Intl. Printing Pressmen Local 38

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

INTL. PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 38
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
of North America , St. Louis Web Printing Press-
men and Flymen's Local No. 38 , AFL-CIO and
Belleville News Democrat, Inc. Case 14-CC-593
December 17, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 11, 1970, Trial Examiner Marion C.
Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged
in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting
brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the complaint herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed in
its entirety.
i On September 2, 1970, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner 's Decision and a supporting brief Thereafter , on October
26, 1970, the General Counsel filed a motion to withdraw his exceptions to
the Decision and to dismiss the complaint , in light of the Board 's decision
in Belleville News Democrat, Inc, 185 NLRB No 140 . There the Board
concluded that the Employer ' s pressmen had been effectively withdrawn
from the multiemployer unit represented by Pressmen 's Local 113 and that
a question exists concerning the representation of certain of the employees
of the Employer On November 4, 1970 , the Employer filed a statement in
opposition to the General Counsel's motion , contending essentially that the
Board 's determination in the case cited by the General Counsel has no
bearing on the instant proceeding . The General Counsel's motion to
withdraw his exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision is hereby
granted In view of our disposition of this case , we need not pass upon the
General Counsel 's motion to dismiss the complaint herein
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
337
MARION C. LADWIG,Trial Examiner: This case was tried at
St. Louis, Missouri, on June 29, 1970,' pursuant to a charge
filed on May 15 by Belleville News Democrat , Inc., herein
called the Belleville News, and pursuant to a complaint
issued on June 2. The primary issue is whether Respondent,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America, St. Louis Web Printing Pressmen and
Flymen's Local No. 38, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 38,
violated Section 8(b)(4Xi)(ii)(C) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by striking and picketing with
an object of forcing or requiring the Belleville News to
recognize and bargain with it as the representative of the
newspaper 's pressmen.
Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Belleville
News, and the closing arguments made by Local 38 at the
trial , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNIONS
INVOLVED
The Belleville News , an Illinois corporation , is engaged in
the publication of a daily newspaper. It subscribes to
interstate news services , publishes nationally syndicated
features , advertises nationally sold products , and annually
has a gross revenue in excess of $200 ,000. Accordingly, I
find that it is a person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, and is an employer, within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) and Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. Local 38, as well as Belleville Printing
Pressmen 's Union No. 113, herein called Local 113 (also
affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants Union of North America, herein called the Interna-
tional), are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Multiemployer bargaining
For many years, the Belleville News has been a member
i All dates, unless otherwise indicated , are in 1970
2 The General Counsel's and Belleville News ' separate motions to
correct the record , each dated July 17, are granted and the transcript is
corrected accordingly
187 NLRB No. 57
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL; LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of an informal association called the Belleville Employing
Printers , herein called the Association . Belleville Employing
Printers, 122 NLRB 350 ( 1958). In 1959 , Local 113 (the
Belleville Local ) was certified as the bargaining representa-
tive of "All letterpress , gravure , and newspaper pressmen,
and apprentices and helpers " employed by employer
members of the Association . At that time , the Association
consisted of the Belleville News and another newspaper
publisher , plus four commerical punting companies.
The Association continued to bargain periodically with
Local 113. In 1967 it engaged in joint negotiations with
Local 113 and Printers Local 47 (affiliated with a different
International , the I .T.U.). As previously , Local 113 in 1967
sent "termination" or "reopening" notices to the individual
employers , and signed separate (identical) contracts with
them , following the multiemployer bargaining . Local 113's
1967 contract with the Belleville News expired April 30,
1970.
2. Transfer of membership
In May 1969, when the Belleville News was the only
newspaper publisher in the Association (the other four
employers being commercial printing companies), votes
were taken to permit the six Belleville News pressmen to
transfer their membership from the "mixed" (commercial
and newspaper) Local 113 in Belleville, to the "newspaper"
Local 38 in St. Louis. In a regular meeting, the Local 113
members voted to permit the newspaper pressmen to decide
whether they wished to transfer their membership to Local
38, and the six Belleville News pressmen then voted
unanimously in the meeting to make the transfer. All six of
them (including the foreman, Robert J. Grunewald) joined
Local 38. Thereafter, Local 113 refrained from administer-
ing the 1967-1970 contract with the Belleville News, and
Local 38 (and the International) sought the Belleville News
to recognize the transfer of membership. Fearing increased
costs if its pressmen were represented separately by the St.
Louis newspaper local, the Belleville News declined.
3. Refusal to recognize Local 38 representatives
On May 22, 1969, soon after the votes on the transfer of
membership, the International's secretary-treasurer, Alex-
ander J. Rohan, wrote the Belleville News a letter, stating
that the International's board of directors had approved the
transfer of the Belleville News pressmen's membership to
Local 38, which "will be responsible for the administration"
of the current pressmen contract. About 2 days later, Local
38's Secretary-Treasurer Charles Etwert telephoned Belle-
ville News General Manager Fred J. Kern, seeking a
meeting to discuss administering the contract. As testified
by Kern, "I replied courteously that we had a contract with
113 and we would honor the contract." Kern refused to
meet with the Local 38 officials.
Next, on June 17, 1969, Local 38 President Alex Fngo
wrote the Belleville News a letter, advising that Local 38
"will administer the collective-bargaining agreement"
between the Belleville News and Local 113 until the
agreement expires on April 30, whereupon Local 38 "will
assume exclusive representative status and engage in
bargaining for a new contract." When the Belleville News
still declined , Local 113 wrote it a letter on August 25, 1969,
designating the Local 38 officials , Etwert and Frigo, as the
Local 113 representatives to administer the agreement. The
Belleville News still declined to recognize the Local 38
officials.
As a result of Local 113 abandoning the servicing of its
Belleville News agreement with its own officers , and the
Belleville News refusing either to recognize Local 38 as the
bargaining representative or to deal with the Local 38
officers as the designated Local 113 representatives to
administer the agreement , the 1967- 1970 agreement was
not administered during the last 11-1/2 months of its term.
On February 18 Local 38 wrote to the Belleville News
advising that Local 38 "has been designated by a majority
of your pressroom employees ," stating that this is an
appropriate bargaining unit , demanding recognition, and
requesting a time and place to begin bargaining. The
Belleville News did not answer the letter.
B. Representation Proceeding
On February 18 Local 38 filed a petition for an election,
in Belleville News Democrat, Inc., Case 14-RC-6376, for a
unit of six employees , including "all pressroom employees
including apprentices ." A notice of the representation
hearing was sent to Local 113, which responded to a Board
agent "that we did not represent them , and we had no wish
to represent" the Belleville News pressmen . The hearing in
the representation case was held in April, and Local 113 did
not intervene or participate in the proceeding.
On May 6, the Regional Director dismissed the petition
for an election, ruling that neither Local 38 nor Local 113
had unequivocally withdrawn from multiemployer bargain-
ing. Local 38 filed a request for review with the Board on
May 15, the Board granted the request on June 24, and the
representation case is now pending before the Board.
C. 1970 Negotiations
On February I I-a week before the election petition was
filed by Local 38-Local 113 gave a written notice (signed
by Charles Etwert as "Representative") to the Belleville
News of the termination of the 1967-1970 "agreement with
Belleville News Democrat on its termination date, April
30," and stating, "This notice shall serve to preclude any
extension or renewal of said contract and shall serve to
terminate the entire agreement and each and every provision
thereof." (Emphasis supplied.) Nearly 3 weeks later, on
March 2, Local 113 sent to each of the four commercial
printing employers in the Association-but not to the
Belleville News-a letter stating that the contract expires
on April 30 and proposing changes to be negotiated.
Also on March 2, the Association (comprising the
Belleville News and the four commercial printing employ-
ers) held a "strategy" meeting for the forthcoming
negotiations with Local 113 and Printers Local 74. As
testified by Belleville News General Manager Kern, the
commercial printing employers discussed the fact that they
had not received the "termination notices" from Local 113.
Kern (whose company had received not only Local 38's
February 18 recognition demand and petition for an
election , but also Local 113's notice that there would be no
INTL. PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 38
extension or renewal of the 1967-1970 agreement with the
Belleville News) discussed with the commercial printers
Local 38's "encroachment" at the newspaper publishing
company. The employers discussed which of the Belleville
News pressmen could have been the leader in moving their
membership to Local 38. Kern stated that he still
recognized Local 113, "that's all we can do is recognize the
union that we have had a contract with for years." The
Association members designated Raymond L. Erwin,
owner of Erwin Printing Company, to act as spokesman for
the employers.
About March 4, Association Spokesman Erwin told
Local 113 Secretary Gilbert Bibee that his proposals were
like the Printers Local 74's demands, and suggested that the
Association proceed with bargaining with Local 74. Bibee
agreed. The Association reached an agreement with Local
74 about the middle of April. Erwin then spoke again to
Bibee , reported the agreement with Local 74, and proposed
that Local 113 accept the new provisions, with some
modification of the pension plan. Sometime between then
and May 1, Bibee reported to Erwin that the pressmen had
agreed to the contract revisions, with the exception of the
pension system. It was sometime after May 1 when Erwin
and Local 113 agreed on the pension provisions, and
reconciled some differences over contract language. The
agreement had not been approved by the International, nor
signed by the Association members, at the time of trial on
June 29.
In these informal negotiations between the Association
and Local 113, there was no mention of the newspaper
pressmen at the Belleville News. In the first part of June,
Local 113 Secretary Bibee told Association Spokesman
Erwin "that he did not want anything to do with the
[Belleville] News Democrat contract."
D. Announcement of Increased Benefits
On May 1, when the representation proceeding involving
the Belleville News pressmen were still pending before the
Regional Director, General Manager Kern called a meeting
of the six pressmen. He announced that a new contract had
been reached with Local 113, and described the increased
wages and other benefits (including pensions, on which the
Association and Local 113 had not reached an agreement at
that time). The pressmen did not respond until they
discussed the announcement among themselves , and asked
for a meeting with Kern. They then asked Kern why they
had not been given an opportunity to negotiate, and (in
Kern's words) "my answer was that as a member of [Local ]
38 they weren't even the union that was recognized, how
could they be on the [negotiating] committee." The
pressmen complained that they had been presented with no
contract to vote on, and that nothing had been submitted to
them. As credibly testified by Foreman Grunewald (a
member of Local 38), the pressmen stated that they did not
know of any ruling in the representation proceeding, and
that because of their membership in Local 38, they did not
know if they could accept the pay increase. Kern stated,
"We're going to start paying it . . . because we feel that we
have a valid contract with [Local] 113. Now, if you fellows
want to tear up the paychecks, that's O.K."
E. Demotion of Grunewald
339
On the afternoon of May 1, following the announcement
of a new agreement with Local 113, Editor and Publisher
Robert L. Kern and his son, General Manager Kern, held a
conference with Pressroom Foreman Grunewald in Editor
Kern's office. Grunewald (a Mormon minister who
impressed me as an honest, forthright witness) credibly
testified as follows: The conference lasted a little more than
40 minutes. Editor Kern "told me that he was very
displeased with my conduct as a foreman" because "I had
an obligation . . . to come to them and tell them of the
situation that had happened in the pressroom . . . that we
had gone to Local 38 . . . so that it could have been
stopped or nipped in the bud." Editor Kern stated that
Local 38 may be the undoing of the newspaper, "that they
could not afford the conditions that the Post Dispatch had"
(in St. Louis, under a Local 38 agreement). "He told me
... that I was the leader of this movement to Local 38, and
that they could no longer trust me with this responsibility as
foreman and they were demoting me from the status of
foreman to a journeyman pressman." Kern said that
Grunewald would have ajob there as long as he wanted one
"or as long as there was a News Democrat," stating: "We're
not going to fire you, but we won't be able to trust you any
more. We will be afraid to turn our back on you, you knifed
us in the back, between the sixth or seventh and eighth rib."
Kern then called Grunewald "the Judas Goat that led these
other five men to the slaughter," that "they couldn't ever
trust me again and they would watch me like a hawk," that
"they just couldn't afford these kind of conditions that are
over in the St. Louis union," that "the News Democrat may
close its door," and added: "You're the one who is
responsible, when our doors are closed and these men are
out of work, remember it is on your conscience that you are
the cause of this, that you created this. And when their
children are hungry, that you are the one responsible."
Kern also called Grunewald a "bastard," and told him:
"There is something wrong with you," and pointing to the
head, Kern said, "You're sick, you're sick." Grunewald
responded, "If this is the way you thought about me, I just
could not continue working for you and I quit." (President
Kern did not testify. General Manager Kern testified that
the meeting lasted about 35 or 40 minutes, and that his
father did most of the talking, telling Grunewald, "We took
you in and put you on the management team and you have
in effect betrayed us. . . . You have meddled in union
matters . . . . You have become a Judas Goat that led the
pressmen" into Local 38, which Grunewald did not deny.
Grunewald was demoted to journeyman. Grunewald "was
told that we thought he was mentally sick and he had
betrayed us.. . . My father said that. And that ended the
conversation, or approximately ended the conversation."
General Manager Kern also testified that Grunewald was
told "that if Local 38 imposed the Post Dispatch contract
on the News Democrat, we would go out of business or
have to close our doors," and if the company closed its
doors, it would be Grunewald's fault. Kern further testified
that Grunewald was told that they had thought someone
else was the leader in the move to Local 38, but they
checked into it and had found out that he was the man who
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was behind it. General Manager Kern did not appear to be
as forthright a witness as Grunewald.)
F. Calling of Strike and Picketing
That Friday afternoon, May 1, after leaving the plant,
Grunewald telephoned Shop Steward Charles Yocks and
reported that he had quit and the circumstances. Yocks
immediately reported the situation to Local 38 President
Frigo. The next Monday morning, May 4, Local 38
contacted its attorney, and thereafter called a special
executive board meeting for May 7. As credibly testified by
President Frigo, the Belleville News pressmen appeared at
the meeting, reported what had transpired, and "stated
their position that they wanted to take a strike vote because
they felt they did not want the same thing to happen to
them that happened to Brother Grunewald." The executive
board voted unanimously to strike. The next day, May 8,
Local 38 ordered picket signs, reading:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
BELLEVILLE NEWS DEMOCRAT HAS COERCED AND
DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR
MEMBERSHIP IN
AND ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF
ST. LOUIS WEB PRINTING PRESSMEN AND FLYMEN'S
UNION NO. 38
Local 38's regular membership meeting was held on
Tuesday, May 12. The membership approved the executive
board's recommendation to strike, and set the date for
Friday, May 15, to allow time for the picket signs to be
delivered, and because the Belleville News pressmen's
"workweek would be ended by Friday, they would have a
full week in." Prior authorization for the strike had not
been given by the International's board of directors. The
strike was not sanctioned by the International, and the
International paid no strike benefits.
After the May 12 membership meeting , President Frigo
notified the International. A day later, on May 13,
International Representative Robert J. Callahan arrived by
plane, and Frigo met him at the airport. According to
Frigo's credited and undisputed testimony, Frigo had
Callahan (who was not a member of Local 38) meet with
the Local 38 lawyer, who told Callahan "that he was not a
representative of Local 38, that if he went over there [to
confer with the Belleville News] he went over there as a
representative of the International Union, and he had
nothing whatsoever to do with [Local 38 ].. . . We told him
that the reason for picketing was for the unfair labor
practice that the employer had committed," and that he
was not to tell them that Local 38 was striking for
recognition.
International Representative Callahan met with General
Manager Kern on May 14, and despite Local 38's
instructions to him, Callahan (as credibly testified by Kern)
"told me that he was there for the purpose of negotiating a
contract between Local 38 and the Belleville News
Democrat. And I told him that we believed we had a
contract with Local 113 and couldn't have a contract with
38. He stated that he had instructed 113 not to give us a
contract," and that he would negotiate a contract which
would be different from the one the Post Dispatch had in
St. Louis. "He further stated that 113 did not any longer
have jurisdiction over the pressmen at the Belleville News
Democrat, that 113 had been designated by the Interna-
tional as a commercial union." Kern complained that the
International's action would destroy Local 113 and stated
"that we needed a local on our side of the river composed of
people from our area who have interest in our area. So,
after that, he . . . said, `What's this about the firing of your
foreman?' And I said, 'Well, he was not fired, he quit.' And
he said, 'Well . . . I'm not threatening you with a strike, but
38 has authorized a strike against the News Democrat."
Kern testified that this mention of the strike vote "came in
fairly close to the end of the conversation." (I discredit his
later testimony, when questioned by the Belleville News
counsel , that a strike vote was mentioned earlier in the
conversation.) Callahan did not testify.
The next morning, May 15, Local 38 began picketing the
Belleville News facility, using the signs which had been
ordered on May 8. Later that day, the Belleville News filed
the charge herein. Local 38 received a copy of the charge on
Monday, May 18, and later that week, on May 22, wrote
the Belleville News a letter "for the purpose of discussing
with you appropriate steps to be taken . . . to remedy the
acts of discrimination and coercion." The letter accused
Belleville News of demoting and discharging Grunewald
for inducing other employees to join Local 38, calling him a
"Judas bastard" because he failed to report that the
pressroom employees had become members of Local 38,
engaging in "a campaign of espionage and intimidation" in
an effort to find out who was the "ringleader," promising
and affording benefits to its employees "in order to induce
them to drop their membership in Local 38," and "deprived
employees of benefits, restricted conversation among
employees, threatened employees with a shutdown of
operations and further threatened employees of discharge if
they continued their membership in Local 38." The letter
stated that the sole objective of the picketing was to protect
the discriminatory actions and to inform the public;
disclaimed any objective of recognition, organization or
bargaining; and disowned any statement by any person to
the contrary. The letter concluded:
The picketing by Local 38 is unrelated to the question of
representation of pressmen in your employ and the
Union has submitted such matter for determination by
the National Labor Relations Board and this is the sole
avenue which Local 38 has invoked or intends to invoke
for adjudication of that matter.
Local 38 did not make any personal contacts with the
Belleville News concerning the strike or picketing and the
Belleville News did not respond to the May 22 letter in an
effort to resolve the strike.
On June 22, after the picketing was enjoined in a Section
10 injunction proceeding on June 15, Local 38 filed a
charge, Belleville News Democrat, Inc., Case 14-CA-5665,
alleging that the Belleville News violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) by coercing and discriminating against the
INTL PRINTING ' PRESSMEN LOCAL 38 341
employees for supporting Local 38, by demoting Grune-
wald for failing to engage in unfair labor practices, by
discharging Grunewald from his journeyman job because
of his membership and activity on behalf of Local 38, and
on and since June 15, discharging all five of the striking
pressmen because of their union support and "because they
engaged in a strike in protest against the unfair labor
practices." The charge was still pending at the time of trial.
G. Alleged Unlawful Object
The Belleville News claimed that it had a new, binding
contract covering its pressmen at a time when Local 113
was no longer claiming to represent them, and while a
representation proceeding involving them was pending
before the Regional Director. The evidence also shows that
on the same day Belleville News General Manager Kern
announced the new contract and stated his determination
to start paying the increased wages-over the protests of
the pressmen-his father, Editor Kern, used abusive
language toward the Local 38 member, Gruenwald.
However, the issue is not whether Editor Kern's conduct
and other alleged Belleville News conduct violated the Act,
or whether the conduct was designed to cause the other
Local 38 pressmen to strike in protest (enabling the
Belleville News to replace the Local 38 members and then
deny them reinstatement after the strike). The issue is
whether these asserted grounds were merely a pretext or
whether Local 38 engaged in the strike with also an object
of seeking recognition and bargaining.
Local 38 contends that its strike and picketing, as
indicated on the picket signs themselves, and as fully
explained in its May 22 letter to the Belleville News, was
solely to protest the Company's asserted coercion and
discrimination against the Local 38 members. "To say that
a union cannot picket to protest unfair labor practices
because it is processing a petition through the Board is to
frustrate the very fundamental purposes of the Act." The
General Counsel takes no position on whether or not the
Belleville News was violating the Act. In his brief, he states
that he "takes no position with respect to whether
recognition and bargaining was Respondent's sole picket-
ing objective." However he contends that "it is clear that at
least an object of Respondent's picketing was as proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act." (In the Belleville News
brief, the evidence of Editor Kern's abusive language to
Grunewald is completely ignored.) Both the General
Counsel and the Belleville News contend that the timing
and circumstances of the picketing, and the actions of
International Representative Callahan, reveal an unlawful
object.
The evidence shows that Local 38 had previously relied
solely on lawful means to obtain separate representation of
the Belleville News pressmen. After continued refusal by
the Belleville News to recognize the transfer of membership
or to permit Local 38 or its officers to administer the Local
113 agreement until its April 30 termination date, Local 38
filed the petition for an election. Thereafter, when the
Regional Director dismissed the petition, Local 38
continued to process the representation proceeding before
the Board, where the matter is now pending, after the
Board 's grant of review.
Despite this lawful background, the General Counsel
contends that after the Regional Director's May 6 dismissal
of Local 38's petition, Local 38 "saw that possibly their year
long efforts might be unsuccessful and following Callahan's
last minute, unsuccessful effort to force the Employer to
capitulate, Respondent resorted to its threatened strike and
picketing." I do not draw this inference. It is true that the
executive board met and voted to strike on May 7, 1 day
after the dismissal of the petition. However, that was a
special meeting, specifically called on May 4 (2 days before
the dismissal of the petition) to deal with the situation at the
Belleville News. The Belleville News pressmen attended,
described what had happened, and "stated their position
that they wanted to take a strike vote because they felt they
did not want the same thing to happen to them that
happened to Brother Grunwald.." I therefore find that the
unanimous strike vote, taken at that special meeting, was
provoked by the Belleville's asserted misconduct, not by the
dismissal of the petition.
The credited and undisputed evidence shows that Local
38 (apparently aware, from legal advice, that any picketing
at the time would be suspect), specifically informed
International Representative Callahan that he was not a
representative of Local 38, and that if he conferred with the
Belleville News, "he went over there as a representative of
the International Union," and not of Local 38. Callahan
was further advised that the reason for the Local's strike
vote was the employer's unfair labor practices, and not to
gain recognition. Yet the next day, May 14, Callahan met
with General Manager Kern and said "he was there for the
purpose of negotiating a contract between Local 38 and the
Belleville News Democrat." Even so, Callahan did not
threaten Kern with a strike if Kern did not recognize Local
38. Nothing was said about a strike until "fairly close to the
end of the conversation," when Callahan asked (as Kern
testified), "What's this about the firing of your foreman,"
and advised that Local 38 had taken a strike vote.
Although the General Counsel and the Belleville News
contend that International Representative Callahan was
acting as Local 38's agent, Local 38 made it clear to
Callahan on the day before, and to the Belleville News on
May 22, that Callahan was not. (The International, a
separate entity from the Local, was not charged with
sponsoring or participating in the strike or picketing.) I find
that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Callahan
acted as Local 38's agent. However, even assuming that the
Local was responsible for Callahan's actions, the evidence
shows that Callahan merely attempted to resolve the
representation dispute, but did not threaten to strike for
recognition and bargaining. He mentioned the strike vote
only in connection with the discharge of the foreman.
Having considered all the evidence and arguments,
having credited the testimony that the strike was called to
protest the Belleville News' purported misconduct, and
having found no evidence which would indicate that Local
38 would not have discontinued the strike and picketing if
the asserted coercion and discrimination had been
remedied, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
prove that the strike and picketing were unlawfully
motivated, with an object of compelling recognition and
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining . No violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C ) has therefore Accordingly , on the basis of the foregoing findings and
been established . conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW following:
The General Counsel has failed to prove that Local 38
violated Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act by striking and
picketing the Belleville News.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety.