
tiator, refused because of the pending unfair labor practice charges, adding the
Company was not going to do anything under "duress."
Concluding Findings
The Union as the statutory representative of the employees in the units is en-
titled to receive from the Respondent payroll information as to the names, job
classifications, and salaries of all employees in the units in order to enable the
Union to bargain intelligently and to determine whether the collective-bargaining
agreement is being fairly and impartially administered' Such information has
been held to be necessary for the effective exercise of the Union's legitimate func-
tion of representing employees in contract negotiation and of protecting its proper
interest in the manner in which an employer administers an existing agreement °
It is well established that salary information concerning employees in the unit
is relevant to minimum rates and merit increases' and is certainly necessary for
the negotiation of future contracts! The Union's request for information con,
cerning the names, classifications, and salaries of all employees in the units is
clearly relevant under Board and court decisions.' Since the salary information
does not plainly appear to be irrelevant, it must be disclosed.' I find no merit to
the Respondent's defense that the requested information either was in the pos-
session of the Union or within the power of the Union to secure. Since it was
the Respondent's responsibility to furnish the information, it can not urge that
the Union seek or supplement it from other sources.' Nor do I find merit in the
Respondent's contention that in times past it had arrived at collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union without disclosure, for the execution of previous con-
tracts do not demonstrate that the information was unnecessary nor render moot
the desired salary information 10
° See, E. W. Scripps Company, 94 NLRB 227, 248, and cases cited.
° Leland-Gifford Company, 95 NLRB 1306.
'Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 881, enfd. 187 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 2),
where the Board held that the going rate is a factor to be considered by a union in deter-
mining whether or not to press or eliminate its demand for a general wage increase ; that
current salaries are directly related to the demand for a minimum, and without such
information there is no basis for determining to what extent, if any, the minimum wage
would affect any employees in the unit.
° E. W. Scripps Company, supra.
The Hughes Tool Company, 100 NLRB 208; N. L. R B. v. Yawman & Erbe , supra;
N. L. R. B. v. Union Manufacturing Company, 179 F. 2d 511 (C. A. 5) ; Aluminum Ore
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 131 F. 2d 486 (C. A. 7) ; Leland-O-iford Company , supra; General
Controls Co., 88 NLRB 1341.
°N. L. R. B. v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, supra, where the court also
said ". . . Indeed we find it difficult to conceive a case in which current or immediately
past wage rates would not be relevant during negotiations for a minimum wage scale or
increased wages. (cases cited)."
°Aluminum Ore Company, supra; The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1192;
J. M. Allison Company, 70 NLRB 377, enfd. 165 F . 2d 766 (C. A. 6), cert. den. 335 U. S. 814.
10 See, N. L. R. B. v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, supra, where the court
said at page 949 : "Nor is our determination that the information was relevant affected
by the subsequent execution of a contract without disclosure. The most that can be in-
ferred from the Union's action is that the advantages of a contract in hand outweigh
those which the Union might later obtain when all relevant information would be available
to it." Also see, E. W. Scripps Company, supra.
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING CO. 715
The contention of the Respondent that Section 10 (b) of the Act must be in-
voked since the date of the Union's initial request was made more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the charge herein is without merit. The Respondent over-
looks the fact that the original refusal of the Respondent to furnish the informa-
tion occurred on August 17, 1951, which together with all subsequent refusals
were within the 6 months preceding the filing of the charge on February 8, 1952.
Nor do I find merit to the Respondent's contention that the requests for informa-
tion were appropriate and proper only during the 60 days prior to the termina-
tion of the contract, since such information at reasonable times during the
contract year would enable the Union as statutory bargaining representative to
determine whether the contract is being fairly and impartially administered.
The policing of an agreement is an essential function of the Union."
During the hearing, during the cross-examination of Thomas J. McManus, the
Respondent inquired as to whether the subject "loyalty" had been discussed dur-
ing negotiations. The Respondent's attorney urged in support of the question
that the giving of information about wages beyond the minima to an employee
of another newspaper may be a serious matter to the Respondent in its relation-
ship with its employees and its competitive position with other newspapers.
The question was allowed to be answered subject to a motion to strike. The
General Counsel moved to strike the testimony in that regard on the grounds it
is not pertinent to the issues. Decision on the motion was reserved and I now
deny the motion. However, the requested data may not be refused on the ground
that it would entail disclosure of privileged and confidential matter such as the
salaries of its editorial and advertising personnel which might be detrimental
to its business interests if the information came to the knowledge of competing
newspapers. In order to accomplish the intent of the Act that collective bargain-
ing be facilitated, the Respondent' s desire to keep its salary information secret
must in some respects be subordinated to the public interest in disclosure of
relevant information (cf. N. L. R. B. v. Yaurman & Erbe, supra) just as its ex-
clusive control over its business affairs is subordinate to the requirements of the
Act."' In Aluminum Ore Company v. N. L. R. B., supra, the court declared (at
p. 487) :
.. . we do not believe that it was the intent of Congress in this legislation
that, in the collective bargaining prescribed, the Union as representative of
the employees should be deprived of the pertinent facts constituting the wage
history of its members. We can conceive of no justification for the claim
that such information is confidential.... And if there be any reasonable
basis for the contention that this may have been confidential data of the
employer before the passage of the Act, it seems to us it cannot be so held
in the face of the expressed social and economic purposes of the statute.
I find there is no justification for the Respondent to withhold the requested in-
formation on the ground that unfair labor charges were pending.'a The Board
has recently held in The Hughes Tool Company case, supra, that some of the in-
formation requested by the union was clearly relevant to the subject matter of
proposed negotiations but it was not necessary for the Board to decide whether
all of it was relevant since by its adamant refusal to furnish any of the informa-
tion , the respondent failed in its statutory duty to bargain in good faith.
" Leland-Gifford Company , supra.
11 N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 43-48.
is Atlanta Broadcasting Co., 90 NLRB 808; Old Town Shoe Co., 91 NLRB 240.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon consideration of the entire record, I conclude and find that the Respondent
by refusing on and after August 17, 1951, to furnish information requested by
the,Union concerning names, job classifications, and salaries of all employees in
the units has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of
its employees in appropriate units and has thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Because of the limited scope of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, and be-
cause of the amicable relations of the parties since 1939, and also because of
the absence of any indication that danger of other unfair labor practices is to be
anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past, I shall not recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from the commission of other unfair labor
practices.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. All employees of the Respondent employed in the editorial department at
its Lynn plant, exclusive of executives, the executive editor, the managing editor,
the city editor, the news editor, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11)
of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. All employees of the Respondent employed in the advertising department
at its Lynn plant, exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Since on or about the year 1939, the Union has been and now is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit in the editorial
department for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. Since on or about the year 1950, the Union has been and now is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit in the
advertising department for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing at all times since August 17, 1951, to furnish the
Union with information as to the names, job classifications, and salaries of all
employees in the said units, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 717
in the aforesaid units, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTicE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations 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, upon bequest, furnish to the LYNN NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 55,
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. I. 0., wage data concerning the names, job
classifications , and salaries of all employees in appropriate units. The
bargaining units are:
All employees in the editorial department at,the Lynn plant, exclu-
sive of executives , the executive editor , the managing editor , the city
editor , the news editor , and all supervisors as defined in Section 2
(11) of the Act.
All employees in the advertising department at the Lynn plant,
exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act.
HASTINGS & SONS PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
Dated --------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION and C. H. PETERS, PETITIONER, and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 8-RD-74.
January 27, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry Geiser, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
102 NLRB No. 57.