International Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or in
any other labor organization of our employees by discharging or failing to reinstate any
of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure
of employment , or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with assault or reprisal in connection with
union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist United Steelworkers of America , CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Thomas McClelland immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the inter-
ference , restraint , coercion , and discrimination against him.
All of our employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members in good standing in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or any other labor
organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conform-
ity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
JOSEPH MANSBACH, SAMUEL MANSBACH,
SYLVIA MANSBACH, HANNAH MANSBACH,
MINNIE RAE AUERBACH, SOPHIA POCKROS,
GERTRUDE WEBER, AND GERALD MANS-
BACH, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS
MANSBACH METAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ............. By................................................................................ ....
(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
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND ITS AGENTS,
WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, LARRY TAYLOR, ELMER BROWN
AND DONHURD and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION. Case No. 9-CB-5. May 6, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On March 11, 1953, the Board' issued its Proposed Supple-
mental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter the charging party filed
a brief in support thereof, and the Respondents filed excep-
tions thereto and a supporting brief. ' The Respondents also
requested oral argument. As the briefs and record adequately
i Members Peterson and Styles not participating.
2 Pursuant to timely request of the Respondents for an extension of time within which to
file exceptions , the Board granted all parties an extension to April 20, 1953 . The charging
party's brief and the Respondents' exceptions and brief were filed with the Board on April
20, 1953.
104 NLRB No. 117.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 807
reflect the Respondents' position, we hereby deny their re-
quest for oral argument.
The Board has considered the Proposed Supplemental Find-
ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Respondents'
exceptions , the above-mentioned briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts as its Supplemental Decision and
Order herein, the said Proposed Supplemental Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, a copy of which is
attached hereto, with the following additions:
1. The Respondents object to the proposed unit findings for
the reason, among others, that because the "units" are de-
fined by reference to agreements 3 entered into more than 5 or
6 years ago, they are "inapropos and outdated." Respondents,
however, have apparently misconceived the purport and effect
of our unit findings. Our holding that the Respondents' failure
to bargain during the 1947 negotiations occurred with respect
to employees comprising a unit appropriate reflects the Board's
view of the situation existing at the time of the refusal to bar-
gain. Nothing in 'such holding was intended, or is to be re-
garded, as a direction to the parties to conduct their bargaining
at this date on the 1946 unit pattern, if in fact changed cir-
cumstances have made such patterns "inapropos or outdated."
2. As to those cities where the Respondent Union's officials
did not physically participate in the negotiations,4 the Re-
spondents con en that "no finding can be made of a request
to bargain" addressed to the ITU, and hence they cannot be
held to have refused to bargain collectively. We find no merit
to the contention. For we believe that at all times here material,
the local negotiators represented the interests of the Inter-
national and exercised the bargaining powers granted it.
In concluding, in the Chicago case, with court approval, 5 that
the International was also a duly designated bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees, we relied in part on the internal
laws governing the relationship between the International and
its locals. Thus, we found that under these laws "there is no
stage of negotiations in which the International does not ac-
SThe Respondents ' brief apparently suggests that in Hammond , Indiana , no agreement was
available upon which reliance could be placed in determining the unit involved in the 1947
negotiations. It is true that in Hammond the parties had historically conducted their relations
on an oral basis, pursuant to a basic understanding that the Employer would be bound by the
terms negotiated by the Union with the Chicago Publishers Association, in operating the
composing room, for the duration of the Chicago contract. There is no question that this
historical mode of oral agreement for a term definite clearly covered the conventional kind
of composing- room employees . Nor was there any doubt expressed by either party to the
1947 negotiations here involved as to the unit for which the Employer sought to make a
separate bargain when the Chicago negotiations failed . We therefore reject, as without merit,
the Respondents' exceptions to our finding that the refusal of the Union to bargain in Ham-
mond occurred with respect to an appropriate unit.
4The Respondents concede that ITU representatives participated physically in the negotia-
tions conducted in Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. The record also shows, as was
found by the Trial Examiner , that an ITU representative was present at the negotiating
conferences held in New Bedford, Massachusetts (86 NLRB at p. 998). No ITU officials
appeared at the Sioux City, Iowa, Albany, New York, or Hammond, Indiana, conferences.
$The portion of the court's opinion referred to appears at 193 F. 2d 804- 805.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively participate, even though its officials may not physically
be present." Such active participation by the International--
even without its physical presence--in any given bargaining
negotiations obviated the necessity for any prior request to
bargain directed expressly to the International. The fact that
the International exercised its inherent powers to supervise,
control, and direct bargaining negotiationsI in which its locals
participated, and that locals followed such direction and control,
convinces us that representatives of those locals which bar-
gained without the physical presence of officials of the Inter-
national were acting as agents of the International as well as
agents of the locals.?
3. In excepting to the proposed cease -and-desist provisions
of the Order, the Respondents contend, in effect, that the re-
fusal-to-bargain issue here under consideration has been
mooted, and no refusal-to-bargain order should now issue be-
cause: (1) The particular bargaining strategy here condemned
was discontinued after March 1948; (2) no complaints have
issued against the Respondents since that date; and (3) it
offered to comply with the cease-and-desist provisions of the
Order heretofore issued in this case. They further contend,
for the same reasons, that in any event the Proposed Order is
too broad both substantively (by including the phrase "by any
other means") and geographically (by making it applicable to
the entire newspaper industry). We find no merit to these
exceptions.
It is well settled that the discontinuance of the particular un-
fair labor practices found does not render the matters litigated
moot, nor prevent the Board from issuing an appropriate order
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.s As we pointed
out in the Printing Industry of America case, the records in
the ITU cases, including this one, indicate strongly the Re-
spondents' disposition to use the bargaining table as a means
of obtaining "closed-shop" conditions by one device or another.
We have ample reason presently to believe that this disposition
still exists. For, notwithstanding the Union's- asserted "dis-
continuance" of the bargaining strategy here found specif-
ically unlawful, the very same "closed-shop" policy it was
designed to implement still forms an essential part of the aims
of the Union, as expressed in its general laws. We cannot but
reasonably infer, therefore, that it is possible, if not highly
probable, that the Respondents may resort to other devices to
6It is very clear from the ITU laws that it was contemplated by all parties bound by such
laws that negotiators designated by the locals in the first instance would represent the
interests of the International and exercise bargaining powers granted to it . For the laws
contain carefully spelled out substantive and procedural specifications relating to the conduct
of bargaining by local-designated negotiators and the terms they must insist upon as a
condition of cooperating in the establishment of a collective relationship.
7 In addition to the agency evidence provided by the laws there is specific evidence that at
Sioux City , Iowa, and Albany , New York. the reason given by local negotiators for rejecting
the employer 's proposals was that such proposals were unacceptable to the ITU (86 NLRB
at pp . 993, 998).
8See, for example , Printing Industry of America , Inc., 87 NLRB 1418 ( and cases there
cited), enforced 193 F. 2d 782 (C.A. 7); N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U.S. 563;
N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 179 F. 2d 221, 222 (C.A. 2).
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 809
effectuate their "closed-shop" objectives in future negotiations
with employers in the industry, unless effectively restrained.
Illustrative of this possibility also is the fact that: (1) The
change from the "Conditions" strategy to the 60-day contract
proffer followed the issuance of a complaint charging the Re-
spondent International with unfair labor practices because of
its employment of the "Conditions" strategy, and (2) the
abandonment of both this device and the 60-day contract oc-
curred only after the Federal district court issued its injunc-
tion in March 1948.
Moreover, the conduct specifically found violative of the Act
herein goes to the heart of the collective-bargaining obligations
imposed on unions by Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. This is so, as
we pointed out in the Chicago case,9 not only because of the
illegality of the objectives sought to be attained, but also be-
cause , wholly apart from such objectives, the Respondents
sought by their insistence on the unilateral promulgation of the
conditions of work, and/or by their proffer of P-6A, to pre-
clude a truly mutual basis for the stabilization of employment
conditions.
In the light of the foregoing , we find that the policies of the
Act can best be effectuated by enjoining the Respondents from
refusing to bargain not only by devices designed to establish
unlawful closed-shop conditions, but also by any means tending
to interfere with the establishment of genuine collective bar-
gaining on a basis of mutuality. #°
So far as the Respondents' challenge of the geographic
breadth of the Proposed Order is concerned, there is only one
phase of its objections that the foregoing remarks or the Pro-
posed Supplemental Decision do not completely answer. This
is that there are portions of the industry which, either by
custom or by consent of the parties involved, do not operate
under written agreements, and hence that the Board's Order
may preclude continuation of such agreements even though
they are in no respects unlawful. However, as we have pointed
out in another ITU case," the violation of the duty to bargain
imposed under the Act where a proposal is made that an agree-
ment be in oral rather than in written form, arises only if the
proposing party adamantly insists upon such form. Our Order
does not purport to reach proposals which would not support
refusal-to-bargain findings.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that:
1. Respondent International Typographical Union, and its
officers , agents, and representatives, and
886 NLRB 1041 , at pp . 1042-1044.
ie We note also, so far as the compliance- offer contention is concerned , that the Decision
and Order initially issued in this case did not involve refusal-to- bargain violations.
u Daily Review Corporation , et al., 87 NLRB 1263.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don
Hurd, their agents and successors, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from refusing specifically, or by in-
sistence, upon a 60-day cancelable contract, or by any other
means, to bargain collectively and in good faith with any em-
ployer in the newspaper industry, where the employees of such
employer comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and a majority of such employees have
designated or selected the Respondent ITU to represent them
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act: Post immediately
in conspicuous places at all halls and offices of the Respondent
ITU and its locals, and all other places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted, and publish in the Typographical
Journal, official paper of the Respondent ITU, a copy of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."ti These
notices shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the Re-
spondent ITU, and by the individual Respondents herein or their
successors in office, and shall remain so posted and main-
tained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. 13
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Supplemental
Decision and Order what steps the Respondents have respec-
tively taken to comply therewith. t4
12In the event this Order is adopted by a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be
substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ," the words "Pursuant to
a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , Adopting an Order."
13 The Respondents claim that at great expense to themselves and as part of their asserted
compliance with other Board orders , they have already issued notices to all local unions
substantially in the form here required , andtpathence the Respondents should not be required
at this time to do more than publish the notices in the Typographical Journal. In the event
the Respondents have in fact circulated such notices to the local unions, the Regional Director
of course will not require the Respondents to repeat the circulation of such notices to the
local unions.
to We inadvertently omitted this conventional paragraph from our Proposed Supplemental
Order . We have added it here, in accord with our usual practice.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
TO ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS OF
THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we
hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse, by specific refusal , or by in-
sistence upon a 60 - day cancelable contract , or by any
other means , to bargain collectively and in good faith with
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 811
any employer in the newspaper industry, where the em-
ployees of such employer comprise a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and where a majority
of such employees have designated or selected the Inter-
national Typographical Union to represent them for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
By
President
Woodruff Randolph
Elmer Brown
Larry Taylor
Don Hurd
Dated
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 21, 1947, based upon charges filed by American
Newspaper Publishers Association, herein called the ANPA,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint against the above-named Respondents 1 al-
leging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (b) (2),
8 (b) (6), and 8 (b) (1) (A), and 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act.
On October 28, 1949, following the usual proceedings, the
Board issued its Decision E in which, inter alia, it sustained
certain of the 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (B) allegations of the com-
plaint, dismissed the entire 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (6) allegations
of the complaint, and issued an order consistent with its De-
cision.
Thereafter the case was considered by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, ] upon the Board's
petition for enforcement and the ANPA's petition for review of
the Board's Decision and Order. On December 27, 1951, the
court issued its decision,4 in which it sustained the Board's
I International Typographical Union (herein referred to as the ITU) and its agents , Woodruff
Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don Hurd.
286 NLRB 951.
3Referred to hereafter as the court , or as the court of appeals.
4N. L. R. B. v. International Typographical Union et al., 193 F. 2d 782, enforcing 86
NLRB 951, 86 NLRB 1041, 87 NLRB 1418.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Decision and Order, with one exception: it held that the Board
committed error in failing to "make findings and an appropriate
order on the allegations of the complaint that the ITU and its
agents had failed and refused to bargain collectively in good
faith," because such refusal was alleged in the complaint to be
a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) rather than of 8 (b) (3). The
court specifically affirmed the Board's holding that, as a
matter of law, a union's refusal tobargaindoes not come within
the proscriptions of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). It ruled, however, that
as the complaint alleged an unlawful refusal to bargain by the
Respondents which, if supported by the evidence, would consti-
tute an unfair labor practice violative of Section 8 (b) (3), and
as the Respondents recognized this to be one of the charges
against them, the failure of the complaint to specify the correct
subsection of the Act that was violated did not justify the
Board's dismissal of the allegations in question without con-
sidering the sufficiency of the proof. The court therefore re-
manded the case to the Board for the purpose of considering
and deciding the refusal to bargain charged in the complaint,
on the merits.
On May 9, 1952, the ITU filed in the United States Supreme
Court a petition for certiorari, which sought among other things
that tribunal's review of the above rulings of the court of
appeals. On October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court
denied this petition.5
Thereafter, pursuant to the court's remand, the Board° re-
viewed anew the record made at the hearing held before Trial
Examiner Arthur Leff, for the purpose of determining whether
the evidence there adduced will support a finding that the ITU
has engaged in violations of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. The
Board determined further that, as a matter of procedure, the
exercise of its powers for purposes of determining the issues
as directed by the court should be accomplished in the manner
provided for by Section 102.50 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 6, as amended. Accordingly, the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the order herein are issued in proposed
form, so that the parties to these proceedings may have the
opportunity to exercise the right to file exceptions (and briefs
in support thereof) to these supplemental findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and order.
The Board hereby grants to any party to the proceeding a
period of twenty (20) days following issuance of the instant
Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order, for the purpose of filing exceptions thereto and
supporting briefs, and to request permission to argue orally
before the Board. The form of such exceptions and briefs as
may be filed shall be in accordance with the provisions of
5344 U. S. 816. On the same date, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on
the ANPA's petition for review of so much of the court of appeals ' decision as sustained the
Board's dismissal of the 8 (b) (6) allegations of the complaint . 344 U.S. 812. On March 9,
1953, the Supreme Court affirmed this part of the court of appeals ' decision, American
Newspaper Publishers ' Association v. N. L. R. B. , 345 U. S. 100.
6Members Peterson and Styles, who did not participate in the original decision , are also
not participating here.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 813
Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6,
as amended.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
In enforcing the Board's decision in the Chicago Newspaper
Publishers Association, and Printing Industry of America,7
cases, the court has approved certain of the Board's findings
and conclusions which are here controlling. Thus, the court
has approved our view that Section 8 (b) (3) proscribed the
application against employers, by unions having representative
status, of the 1947 "ITU Collective Bargaining Policy" 8 in the
"Conditions of Employment" and 60-day (P-6A) contract
forms which the ITU commanded its locals to use between
August 22, 1947, and March 27, 1948.8 The court also sustained
the Board's conclusion that, under the intraunion scheme of
the rules and regulations governing the relationship of the ITU
to its subordinate locals, and establishing the assent of the
individual union members to the relationship there disclosed,
the ITU could be held responsible, under Section 8 (b) (3), for
local representatives' applications of the 1947 ITU "Policy,"
even though no international agent participated physically in the
negotiations being tested in any one case.
In enforcing the Board's decision in the instant case, the
court also approved the Board's finding that in its negotiations
in the newspaper industry, the ITU had in fact applied the
"Policy" in the "no-contract" and/or 60-day contract forms.
This finding was based, in part, upon evidence of the negotiations
in the following cities, which disclosed no deviation from the
"no-contract" or "60-day contract" strategy mandated by the
ITU "Policy": Chicago, Illinois; Albany, New York; Sioux City,
Iowa; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Hammond, Indiana; and
Detroit, Michigan. In some of these cities, as the enforced
Board decision indicates, international representatives partici-
pated physically, together with local agents, in the conduct of
the negotiations. In all, the International exercised substantial
control over the bargaining relationship, whether or not its
agents directly participated. As it has been held that the appli-
cation of the "Policy" by labor organizations representing a
majority of employees in appropriate units constitutes a vio-
lation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, the sole remaining question
is whether the record establishes that at the time the bargaining
negotiations in the above-described cities occurred (1) the em-
ployees on whose behalf the bargain was sought comprised a
unit appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the
t 86 NLRB 1041 , 87 NLRB 1418.
$Hereinafter called the "Policy."
9 The initial date coincided with the effective date of the Act. The later date is that on
which application of the "Policy" was stayed by the United States district court's issuance
of a temporary injunction . Evans v . ITU, 76 F. Supp . 881 (U. S. D. C., S. D., Ind.).
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act; to and (2) whether a majority of such employees were
members of the ITU or had otherwise established their designa-
tion of the ITU as their representative.
Appropriate Units
The record shows that the unit question, as such, was not
separately and specifically treated by the parties except as to
the Chicago phase of these proceedings. There, under a
separate complaint, consolidated with the instant one for pur-
poses of hearing only, the General Counsel sought the issuance
of an affirmative bargaining order. However, the record does
contain evidence as to the employee units for which the bargain
was sought in each of the other aforementioned cities. As the
record also establishes that all parties to the long-established
bargaining relationship in these cities not only clearly under-
stood the precise scope of the units for which they were bar-
gaining, but also--with the possible exception of the inclusion
of foremen- -implicitly treated such units as appropriate and
agreed that any "bargain" reached between them would cover
such units, we are satisfied that we may properly resort to
such evidence, in complying with the court's order of
remand."
More specifically, the record shows that, with the exception
of foremen, the units which formed the basis of the bargaining
negotiations referred to herein were composing-room or mail-
room units of the kind the Board has usually found to be
appropriate in the newspaper industry. 12 The scope of the
unit bargained for in each case here under consideration had
been established by a course of negotiations and agreements
between the parties going back several years.
Accordingly we find that, subject to the statutory exclusion
of foremen, the bargaining negotiations in the various cities
here under consideration covered the following units, each of
which is appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act:
Chicago, Illinois: The employee group comprising the
appropriate unit in this case is the same as that heretofore
found appropriate by the Board in the Chicago Newspaper
Publishers Association case, 86 NLRB 1041, 1060, which the
court enforced in N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Newspaper Publishers
Association, cited supra.
Detroit, Michigan: Two units are here found appropriate,
both extending in scope to the employer members of the
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association, who are, respec-
tively, the publishers of the Detroit News, the Detroit Free
Press, and the Detroit Times.
One unit is comprised of all "composing room" employees,
except foremen, in the work classifications covered by the
to In United Mine Workers of America, et al ., 83 NLRB 916 , we pointed out that appropriate
unit findings are essential predicates to the disposition of 8 (b) ( 3) allegations.
'ICE N. L. R. B . v. Somerville BuickCo., 194 F . 2d 56 (C. A. 1), enforcing 93 NLRB 1603.
12E.g. Citizen-News Co., 8 NLRB 997, 1005; Lloyd Hollister , Inc., 68 NLRB 733; Chicago
Newspaper Publishers Association. et al. , supra Cincinnati Daily Newspaper Publishers
Association, 55 NLRB 571 ; Register and Tribune Co., 60 NLRB 360; Cincinnati Printers
League, 61 NLRB 595.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 815
November 1946 to October 1947 collective contract between
the above publishers and Detroit Typographical Union No. 18,
a subordinate local of the ITU , as ratified by the Respondent
Woodruff Randolph for the ITU . The other unit is comprised
of all "mail room" employees , except foremen , in the work
classifications covered by the November 1946 to October 1947
contract between the above - named publishers and Detroit
Mailer ' s Union No. 40 , a subordinate local of the ITU, as
ratified by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU.
Albany, New York: The unit is comprised of all "composing
room" employees , except foremen , of the Employer (who are,
respectively , the publishers of the Albany Times Union and the
Knickerbocker News ), in the work classifications covered by
the November 1946 to October 1947 collective contract between
such publishers and Albany Typographical Union No. 4, a
subordinate local of the ITU, as ratified by Respondent Woodruff
Randolph for the ITU.
Sioux City, Iowa : Two units of employees of the Journal
Tribune Publishing Co., herein called the Publisher , are here
found appropriate : ( 1) A "composing room" unit of the em-
ployees of the Publisher , except foremen , in the work classifi-
cations covered by the January 1947 to December 1947 collec-
tive contract between the Publisher and Sioux City Typo-
graphical Union No. 180 , a subordinate local of the ITU, as
ratified by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU; and
(2) a "mail room" unit of the employees of the Publisher, ex-
cept foremen , in the work classifications covered by the
September 1946 to September 1947 collective contract between
the Publisher and Sioux City Mailer ' s Union No. 97, a sub-
ordinate local of the ITU, as approved by the Respondent
Woodruff Randolph for the ITU.
New Bedford , Massachusetts : Two units of employees of the
publisher of the New Bedford ' Standard Times are here found
appropriate : ( 1) A "composing room" unit of the employees,
except foremen, in the work classifications covered by that
contract between the Publisher and New Bedford Typographical
Union No. 276 , a subordinate local of the ITU, which expired
during or immediately before the conduct of the negotiations
here considered ; and (2 ) a "mail room" unit of all employees,
except foremen , covered by that contract between the publisher
and New Bedford Mailer ' s Union No . 115, which expired during
or immediately before the conduct of the negotiations here
considered.
Hammond, Indiana: The unit is comprised of all " composing
room" employees , except foremen , of the Hammond Times
Publishing Co., herein called the Publisher , in the work
classifications covered by the agreement between the Publisher
and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, a subordinate local of
the ITU, which expired during or immediately before the con-
duct of the negotiations here considered.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Majority Representation of the I.T.U.
Proof of the majority status of the local unions respectively
engaged in the negotiations for the employees in the units the
Board has respectively found appropriate above is supplied in
all cases (except those involving the New Bedford negotiations)
by stipulations entered into by the Respondent ' s counsel and the
remaining parties to the case . These stipulations admitted that
all the employees covered by the most recently effective con-
tracts between the publishers respectively involved on the one
hand , and the local unions respectively involved , on the other,
were at all times here material members of the respective
local unions involved . Proof of the majority status of the two
local unions involved in the New Bedford, Massachusetts, ne-
gotiations is supplied by undisputed record facts, establishing
that the most recent effective contract between the publishers
and the local unions respectively involved imposed , as did all
of the other contracts , " closed - shop " union-membership re-
quirements on the employees these contracts covered, as a
condition of employment.
In view of the foregoing facts, the Board finds that at all
times here material a majority of employees in the respective
units hereinabove found appropriate were members of the
applicable local union . Because the record here establishes,
as it did in other cases where we have considered 8 (b) (3)
complaints involving the ITU , that the members of the sub-
ordinate ITU locals here involved, and their negotiating agents,
subscribed to and followed at all times here material the
bargaining procedures set forth in the ITU " laws" as amended
at the 1947 ITU convention , we find , for reasons set forth in
the Board ' s judicially enforced decision in the Chicago Pub-
lishers case , that the ITU was, at all times here material, a
duly designated bargaining agent within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act of the employees in the units herein found
appropriate.ta
We find, further, for reasons previously expressed, that the
adamant insistence of the union negotiators that any substantive
terTns agreed to in the course of the negotiations must be cast
either in the "conditions " or "60 -day" contract forms
mandated by the ITU " Policy," constituted an unlawful refusal
to bargain . We conclude , therefore , that the Respondents and
each of them , on and after August 22, 1947, unlawfully failed
and refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the above-
named Employers or their bargaining agents, for the employees
in the units herein found appropriate.
THE REMEDY
Selection of the appropriate remedy for the unfair labor
practices found herein involves consideration of the General
Counsel's request , made on the record during the litigation of
13 Members Houston and Murdock, who dissented from this finding in the Chicago Publishers
case (86 NLRB 1041 , 1052), now consider themselves bound by that decision.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 817
the complaint, that no affirmative bargaining order be issued,
but rather that a broad injunctive order be framed which would
preclude the Respondents from in any manner unlawfully im-
peding the operations of the bargaining process in the news-
paper industry. While we have found specific refusals to bargain
with only seven Employers, we believe the requested remedy
to be appropriate here. For, as has been found, (1) the "Policy"
was deliberately framed as a means of promoting union ob-
jectives in conflict with the provisions of Section 8 (b) (2) of
the Act; (2) the "strategy" set forth in the "Policy" was pe-
culiarly designed for use in the conduct of all collective-bar-
gaining negotiations with all employers whose employees were
members of the ITU; (3) it was in fact repetitiously applied in
various localities during the period here material, in violation
of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, at times when the Respondent
ITU's relationship to the Employers was that of a statutory
representative of employees of newspaper publishers com-
prising a unit or units appropriate. 14
From these facts, it is reasonably inferable that, unless
effectively restrained, the Respondents will continue to attempt
effectuation of their unlawful objectives, wherever they may
participate directly or indirectly in the conduct of collective-
bargaining negotiations as the representatives of a majority
of employees comprising appropriate units, and without regard
to the obligations imposed upon statutory representatives by
Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we believe and find
that fully to effectuate the policies of the Act, the Board's order
here, like that issued in the earlier decision, should be broad
enough in scope to prevent the Respondent's commission of the
unfair labor practices found throughout the newspaper industry.
We shall therefore order the Respondents, as the statutory
representative of employees in appropriate units, to cease and
desist from refusing to bargain in goodfaithwith any employer
in the newspaper industry.15
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that:
1. Respondent International Typographical Union, and its
officers, agents, and representatives, and
14Although the General Counsel adduced evidence of the detailed day-to-day conduct of
negotiations in specific portions of the newspaper industry, the proceeding , as a whole, was
aimed at curbing the application of the "Policy" throughout the newspaper industry . The de-
tails of specific sets of negotiations were spread upon the record on a "sample" basis to
form a concrete picture of the "Policy " in operation and the deleterious effect of its applica-
tion . To establish the uniform application of the "Policy " in all negotiations held in the
newspaper industry, the General Counsel relied upon the testimony of Woodruff Randolph,
noted in the Intermediate Report (86 NLRB 1006-1008), that with relatively few exceptions
the bargaining conducted by the ITU and/or its locals during the period between August 22,
1947, and March 27, 1948 , was either conducted on the "no-contract" (Conditions of Em-
ployment) or "60-day contract" (P-6A) basis , or was consistent with the objectives thereof.
15Cf. N. L. R. B. v. United Mine Workers, 202 F. 2d 177 (C. A. 7), enforcing 96 NLRB 1389.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and
Don Hurd, their agents and successors, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from refusing specifically, or by in-
sistence , upon a 60-day cancelable contract, or by any other
means, to bargain collectively with any employer in the news-
paper industry, where the employees of such employer com-
prise a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining,
and a majority of such employees have designated or selected
the -Respondent ITU to represent them for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds,will effectuate the purposes of the Act: Post immediately
in conspicuous places at all halls and offices of the Respondent
ITU and its locals, and all other places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted, and publish in the Typographical
Journal, official paper of the Respondent ITU, a copy of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."18 These
notices shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the
Respondent ITU and by the individual Respondents herein or
their successors in office, and shall remain so posted and
maintained for a period of 60 days.
16In the event this Order is adopted by a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be
substituted for the words . "Pursuant to A Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , Adopting an Order."
THE HULL BREWING COMPANY and WILLIAM LAWRENCE
THE HULL BREWING COMPANY and WILLIAM LAWRENCE.
Cases Nos. 1-CA-1062 and 1-CA-1241. May 6, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Dent D. Dalby issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
'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].
104 NLRB No. 103.