Holmes Typography, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 518 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Holmes Typography, Inc. and Bay Area Typographical
Union No. 21, International Typographical Union.
Case 20-CA-9194
June 17, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 25, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Irving Rogosin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Union filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a
brief in opposition to the exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
1 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to Respondent's
answer as being filed October 23, 1973, instead of 1974.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRviNG RoGOs1N, Administrative Law Judge: The
complaint, issued September 20, 1974, alleges that Respon-
dent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
Specifically, the complaint, as amended at the hearing
upon prior notice, alleges that Respondent, (1) since about
December 15, 1973, and more particularly, in January,
February, March, and April 1974, has engaged in specified
acts of interference, restraint, or coercion through its
president and agent, including statements that (a) Respon-
dent would deliberately protract negotiations; (b) would
never sign a collective-bargaining agreement with the
I The allegations covered by (1),(d) were stricken on General Counsel's
motion at the outset of the hearing, those covered by (1),(b) and (c) were
dismissed on Respondent's motion at the close of the General Counsel's
case for lack of proof.
2 This allegation was added by amendment at the outset of the hearing.
3 Designations herein are as follows: The General Counsel, unless
otherwise stated or required by the context, his representative at the
218 NLRB No. 64
Union; (c) was contemplating moving its operation out of
State to avoid bargaining with the, Union; and (d)
threatened an employee with "unspecfied reprisals" for
supporting the Union;1 and (2) since about December 15,
has failed and refused to bargain collectively with the
Union after demand, on about September 27, 1973,
notwithstanding the Union' s status as exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in an appropriate unit; and (3) has,
since about June 24, 1974, made unilateral changes in the
wages and hours of the unit employees, without prior
consultation with the Union.2 The complaint further
alleges that, since about June 6, 1974, certain named
employees have been engaged in an unfair labor practice
strike in protest against Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices.3
Respondent's answer, filed on October 23, 1973, admits
the procedural and jurisdictional allegations of the com-
plaint; admits the status of the Union as majority
representative of the unit employees, at all times prior to
June '6, 1974, but, for lack of information or belief, denies
these allegations insofar as they relate to the period
subsequent to June 6, 1974; admits the Union's bargaining
demand, insofar as it relates to the period between
September 27, 1973, and June 6, 1974; and denies generally
and specifically the remaining allegations of the complaint.
Further answering, Respondent alleges that, since about
June 6, 1974, the Union and the named strikers have
engaged in unfair labor practices, picketed Respondent's
premises and have sought to induce customers to refrain
from doing business with Respondent, in violation of
Section 8(b)(3) and (d) of the Act, and that the Union has,
itself, failed and refused to bargain in good faith, engaging
in only "surface bargaining" for several months prior to
June 6, 1974.
Hearing on the complaint, as amended at the hearing,
was held before me from November 19 to 22, 1974, both
inclusive, at San Jose and San Francisco, California. All
parties appeared and were represented by counsel, were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce oral and documenta-
ry evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue
orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The parties declined the opportunity to
argue orally but exercised the right to file briefs. Pursuant
to an extension of time duly granted, the General Counsel
and Respondent filed briefs on December 23, 1974. No
proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law have been
filed by any of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, and, based on the
appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs
of the parties, which have been carefully considered, I
make the following:
hearing ; Holmes Typography, Inc., Respondent, the Company or the
Employer, Bay Area Typographical Union No. 21, International Typo-
graphical Union, the Charging Party or the Union; the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. § 151, at
seq.), the Act; the National Labor Relations Board , the Board . The charge
was filed and served on May 14, 1974.
HOLMES TYPOGRAPHY, INC. 519
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and
it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, Holmes
Typography, Inc., Respondent herein, has been a Califor-
nia corporation engaged in the printing business at
premises located in San Jose, California. During the year
preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent sold
goods and furnished services valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Califor-
nia.
The complaint further alleges, Respondent's answer
admits , and it is hereby found that, at all times material
herein, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges , Respondent's answer admits, and
it is hereby found, that, at all times material herein, Bay
Area Typographical Union No. 21, International Typo-
graphical Union, the Union 'herein, has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.4
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
the last three negotiating meetings, discussed later. Inci-
dentally, he has been a member of the Printing Pressmens'
Union for nearly half a century until his retirement as
president of the Company.
Respondent has occupied the plant at its present location
for some 18 years, leasing the property for the past 8 years
from the Holmes' family, consisting of George C. Holmes,
his wife, and their two sons. Members of the Holmes
family also own a controlling interest in three other
business enterprises, known as Holmes Composition
Service, Repro Graphic, Inc., both located in San Jose, and
Auto Graphics in Los Angeles. The nature of Respondent's
operation is essentially typesetting for outside customers.
Of its annual gross revenues, 75 percent is derived from the
setting of type for book publications; 10 percent from
setting type for advertisements or commercial work; and
the balance of 15 percent from industrial accounts located
both inside and outside the San Francisco Bay area and
the area commonly referred to as the Peninsula. In the
setting of type for customers in the book publishing
business, Respondent is in direct competition with some
four other firms in the San Francisco Bay and Peninsula
areas and, at least, three concerns in the Los Angeles and
Orange County areas. According to Vice President Thomas
L. Holmes, none of these competitors operate as union
shops, and all operate on a 40-hour week, in contrast to
Respondent, which has conducted a union shop and has
operated on a 35-hour-week basis.5
A. Introduction
Holmes Typography, Inc., engaged in the business of
typesetting in the printing industry, was founded by
George C. Holmes, late in 1956, when he became president
of the corporation. He was joined by his two sons, Thomas
L. Holmes, as vice president and 'secretary-treasurer, and
George R. Holmes, whose duties encompassed substantial-
ly all the production processes at the plant.
In September 1973, George C. Holmes retired, effective
January 1, 1974, and assumed the office of chairman of the
board. On January 1, 1974, George R. Holmes succeeded
his father as president of the corporation. George C.
Holmes has, however, since served the corporation on an
advisory basis; assisted in the preparation of the Compa-
ny's counterproposals to the Union; and participated in
4 The Union is the successor to San Jose Typographical Union No. 231,
party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent, covering the
unit employees involved, effective from December 6, 1971, to December 1,
1973. Although Respondent's answer admits the Union's status as majority
representative of the unit employees prior to June 6, 1974, Respondent
denies these allegations , for lack of information or belief, insofar as they
relate to the Union's status since June 6, 1974. To the extent Respondent
seeks to challenge the Union's majority status since June 6, 1974, the date
the employees went on strike, there was no showing of any defection from
the Union by the striking employees or any loss of majority. Moreover, the
record establishes that Respondent recognized and engaged in negotiations
with the Union commencing with the first session held on November 29,
1973.
5 Among competitors whom Holmes also named were companies
elsewhere in California and the United States , as well as Great Britain. The
foreign competitors employ representatives in the San Jose area and
throughout the country to solicit business and submit bids for work in
competition with Respondent . These findings are based on the undisputed
testimony of Thomas Holmes , a member of the board of directors, for 4
years, and secretary-treasurer, for the past 3 years, of Western Typographers
B. Collective-Bargaining Relations
The Company has engaged in collective bargaining with
the Union's predecessor at least since the firm was founded
in 1956.6 The latest collective-bargaining agreement
between the Company and San Jose Typographical Union
No. 231, entitled "Typesetting Contract" and "Scale of
Prices, was effective from December 6, 1971, to December
1, 1973. Sometime in 11972, San Jose Local No. 231 merged
with Bay Area Local 21, both affiliated with the Interna-
tional Typographical Union, with Local 21 emerging as the
surviving local. Prior to the merger, Robert E. Troupe had
been president of Local No. 231. Upon completion of the
merger, Leon Olson became president, Morris Goldman,
first vice president, and Troupe, second vice president.?
Association, an association of employers engaged in the typesetting
industry, covering the States of Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington,
and Utah. Vice President Holmes has also been a director , for some 6 years,
and a member of the executive comnuttee, for 4 years, of the International
Typographic Association, representing typography plants in the United
States, Canada, and foreign countries . Holmes acquired the data regarding
his competitors in the course of exchanges of information with representa-
tives of such companies at general conventions and regular meetings of the
two Associations over the past 7 years. According to Holmes, based on
studies and contracts furnished him by at least one British representative,
wage rates paid by British competitors are approximately 40 percent lower
than the hourly rate paid by Respondent.
6 According to the Company's founder, he had been engaged in
negotiations with Local 231 since 1941 , when he commenced doing business
in San Jose.
7 At the outset of the negotiations, presently discussed, Percy V. Cram,
chief negotiator for the Company, raised the question of Local 21's right to
represent the Company's employees . Although the Company, as well as
other employers, had been notified of the merger of the two locals, and
Local 21's successorship, and a subsequent increase in required contnbu-
(Continued)
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By letter dated September 27, 1973, Union President
Olson served notice on Respondent of the Union's
intention to terminate the collective-bargaining agreement
as of December 1, 1973, and enclosed a copy of a Master
Trade Plant Contract as a basis for negotiations for a new
agreement. The letter stated that the contract had been
accepted by the union membership, approved by the ITU
Bureau of Contracts, and was already in effect in trade
plants elsewhere in the Union's jurisdiction. The letter also
proposed a union-security clause, as set forth on the inside
backeover of the proferred contract. The letter requested
an early meeting and offered to continue working under
the old agreement in the event negotiations were not
completed by the expiration date.
The Company made no response until November 8,
1973, when Vice President Holmes, in a letter addressed to
Goldman at the Union's office, referring to the expiration
date of the contract on December 1, 1973, suggested
negotiations with the Union's committee as early as
possible prior to the expiration date "so that the negotia-
tions do not prolong into an expanded period of time as it
is not our intent to be incumbered with retroactive pay."
Advising that he would be out of town on Monday or
Tuesday of the following week, the letter stated that
Holmes was anticipating hearing from Goldman during the
latter part of the week.
Following receipt of this letter, Goldman called Vice
President Holmes and, in discussing the letter, told Holmes
that he had sent the Company the standard notice sent to
all employers. Discussion turned to the scheduling of
meeting dates , Holmes suggesting that negotiations be held
in the conference room at the plant. Goldman refused to
meet on company premises and proposed instead that
meetings be held in the De Anza Hotel, located in the
vicinity. Holmes agreed to "check that out, and to call him
back." According to Goldman, Holmes did not return his
call.
Later that month, however, Goldman received a letter
from the Printing Industries of Northern California
(PINC), notifying the Union that it was representing two
employers (including the Company), in negotiations with
the Union, and requesting meeting dates. Goldman
thereupon called Reg Howard, director of PINC, who
requested a copy of the Union's proposed agreement.
Goldman told Howard that he had never received an
acknowledgement of the proposal which he had sent to
Respondent. Howard, too, inquired whether the Union
would be willing to meet at the Holmes' plant but
Goldman declined, stating that the Union would meet
anywhere outside the plant, including at the offices of
PING. Howard indicated that he would look into the
matter of the Company's failure to acknowledge the
Union's letter of termination and submission of the
proposed contract. No date was set at that time for the first
negotiating session . On about November 23, Howard
notified' Percy V. Crain, a staff member of PINC, who
conducted collective bargaining on behalf of members of
the Association, that he would be representing Holmes
Typography in contract negotiations with the Union.8
Crain conferred with Holmes, Sr., regarding the Union's
contract proposals, and participated in drafting the
Company's counterproposals. Thereafter, Crain acted as
principal negotiator for the Company. Several days after
learning that he would be acting in that capacity, Crain
had a telephone conversation with Goldman. Crain
repeated the request that meetings be held at the office of
the Company. When Goldman rejected the request, Crain
suggested postponing the date of the first conference which
had been scheduled for November 29.
Goldman told Crain that in view of the Company's
position on retroactivity the Union wanted to meet as soon
as possible. After a brief exchange, according to Goldman,
Crain ventured that negotiations would require more than
half-day sessions , and said that he intended to so advise the
Company. On November 28, the Company notified the
Union that a meeting room had been reserved at the
Holiday Inn for the following day, November 29, at 2:30 in
the afternoon.
The first negotiating session was held on November 29,
as scheduled. Goldman acted as spokesman for the
Union's negotiating committee , which included Stanley
Adams and Bob Bozarth, and generally acted in that
capacity thereafter whenever the local president was
unavailable. Representing the Company were Crain,
Holmes, Sr., and his two sons. Also present at this meeting
was Dick Martin, of D & J Typographers, the other
employer-member of PING, Crain had been designated to
represent .9
At the outset of the session, Crain questioned the
Union's status as a result of the merger and its right to
represent the Company's employees. After the Union
satisfied Crain on this score, the parties proceeded to a
preliminary discussion of the Union's proposals.
The next meeting was scheduled for December 12,
management representatives indicating that that was the
earliest they could meet, having due regard for its normal
business operations. Meantime, Crain assisted the compa-
ny officials in preparing a counterproposal. Using a copy
of the expired collective-bargaining agreement as a format,
each page of the contract was photocopied on sheets large
enough to accomodate proposed changes in the margin
opposite the affected provisions. The term of the proposed
contract was December 3, 1973, to December 1, 1975.
During subsequent negotiations, the parties utilized this
"counterproposal" as a basis for discussion.
The Union had based its wage proposal on what it
referred to as the San Francisco Trade Plant Area contract,
which provided for an initial wage rate of $7.143 an hour,
for a 35-hour straight time day-shift week (with overtime
after 7 hours a day or 35 hours a week), or an aggregate of
$250 a week, for a straight time day shift. In its
counterproposal, Respondent offered an hourly wage rate
of $6.673 an hour, for a 40-hour straight time day-shift
workweek, aggregating $266.92 a week, for the first year,
tions to the printing industry health and welfare fund , the Company had not 8 Crain retuned from his position with the Association as of April 1, 1974,
previously challenged the validity of the merger or the right of Local 21 to but remained on its staff to complete contract negotiations . He remained
represent the, Company's unit employees . In any event , apart from its with the Association on a retainer basis until about November 15, 1974.
acquiescence in the merger, Respondent proceeded with the negotiations, 9 D & J Typographers subsequently withdrew from these negotiations
implicitly recognizing Local 21 as majority representative of the employees. and eventually signed a contract with the Union.
HOLMES TYPOGRAPHY, INC. 521
an hourly increase of 13 cents over the prevailing straight
time day rate of $6.543 under the expired contract.10
Respondent's wage proposal also provided for an increase
to $6.806 an hour, amounting to $272.26 per week,
beginning December 4, 1974, as well as premium pay for
the first and second night shifts is each year. It is
undisputed that, at least since Respondent commenced
operations, its typographical journeymen or apprentices
have worked a 35-hour week.
Altogether, the parties held 17 negotiating meetings
between November 29 and June 6, 1974, including two
separate meetings between Goldman and Crain, late in
January or early February.11 Commencing with the second
negotiating session, on the afternoon of December 12,
tentative agreement was reached on various noneconomic
issues, including provisions regarding the posting and
cancellation of overtime (Hiring Practice, 6[a]), and the
provision relating to the right of union representatives to
enter composing rooms during working hours. (Sanitation,
46.)12
It should be noted that the preamblte to the Company's
counterproposals, appearing opposite the photocopy of the
title page of the expired contract, reads as follows:
We propose the following deletions, additions and
modifications in our present contract dated December
6, 1971, to December 1, 1973, the balance of the present
contract as is except where modifications may be
necessary to comply with these changes. Provisions in
the Agreement dated December 6, 1971, to December
1, 1973, which are not proposed for amendment herein
shall be considered acceptable to D & J Typographers
and Holmes Typography, Inc., to be incorporated in an
amended agreement. We reserve the right to add to,
delete from, or modify these proposals during negotiations.
[Emphasis supplied.]
As of March 12, 1974, sufficient progress had been made
in negotiations to warrant the following letter from Leon
Olson, president of Local 21, to Crain:
Dear Mr. Crain:
As indicated at the conclusion of our last negotiating
meeting [March 5 ] with Holmes Typography, the following
is a list of the remaining unresolved issues which the Union
feels are critical toward achieving a new contract:
1) New Processes clause as contained in Section 9(a) of
the Printing Industries of Northern California contract.
2) Union Foreman language and rate of pay for
foreman.
3) Recognition of Local overtime laws.
4) Vacation provisions of the PINC Agreement.
5) Nine paid holidays.
6) Sales, Successors and Assigns language.
7) Health and Welfare.
8) Pension contributions.
9) Wages
10) Settlement of disputes procedure as provided in
PINC Agreement.
11) Supplemental Sick Pay
We would again propose that the Agreement follow the
format of the PINC Contract.
I am pleased that we were evidently able to break the
deadlock which had existed at the last meeting, and
trust that both parties will diligently devote themselves
to trying to get an acceptable agreement at the earliest
possible date.
Sincerely yours
A copy of this letter was sent to Bob Holmes, and blind
copies to Morrie Goldman, Stan Adams, and Ivan
Halksworth.
At the Union's request, discussion of economic issues
under the new contract proposals was deferred until the
latter stages of the negotiations. At the December 12
meeting, an attempt was made to schedule further
meetings. With the yearend holidays intervening, it was
decided to delay further meetings until after the first of the
10 Although the parties, throughout their negotiations, erroneously
referred to the Employer's offer of a 13-cent-an-hour wage increase as a 3-
percent wage increase , simple arithmetic indicates that this offer actually
amounted to only a 2 -percent increase.
11 The dates of the meetings were as follows: November 29 and
December 12, 1973; January 24, February 8 and 20, March 5, 15, and 22,
April 25 and 26, May 3, 9, and 10, June 5 and 6, 1974; of whichm the last two
meetings were scheduled by the FMCS commissioner . Of these, approxi-
mately half were afternoon meetings, commencing at or about 1:30, the
remainder, at 10 or 1 l a.m.
12 The sections indicated refer to the applicable provisions of the expired
collective-bargaining; agreement:
HIRING PRACTICE
6.(a) The Employer agrees to respect and observe all regulations
governing the posting and cancellation of overtime as have been
adopted by the Union, and as are in effect on the date of execution of
this Agreement to be applicable to all employees covered by this
agreement.
SANITATION
46. The accredited representative of the Union for the performance of
official duties, upon application to the business office , shall be
permitted to enter the composing rooms at any time during working
time.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year. Although the Union attempted to place the onus for
this delay on Crain, because he had indicated he would not
be available until after the holidays, it is evident that the
postponement was by mutual consent. Crain called the
Union at that time, and a meeting was scheduled for
January 16. The meeting was canceled for the convenience
of Respondent's officials, and was subsequently held on
January 24. The only thing of significance which occurred
at this meeting was that Respondent withdrew its approval
of Section 46, quoted above, relating to permission to
union representatives to enter the composing room on
official business, and sought to impose further restrictions
on this privilege.
The next two meetings were brief sessions between Crain
and Goldman, at which nothing of consequence occurred.
At the next meeting, held on February 8, Respondent
withdrew its approval of Section 6(a), previously quoted,
concerning the Union's regulations relating to the posting
and cancellation of overtime, on which the parties had
agreed at the second bargaining session.13
According to Crain, Respondent's change of position on
this issue resulted from a misconception of the Union's
overtime rules because he had assumed that the rules in the
proposal were the same as those appearing in the PINC
and Local 21 contract, which he had negotiated.
At the February 8 meeting, the Union protested that
members of the Holmes family had been working in the
plant, allegedly in disregard of the hiring provisions of the
contract, and a formal grievance, prepared the day before,
was submitted. Although no specific action was taken with
respect to the grievance, the Company contended that the
Union (more accurately, Local 231) had acquiesced in this
practice over a long period of time, and the issue was
ultimately resolved by permitting a continuance of this
practice as to Thomas Holmes, who had acted as a
foreman for several years, and George R. Holmes, who had
always worked in production before becoming president.
The issue as to whether Mrs. George C. Holmes, who
worked occasionally as a proofreader, would be permitted
to continue in that capacity was not defmitely resolved.
At the same meeting, the Union presented an additional
demand; namely, that Respondent furnish the Union,
through its chapel chairman, with a copy of employees'
weekly earnings so that it could verify the overtime posted
by employees, as well as to facilitate the collection by the
chapel chairman of union dues, which were based on
earnings . Respondent maintained that, since it furnished
its employees with this information on their paycheck
stubs, the chapel chairman could obtain the information
from the employees themselves. Moreover, Respondent
contends, since this information was neither requested nor
required for purposes of collective bargaining but merely
as a convenience to the Union, it amounted to no more
than a request to bargain about a nonmandatory issue.
Respondent refused to accede to this demand and declined
to supply such information.
13 The Union's rules, which this provision incorporated, were designed to
require members steadily employed , to share available work with qualified
unemployed or underemployed union members . The ITU rules regarding
posting and cancellation of overtime do not appear in the expired collective-
bargaining agreement between the parties, but are contained as Section 7(b)
It ^ was during this interval, in late February or early
March, that Board Chairman George C. Holmes is alleged
to have stated to a group of employees that he could "drag
out these negotiations for at least a year." This incident is
discussed later.
During the ensuing negotiating sessions , between Febru-
ary 20 and May 3, discussions were held on the noneco-
nomic issues, and agreement was reached on some. Thus,
at the April 26 meeting, at which International Representa-
tive Wilson was the union spokesman, agreement was
reached regarding the section dealing with layoffs; reten-
tion of the provisions regarding the duties of foremen,
subject to the Employer's right to review union local laws
affecting the performance of such duties; and the Compa-
ny's proposal limiting notice regarding institution of new
processes to 30 days.
The next meeting was scheduled for May 3, Wilson
having - indicated that he would not be available before
then, due to other commitments. Although the meeting was
held, Wilson did not attend.
At the meeting held on May 9, International Representa-
tive Wilson proposed that all noneconomic issues remain-
ing unresolved be settled on the basis of the language in the
expired contract between the parties. Respondent rejected
this offer. It was actually not until the last three negotiating
sessions that the economic issues were seriously discussed.
The first of these meetings was held on May 10. According
to Union Representative Goldman, Crain, the Company's
principal negotiator, stated that the Company's wage
proposal, demand for a 40-hour week, vacation pay, sick
leave, and holiday pay offers were nonnegotiable, and that
George R. Holmes had stated that the Company, had made
up its mind regarding economic issues 2 months earlier.
Crain denied Goldman's testimony in this respect and,
although Respondent did not recede from its position, the
evidence does not warrant the conclusion that it ap-
proached the negotiations with a fixed determination not
to bargain about economic issues or that it confronted the
Union with a "take it or leave it" attitude regarding those
issues. In fact, during the latter stages of the negotiations,
the Company indicated that it would reconsider its
position on its demand for a 40-hour week, as opposed to
the Union's insistence on retaining the 35-hour week
schedule, if the Union would offer something of compara-
ble value. Thus, although Respondent did not submit a
concrete proposal along these lines , it suggested that it
would be receptive to a graduated wage scale based on the
comparative skills required for the jobs involved. The
Union steadfastly adhered to its insistence on retention of
the 35-hour workweek, suggesting only that it might be
receptive to instituting a new classification of computer-
typist, with a wage scale falling somewhere between that of
utilityman and journeyman, if Holmes Composition
Service (also owned by the Holmes family), whose
employees were outside the unit represented by the union,
would enter into a collective-bargaining agreement with
[Canceling Overtime ], in the Commercial Agreement between Bay Area
Typographical Union No. 21 and Printing Industries of Northern
California, effective from September 3, 1973, to August 31, 1975. The
subsection has been attached hereto as Appendix "A."
HOLMES TYPOGRAPHY, INC. 523
Local 21. Since the Company did not employ computer-
typists at its typography plant, it rejected the proposal.
No progress' was made during the final negotiating
sessions and, after a brief meeting on June 6, negotiations
were terminated. At the final negotiating meeting, the
Company renewed its proposal for a 40-hour week, and a 3
(sic) percent hourly wage increase. The union negotiating
committee caucused briefly and rejected the Company's
offer. Goldman conceded that throughout the negotiations
the Company repeatedly insisted that it could not increase
wages without a corresponding increase in productivity.
For the Union's part, although Goldman testified that he
had no recollection of having made the statement, he was
reliably reported to have remarked, in negotiations with
Donald Fleming, president of Atherton's Advertising
Typography, on November 18, 1973, as well as during
negotiations with Respondent, that the Union would not
sacrifice 3,000 union members for the sake of one shop, an
obvious allusion to its determination to secure an accepta-
ble contract on its own terms.
As of the February 20 (seventh session) negotiating
meeting, the Union was already taking steps to obtain
strike authorization from the International. At a union
meeting held May 29, after a report by Goldman on the
state of negotiations, the members voted to strike against
Respondent . After two further unsuccessful negotiating
meetings, Respondent's employees went on strike. At the
time of the hearing, the employees were still on strike and
picketing the plant.
On June 20, Respondent mailed identical letters to all its
employees, including those on strike, informing them that
it intended to institute the changes in wages and working
conditions, substantially as offered the Union during
negotiations, effective June 24, 1974.14
Mention has been made of a statement attributed to
Board Chairman Holmes, late in February or early in
March, while negotiations were in progress, in which he is
alleged to have said, "I can drag out these negotiations for
at least a year." According to Lorne Shirton, Holmes made
this remark to a group of employees early one morning
before work commenced while they were standing near the
makeup bank. The employees in the group included Henry
McCray and Gordon Newman, then chapel chairman.
According to Shirton, the group was standing about 10
feet from his station when he allegedly overheard the
remark . Actual measurements by George R. Holmes, and a
plat of the area involved, made for the purpose of the
hearing, established this distance to be between 23 and 24
feet . George C. Holmes, categorically denied making the
statement, testifying that he refrained from discussing the
negotiations with the employees, referring them instead to
the chapel chairman . Shirton was unable to testify to
anything more regarding the context in which the alleged
statement was made or what else was said by any of, the
parties to the conversation. Neither of the employees to
14 The text of this letter in its entirety is annexed to this Decision as
Appendix "B."
15 Donald E. Joshn, an employee who knew McCray, testified, on the
basis of correspondence he had had with him, that McCray had been
residing in Scotland since June 6, when the strike began There was no
showing whether any effort had been'made to obtain McCray's testimony
by deposition or other means. Although the General Counsel served a
whom the statement was allegedly made was called to
corroborate Shirton's testimony.15
On the basis of the foregoing, including Holmes' positive
denial that he made the statement; the lack of corrobora-
tion of Shirton's testimony; the distance between Shirton's
work station and the place where Holmes' remark is
claimed to have been uttered; Holmes' considerable
background in dealing with the Union's predecessor, which
would have informed him of the folly of making such a
remark, it is found that the burden of proof that Holmes
made the statement has not been sustained, and it will be
recommended that this allegation be dismissed. It is also
found that Shirton's testimony furnishes no support for the
8(a)(5) allegations of the complaint.'
Contentions of the Parties
The grounds for the allegations of the complaint have
been succinctly summarized in Respondent's brief as
follows: (1) "foot-dragging" in delaying the commence-
ment of negotiations and failing to schedule subsequent
meetings; (2) requiring late afternoon sessions, thereby
curtailing negotiations; (3) rescinding tentative agreements
previously reached; (4) discussions without intention of
reaching agreement; (5) refusing to supply the Union with
essential information; (6) statements that negotiations
would be unduly prolonged; (7) instituting unilateral
changes in working conditions; and (8) surface bargaining
and refusal to bargain by Respondent's entire course of
conduct. It is unnecessary to discuss these grounds
seriatim.
Although the Union mailed its notice of termination on
September 27, and Respondent took no action until
November 8, when it notified the Union of its desire to
commence negotiations at the earliest possible date, there
is no substantial evidence that Respondent deliberately
sought to delay negotiations. Considering that the contract
did not expire until 3 weeks after the date of Respondent's
letter and, more especially, its expressed concern at any
delay, in view of its position with regard to retroactivity, it
is difficult to conclude that Respondent was bent on
procrastination. Moreover, Respondent was entitled to a
reasonable opportunity to consider and evaluate the
Union's proposals. Although Vice President Holmes
informed the Union that he would be unavailable due to
his absence from the city the first 2 days of the following
week, he stated that he would expect to hear from the
Union during the latter part of that week.
When Goldman reached Holmes after receiving his
letter, he discussed with him the scheduling of meeting
dates. Some disagreement arose over the place of such
meetings. Thereafter, PINC notified Goldman that it
would be representing the Company, and requested a copy
of the Union's proposals. The PINC representative
inquired whether the Union would be willing to meet for
subpena on Gordon T. Newman on November 12, 1974, by registered mail,
at an address in British Columbia, Canada, Newman did not appear, and
there was no showing of any effort to enforce the subpena or to obtain his
testimony by any other means. There was no showing that any of the other
employees alleged to have been present when it is claimed Holmes made the
statement were unavailable.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiations at the Holmes plant. Goldman declined,
although he asserted that the Union would be willing to
meet anywhere outside the plant, including the PINC
offices.
On about November 23, Crain was designated to act as
principal negotiator for the Company and, within a few
days, contacted Goldman and after some preliminary
skirmishing regarding a meeting place, suggested that the
meeting, already scheduled for November 29, be post-
poned pending a decision on where meetings were to be
held. When Goldman reminded Crain of the Company's
position on retroactivity, and insisted on a meeting as early
as possible, Crain acquiesced, and agreed to meet on
November 29, when the first meeting was actually held.
Although 2 months had elapsed since the Union's initial
notice of termination, considering the necessity for
reviewing the Union's proposals and for conferring with
the PINC representative who was to act as Respondent's
principal negotiator, the efforts to reach agreement on the
site for negotiating meetings, and the necessity for
conducting its normal business operations, it cannot be
said that Respondent was deliberately seeking to delay the
commencement of negotiations to frustrate the collective-
bargaining process. Moreover, part of the delay must be
attributed to the unavailability of union negotiators, who
were also meeting with other employers during this period.
The intimation that the delay in commencing negotia-
tions may have been due, in part, to Respondent's
reluctance to deal with Local 21, as successor to the union
with which Respondent had been dealing for so long in the
past, is unwarranted. While it is true that Crain may have
expressed some doubt at the outset of the negotiations
regarding the merger and the Union's right to represent the
employees, and that Holmes, Sr., may have indicated a
preference for dealing with former Local No. 231, there is
no evidence that this adversely- affected Respondent's
attitude in subsequent negotiations.16 Crain' s misgivings
were readily allayed, and when the Union satisfied him at
the outset of the legality of the merger and the Union's
authority to represent Respondent's employees, the subject
was not brought up again in the negotiations.
As to the intermittent nature of the negotiating sessions,
the longest hiatus, between the second and third meetings
(December 12 to January 24) was largely attributable to
the holiday season. The Company had requested an 8-day
postponement from January 16 to 24, apparently for valid
business reasons, in which the Union acquiesced. Both
parties had concurred in the holiday recess . Subsequent
dates were scheduled by mutual consent, and dictated in
some instances by the Union's other commitments.
With regard to the scheduling of meetings in the
afternoon, despite the Union's contention that Crain had
stated to Goldman, in their initial conversation, that he felt
that all-day meetings would be required, and that he would
1 Robert E. Troupe, president of San Jose Local 231 at the time of the
merger, and second vice president of Bay Area Local 21, since, testified that
twice during negotiations Holmes, Sr., stated that he was unhappy with
Local 21, and on April 19, and again during a recess while the hearing was
in progress, that the merger was a. "big mistake ," and that if the Union
wanted a fight, he "wasn't going to back away from it." Troupe himself,
however, acknowledged that former members of Local 231 had expressed
disenchantment with Local 21. As to the latter remarks attributed to
so inform Respondent (which Crain, incidentally denied)
there was no showing that the Union protested against
afternoon- meetings, nor does the evidence support a
finding that Respondent deliberately scheduled afternoon
meetings to subvert the bargaining- process. Presumably,
the meetings were scheduled in the afternoon to cause the
least possible disruption to Respondent's normal business
operations. There was no showing that the scheduling of
afternoon negotiating sessions prevented a full and fair
discussion of all bargaining issues. It should also be noted
that the Union was also negotiating with other employers
in the industry, on some occasions conducting such
negotiations in the mornings of the very day it was meeting
with Respondent in the afternoon.
It ii, therefore, found that Respondent did not, by- the
delay in commencing negotiations, the scheduling of
subsequent sessions or by holding afternoon sessions,
engage in dilatory tactics to hinder, delay, impede, or
frustrate the bargaining process.
The next contention that Respondent withdrew or
revoked its previous agreement to certain proposals , relates
to the issues of cancellation and posting of overtime, as
provided in the Union's rules, and the right of union
representatives to enter the composing room during
working hours.17 The short answer to this contention may
be found in the preamble to Respondent's counterpropo-
sals, quoted earlier, which stated, in material part:
We reserve the right to add to, delete from or modify
these proposals during negotiations.
That Respondent was not alone in this position is evident
from Crain's testimony, not specifically denied, that
Goldman had stated, at the February 8 meeting, that he
wanted it understood that all language was tentative until
complete agreement was reached on all aspects of the
contract, that Crain concurred in that position, and
proceeded with negotiations on that basis. Whatever may
be said for the desirability of securing firm agreement on
specific issues at each stage of negotiations, such fragmen-
tation of the bargaining process is not necessarily condu-
cive to consummating a complete agreement. For, it is an
accepted technique in collective bargaining to relinquish
positions previously adopted as a quid pro quo for
concessions granted by the other side. With regard to both
these disputed issues, Respondent advanced cogent rea-
sons for its change of position. As to the cancellation and
posting provision, Crain had assumed, erroneously, it
turned out, that the provision was' the same as that
contained in the San Francisco area contract rather than
the one included in the expired contract with San Jose
Local No. 231. When Crain discovered a discrepancy, he
sought to renegotiate this provision.
Thus, it is evident that Respondent's purpose in
withdrawing its tentative agreement with regard to the
Holmes, they do not constitute an unlawful threat . In any event, this
evidence does not warrant a finding that these were factors in the outcome
of negotiations.
17 In his brief, Respondent's counsel inadvertently refers to the latter
provision as the one dealing with the right of members of the Holmes family
to work in the plant . Respondent sought to modify the provision relating to
access by union representatives to the composing room by making it
conditional on noninterruption of company operations.
HOLMES TYPOGRAPHY, INC.
cancellation and posting of overtime was to clarify
otherwise vague and ambiguous provisions rather than to
frustrate collective bargaining. The General Counsel's
contention that, since Crain had himself been the principal
employer negotiator on the Commercial Agreement be-
tween the Union and PINC, which contained a reference
to the union laws relating to overtime, Crain should have
been aware of any discrepancy between the contract
proposal provision and that included in the PINC contract.
Apart from Crain's uncontroverted testimony that he had
requested a copy of the union laws on the subject, and had
never been provided with it and, hence, was unfamiliar
with the Union's actual requirements, it is not unreasona-
ble for Crain to have assumed that the provisions were
identical in each instance.
For all the foregoing reasons, it is found that Respon-
dent, by withdrawing its tentative approval of the provi-
sions in question, has not engaged in bad-faith bargaining.
The issue concerning Respondent's refusal to agree to a
provision requiring it to furnish the Union with a weekly
list of employee earnings, has been previously adverted to,
and for the reasons advanced by Respondent, previously
outlined, it is found that the refusal to accede to the
Union's request does not constitute a refusal to bargain,
and does not amount to indicia of bad faith.
The allegation that a company official made an isolated
statement to employees while negotiations were under way,
that he could unduly prolong negotiations, has been fully
discussed earlier, and dismissed.
The most serious allegation deals with the contention
that Respondent engaged in negotiations with no intention
of reaching agreement. The General Counsel characterizes
this conduct as "surface bargaining" as manifested by
Respondent's "whole course of conduct." The evidence of
what took place during the bargaining sessions, though not
related in minute detail , fails to support this contention.
It is evident that the sticking point in the entire
negotiations was over the issue of wages and the length of
the workweek. It is hardly coincidental that this issue was
deferred until the latter stages of negotiations. It was also
evident that despite any previous agreement which may
have been reached on noneconomic issues, no contract
would be finalized until agreement could be reached on
bread-and-butter issues.
It is conceded that Respondent repeatedly insisted that it
could not grant a wage increase without obtaining greater
productivity. In addition to competition from nonunion
shops, most of which operated on a 40-hour week at
nonunion wages , Respondent had been faced with a
steadily declining loss of business, especially in the book
publishing phase, resulting from plant closures or removals
of publishing houses from the west coast, coupled with
increasing foreign competition in this field from companies
paying wages amounting to 40 percent of Respondent's
wage scale . As an indication of its concern, Respondent
drastically reduced the salaries of its officers by more than
50 percent, from $33,000 to $15,600 a year between 1971
and 1973. Holmes, Sr., who retired as of January 1, 1974,
is The dictionary definition of arm's-length bargaining is singularly
apropos to the negotiations in this case: "... the condition or fact that the
parties to a transaction or negotiation are independent and that one does
525
was receiving only $200,a month as expenses. Under all the
circumstances, it cannot be maintained that Respondent's
offer of a 13-cent-an-hour increase, based on a 40-hour
week, and its failure to'increase this offer during negotia-
tions, manifested a lack of good-faith bargaining. The
Union at all times steadfastly adhered to its position that,
under no circumstances, would it give up the 35-hour
workweek, asserting that it would not sacrifice 3 thousand
members for the sake of 20 jobs. Respondent, on the other
hand, in a genuine effort to resolve this obvious impasse,
indicated that it would be willing to consider a 35-hour
week if the Union could offer some quid pro quo, such as
the establishment of new job classifications and rates for
skills falling between utilityman and journeyman. The
Union's response was to propose a new job classification of
computer-typist, which Respondent did not require.
It is, of course, axiomatic that good-faith bargaining does
not require either party to agree to a proposal or require
the making of a concession. Yet, it would be unrealistic to
ignore the fact that the willingness to agree to proposals or
make concessions is some measure of a party's good faith.
It is, therefore, significant that in negotiations with the
Union, Respondent acceded to the Union's demand for
union security, an entirely new proposal, which the
predecessor union had not enjoyed; had capitulated to the
Union's insistence on retention of contract provisions
permitting reproduction (commonly, though disparagingly,
referred to as setting of "bogus" type, anathema to
employers in the industry), and other noneconomic issues.
That negotiations foundered on the basic economic issues
establishes only that the parties had been engaging in
"arm's length bargaining." 18 Even the intervention of the
FMCS mediator 2 days before the strike failed to resolve
the impasse, which, it is found, existed.
Although the Union had tacitly threatened Respondent
with a strike several weeks earlier, the strike did not begin
until June 7, when the employees remained away from
their jobs without warning. The intention to strike was,
however, publicized in the Union's periodical, which
undoubtedly reached the attention of Respondent. The
strike was still current at the time of the hearing.
Since it has been found that Respondent has not
unlawfully refused to bargain, within the meaning of the
Act, and has not engaged in any, other unfair labor
practices, it is obvious that the strike was not caused or
prolonged by any unfair labor practices on Respondent's
part. It, therefore, follows that the strike was wholly
economic in origin, and has remained so. The employees
who have engaged in the strike have been, and continue to
remain economic strikers, with all attendant consequences.
With regard to the allegation that Respondent made
unilateral changes in the, working conditions of its
employees, based on the letter mailed on June 20, effective
June 24, 1974, it is sufficient to point out that, since the
parties had reached a genuine impasse in negotiations,
Respondent was at liberty to institute the changes which it
had previously offered, and which the Union had rejected.
not dominate the other . . . [arm's-length bargaining ]." Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, 1963.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is, therefore, found, on the basis of the foregoing and
on the entire record that Respondent has not by this or any
other conduct alleged in the complaint, engaged in a
refusal to bargain with the Union within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices in which Respondent is
alleged to have engaged are unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order dismissing complaint omitted
from publication.]
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON CON[MERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent, described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has not engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and
(5) of the Act, it will be recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Holmes Typography, Inc., of San Jose, California,
Respondent herein, is, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Bay Area Typographical Union No. 21, Internation-
al Typographical Union, the Union herein, is, and at all
times material herein has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein, Respondent's pro-
duction employees, including foremen, but excluding
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, have
constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, Bay Area Typographical
Union No. 21, International Typographical Union, the
Union herein, has represented a majority, and has been the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not, since about December 15, 1973,
or at any time thereafter, failed or refused to bargain
collectively with the Union on behalf of the employees in
the appropriate unit above-described, in violation of
Section 8(aX5), and has not interfered with, restrained, or
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7, or engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The strike in which Respondent's unit employees
have engaged since June 6, 1974, was not caused or
prolonged by any unfair labor practices on the part of
Respondent and has, at all times material, constituted an
economic strike.
APPENDIX A
Canceling Overtime
[7] (b) When any situation holder accumulates overtime
equal to the unit of hours established for a regular shift he
shall engage a competent substitute prior to the start of his
shift for the purpose of canceling such overtime; provided,
it shall not be mandatory that any situation holder cancel
more than one day's accumulated overtime in any one
financial week nor shall it be mandatory that any situation
holder cancel accumulated overtime on any shift which
falls within the financial work week and for which
premium pay is provided for by contract. Holidays or time
lost through "begging off" shall not cancel overtime.
Overtime amounting to a full shift shall not be cancelled
until sixty days have elapsed (exclusive of paid vacations)
from the date it was worked or first accumulated to the
number of hours equal to a full shift unless it has been
given out in accordance with the laws of the Union.
The sixty-day cancelation period shall not begin until the
number of hours -of accumulated overtime equals the
number of hours constituting a full shift. Overtime
amounting to less than a full shift shall be posted
indefinitely unless canceled by the employment of a
substitute.
When more than one substitute is available the one with
the most accumulated shifts of overtime must be regarded
as unavailable unless there is enough work to be given out
by the office or situation holders to employ all substitutes;
provided, no substitute shall be restricted on either of the
first four shifts in an office with a five-day work week (or
the first three shifts in an office with a contractual four-day
work week) for which he accepts work during a financial
week, nor shall premium shifts be included in this
calculation. A substitute cancels a shift of overtime on any
day, up to the number constituting a week's work he does
not work in a financial week. Any days worked in that
week shall be deducted from said work week.
For the purpose of canceling overtime, a situation holder
need not hire a substitute who refuses to accept a situation
or a "fF ' slip he is competent to fill in the Chapel' for a
period of 30 days from such refusal. Nor need a situation
holder hire not-at-trade members, proprietor members,
pensioner members, members working on emergency cards
or members retaining dual priority during a strike or
lockout while drawing strike benefits. However, a situation
holder shall cancel ' overtime for any shift he hires such
members.
The oldest overtime shall be given out first. When there
is more than one journeyman with the oldest overtime, the
journeyman with the most overtime shall cancel first.
(c) Should the number of substitutes available for hire
for the forced cancelation of overtime in, any classification
on the same shift and the same day be so great as to
jeopardize the production schedule of the plant, the
HOLMES TYPOGRAPHY, INC.
number of such substitutes available in such classification,
shift or day may be limited by mutual agreement between
the foreman and the chairman.
APPENDIX B
June 20, 1974
On June 7 Bay Area Typographical Union No. 21, your
collective bargaining representative, instituted a strike
against this company, and you and the other employees
have engaged in picketing since that date. As you have
observed, our operations have continued without interrup-
tion. This does not mean that we prefer the strike, but that
we are not in a position to grant the demands of Local 21
and that Local 21 is not willing to agree to the terms which
we find necessary for the proper operation of the business.
Just as Local 21 was entitled to call a strike, we are entitled
to continue in business despite the strike.
So that you might know what the main issues were which
led to the impasse in the bargaining, we are taking this
means to advise you as follows:
1. We proposed a 40-hour week. The union has
insisted on a 35-hour week. We explained that
our competition in the area and in the east comes
from shops working on a 40-hour week and that
we had to be competitive on that basis, among
others. The union has insisted on the San
Francisco commercial shop practice.
2. We proposed an hourly first-shift rate for journey-
men of $6.673, which would amount to $266.92
per week. We proposed a second-shift rate for
journeymen $6.798, which would amount to
$271.92 per week. The union proposed rates of
$7.03 and $7.24, which would amount to weekly
wages of $246.00 for first-shift and $253.50 for
second-shift journeymen.
3. We proposed the same vacation schedule, whereas
the union proposed 4 weeks from the first year.
4. We proposed to continue our practice of allowing
employees make up time, but the union opposed
it.
527
5. We proposed no change in holidays, but the union
requested one more.
6. We offered to maintain health and welfare benefits,
which would have increased our cost $2.15 per
employee per week.
7. We proposed that the pension contributions remain
the same, but the union requested 50$ per shift
more.
There were other differences which were not of such
great importance. The major disputes were and still are the
40-hour week and the hourly wage rate.
We intend to place into effect the terms of the last offer
made to Local 21 on Monday, June 24, and will offer to
any employees returning to work or applicants for
employment those terms and conditions, except for the
health and welfare and pension contributions. We will
have to substitute another health and welfare plan having
comparable benefits and will pay the amount of the
pension contributions directly to employees. These changes
will be necessary because , in the absence of a union
contract, we will not be eligible to contribute to the plans
which are related to collective bargaining agreements.
You are hereby notified that, beginning Monday, June
24, we will accept applications for employment and will, as
the need for employees arises, hire permanent replace-
ments for those who are on strike. If you wish to return to
work, please notify us and we will advise you of any
vacancies which still remain.
This letter is not intended and should not be construed
as an offer to bargain with you or any of our other
employees, individually or directly. You are still represent-
ed by Local 21 and we are willing to resume bargaining
with that organization in accordance with our legal
obligations at any time. This letter is written solely to
inform you of the facts of our last offer, of our intention to
put that offer into effect next Monday, and of our plan to
hire permanent replacements as they are needed. A'copy of
this letter is being sent to Local 21 so that it will be fully
advised.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Bay Area Typographical Union No. 21