The A. S. Abell Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE A. S. ABELL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, and INTER-
NATIONAL PRINTING AND PRESSMEN 'S UNION, BALTIMORE BRANCH,
BALTIMORE WEB PRESSMEN'S UNION, No. 31
Case No. 0-070.-Decided February 05, 1938
Newspaper Printing and Publishing Business-Interference , Restraint, or
Coercion : expressed opposition to labor organization ; threats of retaliatory ac-
tion ; disclosure of identity of • union members , efforts to secure-Company-
Dominated Union: domination and interference with formation of ; support ;
soliciting membership in by supervisory employees ; failure to bargain no miti-
gating circumstance-Discrimination : charges dismissed.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Semmes, Bowen dl Semmes, by Mr. William G. MacMillan, of Balti-
more, Md.. for the respondent.
Miss Ida Klaus, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Printing and Pressmen's
Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint, dated September 2, 1937,
against The A. S. Abell Company, Baltimore, Maryland, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent, during May and June, 1937,
through its officers, agents, and supervisory employees, questioned its
pressroom employees regarding their membership in the Union and,
by threats and acts of coercion, discouraged membership in the Union;
and (2) that the respondent, during May and June, 1937, through its
officers, agents, and employees, promoted and engaged in the forma-
644
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 645
Lion of a union of its pressroom employees, dominated and interfered
with its administration by encouraging attendance at a meeting of
that union, and sponsored and promoted the circulation of a petition
among its pressroom employees for the purpose of encouraging
membership in that union.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent and upon the president of the Union. On
September 9, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint
and, stating that it was appearing specially and reserving all rights
to move to dismiss the complaint on constitutional grounds, to ques-
tion the validity of the Act, and to object to the jurisdiction of the
Board, denied that it was engaged in interstate commerce and,that
it had committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint,
and moved for a dismissal of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Baltimore, Maryland, on
September 16 and 17, 1937, before Lawrence J. Kosters, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing, the Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all the parties.
At the commencement and again at the close of the hearing the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that its
business and its relations with its pressroom employees are beyond
the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce and that
application of the Act to it would be violative of the Constitutional
guarantee of freedom of the press. At the conclusion of the Board's
case, counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to conform
to the proof. The former motion was denied and the latter granted.
'These rulings are hereby affirmed. In view of the introduction of
testimony by the Board, without objection by the respondent, with
regard to unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act and in view of the introduction of answering testimony by
the respondent, the granting of the motion to amend the pleadings
to conform to the proof will, for the purposes of this case, be con-
sidered as amending the complaint by adding thereto such allegations
of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act as the Board attempted to prove at the hearing.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner refused to
permit the introduction of evidence by the Board on the attitude of
the respondent toward organization of the pressroom and its rela-
tions with the Union prior to the effective date of the Act. An ex-
ception was duly taken by counsel for the Board. We find that this
evidence was properly offered and properly admissible; that the
ruling thereon of the Trial Examiner was erroneous; but that the
Board's case was not prejudiced by such exclusion. It is accordingly
646 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not necessary to reopen the case. Other rulings were made by the
Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed
these rulings, finds that no prejudicial errors were committed, and
hereby affirms them.
On October 22, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor
practices, affecting commerce within the meaning of 'Section 8 (1),
(2) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending
that the Board issue a cease and desist order and require the respond-
ent to take certain specified affirmative action. Exceptions to the -In-
termediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondent. Oral ar-
gument was held thereon before the Board on November 24, 1937. As
set forth below, we find that the evidence supports the findings and
conclusions of the Trial Examiner with regard to unfair labor-prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, but that there is an insufficiency of proof to sup-
port an allegation of unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in, the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The -respondent, a Maryland corporation with its principal office
and place of business at Baltimore, Maryland, owns, prints, and pub-
lishes The Sun, a daily morning paper with a Sunday edition called
The Sunday Sun, and The Evening Sun, a weekday evening paper.
During the month of May 1937, the peak production month for the
period from January to September, 1937, 9,643,300 papers consisting
of 347,755,560 pages were printed in the respondent's plant at •a total
pay-roll cost of $192,071.46 and by a total employment roll of 1,120
persons. This does not include colored portions of the Photogravure
Section, the Comic Supplement, and the Magazine "This Week",
features of the Sunday edition, which are printed in New York
State and shipped to Baltimore as railway baggage or freight, pursu-
ant to purchase arrangements with the respondent. The paid circula-
tion for August 1937, totaled 147,842 for the morning papers, 151,067
for the evening papers, and 208,978 for the Sunday papers. Seven
and seventy-five hundredths per cent of the morning papers, 1.7 per
cent of the evening papers, and 7.4 per cent of the Sunday papers are
shipped to destinations outside the State.
'Widespread news-gathering, news-interchange, and news-distribu-
i ion 'activities of the respondent, transcending the limits of the State
of Maryland, are conducted through its branch offices in New York
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 647
City, Washington, D. C., and London, England, through its corre-
spondents in the principal foreign news centers, through its exclusive
right in the United States to all the special correspondence and other-
material published in the Manchester Guardian of England, and
through its direct wire, wirephoto, and teletypewriter arrangements.
with The Associated Press, the North American Newspaper Alliance,,
the New York Herald-Tribune, and Consolidated News Features,
Inc. The respondent's membership in The Associated Press, a New
York corporation engaged in the collection and interchange of in-
formation and intelligence for publication in newspapers in the
United States and foreign countries, entitles that association to the
exclusive use for publication of all local news and of certain types
of news dispatches published in the respondent's papers. The re-
spondent is also a member of the Newspaper Publishers' Association,
a nation-wide organization. Advertising, representing a large vari-
ety of business interests, is solicited in a majority of the States for
publication in 'the respondent's papers.
The raw materials used in the publication of the respondent's pa-
pers, newsprint and news ink, are derived, predominantly, from
sources outside the State : all newsprint, from Canada and New York;
781/2 per cent of the news ink, from the District of Columbia and
Pennsylvania. Machinery, supplies, repair and replacement parts are
purchased-within and without the .State.
II. THE UNION
International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch,
Baltimore, Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization. 'It admits to
membership all pressroom employees working in the City of
Baltimore.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR -PRACTICES
A. Attitude of pressroom supervisors toward the Union
In April 1937, and for three months thereafter, the Union con-
ducted an active campaign to organize the employees in the respond-
ent's pressroom. Circulars and handbills,, addressed "To all Em-
ployees of the Sun Pressroom", dealing with working conditions
in the respondent's pressroom, pointing out the advantages of union-
ization, and urging affiliation with the Union, implemented the
campaign plan. That this drive 'was not intended to be kept from
the respondent, is evident from the Union's claim that it sent some
of its literature to the respondent's supervisors' and from a visit of
the Union's president and vice president to the home of the respond-
ent's pressroom superintendent at the initiation of the organization-
80535-38 2--4
x648 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,drive, at which time the Union disclosed to the superintendent its
-plans to acquaint the members of the Sun pressroom with the dis-
parity of working advantages in their pressroom and in those covered
,by union agreements.
The testimony reveals a contemporaneous launching of a counter
'drive on the part of the respondent, aimed at hardening the men to
the Union's appeal for membership and at disheartening those who
had been recruited. Several employees testified that Miller, super-
intendent of the pressroom, questioned them about their union affilia-
tion after summoning them into his office or approaching them at the
;presses. The testimony of others is that Miller told them that the
Union could not come into the pressroom because the Company would
not stand for it; that "this place will never change"; that a man
,joining the Union would get practically no consideration; that the
first of the year would see the end of union men in the pressroom;
-that, in view of the good working conditions in ,the Sun pressroom,
he could not see what would prompt a man to join the Union. One
witness stated that Miller assured him : "If you will stick with us, you
will get a pressman's job and have it as long as you want". A dark
-picture of what would happen if the Union were successful in its
drive was drawn for several floormen, who were told that union classi-
fication would result in their being made paperhandlers at a reduc-
tion in pay. The testimony of another pressroom employee is that
he had overheard Miller informing a group of men, predominantly
nonunion, that he did not care if 80 per cent of the men joined the
Union; they were not going any place and he "didn't give a damn"
who knew it. It is significant to note that some of these remarks
were made to men who had sought to clear up with Miller rumors
that they had become union members.
Miller's technique with men who were known to have joined was
varied. In some cases an appeal was made to conscience and self-
respect : one man was advised that he wasn't considering his family
and another was asked, "What would the old man think of you?"
Others were reminded that it was not too late to reconsider, and
one of those so reminded was transferred to a better job pending re-
-consideration. An attempt was made to discredit a worker's descrip-
tion of working conditions in a union pressroom in which he had
worked during a lay-off. A union officer was characterized by Miller
as "sweaty and dirty". One of the first union recruits testified that
Miller had upbraided him from time to time for past mistakes in his
work; had warned him he would be fired for the next error he made;
,and had ordered him to refrain from "handing the fellows a lot
of talk about union" either inside or outside the plant because "this
-talk keeps the men from doing their own work". A union member
-who had complained to Miller about a change in shift was told that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 649
he could quit if he didn't like it and that Miller intended to fire five
or six of "you men" for the slightest reason, in which case all they
could do would be to complain to the Labor Board, where they would
have "a hell of a time proving that there wasn't enough reason".
In defense, Miller testified that he had questioned the men about
the Union, not upon instruction from his superiors, but because
he wanted to get an idea as to how the men felt; that he had no
intention of firing anybody. His curiosity, he said, would express
itself along these lines : "How do you feel about the Union? Do
you feel like you want to join the Union? Do you think it will be
any good to you? Do you think it will be any benefit to you?"
He stated further that he was friendly with some of the men; that
they would go out together and talk about their families; that he
supposed they would discuss things as friends; but that he couldn't
remember whether or not he had told one of the men two days
before the hearing that he wasn't considering his family. With
regard to the fate of floor 'men if the Union came in, he remarked that
he must have a poor memory, for he did not remember having made
such statement. However, the fact that this statement was repeated
by five witnesses markedly weakens Miller's defense in this connec-
tion. As for the other statements alleged to have been made by him,
Miller testified that he could not remember; that he wasn't sure.
We conclude that Miller did not clear himself of the charges made
against him.
Not only Miller, but also Preis, night foreman, had questioned the
men about their union affiliation and about payment of dues, and
had announced that the Union would never come in because the Com-
pany would never recognize it. One of the men working as a roller
washer, a position superior to that of pressman, testified that Preis
had told him, in the presence of a group of nonunion men, that he
was broke because he had paid his dues; that he was merely a press-
man, according to his union-card designation ; and that, before the
Union took over the plant, the witness "would have a beard a foot
long". Preis testified that he did not think he had ever had any
conversation with any of the men about union membership; that
he had merely joshed and "kidded" the witness about being broke
-after paying his dues. We do not consider Preis' denial adequate;
nor do we regard his statement as sufficient justification for remarks
reasonably interpreted as serious by the person to whom they were
addressed.
The respondent, in its defense, placed heavy reliance on the claim
that the policy of The A. S. Abell Company had always been one
-of neutrality toward the question of unionization; that no dis-
,charges had occurred for union activity; that increases in wages
had been granted without discrimination during the period of the
650 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union's campaign; and that, in spite of the alleged threats and anti-
union statements, some of the men had joined the Union. The
respondent's policy must be judged in this case, if we are to ad-
minister the Act properly, not by broad professions of general prin-
ciple, but by the specific acts of its supervisors. The increase in
wages, upon the admission of the respondent's executive vice presi-
dent, was granted in pursuance of a policy to meet increases in union
shops, and is subject to the inference that such policy was motivated
by a desire to forestall the Union. That some men joined the Union
after the alleged threats merely indicates the extent to which they
clung to the rights guaranteed to them under the Act, but does not
lessen the culpability of the respondent's attempt to interfere with
the exercise of those rights.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing analysis of the record, that
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced: its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The pressroom committee
Within a month after the initiation of the Union's membership
campaign, a movement was started in the pressroom to organize a.
committee of pressroom employees for the alleged purpose of dealing
with the respondent in respect to working conditions, During the
month of May the following petition was circulated among the press-
room employees on the night and day shifts and was, signed by 72 of
the employees:
We, the undersigned wish to go on record as stating that we
are entirely satisfied with our present working conditions.
Further, when ever necessary, we will form a committee 'from
our department to represent us in any matters pertaining to our
own as well as The A. S. Abell Company's welfare and well being.
Further, that this committee shall represent us in any matters
pertaining to our salaries or working conditions. Further, we
pledge our self to abide by the ruling of the committee, and that
we do not wish to join any union or association other than the
aforementioned committee formed from the Employees from our
department. Further, we wish to ask that the business office of
the A. S. Abell Company to recognize no other committee other
than the above-mentioned one which we intend to form.
The petition was prepared, with the aid of a law student, by
Le Faivre, an employee on the night shift who had worked in the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 651
pressroom for nine years. While Le Faivre testified on direct exami-
nation that he had assumed the initiative in drafting the petition
because the Union "had bothered the men quite a bit" in his depart-
Tnent and many of them "were up iii arms about it", he admitted on
cross-examination that that had been the attitude of only 15 men,
all on the night shift, and that he had made no attempt to ascertain
the sentiment of the men on the day shift, who constituted about
two-thirds of the total pressroom employees. Other significant facts
disclosed by the record are that Le Faivre's father-in-law was super-
intendent of the respondent's composing room; that Le Faivre had
had conversations with Miller about the Union's campaign; that he
was at Miller's house when two Union officers called on Miller, by
appointment, during the early days of the Union's drive for the
purpose of apprising Miller of their campaign plans; and that he
participated in the discussion between these officers and Miller.
The record reveals the following testimony, tending very strongly
to connect Miller with the initial steps in the movement to establish
the pressroom committee. According to the testimony of the two
Union officers who had visited Miller at the start of the Union's
campaign, Miller advised them during that visit that it would be
useless for the Union to conduct a membership drive, since he had
80 per cent of the men pledged to him. The fact that 72 men out of
a total somewhat in excess of 80 subsequently signed the petition lends
credence to the testimony of the Union officers and compels us to
give little weight to Miller's statement that lie could not recall having
made that remark. Three of the men testified that they had signed
the petition in Miller's office and that pressmen did not as a rule have
free access to that office. One of the men who signed testified that
Miller had said to him, "Lou, I see you signed that paper . . . Lou,
I think you did the right thing. They have only eight men in the
Union and I can name them." Whereupon, he named them. We
cannot consider Miller's testimony that he could not remember this re-
mark because he had had "so many conversations with a good many of
the men" as a denial of the substance of this particular conversation.
On Friday, June 2, when 72 signatures had been affixed to the peti-
tion, a committee of four, including Le Faivre and accompanied by
Miller, went to see Schmick, executive vice president of the respond-
•ent, pursuant to an appointment made for them by Miller at Le
Faivre's request. The petition was presented to Schmick with a re-
quest that he give it consideration and that he recognize a committee
to be chosen pursuant to the petition as an agency for collective bar-
gaining. Schmick testified that he said very little to the men at that
time and gave them no encouragement; that he just thanked them and
dismissed them with the comment that "it was nice to get the petition
and it showed a 'spirit of loyalty".
652 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
One of the four men who presented the petition to Schmick was:
House; who had also aided • in its circulation. The virtually undis-
puted testimony of two men who worked with House is that he acted
as foreman on Tuesday nights when the regular foreman was off.
House's time card showed that he had received extra pay each week..
We conclude that House was a part-time supervisor.
On Sunday, June 6, a business meeting of those who had signed.
the petition was held at the house of Krausch, another of the four-
men who had presented the petition to Schmick. The men discussed
the petition in a general way and elected officers to constitute the.
committee provided for in the petition. Groves and Johancen, two
of the men who had aided in the circulation of the petition, attended
this meeting; participated in the discussion; and were nominated;.
but defeated, for office. Five of the men in the pressroom who worked
with Groves and Johancen stated that these two men were considered
bosses, "sort of assistant foremen" ; that, unlike ordinary pressmen,
they were not assigned to any particular press; that they marked ups
the counters on the presses and gave orders to the, men in the press-
room. The Union's president testified that men performing similar
functions in union pressrooms were classified as assistant foremen
but did not typically receive a higher rate of pay than ordinary
pressmen. Supervisory officials of the respondent considered them
ordinary pressmen because of their rate of pay, their pay-roll classi-
fication, and the disparity of privilege, in some respects, between them
and the foremen. We conclude that Groves and Johancen acted in a.
quasi-supervisory capacity.
Upon the conclusion of the business meeting of June 6, the men
held a beer party and card game which Miller and O'Connor at-
tended by invitation of Krausch, the host. While the evidence shows
that neither of these supervisory officers was present at the business,
meeting immediately preceding the party, Miller testified that he
knew, before he arrived, that there was to be a business meeting
"about forming an organization" and O'Connor stated that he had
received similar information from his son, an employee in the
pressroom who had also aided in circulating the petition.
While a committee had been elected at the meeting of June 6,
Le Faivre testified that its purpose was not collective bargaining.
"It was just a committee". There had been no attempts at col-
lective bargaining and none of the petitions had, as far as Le Faivre
knew, presented grievances to the committee. Schmick testified that
he had not been approached by the committee for collective bargain-
ing. There is also evidence that no further meetings were held by
the pressroom employees and that no action had been taken trr
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 653
organize the committee on a permanent basis. According to
Le Faivre, after the meeting of June, "there wasn't anything else
to do. It was all over".
We conclude, on the basis of the testimony herein outlined, that
the supervisory officials of the respondent sponsored the movement
Co establish a pressroom committee and fostered the development of
that movement. The failure of the respondent to bargain collectively
or to negotiate toward that end with the committee and the general
supineness of the committee do not mitigate the respondent's culpa-
bility. We interpret these circumstances as a measure of the extent
of the respondent's interference and as manifestations of an under-
lying intention on the part of the respondent to accord to its men
the aspect, but not the substance, of the freedom guaranteed to them
by the Act.
We therefore find that the respondent interfered with the admin-
istration of the pressroom committee and contributed support to
it.
C. Discrimination against union employees
John Hopkins. John Hopkins, an oiler, employed by the respond-
ent for 17 years, joined the Union on June 2, 1937. On August 21, he
was made floorman for a day to aid in the printing of a Sunday edi-
tion. Hopkins had done this type of work only once before. It
required the moving of heavy rolls of paper and the lifting of heavy
spindles, in addition to other tasks. Hopkins' complaint is that he
was not given the usual assistance; that the foreman forebade vol-
unteers to aid him; and that, as a result of this strenuous activity,
he became ill with "stokers' cramps" and was out for a day. After
that day, he went back to his old job and remained at it. He believed
the experience of August 21 was visited upon him for his union
membership.
The record affords insufficient basis upon which to sustain the
charge that Hopkins was discriminated against because of member-
ship in the Union.
Thomas Thamert. Thomas Thamert, an oiler employed by the
respondent for eight years, joined the Union on June 8, 1937. He
believed that Preis, the night foreman, knew of his membership
in the Union because he had, on one occasion, asked Thamert what
dues he had paid in the Union and Thamert had told him the
amount. Thereafter on two occasions, Preis had given Thamert
stumps, short rolls of paper, to work on and had so accelerated the
speed of the presses that Thamert was not ready with additional
rolls at the proper time. One night in July, Preis again gave him
stumps and accelerated the speed of the press by standing at it and
X654 1VATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pushing the button. Thamert testified that, while he was prepared
for Preis this time, it required hard work to keep up with the pace
set by his foreman. He stated that, while the other press was also
working with stumps, it was operating at a normal rate and that
there was no need for running his press "at that dead speed", since
the run was small and there was no time pressure. According to
Thamert's testimony, one of the nonunion men who had observed
this incident said to Thamert concerning Foreman Preis, "He is
just starting to work on you."
While we believe Thamert's membership in the Union may have
been responsible for the treatment of which he complained, we con-
sider that treatment to constitute discrimination of so minor a nature
as not to warrant a finding that the respondent discriminated, within
the meaning of the Act, in regard to Thamert's condition of employ-
ment.
John Travers and Russell Page Irwin. Travers and Irwin, mem-
bers of the Union, claimed that they had not been given seniority
preference because of their union membership. Travers contended
that a man with two days' less seniority than he had been promoted
ahead of him but admitted that he had been promoted subsequently.
-Irwin contended that, although the length of his service with the re-
spondent entitled him to assignment to a regular crew, he still
worked as an extra. In view of the patent pettiness of Travers'
,charge, the silence of the record as to the respondent's seniority
policy, and the failure of the evidence to reveal a casual relation
between the union membership of these men and the treatment of
which they complain, we are unable to find that the respondent dis-
criminated, within the meaning of the Act, in regard to the condition
of employment of Travers or Irwin, with a view to discourage their
-membership in the Union.
Edward Jones. Edward Jones claimed that his union member-
ship caused the respondent to reverse its process, to his discomfort,
from calling him for work to waiting for him to take the initiative.
The evidence reveals no casual relation between Jones' union mem-
'bership and this reversal of procedure.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A and B
-above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
-described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing corn-
imerce and the free flow of commerce. '
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 65a
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the fo]lowing :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore
Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, and the pressroom
committee are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with the formation and adminis-
tration of the pressroom committee and contributing support to it,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the At, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,.
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5,. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National. Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, The A. S. Abell Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its,
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual:
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Printing and Press-
men's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union,
No. 31, or any other labor organization of its employees by threats,.
coercion, intimidation, or advice;
(c) Recognizing the pressroom committee as a bargaining agency
for its employees and in any manner interfering with the formation,
(656 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or administration of, or contributing support to, the pressroom com-
mittee, or any other labor organization of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a)_ Post immediately in conspicuous places in its pressroom notices
to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
,the manner aforesaid;
(b) Maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30) consecutive
days from the date of posting;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the complaint, in so far as it was amended
at the hearing to charge that the respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the, Act be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.