Pomona Progress Bulletin

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Progress Bulletin Publishing Company d/bfa Pomona Prog-
ress Bulletin and Los Angeles Newspaper Web Press-
men's Union No. 18 , International Printing Pressmen
& Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case
21-CA-8586
May 28, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Martin S.
Bennett issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that the Respondent' had engaged in and, was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
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 Exam-
iner 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Progress Bulletin Publishing Company
d/b/a Pomona Progress Bulletin, Pomona, California, its
' The complaint, originally captioned "Donrey Media Group Western
Properties d/b/a Pomona Progress Bulletin ," was amended at the hearing
to reflect the correct name of Respondent
4 We correct the name "Robinson ,',' which inadvertently appears
once in the Trial Examiner's Decision, to read "Richardson " '
9 Contrary to our dissenting colleague , we expressly agree with the
Trial Examiner's rejection of the Respondent ' s argument based on
our decision in Jos Schutz Brewing Company, 175 NLRB No 23
There the dispute was patently a matter of contract interpretation
Here the contractual grievance -arbitration procedure applies only to
issues of contract interpretation and the contract is entirely silent as
to the Chnstmas bonus To dismiss the complaint herein because of
the availability of the grievance -arbitration procedure could result in
a wholly new dispute over whether the issue is ' arbitrable , should
either party choose to rely on the terms of the contract . We do not
believe that the policies of the Act would be effectuated by substituting
a new dispute for one which is clearly susceptible to resolution under
the Act . Nor do we perceive how, in such circumstances , our declining
to remit the dispute to an arbitration which may not be available
tends to undermine or disturb the long harmonious relationship between
the parties
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
In view of the long harmonious relationship between
the parties, the absence of evidence of antiunion motiva-
tion for the Respondent's action herein or any other
unlawful behavior, the existence of a broad contractual
grievance-arbitration procedure designed and successful-
ly used to resolve disputes and differences between
the parties, and the fact that the Respondent waived
the time limit for filing grievances when it discussed
the bonus matter with the Union and still seeks a final
resolution of the dispute under the contract's grievance-
arbitration machinery, I do not believe that the policies
of the Act would be effectuated by further processing
of this proceeding. I would accordingly dismiss the
complaint. See Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, 175
NLRB No. 23.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S . BENNETT , Trial Examiner : This matter
was heard at Los Angeles, California , on August 26,
1969. The complaint , issued June 26 and based upon
a charge filed May 21, 1969, by Los Angeles Newspaper
Web Pressmen ' s Union No . 18, International Printing
Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, alleges that Respond-
ent, Progress Bulletin Publishing Company d /b/a Pomona
Progress Bulletin,' had engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the
Act. Briefs have been submitted by the General Counsel
and Respondent . An unopposed motion by the General
Counsel to correct certain errors in the transcript is
hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT•
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Progress Bulletin Publishing Company d /b/a Pomona
Progress Bulletin , a Nevada corporation with its principal
office and place of business at Pomona, California, pub-
lishes a daily and Sunday newspaper . It subscribes to
several interstate news services , annually enjoys a gross
volume of business in excess of $200 ,000 and annually
purchases goods and, materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which are shipped to it from points outside
the State of California . I find that the operations of
Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' The complaint, originally captioned "Donrey Media Group Western
Properties d/b/a Pomona Progress Bulletin," was amended at the hearing
to reflect the correct name of Respondent
182 NLRB No. 135
POMONA PROGRESS BULLETIN 905
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Los Angeles Newspaper Web Pressmen 's Union No.
18, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union
of North America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; The Issue
Since 1946, the Union and its predecessor have been
recognized as the representative of a unit of Respond-
ent's employees identified herein as the press-stereo
employees. These are approximately 25 to 35 in number
out of a total complement of approximately 250 and
the large majority is unorganized. In December 1968,
Respondent unilaterally discontinued the payment of
a Christmas bonus which had been made for many
years. The General Counsel contends that Respondent
has thereby refused to bargain within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and, derivatively, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. Respondent contends that these are gifts
which have always been discretionary and that the pay-
ment was discontinued for a valid business reason which
is treated below. As is readily apparent, it begs the
question to term these payments as gifts. The issue
turns upon whether they had become an integral part
of the wage structure.
B. Appropriate Unit and Majority Representation
Therein
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that all foremen, men in charge, journeymen pressmen,
and apprentice pressmen of Respondent, excluding office
clerical and professional employees, guards, watchmen,
and supervisors constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.2
I further find that at all times material herein the
Union has been, and now is, the representative of the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
C. Bargaining History and Christmas Payments
Respondent has relied herein on certain changes in
working conditions over the years and these, accordingly,
are set forth below. As noted, the Union and its predeces-
sor have represented a unit of approximately 10 percent
of the employees since 1946. The initial contract with
the Union was signed in July 1964 and the current
contract terminates June 30, 1970, with year to year
renewal thereafter absent 60 days notice. Except for
the instant dispute, relationships have been harmonious
2 There is one foreman in the unit The General Counsel expressly
waives any remedy directed to him.
with several grievances a year resolved under the griev-
ance procedure of the contract.
No contract has contained language concerning a
Christmas bonus payment and the topic has never been
raised at contract negotiations. Indeed, President and
Business Agent Thomas Shirley of the Union testified
that he had not been aware of the existence of this
practice until he received complaints that no payments
had been made at Christmas 1968.
Respondent has made the following payments at
Christmas over the years. Initially, in 1947, it gave
all employees $25 per year for up to 5 years of service
with the amount prorated to those with less than I
year. In 1948, Respondent gave $25 to all full-time
employees with more than 1 year of service and $10
to part-time'employees and those with less than 1 year.
In, 1949, the payment was $20 for the first year plus
$5 for each additional year up to 5; those with less
than I year received $10.
From 1950 through 1957, Respondent distinguished
between employees who participated in its retirement
plan and employees who did not. Those employees
participating in the plan, both within and outside the
unit, did not receive a Christmas payment; all others
did.
Thereafter, payments were made in 1950 and 1951
identical with those in 1949 but, as stated, only to
those not participating in the retirement plan. In 1952,
the payment was , $25 for the first year and $5 per
additional year up to $40; a ham was also given. In
1953 no payments were made.
In 1954 and 1955, the payment was identical with
that of 1952, with part-time employees receiving a pro-
portionately smaller amount in 1955. In 1956, the sched-
ule was the same except that employees with less than
1 year of service received $5 a month up to $25 and
part-time employees received a proportionate payment.
Again, in 1957, the payment was $25 for the first year
plus $5 for each additional year up to $40.
In 1958, Respondent made a change by abandoning
any distinction between employees under its retirement
plan and those who were not. In 1958 , all full-time
employees with more than 1 year of service received
$25; those with 6 months to 1 year received $20; and
those with less than 6 months received $15. Part-time
employees received lesser sums. In 1959, all full-time
employees received $35 for the first year plus $2 for
each additional year. Part-time employees and those
with less than 1 year of service received proportionately
lesser amounts.
In 1960, 1961, and 1962, all full-time employees
received $25 for the first year plus $1 for each additional
year. Those with less tenure and part-time employees
received lesser sums . In 1962, the Union sought from
Respondent and obtained for its unit employees coverage
under a union sponsored retirement plan which, unlike
Respondent's plan was noncontributory in nature. In
1963 and 1964, Respondent reverted to the 1959 schedule
paying all full-time employees $35 for the first year
plus $2 for each additional year, with smaller sums
to those with less senority and part-time employees.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In 1965, Respondent increased the basic payment
to $40 for the first year, plus $10 for each 5 years
of employment, with lesser sums to part-time employees
and those with less than 1 year of tenure. This schedule
was followed in 1966 and 1967. No payment was made
to anyone at Christmas in 1968 and no one was advised
of the abandonment of this practice or custom.
Respondent has adduced evidence that it abandoned
Christmas payments for the following reason. After
the Union''s noncontributory retirement plan was institut-
ed in 1962, Respondent decided nevertheless to continue
the Christmas payment to all employees because it
wished to keep the benefits to employees not covered
by the contract with the Union on an equal basis with
those to the unit. Accordingly, everyone continued to
receive Christmas payments.
In 1968, Respondent initiated a new retirement plan
for nonunit employees. This also is noncontributory
and the benefits are comparable to those under the
Union's plan. 'Respondent decided to discontinue the
Christmas payment to nonunit employees and since unit
and nonunit employees have for some years been treated
equally, it decided' to drop the Christmas payment to
unit personnel as well. Respondent also points to a
number of other benefits not covered by any contract
which are applied equally to both unit and nonunit
personnel. These include health insurance, free advertis-
ing, scholarship loan funds, free home delivery of the
paper, and parking space.
D. Subsequent Developments
Business Agent Shirley 'testified that he was advised
early in 1969 that no payments had been made at Christ-
mas of 1968. He and Boris Cherbak, chapel chairman
of the Union, duly met with General Manager Charles
Richardson of Respondent and its industrial relations
advisor, W. Paul Whaley, on February 17, 1969.3
According to Shirley, the basic purpose of this meeting
was to resolve a dispute concerning overtime pay on
the sixth day of work. After that matter was discussed,
Shirley raised the topic of the Christmas payment, asking
the reason for its discontinuance. Whaley immediately
made the claim that this was not timely because the
contract stipulated that grievances, had to be presented
within 20 days. Richardson intervened and stated that
Respondent would not rest upon this procedural techni-
cality; this was, I find, obviously a waiver thereof.
Richardson then told Shirley that this discontinuance
of the Christmas payment resulted from Respondent's
recent installation of the' new and improvised retirement-
program for nonunit employees, as discussed above.
Richardson contended that this brought nonunit employ-
ees to a par with those in the unit with respect to
working conditions. Shirley protested that the unit
employees had traded, in prior negotiations , a portion
of their pay raise for their improved pension program.
' Shirley erroneously placed this meetings on January 17, the record
amply demonstrates that it took place on February, 17 Whaley did
not testify herein.
Whaley responded that a letter would be sent to the
Union outlining Respondent's position on this issue.
Cherbak corroborated Shirley herein. He, agreed that
the principal purpose of the meeting was the dispute
concerning overtime pay for the sixth day of .work.
Thereafter, the Christmas bonus or payment was raised
and the meeting ended on the note that Whaley would
write the Union and outline Respondent's position, ther-
eon.
Richardson agreed as to those who were in attendance,
but initially contended that the meeting was set up
solely to check on nonpayment of the Christmas gift.
Although initially contending that this was the sole topic
of discussion, he later conceded that he vaguely recalled
that the other grievance existed; he did not deny--that
such a grievance had been raised. Richardson also admit-
ted that he had disavowed any reliance upon the 20-
day clause in the contract for the presentation of griev-
ances. I find that the Union took up a grievance concern-
ing overtime pay with Respondent on February 17 and,
further, raised the nonpayment of Christmas gifts or
payments on this occasion.
On February 26, Whaley wrote to the Union. His
response was entirely silent concerning the Christmas
gifts or payments and stated only as follows:
In our meeting of February 17, • you 'raised the
question on the new pension plan available to Prog-
ress-Bulletin employees who were not covered
under a union negotiated plan. We are `writing to
outline the plan as it now exists.
In 1949 the Progress-Bulletin 'made available to
all employees who had' attained 30 years of age
and had completed one year of service a Retirement
Annuity Plan under a contract with the Aetna Life
Insurance Company. At that time, the Progress-
Bulletin reserved the right to change, suspend, or
discontinue the plan at any time.,
In 1962, after long negotiations, the Union was
successful in negotiating an agreement whereby
the Aetna Plan was discontinued and the employer'
agreed to 'contribute 750 per shift worked for each
pressman to the IPP&AU of NA Employer Retire-
ment Fund. Contributions to this fund have been
continued up to the present time. As you are aware,
in our last negotiations it was agreed that the contri-
bution rate would be raised to $1.00 per shift,
effective December 1, 1968.
In order to present a,retirement plan more compara-
ble with that which the pressmen have, and which
would eliminate the contributory provisions of the
former Aetna Plan, the Company 'initiated a new
plan to be effective as of January 1, 1969. This
new plan takes the form of a Pension Trust, to
be funded by contributions from the Company,
and has eliminated the contributory provisions of
the previous agreement . Benefits to be paid under
the plan will vary according to the length of service
an employee has served prior to retirement. The
plan is similar in several respects to the plan which
was initiated,by the pressmen, and it was the desire
POMONA PROGRESS BULLETIN 907
of the Company to make available to all employees
a more uniform plan
We hope this brief explanation will satisfy you
that the Company was not giving its non-union
employees special benefits Rather it was endeavor
ing to bring them up to the level which you have
been enjoying since 1962 If you have further ques-
tions on this, we of course, will be very happy
to discuss it further
E Analysis and Conclusions
As is apparent, Whaley failed to respond to the
Union's protest concerning the Christmas payments
except to stress that all employees were treated alike
I find that this letter by Whaley did not answer the
protest concerning the nonpayment of the Christmas
gift except in an oblique manner This nonpayment
by Respondent ultimately led to the filing of the instant
charge
Heretofore, all differences between the Union and
Respondent have been settled pursuant to a grievance
and arbitration provision in their contracts and the Union
has never called a strike against Respondent The con-
tract establishes a joint standing committee to resolve
all questions as to the "construction to be placed upon
any of the clauses of this Agreement or any alleged
violations thereof " While a 20-day statute of limitations
is discussed therein, I find, as noted, that this was
expressly waived by Robinson
Contrary to Respondent, I find that there was not
an unwritten understanding between the parties concern-
ing the payment of Christmas bonuses, whether to those
in the unit or otherwise Indeed, Business Agent Shirley
of the Union did not know of the existence of the
Christmas bonus plan
While Respondent euphemistically chooses to refer
to these payments as a gift, the simple answer is that
a yearend bonus, payment, or gift to employees which
has been made each year for a long period of years
has been held to constitute wages and here it has been
paid since 1947 except for 1953 Indeed, the fact that
the sum to each employee varies with his tenure demon-
strates that this was remuneration and therefore a part
of the employee's wages under the Act
The Board has pointed out that "The realities of
the industrial world establish that a year-end bonus
which has become part of the employees' wage expectan-
cy, though it may be paid at Christmas and therefore
carry with it the Christmas spirit of gift giving, amounts
fundamentally to deferred compensation for services
performed during the preceding year " Niles-Bement-
Pond Co , 97 NLRB 165, enfd 199 F 2d 713 (C A 2)
It is true, as Respondent contends, that it has made
unilateral changes in other areas without objection by
the Union, but silence or acquiescence in those areas
can hardly constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver
with respect to being heard on the Christmas payments
Indeed, this is not a case where the Christmas bonus
was discussed in bargaining negotiations with the result-
ing claim that the Union had waived its rights to be
heard later
The simple answer is that when Respondent unilateral-
ly abandoned the bonus, the Union did ask to be heard
on the matter One such meeting was held in February
and this was followed by a letter on February 26,
1969, wherein the representative of Respondent merely
explained that pension benefits to the nonunit employees
had been improved, with a plan roughly comparable
to that enjoyed by those in the unit and was entirely
silent about the Christmas bonus
That the payment was never referred to in negotiations
and has never been reflected in language in a contract
is not controlling in view of the fact that it has become
a part of the wage expectancy For, as noted above,
it amounts to "deferred compensation for services per-
formed " during the previous year
As it points out, Respondent has gotten along well
with the Union over the years And its position that
other benefits to its employees equitably warrant cessa
tion of the Christmas bonus is not unreasonable But
the answer to this is that this is properly a matter
to be raised at the bargaining table with the representative
of its employees Indeed, if Respondent has enjoyed
amicable relations with the Union ais the representative
of the employees in the unit, this appears all the more
reason for giving the Union an opportunity to be heard
before the fact rather than by taking this unilateral
action
Respondent has argued that this matter should be
deferred to arbitration because of the long and amicable
bargaining relationship Joseph Schatz Brewing Co 175
NLRB 23 The General Counsel points out in turn
that in Schutz the employer claimed that his unilateral
action was predicated upon a contractual privilege, with
the union taking a contrary position as to the interpreta-
tion of a disputed contract clause
The Board also noted that the employer had offered
to discuss the proposed changes with the Union prior
to taking any action True, the instant contract has
an extensive grievance and arbitration procedure, but
this is limited to disputes arising as to construction
of the clauses of the contract And this contract is
entirely silent as to the Christmas bonus Therefore,
a resolution of the alleged unfair labor practices does
not turn upon an interpretation of any specific contractual
provisions And even the availability of such a procedure
does not preclude the Board from exercising jurisdiction
herein N L R B v Strong Roofing & Insulating Co ,
393 U S 357
I find, therefore, that by unilaterally discontinuing
the payment of the Christmas bonus to unit employees
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section
8(a)(1) of the Act Mississippi Steel Corp , 169 NLRB
647, enfd 405 F 2d 405 F 2d 1373 (C A D C ), Graven
slund Operating Co d/b/a Washington Hardware & Furn
Co , 168 NLRB 513, and American Fire Apparatus
Co , 160 NLRB 1318
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent has refused to
bargain with the Union as the duly designated representa-
tive of its employees in an appropriate unit. The record
demonstrates that the 1965, 1966, and 1967 bonuses
were identical. There is no claim of financial hardship
or adverse economic circumstances in 1968. I shall there-
fore recommend, as urged by the General Counsel,
that Respondent pay each of its employees in the
appropriate unit, except the foreman, the amounts for
1968 as computed under the 1965-67 formula, refrain
from future unilateral action in this area, and, upon
request, bargain concerning this topic. As pointed out,
the Board's grant of remedial power is" a broad one.
N.L.R.B. v. Strong Roofing, supra.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Progress Bulletin Publishing Company d /b/a Pomo-
na Progress Bulletin is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Los Angeles Newspaper Web Pressmen ' s Union
No. 18, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants
Union of North America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All foremen , men in charge , journeymen pressmen,
and apprentice pressmen employed by Respondent,
excluding office clerical and professional employees,
guards, watchmen , and supervisors , constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Los Angeles Newspaper Web Pressmen ' s Union
No. 18, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, has been at all
times material herein, and now is, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally discontinuing. the 1968 Christmas
bonus to employees in the above unit , except the fore-
man, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the foregoing conduct , Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon- the entire record in the
case, it is recommended that.Respondent, Progress Bulle-
tin Publishing Company d/b/a Pomona Progress Bulletin;
Pomona, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unilaterally discontinuing payment of a Christmas
bonus to the employees in the above appropriate unit,
excluding the foreman.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist; the above-named or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Pay the 1968 Christmas bonus, as provided above,
to all employees in the above appropriate unit, except
the foreman.
(b) Upon request, bargain with the Union concerning
the payment of a Christmas bonus to employees within
the appropriate unit.
(c) Post at its offices at Pomona, California, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix.4
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed
by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Recom-
mended Order, what steps it has taken to comply here-
with.5
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Sec 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.
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
' In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director
in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
POMONA PROGRESS BULLETIN 909
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with Los Ange-
les Newspaper Web Pressmen ' s Union No 18,
International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union
of North America , AFL-CIO, as the representative
of our foremen , men in charge , journeymen press
men, and apprentice pressmen , excluding office cler-
ical and professional employees , guards, watchmen,
and supervisors concerning the payment of a Christ-
mas bonus
WE WILL NOT unilaterally discontinue the pay-
ment of a Christmas bonus to the employees in
the above unit , excluding the foreman
WE WILL pay to all employees in the above
appropriate unit , except the foreman , a Christmas
bonus for 1968 , computed according to the
1965-1967 formula
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in
the exercise of the right to self -organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist the above
named or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all
such activities , except to the extent such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment
PROGRESS BULLETIN
PUBLISHING COMPANY
D/B/A POMONA PROGRESS
BULL ETIN
(Employer)
Dated By
(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 directed to the Board's
Office, Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway,
Los Angeles, California 90014 , Telephone 213-688-5200