Robert S. Abbott Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel seeks a broad cease and desist order. The Trial Examiner be-
lieves there is merit in his contention that under the circumstances existing here, as
a preventive measure such an order is fully warranted. There is no question but
that this chain of discount stores is not only an expanding operation but a single,
integrated enterprise, with central labor policy and control.
It will be recommended that the contract of August 16 between the Respondents
be set aside, and that recognition of the Respondent Unions be withdrawn and with-
held unless and until the said labor organizations shall have been certified as such
representative by the Board.
Because of the nature of the unfair labor practices here involved, which occurred
even before actual operations of the store began, it will be recommended that the
Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Central States Joint
Board, Retail and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; Kentuckiana Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By contributing assistance and support to Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; Central States Joint Board, Retail and Department Store
Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and Kentuckiana
Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Respond-
ent Employers have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of their
Muncie, Indiana, employees, thereby encouraging membership in and support of a
labor organization, the Respondent Employers have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Employers have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By causing and attempting to cause the Respondent Employers to discriminate
against employees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent
Unions have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Unions have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Robert S. Abbott Publishing Company and Chicago Newspaper
Guild , Local 71 , ANG, AFL-CIO
Robert S. Abbott Publishing . Company and Chicago Newspaper
Guild , Local 71 , ANG, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-4208,13-CA-
4208-2, 13-CA-4208-3, 13-CA-4208-4, 13-CA-4208-5, 13-CA-
4208-6, 13-CA-4208-7, and 13-CA-4264. November 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 8, 1961, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent had engaged
139 NLRB No. 118.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1329
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
and recommended that the allegations of the complaint in respect
thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, all parties filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, together with supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions, excep-
tions, and modifications set forth below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, as detailed in the Intermediate
Report. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, however, we find that
Respondent further violated Section 8(a) (5) by permanently con-
tracting out the work of the mechanical department.
During the unfair labor practice strike of its employees, Respond-
ent decided to permanently contract out the work of the mechanical
department. This decision was arrived at by Respondent without
notice thereof to the Union and without affording the Union an op-
portunity to bargain about it or about its effect upon the strikers con-
cerned. On April 24, the decision was communicated to the Union
as a fait accompli.
The Board has recently held that an employer who permanently
subcontracted its delivery service during an economic strike without
notification to, or bargaining with, the union violated Section 8 (a) (5) 2
A fortiori, Respondent's permanently contracting out the mechanical
department work while an unfair labor practice strike was in progress
also violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.'
2. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by its refusal to reinstate the
unfair labor practice strikers upon their unconditional offer to return
to work on April 24,1961.
THE REMEDY
Finding that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, we will require that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent , having refused to bargain with the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, will be ordered to bargain
1 The Charging Party's request for oral argument is denied , as the record, exceptions,
and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
2 Hawaii Meat Company, Limited, 139 NLRB 966, Member Leedom concurring specially
on the ground that, in his view, the subcontracting was for antiunion reasons.
3 Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Benno Katz, 369 U. S. 736.
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Union, upon request, as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the appropriate units concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment and, if under-
standings are reached, embody such understandings in signed agree-
ments. We shall also order that Respondent cease and desist from
making unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment
of its employees without consulting their designated bargaining
representative.
With respect to the reinstatement rights of the complainants herein,
the Trial Examiner has found as follows :
... the strike which commenced on April 16, 1961, was caused
by the Respondent's unfair labor practices and hence was an
unfair labor practice strike; . . . on April 24, 1961, the Union
on behalf of the striking employees made all unconditional offer
to return to work; and . . . starting on April 28, 1961, the Re-
spondent made offers of reinstatement to a number of employees.
I find that such offers on the part of the Respondent were valid
offers of reinstatement.4
This treatment by the Trial Examiner appears to assume that an
offer to reemploy a selected number of a group of unfair labor prac-
tice strikers, while at the same time denying employment to others
similarly situated, constitutes, as to those to whom the offer is made,
a valid, unqualified tender of reinstatement even though jobs were
available for the strikers whose reinstatement requests were rejected.
We do not believe that it does.
The Act guarantees to employees the right to participate in group
activity for their mutual aid and protection. Because of this protec-
tion afforded employee concerted activity, employees who find them-
selves in the positions of the complainants in this case have the right
to strike in protest over their employer's unfair labor practices. This
protection of group action logically extends not only to the begin-
ning of a strike, but to its ending as well. Thus, when the striking
employees desire to terminate the strike, they are entitled to ask for
4 The Trial Examiner accordingly concluded that the strikers who were offered re-
instatement have no reinstatement rights and are entitled to backpay only to the date of
the reinstatement offer.
For reasons stated in Northern Virginia Sun Publishing Company, et al, 134 NLRB
1007 , which Member Fanning regards as contrary to the majority decision here, he dis-
sents from the majority finding that the Respondent owes backpay to those strikers who,
having been offered reinstatement , chose to continue striking rather than return to their
former jobs . While such employees do not lose their reinstatement rights where , as here,
their employer has unlawfully refused to reinstate their fellow employees , their election
to engage in concerted activity is protected from reprisal, but not financed by their em-
ployer . The Act does not protect an employee from loss of wages as the result of a
strike even though the strike was caused by an unfair labor practice. An employee who
prefers concerted activity to the status of a "strikebreaker " cannot sup at both tables.
He cannot be unavailable for work to put economic pressure on his employer to rectify a
wrong and at the same time receive full pay for the job from which he has voluntarily
absented himself.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1331
their reinstatement as a group and insist upon such reinstatement with-
out being penalized therefor.' Were it otherwise, and could an
employer single out a select number of the group of reinstatement and
require them to accept reinstatement under penalty of loss of wages
or reinstatement rights, and thus even force them to act as strike-
breakers against the interests of those who had been acting in concert
with them, the very protection which the Act affords to collective
action would be denied to every member of the group. And this
protection would be lost to them when it was most urgently needed,
at the close of a losing strike. The future effect of such infringement
upon the security of collective association which is so fundamental to
the organizational life of all the employees would be to jeopardize
the further exercise by the employees of their right to engage in
concerted activity.
On the basis of these considerations, we reject the Trial Examiner's
finding that Respondent's piecemeal offers of reinstatement were valid
unconditional ones. We shall accordingly require that Respondent
offer to all those named in the attached Appendix A immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges, dismissing if necessary any person hired on or after April 16,
1961, to provide employment for the returning strikers.6 It will also
be ordered that Respondent make these employees whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which each normally would have earned as wages from the
date of Respondent's refusal to reinstate them to the date of Respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period,
in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. TV. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289. Such backpay shall be computed with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716?
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Robert S.
Abbott Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
5Rapid Roller Co. v. N.L.R.B., 126 F. 2d 452 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 317 U.S. 650;
NL.R.B. v. Poultrymen's Service Corporation, 138 F. 2d 204 (C. A. 3).
O To completely remedy the unfair labor practices found, Respondent will, of course, be
required to abrogate its unilateral arrangement for the performance of work formerly
performed in its mechanical department.
?For the reasons set forth in the dissent in the Isis case, Member Leedom would not
grant interest on backpay.
672010-63-vol. 13 9-8 5
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local
71, ANG, AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Chicago Newspaper
Guild, Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the appropriate units, and from unilaterally chang-
ing the wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
of such employees without prior consultation with the above-named
Union. The appropriate units for bargaining are :
(1) All employees of the Respondent in the editorial , commercial,
maintenance , and miscellaneous departments , excluding employees in
the mechanical departments , the publisher , the executive assistant to
the publisher, editor-in -chief, executive editor, city editor, voluntary
noncompensated teenage contributors to the teenage or bulletin page,
business manager of administrative services , building superintendent,
classified ad manager , circulation supervisor , controller , advertising
director , circulation manager, the confidential secretaries to the pub-
lisher, executive editor, executive assistant to the publisher , and ad-
vertising director , and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All employees of Respondent in the composing room, press-
room, stereotype room, and mailroom , excluding all other employees
and supervisors.
(c) Refusing to supply pertinent data to Chicago Newspaper Guild,
Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO, the representative of its employees, to
substantiate a plea of financial inability to grant a wage increase.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist the above -named Union or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above -named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-described appropriate units with respect to rates of pay , wages,
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1333
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, and
embody any understandings reached in signed agreements.
(b) Offer to each of the employees named in the attached Appendix
A immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired on or after
April 16, 1961, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal to reinstate
him, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision and Order
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of this
Order.
Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Oider"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an
Or der "
APPENDIX A
Ernest Roberts Donald Webb Ivan Yeargain
Donald Hurst F. Henderson F. Watts
Albert Rolls J. Rush Meredith Johns
Fred Taylor Estee Prather Etta Russell
Geraldine Russell Robert Smith Laura Williams
Clarence Herring Beverly Penson Theodore Stone
Galileo Somerville Robert McDougal Gentle Fields
Johnnie Williams Franklin Hickman Lola Fisher
George Bailey Isaiah Major Herman Wilson
James Wiley William Caldwell Clarice Alston
Bruce Reynolds Virginia Lane J. Dear
Turner Pettway Lilliam Calhoun Alvan Adams
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Florence Davis John Hayes Shellie McDade
James Force Marcus Holness Harold ( James) Jones
Lee Jenkins Bernice Loving Donald Casey
Eleanor Pino Robert Shaw Robert Williams, Jr.
Bettie Sebastian Henry Dear, Jr. Mable Norfleet
Barbara Weldon Roy Burford Susan Powe
Robert Williams Philip Matthews Barbara Thompson
Nate Dickson
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Chicago Newspaper
Guild, Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of our employees or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally make changes in the wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees
in the appropriate units described below without prior consulta-
tion with Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL, upon request, supply pertinent data to the above-
named Union to substantiate our plea of financial inability to
grant any wage increases.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization. as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of all employees in the following units with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment and, if understandings are reached, embody such
understandings in signed agreements.
The bargaining units are :
All employees of the Respondent in the editorial, commer-
cial, maintenance, and miscellaneous departments, excluding
employees in the mechanical department, the publisher,
executive assistant to the publisher, editor-in-chief, executive
editor, city editor, voluntary noncompensated teenage con-
tributors to the teenage or bulletin page, business manager
of administrative services, building superintendent, classified
ad manager, circulation manager, and the confidential secre-
taries to the publisher, executive editor, executive assistant
to the publisher, and advertising director, and guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1335
All employees of Respondent in the composing room, press-
room, stereotype room, and mailroom, excluding all other
employees and supervisors.
WE WILL offer to the following employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each of them whole as a result of our refusal
to reinstate them :
Ernest Roberts Theodore Stone
Donald Hurst Gentle Fields
Albert Rolls Lola Fisher
Fred Taylor Herman Wilson
Geraldine Russell Clarice Alston
Clarence Herring J. Dear
Galileo Somerville Alvan Adams
Johnnie Williams Florence Davis
George Bailey James Force
James Wiley Lee Jenkins
Bruce Reynolds Eleanor Pino
Turner Pettway Bettie Sebastian
Donald Webb Barbara Weldon
F. Henderson Robert Williams
J. Rush Nate Dickson
Estee Prather John Hayes
Robert Smith Marcus Holness
Beverly Penson Bernice Loving
Robert McDougal Robert Shaw
Franklin Hickman Henry Dear, Jr.
Isaiah Major Roy Burford
William Caldwell Philip Matthews
Virginia Lane Shellie McDade
Lilliam Calhoun Harold (James) Jones
Ivan Yeargain Donald Casey
F. Watts Robert Williams, Jr.
Meredith Johns Mable Norfleet
Etta Russell Susan Powe
Laura Williams Barbara Thompson
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to
the extent that this right may be affected by a lawful agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISIIING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(RepreSentative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone Number, Central 6-9660, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding involves allegations that Robert S. Abbott Publishing Company,
herein called the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. A hearing was held before Trial
Examiner John H. Eadie at Chicago, Illinois, on August 7, 8, and 9, 1961. After
the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs
with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Illinois corporation. It maintains its office and facilities
at Chicago, Illniois, where it is engaged in newspaper publication and printing.
During the calendar year of 1960, the Respondent's gross receipts were in excess
of $800,000, part of which was received for advertising of nationally sold products.
During the same period of time, the Respondent purchased outside of and caused
to be shipped into the State of Illinois goods and materials valued in excess of
$100,000
The complaint alleges, the Respondent's answer admits, and the Trial Examiner
finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chicago Newspaper Guild , Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Setcion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; the negotiations
The Respondent's employees are divided generally into two groups, the editorial
employees, referred to in the record as the "non-mechanical unit," and the composing
room employees, referred to in the record as the "mechanical unit." For a number
of years the Union represented the employees in the nonmechanical unit. The most
recent contract between the parties for this unit expired on November 1, 1960. Prior
to February 1961, the employees in the mechanical unit were represented by an
independent union. The last contract between the Respondent and the independent
union expired on February 15, 1961. On February 23, 1961, the Board certified
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the
mechanical unit.
By letter dated September 7, 1960, the Union served notice on the Respondent
that it wished to modify the existing contract. The Union's proposals for a new con-
tract for the nonmechanical unit were sent to the Respondent on September 21, 1960.
The first meeting between the parties was held on November 11, 1960. Between
this date and April 24, 1961, approximately 14 meetings were held.
At a meeting held on December 21, the Respondent submitted a proposal to re-
classify certain jobs. It amounted to a wage increase of approximately $100 per
week and covered about 20 of the 45 employees in the nonmechanical unit. Kenneth
Byrd, executive director of the Union and its "chief spokesman" at most of the
bargaining sessions, and Eleanor Pino, a member of the Union's bargaining com-
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1337
mittee,l were present at this meeting. Judge James Parsons, the Respondent's attorney
at the time, Bertram Pratt, its personnel director, and John Sengstacke, its president,
represented the Respondent. Concerning the meeting, Judge Parsons testified credibly
as follows.
Mr. Pratt would read the counter proposal. There would be a discussion on
the counter proposal. And there would be concessions made by me on behalf
of the company. And we went through each of the items of the counter pro-
posal, and such concessions were made as requested to the extent to which they
appeared agreeable by the employees who were present except for one. That
related to salary raises.
And in that discussion, the proposal was to equalize certain job placements,
by bringing up those who were in the same placement for more salary. And
in the course of that discussion that ensued, Mrs. Pmo indicated it would be
very unfortunate to try to sell to the other employees a contract without an
increase across the table. And there was a discussion in which Mr. Pratt in-
dicated that it would not be possible to have an increase across the table. I
interceded that I thought we should take that back to Mr. Sengstacke and discuss
the possibility of further concession. Mr. Byrd said that he would-that the
unit would await our further notification.
Meetings were held between the parties on January 13, 25, and 30 and on
February 21 and 24. The evidence does not disclose what took place at these
meetings. As to the meetings held on and after February 27, 1961, there are a
number of issues of fact. In the following account of these meetings, I have
endeavored to set forth what I believe and find to be the true and relevant facts in
the case. In so finding I have credited portions of the testimony of witnesses called
on behalf of both the General Counsel and the Respondent. The testimony of
witnesses which is contrary to the facts found has not been credited.
At the meeting held on February 27 Pino represented the Union, as Byrd was not
present. Pratt represented the Respondent. He asked Pino for the Union's position
on the Respondent's wage proposal. She replied that "either everybody got an
increase or nobody." Pratt remarked that the Respondent did not have "the money
now to give this wage increase." When Pino asked what had "happened to the $93,"
Pratt answered, "the auditors had found the money was not there, and [the proposed
wage increase] should not have been offered in the first place."
By letter dated March 16, 1961, the Union requested the Respondent to fix a
date to begin negotiations for a contract covering the mechanical unit. The Union
enclosed its contract proposals.
Another meeting for the nonmechanical unit was scheduled for March 17. Byrd
arrived early in order to confer with 'Pino. He was met by Pratt who told him
that Sengstacke wanted to see him in his office. Concerning his conversation with
Byrd at the time, Sengstacke testified credibly as follows:
I told Mr. Byrd that I wanted to discuss two things with him; one was our
classification proposal, and the other was money. I told him that our classi-
fication proposal was not submitted as a money proposal. It was submitted
to correct certain inequities in the organization. That we had a clause in our
contract for years calling for certain classifications, and that the guild and the
company would get together after the contract was signed, and in the present
contract there was one, and change these classifications.
I went into the fact that the organization had grown and that at this point it
was important that we go into that question before getting into any money,
money increases. I also said to him that the company was in a critical position,
that we were not in a position to make increases. That I had on my desk weekly
statements of profit and loss which is all that I had-that I got from the book-
keeping department-and I'll be glad to go over it with him. He says no, I'll
prefer not He said I think we had better go to the meeting; we have been here
long enough And I said why don't we get one other member of the unit.
And he said no, we had better go to the meeting because the people might think
I am selling them out.
Sengstacke was not present at the beginning of the meeting on March 17. Byrd
opened the meeting by telling Pratt that he understood that the Respondent had
withdrawn its wage offer Pratt replied that the Respondent's auditor had advised
him that the offer should not have been made in the first place, as no money was
available for it. Byrd said, "You must realize that there must be some money in
1 Pino. employed by the Respondent as a switchboard operator, became the Union's
"unit chairman" on January 7, 1961
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this new contract. . . . If you don't have the money, then certainly if you will prove
to us someway that you don't have the money, we will be glad to extend the existing
contract."
When Sengstacke appeared at the meeting, he stated that the Respondent was faced
with a "pretty dire financial situation"; that it was "currently in the process of having
a series of executive meetings to try to determine how we could meet this emergency
situation"; that he anticipated that it would be necessary to make a reduction in
force on or about April 1; and that he was having difficulty in obtaining information
from his auditors as to the Respondent's financial condition, as the "entire book-
keeping department" was in the process of being revised. Byrd asked Sengstacke if
the Respondent would show the Union its books or if it "would be willing to give
us proof of this claim of inability to grant wage increase." Sengstacke refused to
show the books to the Union, saying, "No, I don't want my books made public,
because it is a bad thing if the public knows that a company is not in good financial
condition." He also told Byrd that he "would not allow the guild or anybody to go
on a fishing exhibition." Byrd then stated, "We must have some proof of your
claim. We simply cannot take your word for it." To this Sengstacke replied to
the effect that Byrd knew how to get what he wanted if he "would asked for it
properly." When Byrd asked him what he meant by this statement, Sengstacke
made no explanation and gave the same reply.2 Sengstacke further stated, "I don't
have any current information [on the Respondent's financial status] here . . . the
only information I have is information I get from my bookkeeping department . . .
there are members of the bookkeeping department who are in the guild who are
present here, whom I will release from confidence if you wish to ask them. . . .
Byrd refused this offer.
As stated above, by letter dated March 16, 1961, the Union submitted its contract
proposals and requested the Respondent for a meeting date to begin bargaining for
the mechanical unit. In a letter dated March 23, 1961, Pratt stated in part, "A
careful review of your proposals are now being made, and I will advise you as soon
as possible as to a time, date and place to begin bargaining."
During the last week in March Byrd telephoned Pratt. He asked Pratt, "How are
you coming along on . . . your counterproposal for the mechanical department
bargaining?" Pratt replied, "We are in good shape. I have to talk to [Sengstackel,
but I have not been able to catch him, because he had been pretty busy." During
about the last week of March or the first week of April, Pino, Ivan Yeargain, "vice
chairman of the bargaining committee," and Laura Williams, also a member of the
committee, had separate conversations with Pratt. They asked him when a date
would be set to begin negotiations for the mechanical unit. Pratt replied in sub-
stance, that he did not know, as Sengstacke was busy, and that he could not give
an answer until he talked to Sengstacke.
The Union held a meeting on April 8, 1961, attended by employee members of
both the mechanical and nonmechanical units. Pino presided over the meeting.
She told the employees that the Respondent had refused to grant a wage increase;
that it had refused to offer any proof of its financial inability to grant a wage in-
crease, and that the Union was encountering difficulty in getting the Respondent to
commit itself to a date to begin negotiations for the mechanical unit. The employ-
ees then voted to authorize the calling of a strike.
Another meeting between the parties for the nonmechanical unit was held on
April 13. Byrd informed Sengstacke of the action taken at the Union's meeting
of April 8, and again asked for proof of the Respondent's financial inability to give
a wage increase. Byrd asked Sengstacke if he would permit the Union's "auditors"
to look at the Respondent's books. When Sengstacke refused, Byrd asked him if
the Respondent and the Union could agree on "an impartial CPA" or "someone" to
go over the books, stating that the Union and the Respondent each could pay half
of the cost. Sengstacke stated that he could not agree to this proposal, because he
had just had an audit of the books made and could not afford to pay for another
audit. Byrd then asked him if he would provide the Union with "a copy of that
audit from your own auditor." Sengstacke again refused. At the end of the meet-
ing, Byrd asked Sengstacke if he could tell him when the Respondent would be able
to meet with the Union to commence negotiations on a contract for the mechanical
unit. Sengstacke replied to the effect that he could not, as the Respondent's counter-
proposals were incomplete, and that the Respondent would advise the Union as to
a meeting date at a later time.
2 Sengstacke testified that by the above remark he was referring to the weekly profit
and loss statements that lie had offered to Byrd at their private meeting, and that he
did not take such statements to the bargaining sessions or ever offer them to the Union
at a meeting.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1339
On April 16, 1961, a strike commenced involving both the mechanical and the
nonmechanical employees. On this same date the Respondent began contracting
out work performed formerly by the employees in the mechanical unit.
Meetings between the parties for the nonmechamcal unit were held on April 19, 21,
and 24, 1961. The meeting on April 19 was held at the office of the Federal Media-
tion and Conciliation Service. Alfred Kamin, the Union's attorney, was present.
To the question of Mediator Haney as to what the Union wanted to settle the strike,
Byrd replied, "We want proof of Mr. Sengstacke's ability or inability to grant a
wage increase for the nonmechamcal department, and we want firm meeting dates
for the first contract bargaining in the mechanical department." Concerning the
balance of the meeting, Byrd testified credibly as follows:
Then Mr. Haney separated the parties. The company committee left the
room and went into another room. After . . . about a half hour, I believe,
it was Mr. Haney who came back. He told us that he could get us a profit and
loss statement for the year ending June, 1960. He could get us a letter from
Mr. Sengstacke's auditor saying that the books were in bad shape and could
not tell anything about them anyway and he could get us three firm meeting
dates for the mechanical department, for the mechanical department bargain-
ing-the union said "We accept "
Then the Federal Mediator went to get the Company-brought the Com-
pany committee back to the general meeting room where the Guild committee
was; and he then made the offer to the Guild. He repeated what he had said
to us by ourselves. Mr. Sengstacke seemed a little bit upset. He said, "I did
not authorize you to show that to anyone. The Mediator said , "I did not
show it to anyone, but you did not tell me that anything you said or showed
me was in confidence." Mr. Kamin then said, "Well, let's not consider it any-
one's offer , except the Guild. The Guild will make an offer-will make that
an offer."
* * * * * * *
Mr. Kamin asked for a reasonable date to return . He informed the com-
pany that they would have to give us at least 24 hours to go back to the unit
and have the unit ratify any agreement that we reached with the company.
Then Mr. Sengstacke said, "Well, I am not represented by counsel and I
cannot agree to this until I get my attorney."
The meeting on April 21 was held at Kamin's office. Ray Schoonhoven, the
Respondent's attorney, was present. The Union stated that it would enter into
a strike settlement stipulation if it received "a profit and loss statement for the year
ending June 1960," and " firm meeting dates" for the mechanical department. The
Respondent agreed to this. When Kamin asked if he should prepare the strike
settlement stipulation, Schoonhoven replied that it should not be prepared then be-
cause "there will be a few people we won't be able to take back."
At the meeting on April 24, the Respondent supplied the Union with "a compara-
tive statement of income for six months ended June 30, 1960, and June 30, 1959,"
and a letter dated April 22, 1961, to Sengstacke from the Respondent's auditor.3
The Union asked the Respondent to identify the "few people" whom the Respondent
would not return to work. Schoonhoven then named all of the approximately 58
employees who were on strike. As to his statement at the time concerning the em-
ployees in the mechanical unit, Schoonhoven testified credibly as follows:
In that meeting with respect to the composing room employees, I told Mr.
Kamin and Mr. Byrd that the company had learned in contracting out its
composing work during the strike, that it could do it cheaper that way than
doing it themselves. And that, therefore, the company was not going to use
its linotype machines, it was not going to use its advertising machines which
I understand, and said I understood to be similar to linotype machines. And
there would be no work for those employees.
That there was one employee needed to do emergency work if there were
mistakes or rework or anything that came in from the outside contractor. And
that we had that one employee who was an employee from that room who had
S The letter reads as follows :
The attached Comparative Statement of Income for the six month periods ended
June 30, 1960 and June 30, 1959 for the Robert S Abbott Publishing Company is
an exact copy of the income or "profit and loss" statement furnished to you as a
part of our Interim audit report dated September 15, 1960
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not gone out on strike. And that within a few days we would need two addi-
tional people as makeup people. And we would let the union know within
a few days about that.
Following Schoonhoven 's statement, Kamin stated that on behalf of the striking
employees the Union made "an unconditional offer to return to work, given a reason-
able date." Schoonhoven replied,
On behalf of the employer , since this strike is an economic strike and since
some employees have been permanently replaced and since other jobs have been
eliminated due to a reorganization of operations , at this time there are no jobs
to which the Company can presently assign any striker . We anticipate a few
openings in the near future for which notice will be given.
After April 24 the Union made several unconditional offers on behalf of the em-
ployees to return to work. By telegrams sent on April 28 the Respondent informed
employees Marcus Holness, Robert Williams , Sr., Nathan Dickson, Philip H. Mat-
thews, Florence Davis, Shellie McDade, and Willie Geiger that "work" was "avail-
able" for them commencing on April 30 . By telegrams sent on May 1 the Respond-
ent informed employees Robert Shaw and Gentle Fields that "work" was "available"
for them commencing on May 2.
On July 3, 1961 , Schoonhoven sent Kamin the following letter:
On behalf of the above -named employer , we hereby offer employment to
the twenty persons (who prior to April 16, 1961 were employed by it) whose
names were listed to you in the meeting of June 29 , 1961 in the offices of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service . Such offer of employment is to
the same or substantially equivalent positions (as identified in that meeting of
June 29) as those which they held prior to April 16, 1961. Such employment
is to commence as soon as reasonably possible after the employer is informed
as to the acceptance of this offer by the employees concerned.
For your convenience, the twenty names are attached hereto on appendix A.
In order that the employer can intelligently plan with respect to this offer, we
will expect a reply as to the acceptance or rejection of this offer within a reason-
able time, either from you (or the Guild ) as representatives of the employees or
from the various employees themselves. We consider one week to be a
reasonable time within which to make such reply. If we do not receive an
affirmative reply by the end of the normal business day (5:00 P.M.) on
Wednesday, July 12, 1961, the employer will consider the offer rejected.
The 20 employees referred to in the letter were Bettie Sebastian , Florence Davis,
Laura Williams, Etta Russell, Barbara Thompson, Alvin Adams, Nate Dickson,
Bernice Loving, Robert Williams, Sr., Florence Watts, Robert Shaw, John Hayes,
Marcus Holness, Philip Matthews, Henry Dear, Robert Williams, Jr, Herman Wilson,
Donald Casey, Shellie McDade, and W. Geiger. On August 1, 1961, Schoonhoven
sent Kamin the following letter:
On behalf of the above named employer , we are informing you as attorney
for the Chicago Newspaper Guild, that the employer hereby offers employment
(to their same or substantially equivalent positions as they held prior to April
16, 1961 ) to the following persons:
James Foree Barbara Weldon Harold Jones
Lola Fisher Eleanor Pino Roy Burford
J. Dear Theodore Stone
Susan Powe Lee Jenkins
Mable Norfleet Meredith Jones
Such employment is to commence August 7, 1961. If the employer has not
heard from the Guild or the employees as to their acceptance of this offer by
the end of that day, the employer will consider the offer rejected.
On July 14, 1961, Kamin sent the following letter to Schoonhoven:
This is in answer to your letters of July 3, 1961 and July 10, 1961.
The Chicago Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO by its authorized spokesman has
advised me that your letter has been read and explained to all those persons
named in Appendix A of the July 3 letter, except one who has already obtained
full time employment elsewhere and does not desire to go back to the Defender.
These persons, whom you have offered rehire but not reinstatement, were
fully advised that the decision as to whether your offer of hire should be
accepted is a matter for each individually to make.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1341
Accordingly the Chicago Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO neither accepts nor
rejects the publisher 's offer as expressed in the July 3 letter you sent me. The
matters you have presented are to be answered individually by each person
to whom your offer of hire has been made.
On August 1, 1961 , Pratt sent employee Clarice Alston the following letter:
Through our attorney in contacting the Chicago Newspaper Guild we have
offered employment to certain of our employees who went on strike on April 16,
1961.
Since at that time you were the head of the Public Service Department and
a supervisor of the employee of the library, we do not consider you in the
Unit represented by the Guild. Accordingly, we offer to you directly employ-
ment to the same or a substantially similar position to which you held prior
to April 16, 1961.
Such employment is to commence August 7, 1961 . If we have not heard
from you by the end of the day (August 7, 1961 ), we will consider the offer
rejected.
It does not appear that any of the employees mentioned above returned to work.
B. Conclusions
In my opinion the evidence shows that the Respondent did not bargain in good
faith during the negotiations for the nonmechanical unit. The Respondent claimed
financial inability to grant a wage increase , but repeatedly refused the Union's
requests to offer some proof of such claim. The Respondent refused the Union's
requests to make its records available to the Union 's auditor or to an independent
auditor upon whom the parties could agree. It also refused to supply the Union
with a copy of a recent audit. In sum, the Respondent simply said "no" to all of
the Union 's requests or suggestions of acceptable proof of the Respondent 's claim,
but made no effort to substantiate its claim or to find some solution agreeable to
the Union.
In their private meeting on March 17, 1961, Sengstacke did offer Byrd "weekly
statements of profit and loss," claiming at the time "which is all that I had." How-
ever, the record shows that the Respondent had in its possession from about Sep-
tember 15, 1960, the "Comparative Statement of Income " which it finally supplied
to the Union on April 24. Further , Sengstacke did not bring the weekly statement's
or offer them to the Union 's representatives at the regular meeting on March 17.
Aside from the questions of the propriety of the manner in which the offer was made
to Byrd or of Byrd 's justification in rejecting the offer,4 under all of the circumstances
I believe that more was required of the Respondent than this one off-the-record
gesture of Sengstacke before a finding of bargaining in good faith on the Respondent's
part could be made. Accordingly , I find that by the above conduct the Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act.
I also find that the Respondent by failing on and after March 16, 1961 , to set a
date to commence negotiations for the mechanical unit violated Section 8 ( a) (5) and
(1) of the Act . On the above date Byrd requested the Respondent to name a date
"as soon as possible." Thereafter , as found above , the Union's representatives
made a number of inquiries of Pratt as to when the Respondent intended to meet
with the Union . In each instance Pratt gave a vague and indefinite answer. At
the meeting held on April 13, Byrd told Sengstacke of the action taken by the
members of the Union at its meeting of April 8, and asked the Respondent when
it would start negotiations for the mechanical unit. Again the Union received an
indefinite answer. It was not until after the strike had begun and the parties had
been called together by Mediator Haney that the Respondent agreed to meet with
the Union on a definite date. In my opinion , the Respondent's conduct clearly was
dilatory, and , when considered together with its action in the nonmechanical nego-
tiations , shows that it was not bargaining in good faith.
In view of the above findings , it is clear that the strike was from its very inception
an unfair labor practice strike, motivated and prolonged by the Respondent 's failure
to bargain in good faith , and I so find . I further find that the Union on April 24,
1961, made an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of the striking em-
ployees. Therefore , the Respondent by failing and refusing to reinstate the strikers
on and after April 24, 1961 , violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
The General Counsel also contends that the Respondent on and after April 16,
1961, by contracting for the work of the mechanical department without notifying
4 The record does not disclose the contents of the weekly statements or the period of
time covered.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union or consulting with it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I do not
agree Insofar as the record discloses, the sole reason for the action taken by the
Respondent was the continuation of the operation of its plant during the strike. In
so doing it was no more obligated to consult with the Union as to the farming out
of work than it would have been if it had hired new replacements. Further, as
pointed out in the Respondent's brief, on April 24 the Union did not request and the
Respondent did not refuse to discuss this subject after the Union had made its un-
conditional offer of return to work Accordingly, it will be recommended that
this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, 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 has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent be
ordered to bargain with the Union upon request as the exclusive representative of
all its employees in the appropriate units concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and if understandings are reached,
embody such understandings in signed agreements.
It has been found that the strike which commenced on April 16, 1961, was caused
by the Respondent's unfair labor practices and hence was an unfair labor practice
strike; that on April 24, 1961, the Union on behalf of the striking employees made
an unconditional offer to return to work; and that starting on April 28, 1961, the
Respondent made offers of reinstatement to a number of employees. I find that such
offers on the part of the Respondent were valid offers of reinstatement. Accord-
ingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer to the striking
employees named in the attached Appendix A immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any person hired on and after
April 16, 1961, to provide places for the returning strikers. I will also recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to make the striking employees whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal to reinstate
them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each
normally would have earned as wages during the period from April 16, 1961, to
the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such
period, in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, 291-294. The names of the strikers to whom the Respondent made
offers of reinstatement, together with the dates of the offers listed opposite their
names, are shown on the attached Appendix B. In their cases it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent make each of them whole for the period from April 16,
1961, to the date of offer of reinstatement.
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. All employees of the Respondent in the editorial, commercial, maintenance,
and miscellaneous departments, excluding employees in the mechanical departments,
the publisher, the executive assistant to the publisher, editor-in-chief, executive
editor, city editor, voluntary noncompensated teenage contributors to the teenage or
bulletin page, business manager of administrative services, building superintendent,
classified ad manager, circulation supervisor, controller, advertising director, cir-
culation manager, and the confidential secretary to each of the following: Publisher,
executive editor, executive assistant to the publisher, and advertising director; and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
ROBERT S. ABBOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1343
2. All employees of Respondent in the composing room , pressroom , stereotype
room, and mailroom, excluding supervisors and all other employees , constitute an
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, has been at all times on and after
since about 1950 in the nonmechanical unit and since on or about February 23, 1961,
in the mechanical unit the exclusive representative of all the employees in the afore-
stated appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing at all times on and after about March 16, 1961 , to bargain collec-
tively with the above -named labor organization as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the aforestated appropriate units, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5)
of the Act.
5. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the
employees named in Appendixes A and B, attached hereto, thereby discouraging
membership in the above -named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
6. The strike which commenced on April 16, 1961, was caused by the Respond-
ent's unfair labor practices , and hence was an unfair labor practice strike.
7. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)-(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
9. The Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor practices on and after
April 16, 1961 , by farming out the work formerly performed by the employees
in its mechanical unit.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
Ernest Roberts James Wiley Estee Prather
Donald Hurst Isaiah Major Robert Smith
Albert Rolls William Caldwell Beverly Penson
Fred Taylor Virginia Lane Robert McDougal
Geraldine Russell Bruce Reynolds Franklin Hickman
Clarence Herring Turner Pettway Lillian Calhoun
Galileo Somerville Donald Webb Ivan Yeargain
Johnnie Williams F. Henderson
George Bailey J. Rush
APPENDIX B
Marcus Holness--------- April 30, 1961 Robert Williams, Jr.________July 8, 1961
Robert Williams, Sr.______April 30, 1961 Herman Wilson ----------- July 8, 1961
Nathan Dickson --------- April 30, 1961 Donald Casey ------------- July 8, 1961
Philip H. Matthews------April 30, 1961 James Foree------------ August 7, 1961
Florence Davis ---------- April 30, 1961 Lola Fisher____________ August 7, 1961
Shellie McDade --------- April 30, 1961 J. Dear ---------------- August 7, 1961
Robert Shaw ------------- May 2, 1961 Susan Powe------------ August 7, 1961
Gentle Fields ------------- May 2, 1961 Mable Norfleet--------- August 7, 1961
Bettie Sebastian ----------- July 8, 1961 Barbara Weldon --------- August 7, 1961
Laura Williams------------July 8, 1961 Eleanor Pino----------- August 7, 1961
Etta Russell -------------- July 8, 1961 Theodore Stone --------- August 7, 1961
Barbara Thompson -------- July 8, 1961 Lee Jenkins ------------ August 7, 1961
Alvan Adams ------------- July 8, 1961 Meredith Johns --------- August 7, 1961
Bernice Loving ------------ July 8, 1961 Harold (James) Jones ___August 7, 1961
Florence Watts ------------ July 8, 1961 Roy Burford ----------- August 7, 1961
John Hayes --------------- July 8, 1961 Clarice Alston ---------- August 7, 1961
Henry Dear -------------- July 8, 1961