New York Typographical Union Local No. 6

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 925 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL NO. 6 925
New York Typographical Union Local No. 6, AFL-
CIO (Artintype, Inc.) and Michael Wright and
Seymour Gould . Cases 2-CB-5555 and 2-CB-5540
October 8, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
on February 1 and served on February 4. The charge in
Case 2-CB-5555 was filed on February 27 and served on
February 28. Complaints were issued on March 21 in Case
2-CB-5555 and in Case 2-CB-5540 on March 29. Thereaf-
ter, on April 3, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued
an order consolidating the two cases for hearing. Both com-
plaints allege that New York Typographical Union, Local
No. 6, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent or Union, vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. The Respondent filed answers denying
the commission of unfair labor practices.
On June 14, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Julius
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, New York Typographical
Union Local No. 6, AFL-CIO, New York, New York,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case
2-CB-5540 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entire-
ty.
1 We note the following inadvertent errors contained in the Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge which do not affect our conclusion herein. In the
last paragraph of sec III,C,I,a, "Case 2-CB-5555" should read "Case 2-
CB-5540", in the third enumerated paragraph of sec V, "The Remedy,"
"Case 2-CB-5540" should read "Case 2-CB-5555", in the fifth enumerated
paragraph of sec V "The Remedy," "Case 2-CB-5555" should be "Case
2-CB-5540" ; and, in the last paragraph of the recommended Order, the
Administrative Law Judge intended to recommend dismissal of Case 2-
CB-5540 rather than 2-CB-5555
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: These consoli-
dated cases were tried at New York, New York, on April 24,
25, and 26, 1974.' The charge in Case 2-CB-5540 was filed
i Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to 1974
Issues
1. Whether Respondent through its chapel chairman,
William DeCesare, threatened Michael Wright with inter-
nal union charges, discipline, fines, and expulsion because
Wright had filed unfair labor practice charges against Re-
spondent with the National Labor Relations Board.
2. Whether Respondent, through its business representa-
tives, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by threatening
and inflicting bodily harm upon an officer of the Employer
in the presence of its employees.
3. Whether Respondent, through its business representa-
tives, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by cursing,
threatening, and inflicting bodily harm upon an employee
of the Employer on one occasion; and by threatening and
cursing him on another occasion.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, and having con-
sidered the brief filed by General Counsel, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Artintype, Inc., the Employer herein, is a New York cor-
poration with an office and plant in New York City where
it is engaged in performing commercial printing and related
services. During the year preceding the complaint, the Em-
ployer produced, sold, and distributed products valued in
excess of $500,000, of which products valued in excess of
$50,000 were shipped from its New York plant directly to
States outside of New York State. I find Artintype , Inc., is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent and the Employer (as a member of an associ-
ation) had been parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
213 NLRB No. 122
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for a period of 3 years ending October 3, 1973. Since then,
the parties have been engaged in negotiations for a new
agreement , it being an avowed goal of Respondent to obtain
an individual, separate contract with the Employer, a busi-
ness entity resulting from a merger of two other companies,
rather than as a member of the association. Seymour Gould,
plant manager and a principal of the Employer, had been
an officer of one of the merged companies, and has had
contacts over the years with Harry Duffy and Murray It-
kowitz, two of Respondent's business representatives in-
volved in these proceedings. The events which form the
basis of the allegations in Case 2-CB-5540 arose from the
desire of Duffy and Itkowitz to gain access to the composing
room of the Employer's plant on January 29 and 30, in order
to consult with the employee members, a privilege accorded
to them under their prior collective-bargaining agreement,
but now denied them by Gould on the ground that the
agreement had expired in October 1973. Before the inci-
dents alleged in the complaint in Case 2-CB-5540, and at
least on January 28, representatives of Respondent entered
the plant and caused several work stoppages.
Michael Wright, the Charging Party in Case 2-CB-5555,
is employed by the Employer as a linotype operator and has
been a member of Respondent for approximately 20 years.
On January 4, he filed unfair labor practice charges against
the Respondent with the National Labor Relations Board.
His charges were eventually dismissed by the Regional Di-
rector, and, at the time of the hearing in this case, a question
concerning the timely filing of an appeal was pending be-
fore the General Counsel. In any event these charges were
still in the investigatory stage at the time that the violations
alleged in the complaint z in Case 2-CB-5555 occurred.
B. The Threats to Michael Wright Alleged in
Case 2-CB-5555
1. Facts
On January 4, 1974, Michael Wright filed a charge with
the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The
4th being a Friday, he received a copy of the charge by mail
on the 7th indicating that copies were also mailed to Re-
spondent and the Employer. In the course of conversation
in the sho on January 8, William DeCesare, the chapel
chairman,3informed Michael Wright that a tentative agree-
2 At the hearing, par . 7(a) of the complaint was amended to read that
Respondent threatened that Michael Wright would be "fined" rather than
"fired."
3 While Respondent admits that DeCesare is chapel chairman of its unit
of the Employer's plant, it denies that he is an agent, acting on its behalf, as
alleged in the complaint . Respondent 's constitution provides for the election
of a chairman by the members of a chapel, and art . IX, sec. 4 thereof states
"The Chairman shall be the direct representative of this Union in the Chapel
and shall see that all Union laws are observed by its members." The chapel
chairman has many duties including the collection of chapel dues and the
assessment of small fines for minor infringements of rules . Art. IV, sec. 2 of
the Laws of the International Typographical Union specifically states, "The
chapel chairman shall be recognized as the representative of the local union
for such purposes as are specified in the laws of the International Typograph-
ical Union ," and prescribes a number of duties to be performed by him as
such representative . The chapel chairman calls and presides over meetings.
In fact, Duffy testified that he was attempting to communicate with De-
ment had been reached between Respondent and the Em-
ployer. Michael responded that it was possible such agree-
ment came about because he went down to the National
Labor Relations Board on the 4th and filed charges. The
following night, January 9 at about 9:30 p.m., the two, who
worked on adjacent linotype machines, had another conver-
sation. Michael asked DeCesare how the negotiations were
going. DeCesare said that because Michael had gone down-
town (NLRB) he was leaving himself open to be fined and
to be expelled. At that point Michael went to the service
room, a nearby area where Charles Munchgesang, another
employee, was making out job tickets and asked Munchges-
ang to be a witness to something. Both returned to De-
Cesare and Michael asked him to repeat what he had just
said about having Michael fined and expelled for coming
down to the National Labor Relations Board. DeCesare
said he was leaving himself open to get thrown out of the
Union. Michael retorted that the only way one can get
kicked out of the Union is by nonpayment of dues. De-
Cesare said, in effect, that they would fine him $5,000 which
he would be unable to pay and thereby leave himself open
to explusion from the Union.
This subject was discussed again during the lunch break
at 10 p.m. on January 15. Chairman DeCesare was collect-
ing chapel dues,4 as is his custom on payday. The conversa-
tion, as described by Munchgesang, was as follows:
Q. Do you recall what Mike Wright said to Willie
DiCaesar and would you tell the Court what Willie
DiCaesar said to Mike Wright?
A. Mike says to him, "Did you inform the members
that I went to the National Labor Relations Board?"
Willie said, "No."
Mike said , "Why not?"
He said he felt it wasn 't important , and that he was
going to bring him up on charges for going down there.
Q. Going down where?
A. To the National Labor Relations Board.
Q. When you replied that he would bring them up
on charges , did he say union charges?
A. Yes.
On January 29, Michael was due to work the lobster shift
which begins at midnight. He arrived early and at about
11:30 p.m. a chapel meeting was in progress. DeCesare told
Michael that he could not start work at 12 o'clock as time
had been called for the chapel meeting . DeCesare refused
to put this in writing, as requested by Michael. During the
course of this conversation DeCesare said, according to
Munchgesang who witnessed the incident, "We will get
even with you for going to the National Labor Relations
Board." Seymour Gold, plant manager of the Employer,
who was in the vicinity during much of this meeting, testi-
Cesare and have him call " time" when Gould did not permit Duffy access
to the shop. In addition , DeCesare is in charge of grievance handling at the
plant . On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a whole, DeCesare was
clearly the Union's representative at Artintype and I find him to be an agent
within the meaning of Sec . 2(13) of the Act. See United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067, AFL-CIO, et at.
(Batterman Construction, Inc.), 166 NLRB 532 (1967).
Chapel dues, as distinguished from the regular union dues, are 50 cents
weekly, paid to the chairman to defray his incidental expenses.
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL NO. 6
fled to similar effect.
The foregoing account is based on the credited testimony
of Michael Wright and Munchgesang who corroborated
one another In addition I credit Gould who further corrob-
orated the incident of January 29. Sal Wright, brother of
Michael, testified as to the incidents of January 15 and 20
but his versions are slightly different and I do not rely on
his statements as to these particular threats. On the other
hand the only testimony offered by Respondent on these
matters was that of DeCesare, the chapel chairman, a wit-
ness who was voluble, yet unresponsive, and was unable
frequently to recall many incidents. I cannot credit his deni-
als. Indeed he testified that he told Michael Wright, in con-
nection with his going to NLRB, as follows:
I said, if you are a union man, you are not going
through the regular procedure. I said, we have our own
book of laws to go through and after you are finished
with that, then you go through other channels. I said,
you are putting yourself in a spot, I said, it could be that
you are putting yourself in a spot where you can get
yourself expelled. I said, if you pass a picket line, you
can get expelled and fined $5,000.
DeCesare's reference to a picket line, if he did make it when
he spoke to Michael Wright, has no relevance in this case
as the employees had been working without a contract,
negotiations were being conducted, and no party had men-
tioned a strike or picket line. Thus, if DeCesare did refer to
a picket line, he presumably meant to analogize going to the
NLRB with passing a picket line and receiving the same
discipline.
At another point in his testimony, DeCesare was asked
and answered as follows:
927
It is well settled that the right to file charges is indispensa-
ble to the administration of the Act and the Board protects
employees who participate in its processes. Thus, a labor
organization violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by expel-
ling an employee member for filing unfair labor practice
charges.' Determining a fine to be coercive the Board also
has held that "the imposition of a fine by a labor organiza-
tion upon a member who files charges with the Board does
restrain and coerce that member in the exercise of his right
to file charges." 6 In the instant case, while Michael Wright
was neither fined nor expelled, he was threatened with such
actions.? In Local Union 136, Muskingum Valley District
Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO (Frank Vlack Company), 165 NLRB
1040(1967),the Board found that the union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening an employee with ex-
pulsion should he invoke Board processes by filing unfair
labor practice charges. Similarly, a threat to fine would fall
within the Board's proscription against the resort "to unlaw-
ful means to prevent or restrict employees from filing
charges" as set forth in Skura, supra, as would a statement
by a union representative that he could bring charges
against an employee for his having filed unfair labor prac-
tice charges against the Union.
Therefore, having found that Respondent by its represen-
tative threatened to fine Michael Wright, to expel him, and
to bring union charges against him because he filed charges
with the Board, I conclude that Respondent thereby violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
C. The Incidents of Threats, Pushing, and Shoving by
Union Representatives Alleged in Case 2-CB-5540
1. The incidents of January 29, 1974
Q. Did you at any time threaten Mike Wright that
he would be expelled by the union or fined by the
union?
A. Just that one night when I-I never threatened
him. Previously what I said to you was when he said he
was going to the NLRB, I said why don't you go
through the proper channels? I said you can be ex-
pelled.
Respondent introduced certain "sign up cards," a record
kept by the chapel chairman for the Union of the substitutes
who work each shift. The name of Munchgesang, a substi-
tute, does not appear on the cards for the dates in question.
However, DeCesare conceded that people work who do not
sign the cards. Moreover, at other points he admitted seeing
Munchgesang on these nights.
2. Conclusions
Accordingly, I find that on January 9, 1974, Respondent,
by its agent, Chapel Chairman DeCesare, threatened Mi-
chael Wright that he would be fined and expelled from the
Union; on January 15, that he would be brought up on
union charges; and on January 29, that "we would get even
with you," all because he filed unfair labor practice charges
with the National Labor Relations Board.
a. Facts
On January 29 at approximately 7 p.m., Harry Duffy and
Murray Itkowitz, admitted business representatives and
agents of the Respondent, knocked at the office door of
Artintype. Seymour Gould, plant manager, stated that the
doors were locked because of "some problems" experienced
the evening before. Gould opened the door and, as they
came forward, he told the two agents that they may not
enter the premises. They said they wanted to talk to the men
and Gould replied they could not talk to them on the prem-
ises . Gould states that Duffy and Itkowitz commenced
pushing with their hands and bodies and shoving him the
length of the sales office toward a second door which leads
to the shop. Arriving at the shop door ahead of Duffy,
Gould was able to bar it by standing with his back to the
door. He told them he was going to call the police. The
5 Cannery Workers Union of the Pacific, affiliated with the Seafarers Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Van Camp Sea Food Co, Inc.), 159
NLRB 843 (1966).
6 Local 1 38, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Charles
S Skura), 148 NLRB 679, 682 ( 1964).
7 Although DeCesare made some vague statements about going through
"the proper channels," Respondent has not contended , as in Skura, that the
Charging Party had violated a union rule or policy or failed to exhaust
internal union remedies.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business representatives then asked whether they could talk
with one another and Gould said they could stay in the
office but could not go into the plant. After a few minutes
Duffy said they were leaving and would get in touch with
Gould later.
Rose Parker, the Employer's bookkeeper, was working in
an office adjacent to the sales office which connected with
the shop. She heard the knocking on the door, the two men
entering, and Gould telling them he did not want them in
the plant. She heard a scuffling, got up from her desk,
walked into the sales room, and observed Gould with his
back to the shop door and two men pushing him while
trying to get him away from the door. Parker knew Duffy,
having seen him on prior occasions. A salesman, no longer
employed by Artintype, was also in the sales office at the
time, according to Parker. She further testified that Gould
repeatedly asked them to leave and when he said he would
call the police, the two men moved away from the door.
The versions of Duffy and Itkowitz concerning this inci-
dent are not dissimilar except for their denial of pushing or
shoving Gould. Admittedly, they came to the office of Ar-
tintype to obtain entrance to the plant which they claimed
as their contractual right. They persisted despite Gould's
request that they not enter. Duffy states he attempted to
reach the plant door (Itkowitz being about one step behind),
but Gould got there first and barred it with his back to the
door, while Duffy, with his hand on the door, tried to pull
it open.
The next incident occurred at 10:30 p.m. the same night
at another door to the shop, a door leading from the outer
hallway directly into the shop. There was a knock on this
door, and the person identified himself as the man from the
coffee shop, this being the time for the lunch break. Gould
was about to open the door when he heard the voice of Sal
Wright S saying that it was the coffee shop man and he will
let him in. As the door opened, Gould, facing the hallway,
saw Duffy and Itkowitz "charging" down the hall toward
the shop door. He immediately placed his arms across the
door to prevent them from coming in, which at the same
time stopped Sal Wright and the coffee shop man from
entering. Duffy and Itkowitz ran into Sal Wright and the
coffee messenger. There was a certain amount of pushing
and shoving, Sal Wright and the coffee man managed to slip
through while Gould was able to hold off Duffy and Itkow-
itz. Duffy was calling for the Chapel Chairman DeCesare to
call time . Gould attempted to close the door which Duffy
blocked by putting his foot in the door. This incident came
to an end when Gould called to Michael Wright, who was
observing these goings on from within the shop, to summon
the police.
Duffy testified that he and Itkowitz were determined to
get into the shop because no employer with whom the
Union had a contract ever denied them access. (He conced-
ed that the contract had expired.) Therefore they planned
to gain entry when the door would be opened for the mes-
B Sal Wright, the brother of Michael Wright as noted above , had long been
associated with Gould as an employee . He is a member of Respondent, and
on January 29 was general foreman on the "lobster" shift, which began at
midnight. It appears that Sal is general foreman whenever he works that shift,
but is a regular employee when employed on the other shifts.
senger from the coffee shop and secreted themselves in the
hallway about 15 feet from the door to await his arrival.
Fortuitously, Sal Wright came in at the same time . Duffy's
version was that Sal opened the door, permitted the coffee
man to go in, and he himself went through the doorway and
was closing the door, when Duffy and Itkowitz raced for the
door. Duffy grabbed the knob, trying to pull the door open,
and placed his foot in as a wedge. He stated that Gould
came over to help Sal and they were able to pull the door
shut as Duffy removed his foot. He and Itkowitz denied any
bodily contact between either of them and Gould or Sal
Wright.
I credit the Gould versions of the two occurrences of
January 29. The earlier or 7 p.m. incident was witnessed
almost wholly by Rose Parker, the bookkeeper who testified
very credibly on both direct and cross-examination that she
heard scuffling in the outer office and sales office and ob-
served Gould barring the factory door with his body while
Respondent's representatives attempted to push and shove
him aside. Duffy admits seeing her on the premises.
The testimony of Gould as to the 10:30 p.m. incident is
corroborated by both Sal and Michael Wright, the former
a participant and the latter a witness . I have already credited
Michael with reference to Case 2-CB-5555 and I found
him, on the whole, to be forthright and direct, with a good
recollection of the events.
In making these resolutions, I have considered the repeat-
ed assertions of Respondent's business representatives that
they were determined to gain access to the Artintype com-
posing room at almost any cost, and their constant reliance
upon some contractual right to access in face of their own
admission that no contract or supplemental agreement ex-
isted and, indeed, while negotiations were under way for an
individual rather than association contract with Artintype,
at the insistence of the Union. Their strategy, planning,
hiding, and then dashing to get to the open door negate the
idea of their ability to stop short of contact particularly in
view of the contrary testimony.
I therefore find that on January 29, Respondent, by its
representatives Duffy and Itkowitz, pushed and shoved
Seymour Gould, plant manager of the Employer, at 7 p.m.
while attempting to gain access to the composing room. This
was at least partially witnessed by the Employer's book-
keeper, Parker. I further find that at 10:30 p.m. that night
the same representatives engaged in similar conduct toward
Sal Wright, general foreman on that night but also a regular
employee on other shifts, and Gould, in the presence of
employee Michael Wright.
Having found that representatives of the Union engaged
in the acts described above, the issue is whether such con-
duct constitutes unlawful restraint or coercion of employees
as proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Unlike most
cases in this area, the circumstances do not involve an orga-
nizational campaign, strike, picketing, or such activities
which frequently provide a background for violence. In this
case , the Respondent and Gould (either as a principal of this
Employer or predecessors) have had collective-bargaining
relationships for years. They were in fact currently engaged
in negotiations for a new agreement, the most recent con-
tract having expired in October 1973. While they were ap-
parently at odds on a number of issues , there was no strike
i
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL NO. 6
and Gould asserted his willingness to meet and bargain with
the Union. The object of Respondent's representatives was
to gain access to the composing room in order to meet with
its members. This was a right Respondent enjoyed under its
expired contract and while it is questionable that, absent a
renewal or supplemental agreement, it survived, Duffy and
Itkowitz contended that it did and were determined to get
inside the plant. Gould was equally determined not to per-
mit their entry.
In a recent case, union representatives, during an organi-
zational drive, entered the company's premises uninvited,
refused to leave at its request, and even argued with police
for a long time before leaving, all in the presence of employ-
ees. The Board would not comment on whether the conduct
constituted a trespass, stating this is a matter for local au-
thorities. The Board said the only issue was whether
Respondent's conduct restrains and coerces employees
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. It
found that the Respondent's representatives' uninvited en-
trance, their refusal to leave, their organizational activities,
and hour-long verbal exchange with the police, in the pres-
ence of employees, did not result in the imposition of the
union's will over the company and its premises so as to
constitute restraint and coercion of the employees within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Retail Store Employees
Local 1001 (Levitz Furniture Company of Washington, Inc.),
203 NLRB 580 (1973). Of course, in the instant case,
Respondent's representatives never did gain access to the
composing room because of Gould's successful resistance.
On January 29 at 7 p.m. they were first permitted by Gould
to enter the office and, although Duffy then attempted to
get through the shop door, Gould effectively blocked it.
After a moment of talk, they left the premises. If, as the
Board indicates in Levitz, an ingredient to establish a viola-
tion is the creation by a union of an atmosphere which
shows employees that it can impose its will over the compa-
ny and its premises, such factor is not present in this case.
However, the Levitz result was premised on the absence of
violent conduct by the union agents.
Examining the nature of the physical contact which gave
rise to the allegations that Respondent's agents "inflicted
bodily harm" on Gould and Sal Wright, I have found that
on January 29, Gould was pushed and shoved at 7 p.m. and
Sal Wright at 10:30 p.m in the course of two unsuccessful
efforts to gain access to the composing room. It is clear
Gould was not hurt and, *hile Sal claimed his hand was
injured, there is no contention that he was seriously hurt and
he stated that medical attention was not required. So no one
was really injured, no employees were prevented from work-
ing, nor was any other employee denied access or interfered
with in any manner. Indeed all employees were working at
the time of these incidents and there is no evidence that they
were even aware of what was going on. A great deal of
testimony was elicited concerning the details of the two
incidents, yet I cannot believe that either of the occurrences
complained of on January 29 lasted as much as 60 seconds
nor did they result in any serious consequence. Numerous
Board cases on this subject deal with beating of employees,
or supervisors in the presence of employees, throwing mis-
siles, damaging property, threatening, mass picketing, or
blocking ingress or engress. I find nothing of that serious a
929
nature in these two incidents of January 29, nor does it
appear that the conduct of Respondent's representatives
had the effect of imposing the Union's will over the Employ-
er in the presence of its employees. The 7 p.m. incident
involved, at most, a little pushing aside of Gould followed
by an unsuccessful attempt by Duffy to reach the shop door
before Gould .9 The 10:30 p.m. incident resulted in the shov-
ing of Sal Wright, an employee, who found himself caught
in the middle of another abortive attempt by the union
representative to get through the shop door. Incidentally,
Sal Wright was a general foreman during the period of these
events. The two allegations of "bodily harm" on January 29
and a third allegation of a threat on January 30 (hereinafter
discussed) were the only instances of misconduct alleged in
a contract dispute which has endured for more than 6
months to the date of the hearing. In fact they took place
on successive evenings almost 4 months after the expiration
of the contract and apparently nothing untoward has hap-
pened in the ensuing period of nearly 3 months to hearing.
On the other hand, according to the testimony of Gould, he
was bargaining continuously with the Union depending on
the availability of the parties.
Thus, in the total context of an established bargaining
relationship, I find these occurrences of momentary shoving
on January 29 to be isolated instances and trivial in na-
ture.10 Further, I am not convinced the General Counsel has
established by a preponderance of evidence that the em-
ployees here involved, all of whom were represented by
Respondent, were restrained or coerced within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the actions of
Respondent's representatives on January 29. Accordingly,
I shall recommend dismissal of the allegations of the com-
plaint in Case 2-CB-5555 relating thereto.
2. The incident of January 30, 1974
a. Facts
At about 7 p.m. on January 30, Duffy and Itkowitz re-
turned to the Artintype premises, accompanied this time by
James Grottola, another business representative of the
Union. They again sought admission to the shop, were re-
fused by Gould, and remained in the hallway. The union
representatives then decided that the locked door was a fire
hazard and proceeded to the Fire Department and regis-
tered a complaint. They went back to the plant about 10
p.m. and waited in the hallway. A fireman came to investi-
gate; he went into the plant, and was heard discussing the
matter with Gould. All this according to the uncontradicted
testimony of Grottola, who explained that he was standing
with his ear to the door trying to hear the conversation
between the fireman and Gould. Itkowitz was near Grottola
while Duffy was at the other end of the hall. At this point
9 The only employee present on this occasion was Rose Parker (the book-
keeper) While illegal union coercion is not confined to unit employees, it
does not seem possible that the Union would be interested in her or her work
nor is there any evidence to indicate that she has any significant contact with
composing room employees.
10 See Service Employees International Union Local 50, AFL-CIO (Ever-
green Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc), 198 NLRB No 26
(1972)
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sal Wright came off the elevator to report to work. Seeing
Grottola and Itkowitz at the shop door, he decided to go in
by the office door and started to knock on that door. Itkow-
itz told Sal, "your boss is behind this door" referring to the
door to the shop at which he and Grottola were stationed.
According to Grottola, Sal responded by asking Itkowitz
whether he had another goon with him that evening, mean-
ing Grottola. The latter then said "why don't you slither
under this door." Sal then remarked again about goons and
Grottola states he responded by saying, "Drop dead, you
bastard." Grottola says that Sal raised his arm, they ap-
proached one another, and Sal said, "Let's go down here,"
The shop door then opened, the fireman went out and Sal
went in telling Gould that he wanted "those bums" arrested
because they were threatening him.
Sal Wright's version states that Grottola said, "Why don't
you try to come through here so I can punch you in the
fucking mouth." Sal approached him and said to do it now
and that Grottola's hand was cocked close to Sal's face. Sal
said "Do it," and Grottola said "No, let's go back past the
service elevators." Then the door opened, the fireman left,
and Sal went in, insisting that the police be called.
Itkowitz testified that he heard profanity and that Sal
Wright invited Grottola to "come on back here and we'll
take care of it." Gould testified that he was behind the
closed door but he could hear shouting and profanity and
that he heard Grottola say "you walk through that door and
I will belt you."
What emerges from this testimony is a short verbal ex-
change between Grottola and Sal Wright, perhaps initiated
by Itkowitz's invitation to Sal to enter the shop door. There
was no physical contact and, at most, accepting Sal's ac-
count, Grottola cocked his fist as if to hit him. Indeed, Sal
said that he told Grottola "to do it now." While I would
agree with General Counsel that it is somewhat incredible
that Sal Wright would start to fight with the three business
representatives, it would also have been simple for them to
hit Sal if they had been of such a mind. Moreover in his
description, Sal does not report his responding to any of the
remarks made by Itkowitz or Grottola until the latter threat-
ened to punch him in the mouth. Both union representatives
testified that Sal referred to Grottola as a "goon." I credit
their testimony in this respect. Grottola, though belligerent
at times as a witness, was often frank in his delivery to the
point of making admissions in some instances . Throughout
all of these incidents the stated objective of Respondent's
representatives was to obtain access to the Employer's com-
posing room and not to engage Sal Wright, whose advent
at this time was coincidental, in a physical encounter. It is
for this reason they sought to entice Sal Wright to enter the
shop door rather than the office door. Gould was on the
other side of the closed door, but he testified he heard noise
and profanity and that they were "really cursing at each
other." While a fistfight would have been one sided, rhetoric
was not. It may also be noted that Sal Wright and the union
representatives knew and disliked one another. Grottola
testified that based upon his observations of Sal at chapel
meetings , he had formed an opinion that he was "antiun-
ion." Sal Wright and Munchgesang had engaged an attor-
ney to contest an arbitrator's ruling that they take a
competency test, an award sought by Respondent.
b. Conclusion
I find that the hallway encounter between Sal Wright and
Grottola was in the circumstances a short, heated, verbal
personal exchange between two persons who admittedly
disliked one another, and conclude that it was not estab-
lished that the conduct of the union representatives consti-
tuted a threat that restrained or coerced employees within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I I shall there-
fore recommend that those parts of the complaint in Case
2-CB-5540 which allege that on January 30, 1974, James
Grottola cursed and threatened employee Sal Wright in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Artin-
type, Inc., described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent, in Case 2-CB-5540,
has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Artintype, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. In Case 2-CB-5540, by threatening to fine an employ-
ee, to expel him from membership, and otherwise discipline
him because he filed charges with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, Respondent restrained and coerced employees
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has not established by a prepon-
derance of evidence that Respondent has violated the Act
with respect to the allegations of the complaint in Case
2-CB-5555.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
11 See Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union Local 466,
AFL-CIO (Yankee Trader, Inc., d/b/a Treadway Inn at Rochester, New York),
191 NLRB 528 (1971); General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Local Union No. 5 (Union Tank Car Company), 172 NLRB 137
(1968).
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION LOCAL NO 6
ORDER 12
Respondent, New York Typographical Union Local No.
6, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to fine, expel, or otherwise discipline Mi-
chael Wright or any employee for filing unfair labor practic-
es charges with the Board.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of nghts guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 2, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec-
utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other matenal.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 2 signed
copies of said notice for posting by Artintype, Inc., if the
Company is willing, in places where notices to employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint in Case 2-CB-5555
be dismissed in its entirety.
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
13 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United
Stated Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
931
We hereby notify you that after a tnal at which all sides had
a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and has ordered us to post this notice:
WE WILL NOT threaten to fine, expel from member-
ship, or otherwise discipline Michael Wright or any
employee for filing unfair labor practices charges.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights protect-
ed by Section 7 of the Act.
Dated By
NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION LOCAL No 6, AFL-
CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone
212-264-0306.