The Evening News Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 996 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Evening News Association, Owner and Publisher of the
Detroit News and Local 10, Detroit Paper & Plate Handlers
Union, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO and Detroit Newspaper Printing
Pressmen 's Union No. 13, International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and
Local 12, Detroit Photo-Engravers' Union, International Photo-
Engravers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Detroit
Stereotypers' Union No. 9, International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Detroit
Mailers Union #4, International Mailers Union and News-
paper Drivers & Handlers' Local Union No. 372, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Ind.
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association and Local 12, Detroit
Photo-Engravers' Union, International Photo-Engravers' Union
of North America, AFL-CIO and Detroit Stereotypers' Union
No. 9, International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO
The Evening News Association, Owner and Publisher of the
Detroit News; Knight Newspapers, Inc., Owner and Publisher
of the Detroit Free Press; Detroit Newspaper Publishers Asso-
ciation and Newspaper Guild of Detroit, American Newspaper
Guild, AFL-CIO
Knight Newspapers, Inc., Owner and Publisher of the Detroit
Free Press and Detroit Mailers Union #4, International
Mailers Union
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association and Local No. 58,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
Knight Newspapers, Inc., Owner and Publisher of the Detroit
Free Press; The Evening News Association, Owner and Pub-
lishers of the Detroit News and Local No. 58, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
7-CA-3683,7-CA-3683(2), 7-CA-3683(3), 7-C-4-3683(11), 7-CA-
3683(5), 7-CA-3683(6), 7-CA-3683(7), 7-CA-3680-(8), 7-CA-
3683 (9), 7-CA-3695 , 7-CA-3695 (2), and 7-CA-3695( 3). Janu-
ary 15, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 6, 1963, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
145 NLRB No. 101.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 997
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re-
spondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices,
and recommended that the allegations of the complaint pertaining
thereto be dismissed. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs were filed by the Respondents and the General Coun-
sel; exceptions only were filed jointly by Local 12, Detroit Photo-
Engravers' Union, International Photo-Engravers' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO ; Detroit Stereotypers' Union No. 9, International
Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO; Newspaper Guild of Detroit, American Newspaper Guild,
AFL-CIO; and, Local No. 58, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL-CIO, four of the Charging Parties herein. Ex-
ceptions with supporting memorandum of authorities were filed by
Newspaper Drivers & Handlers' Local Union No. 372, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Ind., another of the Charging Parties herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent they are consistent
with this Decision.
The essential facts herein are not in dispute and are fully set forth
in the Intermediate Report. Briefly, they show that the Respondents
are the Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association and its two mem-
bers, i.e., The Evening News Association, owner and publisher of The
Detroit News, and Knight Newspapers, Inc., owner and publisher
of The Detroit Free Press 2 The publishers, with the Association as
their agent, have bargained historically in multiemployer units with
the Pressmen, Stereotypers, Mailers, ITU, IBEW, Engineers, Ma-
chinists, Mechanics, and Local 10, Detroit Paper & Plate Handlers
Union, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
i The Respondents and the General Counsel have excepted to certain credibility findings.
As it is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with
respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect, we find insufficient
basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall Prod-
ucts, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 198 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
2 The Respondents are hereafter also called the Association , the News, and the Free
Press, respectively. The News and the Free Press are also collectively called the publishers.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
North America, AFL-CIO, herein called PPH.' The publishers
traditionally have bargained with the Teamsters in individual units.
1. The events in issue occurred in 1962. On February 14, the News
was unable to publish because of a work stoppage by its paper and
plate handlers, represented by PPH; the Free Press thereupon sus-
pended publication of its February 15 edition but did not lock out its
employees. On April 11 through 19, the Teamsters picketed the Free
Press; on April 12, 13, and 14 the News suspended publication, with-
out locking out its employees, and on April 16 through 19 locked out
its employees. Finally, from May 7 through 9 the paper and plate
handlers struck at the News, and on May 8 and 9 the Free Press locked
out its employees.
By way of background, the record reveals that between 1955 and
November 1961, i.e., prior to the above incidents and prior to the
10(b) period,' each of the Respondent publishers consistently sus-
pended publication and/or locked out its employees whenever the
other publisher was confronted with a work stoppage by employees
represented by a labor organization with which the Respondents bar-
gained in a multiemployer unit. However, there was no evidence,
during this period, of similar supportive suspensions or lockouts in
any dispute with a labor organization with which Respondents bar-
gained in single-employer units.
On the basis of the above conduct, as well as evidence in the record
of statements by Respondents' agents and stories published in their
newspapers concerning the suspensions and lockouts, the Trial Ex-
aminer found that the Respondents were parties to an unwritten but
well-known suspension agreement to the effect that if either publisher
suffered a work stoppage, the other would suspend its own publishing
operations. He specifically found that this agreement was not con-
fined to the multiemployer bargaining units in which the Respondents
negotiated but was intended to apply to all unions with which both
publishers bargained, whether in multiemployer or single-employer
units. The Trial Examiner concluded that because of its breadth
(i.e., its coverage of single-employer bargaining units), the suspen-
sion agreement was violative of Section 8(a) (1), and that since the
existence of the pact was made known to the employees, it tended to
a In connection with its notice of intention to open negotiations for its 1961-63 contract,
PPH made timely request for separate bargaining with the News and the Free Press.
The publishers rejected the request, insisting on continuing their joint bargaining. There-
after, PPH bargained jointly with the two publishers and on February 15, 1962, signed a
joint agreement to arbitrate the terms of the new contract. We find that the Trial
Examiner correctly rejected the General Counsel's contention that as a result of the
request for separate bargaining the multiemployer unit ceased to exist.
4 Respondents excepted to the Trial Examiner's admission of evidence predating the
10(b) period. We find that the Trial Examiner properly accepted and considered this as
background evidence to shed light on events occurring within the 10(b) period. Cf.
Southern Electronics Company, Inc., 131 NLRB 1411; Local Lodge No. 1424, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO; et al. v. N.L.R.B., (Bryan Manufacturing
Company), 362 U.S. 411.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 999
inhibit them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. We do not agree
with all of the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions concerning
the nature of the suspension pact.
It is clear that, except for the April lockout by the News while the
Teamsters picketed the Free Press, all the incidents noted by the Trial
Examiner involved lockouts which occurred automatically where one
publisher was picketed by a labor organization with which the Re-
spondents bargained in a multiemployer unit. The April suspension
and lockout by the News, however, was not undertaken in the same
fashion. Rather, it resulted from discussions between representa-
tives of the two publishers on April 9 and 10 concerning their common
problems in connection with their then current negotiations with the
Teamsters.' As set forth in the Intermediate Report's the Respond-
ents found that of the 18 issues remaining unresolved between the
Teamsters and the Free Press, 10 were also of interest to the News in
its negotiations with the Teamsters. Of these 10 issues, the News
considered 3 as being vital in its bargaining and urged the Free Press
to maintain its position on these under all circumstances. The News
agreed that if the Free Press were struck because of its refusal to
concede on any of these three demands, the News would support the
Free Press and would not publish. It was further agreed that this
understanding would not be communicated to the Teamsters, and
there is no evidence that there was any breach, of this aspect of their
agreement.
On the basis of all the facts, we find that the Respondents were
parties to two suspension agreements. One agreement was not in-
tended as an offensive weapon but was for the purpose of protecting
the integrity of the multiemployer bargaining units. It had existed
for many years, and was well known to the employees and their
bargaining representatives. The other, reached in April 1962, was
restricted to the current negotiations with the Teamsters and was not
made public. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find no basis for
concluding that the long-standing agreement was intended to encom-
pass bargaining in single-employer units, particularly since the only
showing of supportive action in a single-employer unit was concededly
preceded by the specific understanding noted above. If the long-
standing agreement had contemplated suspension or lockout action
against employees represented in single-employer bargaining units,
there would have been no purpose in the publishers' discussions of
April 9 and 10 or the resulting agreement relating to 3 out of 18
5 Throughout their separate negotiations , the publishers met with each other to discuss
their common problems and issues with the Teamsters demands
6 See item 14 of the Trial Examiner 's chronology of events.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unresolved issues . «re further find, on this record, that the long-
standing pact was an agreement to take action which has been held
lawful in the Buffalo Linen case, ' and, as found below, there is no
evidence of any acts by the Respondents pursuant thereto within the
10(b) period which would lead to a different conclusion . Accord-
ingly, we find no unfair labor practice in the existence or publication
of the long -standing agreement in the multiemployer units.
However, we have held, for substantially the reasons set forth by the
Trial Examiner herein, that an agreement to engage in supportive
lockout action by employers who do not bargain jointly in a multi-
employer unit contemplates conduct which exceeds the permissible
defensive limits under Buffalo Linen!' Since the Respondents herein
have bargained with the Teamsters in separate units , the News, in
April 1962 , undertook to engage in an unlaww ful act. However, in
order to constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, it must
be established that this conduct tended to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7,° and that could be shown here only if, as the General
Counsel contends , the agreement amounted to a threat to lock out the
employees . This, in turn, depends on whether the employees or their
representatives were informed or knew of the existence of the agree-
ment. As noted above , the record here contains no evidence that
the April 10 agreement was communicated , 10 and the evidence of the
Respondents ' past conduct shows no prior lockouts under similar cir-
cumstances from which employee knowledge could be inferred. Ac-
cordingly , we are unable to conclude that the mere entering into the
agreement , without more, violated the Act.
In view of the above , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding
that the Respondents violated Section 8 ( a) (1.) by virtue of the exist-
ence of their suspension agreements and shall dismiss the complaint
insofar as it alleges such a violation.
2. The Trial Examiner concluded that all of the 1962 suspensions
and lockouts occurred pursuant to the single agreement which he
found to exist , but that only the lockout by the News from April 16
to 19, inclusive , was violative of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
7 N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (Buffalo Linen Supply
Co ), 353 U S. 87. Cf. Publishers' Association of New York City, et al., 139 NLRB 1092,
1096-1097.
8 Buffalo Linen Supply Co., supra; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 145
NLRB 361.
8 Cf. Southern Cotton Oil Crude Mill, Division of Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc, 144
NLRB 959; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 123 NLRB 747, 752-753; Jackson
Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 765, 786
io The Trial Examiner's finding of communication was based solely on the employees'
awareness of the older pact.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1001
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the acts of February 15,"
when the Free Press did not publish, and May 8 and 9, when the
Free Press locked out its employees, did not constitute violations of
the Act. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that no violation
occurred by reason of the suspension of publication by Respondent
News on April 12, 13, and 14, but we so find because we conclude,
on the facts, that there was no lockout of the employees and no
showing that a lockout was threatened. Rather, the evidence indi-
cates that all employees of the News worked and were fully paid,
and, as previously noted, there is no evidence that the employees were
aware that the News had agreed to close down if a strike occurred at
the Free Press.
We further agree, for the reasons given by the Trial Examiner,
that the lockout by the News on April 16 through 19 violated Section
8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondents concededly did not
bargain with the Teamsters in a "joint or multiemployer unit" as
that term has traditionally been employed by the Board and the courts.
The Buffalo Linen doctrine, under certain circumstances, permits a
defensive lockout by a nonstruck employer for the purpose of pre-
serving the integrity of the multiemployer bargaining unit. How-
ever, where as in the instant case, such an established unit does not
exist, Buffalo Linen does not apply.12
Since the News' lockout of its Teamsters unit employees on April
16 to 19, inclusive, has been held to have violated Section 8(a) (1)
and (3), we further find that the incidental layoffs of other employees
during this period also violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.13
Although the lockout was not directed against these other employees,
their loss of employment was proximately and entirely due to the
unlawful lockout of the Teamsters unit employees.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we find that Respondent News
alone engaged in unlawful conduct by virtue of its lockout action.
11 In connection with the suspension of publication by the Free Press on February 15, we
rely only on the fact that it acted to preserve the multiemployer bargaining unit, in
accordance with the Buffalo Linen principle. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's ration-
ale that no violation occurred because there was no loss of employment. While the ques-
tion of actual loss of employment and wages is relevant in our determination of the
appropriate remedy if an unfair labor practice has been found, it is not determinative of
whether or not an unfair labor practice has been committed.
12 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , supra, footnote 8.
Respondents conceded in their brief that their bargaining relationship with the Team-
sters was not joint in the traditional sense of that term. They urged, however, that in
view of the particular circumstances here involved, the Board should apply the principles
of Buffalo Linen to the facts of this case because (1) the two publishers are the sole
publishers of daily newspapers in the Detroit area, competing with each other for readers,
advertisers, and employees, and (2) the bargaining issues created by the Teamsters con-
tract demands at both the News and the Free Press were, to a significant degree, identical.
We find that the Trial Examiner was correct in rejecting this contention.
11 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, supra, footnote 8.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the absence of proof that the Free Press or the Association in any
manner implemented the agreement, or engaged in any unlawful con-
duct pursuant to said agreement, we cannot, on the facts of this case,
charge them with liability for the unlawful conduct of the News.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the preparation, publica-
tion, and distribution by Respondent News of a double masthead
newspaper, entitled The Detroit News-The Detroit Free Press, "A
Temporarily Combined Edition," datelined April 15, did not violate
Section 8 (a) (1). However, we so find because of the absence of proof
of unlawful motive or union animus.14 To find, as the General Coun-
sel would have us do, that the issuance of the double masthead con-
stituted either a threat of lockout or an attempt to provoke a strike
at the News would require that we infer such unlawful motivation
from the events themselves. While this might be appropriate where
the inference is inherent in the conduct itself, that is not the case
here.
4. Having found that Respondent News alone violated Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) by locking out certain of its employees from April 16
to 19, inclusive, we shall order thatRespondent News make whole these
employees for the loss of earnings suffered by them because of the
discrimination against them by paying to each of them a sum of money
equal to the amount he would have earned but for the unlawful lock-
out, less his net earnings (luring the period of such lockout. Backpay
shall include interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. We shall
also modify the Recommended Order by limiting the remedy to the
violations found herein.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Evening
News Association, owner and publisher of The Detroit News, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Newspaper Drivers & Handlers'
Local Union No. 372, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, WTarehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor
organization, by locking out any of its employees in order to support
another employer which is struck by employees represented in a labor
organization with which it does not bargain jointly in a multiemployer
unit.
14 The Trial Examiner found that Respondents presented a valid economic reason for
issuing the double masthead edition, because April 15 was 1 week before Easter . Although
we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that no violation occurred , we do not rely
on the economic reason.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1003
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bar-
gain 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 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 amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole all its employees who were locked out from
April 16 to 19, 1962, inclusive, for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by paying to
each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he would have
earned but for the said loss of employment, less his net earnings dur-
ing the period of such loss. Backpay shall include interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum computed quarterly.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of such notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed entirely as to
Respondents Knight Newspapers, Inc., and Detroit Newspaper Pub-
lishers Association and that it be dismissed insofar as it alleges other
conduct by Respondent Evening News Association to be violative of
the National Labor Relations Act.
15 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 "A Decision and Order" the words "A
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Newspaper Drivers
& Handlers' Local Union No. 372, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Ind., or any other labor organization, by locking out any of
our employees in order to support another employer which is
struck by employees represented in a labor organization with
which we do not bargain jointly in a multiemployer unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist any 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 and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as au-
thorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL make whole all of our employees who were locked out
from April 16 to 19, 1962, inclusive, for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of our suspension of publication on those
days.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit,
Michigan, Telephone No. 963-9330, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon unfair labor practice charges filed by various parties-see section II, The
Unions, infra-against Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association , Knight News-
papers, Inc., and The Evening News Association , the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued an amended consolidated complaint on June 29,
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1005
1962, alleging that Respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act. Respondents' answers admitted some allegations of the complaint,
denied or disclaimed knowledge of others, and, in substance, denied the commission
of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner Harold X. Summers at Detroit Michigan, on September 17, 18, 19, 20, 25,
26 and 27, and October 29, 30, and 31 and November 1 and 2, 1962.1 All parties
were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue
orally, and to submit briefs. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, by one
of the Charging Parties, and (jointly) by the Respondent, which briefs have been
fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my evaluation of the witnesses
based upon the evidence and my observation of their demeanor, I make the
following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYERS
Knight Newspapers, Inc., hereinafter called the Free Press, an Ohio corporation,
and The Evening News Association, hereinafter called the News, a Michigan
corporation, own and publish The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit Neliws,2 respec-
tively 3 During the calendar year 1961, in the course and conduct of their news-
paper operations, the Free Press and the News each were members of, and subscribed
to, various interstate news services, among them the United Press International and
the Associated Press; published various syndicated features; advertised various na-
tionally sold products; caused newsprint, inks, and other goods and materials valued
at in excess of $500,000 to be transported directly from States other than the State
of Michigan to its plant at Detroit, Michigan; published newspapers and caused sub-
stantial numbers of them to be delivered directly to points outside the State of
Michigan; and derived gross revenues from its printing and publishing operations in
excess of $2,000,000.
I find that the Free Press and the News are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
The Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association, hereinafter called the Associa-
tion, is a voluntary unincorporated association whose membership consists of the
Free Press and the News. The Association consults with and advises its mem-
bers on matters of labor relations and other fields of common interest and, on
behalf of its members, negotiates contracts with and assists in the adjustment of
grievances filed by labor organizations who represent employees of its members.
It is a nonprofit organization whose expenditures are shared equally by its members.
I find that the Association is an agent of the Free Press and of the News .4
It. THE UNIONS
The Respondents deal, with respect to certain of their employees, with one or
another of 14 organizations.
Among these are the Charging Parties herein: Local 10, Detroit Paper & Plate
Handlers Union, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called PPH; Detroit Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 13, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Pressmen; Local 12, Detroit Photo-Engravers'
Union, International Photo-Engravers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein
called Photo-Engravers; Detroit Stereotypers' Union No 9, International Stereo-
typers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Stereo-
typers; Detroit Mailers Union #4, International Mailers Union, herein called
Mailers; Newspaper Drivers & Handlers' Local Union No. 372, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein
called Teamsters; Newspaper Guild of Detroit, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO, herein called Guild; and Local No. 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IBEW. The remaining organizations are: Detroit
i The hearing was closed by my telegraphic order of November 6, 1962,'which order is
hereby received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1
2 WS'fien used herein, the names of the newspapers, as opposed to the names of the Re-
spondents, will be italicized.
8 The Free Press also owns and operates an office building with tenants other than itself ;
the News also owns and operates a radio and television station.
i The Free Press, the News, and the Association may variously be referred to herein as
the Respondents
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Typographical Union Local No. 18, International Typographical Union, herein called
ITU; Local No. 547, International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called
Engineers; District Lodge No. 60, International Association of Machinists, herein
called Machinists; Garage Mechanics #698, International Association of Machinists,
herein called Mechanics; Local No. 79, Building Service Employees, herein called
Building Service Employees; and a local (number unknown) of the Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called Carpenters .5
I find that all of the above organizations are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The amended complaint, as further amended at the hearing, alleges, in substance,
that the Free Press and the News and their agent, the Association, on and after
November 2, 1961,6 have been parties to, have maintained, and have given effect
to an agreement, arrangement, understanding, and practice-often referred to by
the parties as a "pact"; for convenience' sake, the term "suspension agreement" will
be used herein-to the effect that, if either the Free Press or the News is faced
with a strike, stoppage of work, picket line, or refusal to cross a picket line, or with
a threat thereof, on the part of any of its employees represented by a labor organiza-
tion, the other newspaper would suspend its operations. Putting it bluntly, the
General Counsel contends that the two newspapers and their agent, the Association,
had agreed between them that any strike-or strike threat-against one newspaper
would be considered a strike or threat against both, and that the newspaper not
directly the target of the strike or strike threat would lock out its employees until
the matter had been settled.
Pursuant to this suspension agreement-the allegations of the complaint and the
arguments of the General Counsel continue-one or another of Respondents locked
out its employees on a number of occasions:
(a) On or about February 15, 1962, the Free Press suspended its publishing
operations while the News was engaged in a labor dispute.
(b) On April 12, 13, and 14, 1962, the News suspended its publishing opera-
tions while the Free Press was engaged in a labor dispute.
(c) From April 16 through 19, 1962, the News suspended its publishing opera-
tions and locked out its employees while the Free Press was engaged in a labor
dispute.
(d) On May 8 and 9, 1962, Free Press suspended its publishing operations and
locked out its employees while the News was engaged in a labor dispute.
Moreover, it is the theory of the General Counsel that, even if the allegation of the
existence of the suspension agreement fails for lack of proof, the incidents (a)
through (d) above would nevertheless constitute unfair labor practices: By the
Free Press in (a) and (d); and by the News in (b) and (c).
Finally, it is the contention of the General Counsel that the News, in the publica-
tion of a "double-masthead" dated April 15, 1962, while the Free Press was engaged
in a labor dispute, sought to provoke a strike among employees at the News.
Respondents, in pleadings and arguments , take a number of positions . Denying
that the suspension agreement existed, they urge, alternatively, that, even if there
were such a pact, it would not be unlawful in the absence of implementation; in
short, the mere existence of an agreement by each newspaper to close down in
the event of economic pressure exerted on the other by a union would not con-
stitute a per se violation of the Act . As for the instances of alleged shutdowns
and lockouts, they contend that their actions in these respects were justified (1) as
lawful defensive actions to protect the integrity of a multiemployer unit, (2) as
lawful defensive actions in the face of an imminent strike, (3) as dictated by
economic necessity, and (4) as provoked by harassing union tactics. In this con-
nection , they argue that, with exceptions not relevant hereto , bargaining with the
affected unions was multiemployer and joint; specifically-in opposition to the posi-
tion taken by the General Counsel-that bargaining with the Teamsters and with
PPH was joint rather than individual.
With respect to the double-masthead, the News, in effect, denies that the publi-
cation thereof was designed to provoke any action by a union.
'The following of the organizations named were represented at this hearing* Photo-
Engravers. Stereotvpers, Mailers, Teamsters, Guild, and IBEW The rest were not.
The parties are in agreement that the "10(b)" period with respect to this allegation
shall be computed from May 2, 1962, the date of service of a number of the instant charges.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC . 1007
B. The setting
The Free Press is a so-called morning newspaper whose first weekday edition is
on the streets at or about 7 p.m. on the evening before and whose last edition is
distributed at or about 2 a.m. of the date appearing in the masthead. The News
is an afternoon newspaper, its weekday editions being distributed between late
morning and 4 p.m. Both newspapers have Sunday editions, which are available
on Saturday night and Sunday morning.
The circulation of the Free Press approximates 550,000 weekdays and 600,000
Sundays; that of the News, 725,000 and 915,000 respectively. The Free Press em-
ploys upward of 1,400 employees and the News employs just over 2,500.
As is customary in the newspaper publishing business, the employees of both
newspapers, generally speaking, are organized on a craft basis. The two newspapers
deal with the 14 unions listed in section II, The Unions, supra, with whom they
normally have a total of 21 collective-bargaining contracts.
To lend understanding to this matter, it appears in order to set down here a
sketchy summary of the publication process of the two newspapers here involved.
Employees of the advertising department procure advertisements, reporters obtain
and write news, and editorial department employees prepare editorials and other
features. Pictures at the News are processed into plates by its photoengravers;
the Free Press uses commercial shops for this purpose. The work product goes
to the composing room, where it is set up into forms by typographers. The stereo-
typers convert the forms, successively, into matrices and into plates curved to fit
the presses. The paper and plate handlers transport the plates to the presses for
the pressmen to affix. (They also transport the newsprint to presses and install it.)
The pressmen operate the presses which print and fold the newspaper. Mailers
then assemble the papers and transport them to truck tailgates Platform men,
drivers, and helpers load the trucks, and drivers deliver the contents to "drop
stations," discussed elsewhere herein.
With respect to all times relevent hereto, the pleadings, stipulations, concessions,
and testimony establish, and I find, that: (1) both newspapers dealt jointly, for
single appropriate bargaining units of employees employed by both papers and
in single contracts signed by both publishers, with the Pressmen, Stereotypers,
Mailers, and ITU; (2) both newspapers dealt jointly, for single appropriate units
of employees employed by both papers but in separate contracts differing only in de-
tails, signed by each publisher, with IBEW, Engineers, Machinists, and Mechanics; 7
(3) the Free Press dealt separately with the Guild for its editorial, advertising,
business office, inside circulation, and miscellaneous department employees, with
the building service employees for its maintenance employees,8 and with the Car-
penters for its carpenters; and (4) the News dealt separately with the Photo-
Engravers for its photoengravers and with the Guild for its janitors, watchmen,
and maids.
Respondents contend that both publishers dealt jointly with the Teamsters and
with PPH; the General Counsel contends that they did not. The facts, discussion,
and conclusions in these respects will be found infra.
7 The foregoing eight unions were alleged in the complaint to be bargaining jointly with
the publishers, and Respondents' answers admitted the fact At a late stage in the hear-
ing, apparently because he felt that certain testimony elicited with respect to the bargain-
ing history of IBEW, Engineers, Machinists, and Mechanics might by analogy, prejudice
his contention of individual bargaining by Teamsters-see infra-counsel for the General
Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege individual bargaining by IBEW, En-
gineers , Machinists, and Mechanics. The motion to amend was denied That ruling is
here reaffirmed ; to have ruled otherwise, on the eighth day of hearing, might, in my
opinion, have resulted in prejudice to Respondents in their preparation for this hearing and
in their cross-examination of prior witnesses. At any rate, the General Counsel is not
prejudiced by this ruling since-as will be seen-I do not rely in my ultimate conclusion
as to the bargaining relationship between the Teamsters and the publishers, upon any
similarities to or differences from the relationships between these four unions and the
publishers
I note that, in his brief, counsel for the General Counsel retreats to his original posi-
tion-that IBEW, Engineers, Machinists, and Mechanics each bargain on a multiemployer
basis.
'There were two bargaining units among the two collective-bargaining agreements
covering maintenance employees at the Free Press one for the janitors, the other for
elevator operators and watchmen.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Chronology of events s
1. In July 1953,10 the pressmen at the Free Press demanded premium pay for
work on Independence Day. In support of their demand, they refused to work.
The Free Press business manager , having ascertained that the News and the Times
(a division of Hearst Publishing, at that time the city's third major newspaper and
a member of the Association) planned to publish their respective newspapers that
day, issued orders that the demand of the pressmen be acceded to under protest.
Publication of the Free Press was delayed 51/2 hours; there was no interruption of
publication of the other two newspapers.
2. In December 1955 and January 1956, publication of the Free Press, the News
and the Times was suspended for 46 days. The stoppage began as the result of a
strike by the Stereotypers in support of contract demands and a picket line around
all three newspapers. Subsequently, other unions representing employees of one
or more of the three newspapers decided that completion of their pending contract
negotiations would be the price of their return to work. Eight contracts were
negotiated to end the strike, and publication was resumed on January 17, 1956.
3. At or about 3 a.m. on August 17, 1957, 67 mailers employed by the News
refused to work overtime. That evening when they reported for work they were
discharged, and a picket line was installed at the News. The picket line was honored
by the Teamsters, and the News suspended publication.
That evening, bearing the dateline Sunday, August 18, the Free Press and the
Times each printed and caused to be distributed a so-called double-masthead,
respectively the Free Press and News and the Times and News. After the distribu-
tion of these editions, the Free Press and the Times suspended publication of their
newspapers. A notice posted by the Free Press informed its employees that their
services would not be required until further notice.
After approximately 1 week, a settlement was reached: 61 mailers to be reinstated
and the cases of the rest to be further negotiated. The picket line at the News was
discontinued and publication of all three newspapers was resumed."
4. During the morning of Wednesday, September 3, 1958, Joseph Eckhout, the
Pressmen's chapel chairman at the Free Press, was discharged for countermanding
a foreman's order. The Free Press pressmen reported for work that evening but
instead of going to their workplaces went into meeting. This halted publication
of the Free Press. It was the position of the publishers that the pressmen's action
violated the joint contract with the three newspapers, and, for this reason, publica-
tion of the News and the Times was suspended Thursday morning.
After a union meeting held on Friday night, the International Pressmen's presi-
dent announced that all pressmen would return to work on the following day.
Although this came too late for publication on Saturday, all three newspapers put
out Sunday editions.
5. On Labor Day, 1959, 12 of 76 pressmen at the News walked out in a dispute
over lunch periods that day. Others joined in the walkout the next day, the effect
of which was to stop publication of the News. The Free Press and the Times
suspended publication. The suspension of publication of all three newspapers ended
a few days later when the Pressmen's International ordered the News pressmen to
return to work.
6. On November 7, 1960, the Times went out of existence.
7. For 4 or 5 days beginning August 19, 1961, a number of persons, in support
of economic pressure being exerted by a local union of the Pressmen International
(not involved here) upon a Miami newspaper, picketed the Free Press. The
picket line was honored by the Pressmen, and the Free Press did not publish during
this period.
9 My findings of what occurred-or did not occur-as recited in this section will not
be repeated elsewhere in this report. References to items in this section will take the
form of the abbreviation "chron." followed by the item number or numbers being alluded to
10I here reaffirm a ruling made at the hearing over Respondents' objection-that evi-
dence of events occurring prior to November 2, 1961, the "10(b) date" herein, was properly
admissible. I shall consider such evidence for whatever light it may throw on occurrences
within the 6 months preceding the filing of charges.
11 Although the matter was not gone into in detail at this hearing, this incident bore
overtones of an intraunion dispute. At that time Detroit Mailers Union No 40, Inter-
national Typographical Union-not to be confused with the ITU (Local No 18) which
represents the newspapers' typographers-represented the mailers of all three newspapers
The pickets, apparently, were defectors from Local 40, ITU, and a National Labor Rela-
tions Board representation proceeding was pending Subsequently, the Mailers, succeeded
Local 40, ITU, as bargaining agent for the mailers employed by the newspapers.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1009
During the same period, the News, which was not being picketed, maintained its
normal operations and put out its newspaper.
8. For a number of years, the Free Press and the News-and the Times, when
it was in existence-had bargained jointly with the PPH. On or about September 25,
1961, in connection with its notice of intention to open negotiations for a new
contract following the expiration, on November 30, 1961, of its then existing contract,
PPH asked for separate bargaining with the Free Press and the News. On or
about October 31, 1961, the publishers, through the Association, rejected the re-
quest; they insisted on a continuation of joint bargaining.12 Thereafter, PPH did
bargain jointly with the publishers. In January 1962, PPH notified the publishers
that its membership had authorized strike action. However, by February 14, 1962,
negotiations for a new contract between PPH and the publishers had not been
completed.
9. Between February 7 and 12, 1962, 13 inclusive , a number of short work-
interruptions took place among the paper and plate handlers of both publishers:
There were two such interruptions on February 7 at the News, two more on Feb-
ruary 9 at the News, and one each on February 12 at the News and at the Free
Press. While delays may have occurred, none of these interruptions brought about
a failure to publish.
I find that the cause of the interruptions (which took the form of chapel
"meetings") was the concern among the paper and plate handlers over the status
of contract negotiations.
On February 12, at or about 1 p.m.-before that day's interruption at the Free
Press took place-Robert Butz, executive secretary of the Association, called to-
gether representatives of the various unions with which the publishers dealt. Mem-
bers of management of both the Free Press and the News were present. Butz
read to those assembled a telegram he had that day sent to the president of the
PPH International:
Paper and Plate Handlers Local No. 10 have created a number of work stop-
pages at the Detroit News since last Wednesday, February 7. This harassing
procedure continues today. But it cannot and will not, be further tolerated.
The Publishers intend to either operate these newspapers on a normal schedule
to meet production needs or they will not be operated at all. A definite com-
mitment as to whether the membership of Local No. 10 will, or will not, work
is necessary today. The Publishers continue to be ready and willing to negotiate
with respect to the expired contract with Local No. 10 at any time convenient
to both parties. We request that you use your offices in bringing this matter
to a satisfactory and immediate conclusion.
DETROIT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION,
ROBERT C. BUTz.
Although requested, he declined to give those present copies of the telegram, but
he reread it slowly so that they could take it down.14
Later that day, the president of PPH International sent a telegram to the PPH
(local) president informing him that, if the charges in Butz' telegram were true,
PPH members must refrain from engaging in such interruptions.
10. Both newspapers published on February 13.
11. During the morning of February 14, the paper and plate handlers at the
News, members of the PPH chapel there, stopped work to have a meeting. Al-
legedly, the subjects under discussion were seniority rights, safety conditions, and
12 It was on the basis of this request and rejection that-as noted in section III, A, The
Issees, supra-the General Counsel alleged that bargaining between the publishers and
PPH since on or about October 2, 1961, was individual rather than joint.
11 Unless otherwise indicated , all incidents described hereinafter in this section occurred
in 1962.
14 There was testimony by Guild President Schram and Teamsters President O'Connor
that, in addition, Butz said, in effect, that if there was a repetition of the interruptions,
both papers would shut down. Butz denied that there was any discussion other than that
found above Schram's and O'Connor's testimony on this point was vague. I believe that
they misinterpreted the "warning" contained in the telegram, which although it com-
plained of employee action at one newspaper, did speak of the production needs of both
papers.
734-070-64-vol. 145-65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the "repicking" of jobs-i.e., the right to bid for vacancies.15 During the course of
the meeting, the men were directed by management to go back to their work, but
they declined to do so until their meeting was over; shortly thereafter, they were
told that their services were no longer needed and that they should vacate the
premises. They left.
The News was not published that day. At the Free Press that evening, no em-
ployees were sent home or lost pay, but the Free Press under dateline of February 15
was not published.
12. Meanwhile, a negotiating meeting between the publishers and PPH had been
scheduled for 10 a.m. on February 14.16 Because of the interruption that morning
at the News-see chron. 11-Butz had communicated with PPH International, repre-
sentatives and had rescheduled the meeting to 3 p.m. The parties-representatives
of the publishers, International representatives of PPH, and the (local) PPH com-
mittee-met at that time. The meeting was recessed at 5 a.m. on February 15
and was resumed at 9 a.m. The result was an agreement to arbitrate the terms of
a new contract.
13. That morning-February 15-the News' paper and plate handlers reported
for work; after a short delay because no sign -in sheets were available, they went
to work. The News was published that day. So was the Free Press-bearing the
dateline February 16.-
14. The latest contracts between the Teamsters and the Free Press and the News,
respectively, had expired on November 15, 1961. (Notices of a desire to revise the
contracts were timely given.) Both the Free Press and the News, on or about
November 13, had requested an indefinite extension of each contract subject to
termination by either party on 5 days' notice, but the Teamsters had rejected these
requests; thereafter, the terms of the respective contracts were continued on a
day-to-day basis. Negotiations between the Teamsters and the Free Press and the
News, respectively, had been carried on 17 without success. At some point early
in the negotiations, the negotiating committee was given strike authority, a fact which
was communicated to the publishers.18
On April 6, the "latest" revised proposal of the Teamsters with respect to a new
Free Press contract was presented to the Free Press. with the statement that a mem-
bership meeting was being held on April 11 at which the stewards and executive
board of the Teamsters would recommend strike action as of 4 p m. on that date
if a satisfactory offer had not been received from the Free Press. They (the Team-
is I find that "repicking" was also an unsettled issue at the Free Press Indeed , viewed
in context-this being one of a series of on -the-job chapel meetings at the News and at
the Free Press ; my finding ( in chron . 9) that the paper and plate handlers of both news-
papers were concerned with the status of current contract negotiations : and the fact
that at this very time contract negotiations were being carried on-I find that the real
cause of the February 14 shutdown by the paper and plate handlers of the News was their
dissatisfaction with or their efforts to influence the contract negotiations.
IB A continuation of a meeting held on February 13.
17 The record contains the dates of negotiating sessions . No meetings were held on the
News contract between January 11 and March 22 ; although meetings between these dates
were requested by the News , the Teamsters did not honor the requests ( 1) because they
were "too busy ," ( 2) because they were "making progress " on the Free Press negotiations,
( 3) because of reasons not appearing in this record , or (4) because of some combination
of these reasons Meanwhile , six sessions had been held on the Free Press contract
11 I so find on the basis of the credited testimony considered in context On December 4.
1961 , the News "unit"-'this term will be explained in section III, D, 3, Teamsters bar-
gaining-joint or individual" infra-of the Teamsters voted to authorize any action neces-
sary in support of an acceptable contract with the News ; although Joseph Prebenda,
Teamsters ' secretary -treasurer , did not know if this information had been transmitted to
the News , he assumed they were aware of it-newspaper reporters were present when the
action was taken Butz , without contradiction testified that he was advised by a Team-
sters representative , in December 1961 , of an overwhelming strike vote concerning the
News ( testimony corroborated by James Dorris, the News ' associate business manager in
charge of labor relations), and, prior to March 22 , 1962 , of a similar vote being taken
among the Free Press employees
The General Counsel urged that the basis for the resolution of the News unit authorizing
strike action was tied to a particular grievance ( bidding for jobs ) rather than to the
negotiations for a new contract . The supporting testimony was vague to say the least :
at any rate, this reason for the strike authorization was not conveyed to the News I find
that the News reasonably understood that the News unit's strike authorization was re-
lated to the negotiations for a new contract.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1011
sters) were asked to reconsider their demands and to formulate what they con-
sidered those requirements the failure to grant which would call for a strike. The
Teamsters gave the matter further thought and, later that day or during the next
day, transmitted a slightly revised set of proposals.
On April 9 and 10, representatives of the Free Press met with those of the News
to discuss what they considered to be their common problems vis-a-vis the Team-
sters. They concluded, looking at the "18 issues remaining" between the Free Press
and the Teamsters, that 10 were "joint"-i.e., of interest to the News in its negotia-
tions as well. Of these 10, the News representatives urged the Free Press not to
"give in" under any circumstances on 3: The Teamsters' demand for union consent
in advance of any changes in the operations of the circulation department, the
definition of the workday or workweek, and a demand for what the publishers con-
sidered to be a greater wage increase than had been granted to other unions in this
round of contracts. The News agreed that, if the Free Press was struck because
of its refusal to give in on any of these demands "the News would support the Free
Press and would not publish"-a position which, it was further agreed, would not
be communicated to the Teamsters.
On April 10, representatives of the Free Press and of the Teamsters met. Some
concessions were made by both sides, but full agreement was not reached.
At midday on April 11, the Free Press gave the Teamsters its "latest best" offer.
15. That afternoon-April 11-there was a meeting of the members of the Free
Press unit of the Teamsters. The negotiating committee presented the Free Press'
latest offer to them. They rejected the offer, and at 4:20 p.m. on that day, they
set up a picket line at the Free Press, which line was maintained until April 19.
Because of this picket line, publication of the Free Press was suspended from April 11
through 19.
16. The last meeting between the Teamsters and the News had taken place on
March 22. At that time, it was arranged that the Teamsters would submit revised
proposals for their new contract. On April 12, a set of revised proposals, dated
April 9, were received by the News-after the picket line at the Free Press had
been installed
17. As indicated, a picket line had been set up at the Free Press. There was no
picket line at the News. Nevertheless, the News put out no paper for April 12, 13,
or 14. During this period, its employees reported for work and none of them
lost any pay.
18. Pursuant to a joint decision of the publishers made 2 days earlier, the News,
on Saturday, April 14, under the dateline of Sunday, April 15, prepared a double-
masthead newspaper called The Detroit News- The Detroit Free Press, "A Tem-
porarily Combined Edition." (One or more of the involved unions had been notified
in advance of the News' intention to publish such a newspaper and after con-
sulation had agreed to perform the work necessary for its preparation.) A some-
what larger number of papers was printed than was normally printed by the News;
a somewhat larger-than-normal complement of employees was used, 19 and a some-
what greater-than-normal amount of overtime was performed. News drivers were
instructed to pick up certain inserts from the Free Press plant despite the fact that
their union, the Teamsters, was maintaining a picket line at that location; and, hav-
ing cleared in advance with officials of that union, they did make the requested pick-
ups. The combined edition, when distributed, contained features regularly appear-
ing in the Free Press, including comics and supplements picked up at the Free Press
plant, and advertisements by Free Press advertisers Distribution was made by
News drivers, to Free Press as well as to News drop stations.
The cost of producing the combined edition was undertaken by the News, except
for those parts which had been picked up from the Free Press plant There was
no charge to advertisers for those advertisements which would have appeared in the
Free Press only; Free Press subscriptions were extended in cases where Free Press
subscribers received no copy; and the only income received by the Free Press was
from those Free Press subscribers who received and paid for copies
The total cost of publishing the double-masthead-as contrasted with normal
publication of each paper separately-is probably incapable of computation.
19. After the issuance of the double-masthead of April 15, the News notified vari-
ous of its employees that they need not report for work until further notice The
notification was made by telephone calls or telegrams to union representatives. an-
nouncements over television and radio, and notices posted at the News building
The doors were not physically locked. but any employee (not scheduled to work)
was accompanied by a guard if he wanted to go to his workplace to pick up tools
11 The extra employees were persons usually employed by the Free Press or by other
employers in the city.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 16 and 17, the News did not publish. Instead, on one or both of those
days, 50 pressmen and a number of paper and plate handlers were brought in to
`'clean up" the presses, a procedure made necessary when it is anticipated that the
presses will not roll for a period of time, and a number of paper and plate handlers
unloaded newsprint from standing boxcars.
20. Meanwhile, shortly after the Teamsters' picket line was established at the
Free Press on April 11, contact between the parties to resolve the issues was estab-
lished. On the afternoon of April 12, the Teamsters and the Free Press met with
Federal and State mediators, but no agreement was reached.
On April 13, James Hoffa, Teamsters' International president, made a telephone
call to Robert Butz, association executive secretary; as a result, a meeting of the
Teamsters and the Free Press was arranged for 3 o'clock. The meeting,20 a 4-hour
session, achieved no concrete results.
On April 14, the Teamsters, including Hoffa, met with the Free Press in the
morning and with the News in the afternoon. The pending issues were not settled
at these meetings. (At the meeting with the News, Hoffa protested against the
double-masthead about to be produced and asked if the News intended to put out
any more; he was told that the News had no plans for double-mastheads beyond
the one then in preparation for distribution that night. At the same meeting, the
Teamsters said they would present the News' latest proposals to the membership.)
Pursuant to an exchange of communications by telegram and telephone, a meeting
was arranged to be held on Wednesday, April 18, at 10 a.m. at the offices of Detroit
Police Commissioner Edwards. Present at that meeting, in addition to Commis-
sioner Edwards, were Federal and State mediators, Butz, representatives of both
publishers, and representatives of the Teamsters This "mediation-negotiation"
took place with the publishers in one room, the Teamsters in another, and Edwards
traveling back and forth. The session lasted 33 hours-until 7 p m. on the 19th.
The results' Full agreement was reached on the Free Press contract 21 and the picket
line was to be removed; agreement was reached on some issues in the News' con-
tract, other issues were to be further discussed, and all issues not resolved by the
further discussion were to be arbitrated 22
21. Shortly after 7 p m. on April 19, the Teamsters' picketing of the Free Press
ended. Meanwhile-except for the double masthead of April 15-neither the Free
Precs nor the News had been published since the afternoon of April 11.
22. As soon as agreement was reached, both newspapers announced plans for a
resumption of operations, but the tvpographers represented by the ITU refused to
return to work. On Friday, April 20, in alleged protest against the lockout by the
News,23 they voted to strike against and began picketing both newspapers. This
interrupted plans to resume operations.
23. At or about the same time-April 20-PPH, upon receipt of advice that the
issues between the Teamsters and the Free Press had been resolved. held a member-
ship meeting. There was a discussion as to whether members of PPH would return
to work until they had been compensated by the News for the alleged lockout just
ended and until all "differences" between them and the Free Press had been adjusted.
As earlier indicated. however the ITU had set up a picket line about both news-
papers, and these actions of PPH had no immediate impact.
20I credit Butz' testimony that Hotta said, in this telephone call , "the News bad better
be present or on a standby basis at the meeting because the issues at the News would have
to be settled or they'd be on strike also." (Hoffa did not testify ) As a result of the
remark, representatives of the News "stood by" during the meeting between the Free Press
and the News ; however , they did not attend or participate in the discussions.
21 The agreement was approved by the Teamsters' Free Press unit on April 20. It was
subsequently reduced to writing, in May, but the last signature-that of Joseph Prebenda,
Teamsters' secretary-treasurer-had not yet been affixed as of September 20, the fourth
day of this hearing. Despite the fact that-in their brief-Respondents seem to question
that a Teamsters-Free Press 1961-63 contract was consummated on April 19, there appears
to be no issue as of this time that a de facto contract between the Teamsters and the
Free Press has indeed been reached.
rd Three meetings were held between the Teamsters and the News in May to narrow the
issues further. As of October 30, the ninth day of this hearing, the arbitration proceed-
ing was scheduled to be held on November 15-17.
23 There is dispute as to whether this was the true reason for their action. ITU's last
contract with the newspaper had expired, by its terms, on November 30, 1961, and the
terms of a new contract had not been reached. The publishers contend that the ITU
action (1) was motivated by the state of the contract rather than by the alleged lockout
and (2 ) was one of a series of "whipsawing" tactics by the involved unions.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1013
24. On or about April 27, the publishers offered, in addition to concessions
made during prior negotiations , certain production changes asked by the ITU. On
Sunday, May 6, the ITU accepted the publishers' offer and its picket lines were
removed.
25. Meanwhile, on or about April 30, representatives of the publishers and of
PPH had met. The publishers had rejected PPH's claim for compensation by the
News for the alleged lockout of April 16-19. During the evening of May 6, the
ITU's picket lines having been removed, a representative of the Free Press asked
Bart Piscitello, PPH president, if his people would report for work on the follow-
ing morning if called. Piscitello replied that he did not know-that the member-
ship had voted (on April 20) not to return to work until another membership meet-
ing had been held and that a meeting was scheduled for the next afternoon, May 7.
As a matter of fact, individual paper and plate handlers were asked by the Free
Press to report for work on May 7; when they made inquiry of Piscitello, they were
told not to report, and they did not.
26. During the early hours of May 7, individual members of PPH began picketing
the News, their signs protesting a lockout in violation of agreement 24 There was
a membership meeting commencing about noon on May 7, at which the member-
ship decided to sanction and to continue the picketing at the News as a protest to
its lockout. After the meeting, Piscitello publicly announced the willingness of
members of PPH to report for work at the Free Press; moreover, in response to a
specific inquiry by the Free Press PPH chapel chairman, the Free Press paper and
plate handlers' foreman said that, with respect to May 8, he had no orders for a
"markup," i.e., a scheduling of work.
27. As indicated, the Free Press, during the evening of May 6, had asked certain
paper and plate handlers to report for work next morning; it also requested certain
pressmen to report.25 None of the paper and plate handlers reported, except that
at least one went to the Free Press building and, allegedly, found the garage locked.
The pressmen who reported allegedly found their normal work entrances locked.
Much was made at the hearing of whether there was a literal lockout on the
morning of May 6. Witnesses for the General Counsel and for the Free Press testi-
fied, respectively, that the work entrances were locked and were not locked. A
resolution of the issue does not require crediting the witnesses for one side and dis-
crediting those for the other26 I can and do credit them all; I find that, at or about
7 or 7.30 a in., the doors were unlocked but that, at or about 9 a.m., reporting time,
they were not.
I gain nothing, however, by this determination. While I would normally charge
the owner of the doors with their condition (locked-ness) as of the time employees
were supposed to report, I cannot do so here with impunity. First, the Free Press
had, in fact, called employees in; second , steps were taken at an early hour to see
that the doors were open to receive the employees.27 That an "outsider" thereafter
locked the doors is an explanation as compatible with reality as that they were locked
by the Free Press.
Fortunately, an answer to the question, "Who locked the doors?" is unnecessary
to the disposition of this matter, for the General Counsel does not charge the Free
Press with unlawful lockout action on May 7.
28 On May 8 and 9, because of PPH's picket line there, the News did not
publish.
There was no picket line at the Free Press, but no Free Press was published on
those days There is a dispute as to whether (1) the Free Press, unpublished since
April 11. failed to resume operations of its own volition, or (2) its employees were
withholding their services. Factually-and I here reserve any legal conclusions-
the resolution of this question largely depends upon whether there was a desire by
24 The agreement referred to was an agreement to arbitrate collective-bargaining issues
dated February 15, 1962, which agreement, among other things, forbade any interruption
of work pending the arbitration. See chrmi. 12
'$ In order to resume publication after a period of idleness, only a number of "prepara-
tion" men-paper and plate handlers and pressmen-were necessary at the first stage.
Only these were notified to report
2 All witnesses on the issue appeared to be credible
" The General Counsel broadly insinuates that, although the Free Press may have been
acting in good faith when it issued recall orders during the evening of May 6, it changed
its mind when a picket line appeared at the News during the early hours of May 7 and,
pursuant to the alleged pact, decided to refrain from resuming operations.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Free Press , communicated or otherwise , that its employees report for work on
these days , and upon whether its employees were willing to report for work.28
I find that , at least during the evening of Sunday , May 6, the Free Press fully
expected to publish on May 7 and had taken the preliminary steps to procure
work personnel . I have found it unnecessary-see chron . 27-to determine, for
purposes of this case , why the employees called did not report for work on the
morning of the 7th.
At a meeting between the Pressmen and the publishers held on the morning of
May 7, the question of the alleged failure of pressmen to report at the Free Press
that morning came up; I find-and this is an amalgam of the credited testimony of
the witnesses-that the publishers were notified that the Free Press ' pressmen were
ready and willing to report for work. At midday on May 7, just before or during
a meeting of the pressmen , Foreman Crebassa of the Free Press informed Carroll,
a pressman executive board member , that the order for pressmen that morning
had been canceled ; 29 further , the Pressmen, that afternoon , informed the Free Press
of the method by which its members should be recalled . 30 Also , as I have already
found ( see chron . 26), PPH , the only other union whose members had failed to
report on May 7, publicly announced the willingness of its members to work at
the Free Press; indeed , its Free Press chapel chairman had been told by his foreman
that no paper and plate handlers were scheduled to work on May 8. Nor, as far
as this record reveals, were any mailers , for example , called to work on either
May 6, 7, or 8.31
Accordingly , I find that the failure to publish the Free Press on May 8 and 9
was not due to the unwillingness or failure of employees to report for work.32
29. On Wednesday night , May 9, the membership of the PPH held a meeting
At this meeting , PPH ordered the members to return to work; thereafter , they voted
to end the strike against the News, withdraw the picket line, and return to work.
That night or during the morning hours of May 10, employees of both newspapers
were called back to work and both resumed publication on May 10.
30. On May 10, 1962, representatives of the Guild met with members of the
Free Press management . The subject of discussion was a telegram sent 2 days
earlier from the Guild to the Association , which telegram protested the layoff of
employees by the Free Press where "no labor dispute exists." In the course of the
discussion, Mr. Weidler , business manager of the Free Press, said , "Don [Donald
Schram , president of the Guild], you know very well the Free Press could not
resume publication until the dispute with the plate and paper handlers had been
resolved and they are ready to come back to work at both papers." 33
31. On September 25, 1962 , the 5th day of hearing herein, there was a stoppage
of work at the News; the News, dated September 26, was not published . Apparently,
there was no interruption of work or failure to publish at the Free Press. In view
of the absence of surrounding details in this record , I have not relied upon this
incident in arriving at any of the conclusions or recommendations contained in
this report.
28 On May 6 , 7, and 8 , the Free Press prepared a "dummy" newspapers , i e , an edition
written and composed but not printed This is normally prepared when there is a
possibility of publication on the day in question.
29This is based upon the credited testimony of the witness Carroll Weidler business
manager of the Free Press , stated that there never was a rescission of the call to work,
but Crebassa did not testify.
31 There was a contention that the offer was a conditional one, i e , required the Free
Press, contrary to its normal custom , to call for pressmen through the union rather than
directly . Since , during a prolonged period of not working for their regular employer-they
had done no work for the Free Press for almost a month--pressmen in Detroit often
accept work engagements at other shops and since, in the event of a startup at the Free
Press , the Pressmen would be obligated to "cox er" for such pressmen by furnishing sub-
stitutes , I do not regard the requirement to recall through the union as indicating a de-
sire on the part of the pressmen not to honor any Free Press call for employees . Signifi-
cantly , when operations eventually resumed , the Free Press did call for pressmen
through the union.
ii The record shows that , although the Free Press was not published during this period,
certain other employees , including composing room employees ( represented by ITU), were
on the payroll
a Counsel for the Free Press does not contend that there was a stirke ; he contends
merely that the Free Press did not publish on May 8 and 9 because key personnel would
not report for work.
13 Credited testimony of Donald Schram
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1015
D. Discussion and conclusions
1. Independent interference , restraint , or coercion
The complaint contained no allegations of, nor did any party at the hearing
present evidence of, any interference , restraint , or coercion of employees ' Section 7
rights independent of that which might be inferred from the alleged suspension
agreement, the alleged lockouts of February, April, and May, 1962, and the publi-
cation of the double-masthead of April 15, 1962.
2. The suspension agreement
The complaint alleges that, since November 2, 1961, the Free Press, the News,
and the Association have performed, maintained, and given effect to an agreement,
arrangement, understanding, and practice, relating to the hire, tenure, or other con-
ditions of employment of its employees , providing , inter alia, that either the Free
Press or the News will suspend its newspaper publishing operations in the event
that employees of the other publisher who are represented by a labor organization
concertedly threaten to engage in or engage in a strike or work stoppage , or con-
certedly threaten to honor a picket line established by any labor organization of
such publisher , or in any other manner concertedly threaten to engage in or engage
in a failure or refusal to perform services. Stripped of legal niceties -as made clear
by counsel for the General Counsel during the hearing-it is contended that the
three Respondents were and are parties to a longstanding agreement that , if any of
the publishers (including the Times, when it was in existence) should be hit by a
strike or strike threat of any union, or other publisher(s) would, in support of the
"target" publisher , suspend his ( their ) publishing operations in order to exert pressure
on the moving union.
Complicated as was the sequence of occurrences described in section III, C,
Chronology of events, supra, such controversy as there was in that area concerned
itself with more or less routine details . But on this issue-the existence of a sus-
pension agreement-the parties had no common meeting ground . Counsel for the
General Counsel vehemently argued that the existence of the pact was a matter
of "public notice" among Detroiters and that, indeed-and this is my paraphrase-
one of the difficulties , if any, of proof, arose out of the fact that the pact's existence
was so well known that some difficulty is encountered in distinguishing between
primary sources of information and common repute. The Respondents, on the
other hand , deny that a suspension agreement exists; in effect, they say it is a figment
of someone 's imagination.
The evidence in support of, or in opposition to, the contention of the General
Counsel took a number of forms.
Pertinent quotations appearing in the Free Press and the News over a period of
years were introduced.
In the News of August 24, 1957 , at the conclusion of the suspension of publica-
tion arising out of the News mailers' refusal to work overtime ( see chron . 3), there
was a story covering the incident . The article noted that , after publishing double-
mastheads on August 18, the Free Press and the Times had suspended publica-
tion "explaining that a strike against one newspaper is a strike against all three."
Next morning, a news item on the same subject appearing in the Free Press attributed
an announcement to the Association as of the previous Sunday, August 18: "An
illegal shutdown against the Detroit News is forcing a shutdown of all three
papers. . . The [Association ] makes contracts for the Detroit Free Press, News,
and Times jointly. Under these joint contracts , a strike against one newspaper is a
strike against all. . . A group of News mailing room employees who have no
contract with any of the three papers threw a picket line around the News Satur-
day. . When the illegal strike continued Sunday, the [Association] had no
choice but to suspend publication of all three daily papers." 34 On the same day,
in a followup story, the News, in part , said . "The [Association ] which negotiates
and signs contracts with all the newspaper unions, explained that the walkout against
one paper was a walkout against all."
14 The Association , at the hearing , denied having made this announcement . Pursuant to
a subpena , the Association produced , from its files , an undated , unsigned "statement"
which, the General Counsel argued, was the statement being quoted from. Butz, execu-
tive secretary of the Association, remembered having issued no such statement-indeed,
denied that the alleged statement was an accurate statement of the facts Since the
document in question , otherwise unexplained , came from the Association ' s files and since
its language remarkedly accords with that quoted by the Free Press, I find that it was
in fact a statement of the Association.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 7, 1958, when Detroit's newspapers resumed publication after the
3-day interruption occasioned by the discharge of a Free Press Pressmen's chapel
chairman for countermanding a foreman's order (chron. 4), the News announced,
in the course of its story of the interruption, "The position of the publishers was
that this development at the Free Press was a work stoppage in violation of a joint
contract with the three newspapers.... Publication of the News and Times thus
was suspended Thursday morning."
On September 10 and 11, 1959, respectively, the News and the Free Press re-
ported on the pressmen's Labor Day walkout at the News (chron. 5). An excerpt
from the News story: "All three Detroit newspapers operate under a joint contract
with the union and a strike against one is regarded as a strike against all." And
from the Free Press: "Publication of the Times and the Free Press was also stopped
because the three papers have a joint contract with Local 13 and a strike against one
paper is considered a strike against all."
In August 1961 (see chron. 7), an "outside" union closed down the Free Press
by its picketing. The News, which did not suspend operations, editorialized on
August 22: "Under normal conditions-and because of joint contracting-a local
dispute that closed one Detroit paper would automatically close both But this
time, the `grievance,' if any, is in Miami, beyond the reach of joint action by the
TWO Detroit Publishers. There is nothing anyone in Detroit can `negotiate."'
On May 11, 1962, at the conclusion of a month-long shutdown of both papers
(chron. 15 to 29), the Fiee Press reprinted, from the New York Times of May 8,
an article by Arthur Krock (whose column does not normally appear in the Free
Press) containing the following statements. "In Detroit, there have been seven
shutdowns in 7 years. This time the Teamsters' Union struck the Free Press. Then,
after an agreement was reached with management on a new contract, the Interna-
tional Typographical Union set up a picket line on the ground that its members had
been locked out when the News, in conformity with a local publishers' agreement
that a strike against one member was a strike against both , suspended publica-
tion. . . . The weakness of this, an agreement that a strike against one member
is a strike against all , was again demonstrated in Detroit."
Testimony and stipulations established that another medium was also used by
Respondents to convey their message. On May 8, 1962-on which date there was
a PPH picket line at the News and a cessation of publication at both papers (chron.
26 to 28)-the publishers, at a cost of $1,127.10, caused the Krock column referred
to above to read on I1 occasions over five Detroit area radio stations ,35 each read-
ing being accompanied by its identification as a paid advertisement of the Association
There was some testimony that the fact of the existence of the suspension agree-
ment was broadcast over certain Detroit television stations . Lacking either corrobo-
ration or details, I make no finding in this respect.
Testimony with respect to relevant statements by representatives of Respond-
ents was also presented.
Most of these statements are attributed to Robert Blitz , at all times relevant hereto
executive secretary of the Association.36 It was credibly testified, and I find, that,
on a number of occasions, he told union representatives (usually in response to
queries) that a strike against one newspaper would be a strike against all (when
the Times was publishing) or both (after the demise of the Times), and that if
one paper was struck the other(s) would close 37 He made such statements in
October 1958, in the course of contract negotiations between the Teamsters and the
Free Press: during an arbitration proceeding with the Pressmen- and on other oc-
casions.38 On this record , however, I do not find that he made such statements
One of which was owned by the News.
ae The pleadings and credited testimony establish , and I find , that Butz was principal
spokesman for the Association and, as such, was authorized to speak on all labor rela-
tions matters, for both the Free Press and the News as well as the Association
s7 Butz , conceding that the subject was frequently raised , denied that he gave the
answer attributed to him His answer, according to his testimony: "Wait and see"
"Try it and see," or "That can't be answered until it happens " I considered him to be
evasive on this point
s8I am aware that an inability to pinpoint dates-and witnesses did displav such in-
ability-detracts from probity. But their testimony was bolstered by Butz' admission
that the subject was raised on many occasions . ( Indeed Respondents , in their brief.
seem to accept the fact of the frequent raising of the question by alluding to it to press
the point-involved in another aspect of this case, discussed -infra-that, for example, the
Teamsters, in negotiations with one publisher, repeatedly injected the subject of the
other publisher.)
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1017
after November 2, 1961; and I specifically find (see chron. 9), contrary to the testi-
mony of certain witnesses, that he did not make such statements on February 12,
1962.39
On May 9, 1962, over signatures of Lee Hills, vice president and executive editor,
and H. C. Weidler, business manager,40 the Free Press sent its employees a letter
to which was attached a reprint of the Krock column, above referred to And, on
May 10, 1962, Weidler "explained" to Guild President Schram (see chron. 30)
that the Free Press could not have resumed publication [2 days earlier] until the
paper and plate handlers were ready to come back to work at both papers.
At or about October 1958, in the course of negotiations with the Teamsters,
Tade Walsh, circulation director of the Free Press,41 said that if the Free Press
were closed down, the News would close down.42
As noted (chron. 14), members of management of the Free Press and the News
met to discuss their "common" problems vis-a-vis the Teamsters. James T. Dorris,
the News' associate business manager in charge of labor relations,43 memorialized
for his superior an agreement reached between them: It was agreed between the
two sets of management, that, should the Free Press be struck and unable to publish
(because of a refusal to yield on certain points at issue), "the News would support
the Free Press and would not publish"-a position which, it was further agreed,
would not be communicated to the Teamsters.
Finally, as an aid in determining whether or not there was a suspension agree-
ment, we must consider the conduct of the parties.
On every occasion but one during the past 6 years on which one of the two
publishers has been hit by a picket line or a refusal to work, the other has suspended
publication. There have been six such suspensions: In August 1957, when mailers
picketed the News (chron. 3); in September 1958, when pressmen refused to work
at the Free Press (chron. 4); in September 1959, when pressmen walked out at
the News (chron. 5); on February 14, 1962, when paper and plate handlers stopped
working at the News (chron. 11); from April 11 to 19, 1962, when the Teamsters
picketed the Free Press (chron. 15) ; and on May 8 and 9, 1962, when PPH
picketed the News (chron. 28). The sole such occasion on which there was no con-
comitant suspension was in August 1961, when a "foreign" local picketed the Free
Press 44
On the basis of the facts above recited-the quotations from the publishers'
newspapers ,45 statements made by their representatives, and the history of suspen-
sion actions taken by the publishers-I find that, on and since November 2, 1961,
the Free Press, the News, and their agent, the Association, have been and are
parties to an agreement that , should either the Free Press or the News suffer a
work stoppage because of employees ' refusal to work or because of a picket line,
m Also, I do not place in the category of statements bearing upon the existence of a
suspension agreement Butz' jocular answers to equally jocular queries such as, "How is
the big publishers ' union doing)"
411 find Hills and Weidler to be responsible agents of the Free Press.
411 find Walsh to be a responsible agent of the Free Press.
42 Undenied by Walsh.
0 I find Dorris to be a responsible agent of the News
a I note that , in their brief , Respondents list the 1953 pressmen 's incident at the Free
Press (see chron. 1) as an "exception" to the practice of supporting. I agree that this
incident either (1) militates against a finding of the existence of a suspension pact, or
(2) demonstrates that no such pact existed before the all -union strike of 1956-57 (see
chron. 2 ). I have duly considered this circumstance in arriving at my conclusions set
forth below.
40 Apparently, it is the position of Respondents that a newspaper is not responsible for
what it publishes in its paper. Whatever its responsibility for statements on other matters,
I regard a publisher in the absence of disclaimer, to be responsible for what it prints which
bears upon its own policies.
On the other hand, in arriving at the conclusion above recited, I place no reliance on
statements made in Mr Krock's article, whether read over the air by the publishers, re-
printed in the Free Press, or sent to its employees by the Free Press A careful reading
of the article demonstrates that Krock does not give as his source of information as to
the suspension policy-"a strike against one is a strike against both"-the Respond-
ents ; he attributes it, rather, to the picketing union . Hence, it has no probative value
as against Respondents
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the other would suspend its own publishing operations46 The sole limitations on
the agreed action, I find, were that, where the subject of dispute was such that its
resolution was outside the scope or authority of either the Free Press or the News,47
or where the dispute was with a union which did not deal with both of the publishers,48
there would be no supportive suspension.
I specifically find that the suspension agreement was not confined to joint bar-
gaining situations. The evidence clearly establishes, and I find, that it was intended
to apply to situations in which the Teamsters 49 might strike one publisher or the
other. In amplification thereof, it now appears necessary to discuss the relationship
between the Teamsters and the respective publishers.
3. Teamsters' bargaining-joint or individual?
The Teamsters represent, for collective-bargaining purposes, employees generally
engaged in the distribution of six newspapers published in the Detroit metropolitan
area The Free Press and the News, whose publishers employ, respectively, 450
and 600 members of the Teamsters, are by far the largest of these newspapers.
The Free Press and the News, principally because they are distributed at different
times of the day, each has its own peculiar distribution problems Their distribu-
tive employees, although engaged in discharging the same basic function, perform
different specific duties. For example, at one paper, distribution is made to sub-
stations, from which further distribution is made by others; at the other, the distribu-
tive employees service stands and boxes and supply various retail outlets, as well as
make deliveries to carriers' homes. At one paper, distribution-by these employees-
is limited to the so-called city zone; at the other, it is not. And, although it is
apparent that some of them are overlapping, one publisher has 14 job clasifications,
the other 18.50
The Teamsters have represented such employees at both newspapers for at least
20 years51
During this period, the working conditions of the employees have been crystallized
in 2-year collective-bargaining agreements-one for each publisher-usually expir-
ing in November of the odd years. As far as this record reveals, the tenures of all
past contracts, with either publisher, have been identical.
(The last such contracts were effective, by their terms, until November 15, 1961,
unless automatically renewed. In each case, the Teamsters gave timely notice of
a desire to negotiate a new contract with changes. In each case, the Teamsters
rejected a request for an indefinite extension of the contract pending negotiations,
subject to a 5-day notice of termination; and in each case, as I have found, the
terms of the 1959-61 contracts were continued on a day-to-day basis.)
Contract negotiations are conducted 52 between the Teamsters and each publisher
separately. Contract proposals are exchanged between the Teamsters and each
publisher, copies normally being sent to Butz, the Association's executive secretary.
46I reject Respondents' contention that the publication of double mastheads in August
1957 (chron 3) and April 1962 (chron 18) negate the existence of the suspension agree-
ment While I would not necessarily find such publications to be violative of the Act-see
snfoa-I regard such actions as corroborative rather than derogative of the arrangement.
47 This limitation is established by the 'incident of "foreign" picketing in August 1961
(chron. 7).
48 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I adopt Respondents' contention in this
respect.
40 Although I find that the suspension agreement applied also to sti ike action by PPII,
I reject the General Counsel's contention that the publisheis dealt individually rather
than jointly with PPH. All the criteria of joint bargaining are present in this relation-
ship: joint negotiations, single multiemployer contract, etc The sole basis for the General
Counsel's claim is that PPH made a timely demand for individual bargaining However,
the demand was rejected, and, thereafter, both the trappings and the spirit of joint bar-
gaining were adhered to An agreement to arbitrate the terms of a new (joint) contract
was consummated (chron. 12), which agreement was subsequently relied on by PPH as
supportive of action taken against the News (chron 26).
60 This is based upon testimony given at the hearing Examination of the last expired
contracts reveals that, at that time, the respective figures were 12 and 19, but the devia-
tion is immaterial herein.
6' There have been no relevant Board representation cases in the past
sz Although I use the present tense here, I mean by my description (unless I specifically
indicate the contrary) to cover circumstances extant at all relevant times Witnesses'
testimony and counsel's arguments interchangeably described existing and past conditions.
Apparently, they recognized, and I find, that these descriptions covered the entire relevant
period.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1019
The Teamsters and each publisher meet separately, although their meetings with
the two publishers often "leapfrog" each other.53 Normally present at each meeting
are representatives of the publisher whose contract is being discussed, Butz, the
Association executive secretary, and a Teamsters' negotiating committee consisting
of employees and stewards employed by the affected newspaper and the local's
executive board, consisting of its officers. The personnel normally common to both
sets of meetings are Butz and O'Connor and Prebenda, respectively president and
secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters.
(On perhaps six instances in the past 20 years the "other" paper has had observers
present at a negotiating meeting between the Teamsters and a publisher; on the last
occasion-in September 1958-the union committee requested their withdrawal; the
request was honored; and there has been no recurrence. On one occasion, the
Teamsters asked Butz to withdraw, but this request was refused; and, as indicated,
he continued to attend. On a number of occasions-notably, the last few meetings
between the Teamsters and the Free Press prior to the April 1962 strike-the Team-
sters have been represented by O'Connor and/or Prebenda alone.
(On April 18, 1962-see chron. 20-at the "mediation-negotiation meeting" held
at Commissioner Edwards' office, both publishers were present and both contracts
were discussed. But the publishers were separated from the Teamsters, and the
contracts were discussed seriatim rather than simultaneously. On the other hand,
there is no doubt, and I find, that the publishers, between themselves, discussed the
issues they regarded as common.)
At these meetings, the main spokesmen for the publisher involved are the pub-
lisher's direct representatives, in contradistinction from those negotiations between
the publishers and other unions, wherein Butz is the main spokesman for the
publishers.
During the course of this process, insofar as the Teamsters are concerned, the
progress of negotiations with a publisher is reported to and discussed with the em-
ployees of that particular publisher. Thus, the Teamsters, internally, is divided into
a number of "units" composed of the respective employees of each publisher. The
Free Press unit interests itself in negotiations with the Free Press; the News unit in
negotiations with the News; and, similarly, there are units interested in negotiations
with other employers.
Meanwhile, back at the publishers, Butz keeps either the Free Press or the News
informed as to the state of negotiations between the Teamsters and the other paper.
And occasionally-for an outstanding instance , see chron . 14-representatives of
the two publishers meet together, with Butz, to discuss what they consider to be
common issues.
When tentative agreement is reached between the Teamsters and a publisher, it is
presented to that publisher's unit within the Teamsters, and this unit ratifies or rejects
the agreement. The finished, executed contract, as indicated, is separate from that
of the other publisher. (The dates of execution of the Free Press' and the News'
contracts have usually been identical since 1953. This was not true of the 1957-59
contracts nor was it true of the 1961-63 contracts-see chron. 20.)
The contracts are separately administered, and grievances unsettled earlier are
handled by a joint standing committee. The committee, a separate one under each
contract, consists of three members appointed by the publisher involved and three
members appointed by the Teamsters-in actuality, by the Teamsters' unit involved.
(Butz represents the affected publisher on each committee.) A grievance which
cannot be adjusted by the committee in the first instance is, in effect, arbitrated, since
there is provision for the addition of a seventh member, on an ad hoc basis, to
break the tie.
Much of this hearing was devoted to testimony and arguments intended to showing
similarities and dissimilarities, and consistencies and inconsistencies, with respect to
collective-bargaining issues both as contained in the last complete contracts between
the Teamsters and the publishers and as contained in the various proposals of the
parties in the latest negotiations for new contracts. Having given the evidence, both
testimonial and documentary, full consideration, I find (for what it is worth) that
there are similarities , dissimilarities , consistencies, and inconsistences 54 On the
es Indeed, during the same period, the publishers, or either of them, may be conducting
meetings with other of their employees' unions
w I confess myself somewhat confused as to the meaning of "inconsistencies" as used by
the parties. For example, the 1961-63 Teamsters contract of one of the publishers calls
for the hiring of union members only, then requires application for membership after
2 weeks ; the other calls for the hiring of union members only if and when such a provi-
sion shall become lawful, and goes on to require union membership after 31 days. I assume
all parties would term this both a "dissimilarity" and an "inconsistency."
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other hand, I find that there are perceptibly no more or less of these than might
normally be found in collective-bargaining relationships between a union and two
employers in the same industry who have many similar and some distinctive prob-
lems. I accept the contention of the General Counsel that one might expect a sub-
stantially common approach by a union dealing with such employers; going further,
the fact that such employers might seek to take a common approach toward the
union does not startle me.
(The basic wage rates for similar Teamsters employees of the two publishers are
essentially similar, although their apportionment to a "package" differs slightly.
(The increases sought in the most recent negotiations were the same; but they gen-
erally accorded with those sought by and granted to employees represented by other
unions.) One publisher had a pension plan earlier than the other; now both have
such plans, administered by separate boards.)
In resolving the question at hand, I would be inclined to give some weight to the
opinions of the parties themselves as to the type of bargaining they were engaging
in. I am handicapped in this respect by the fact that, until the question at hand arose,
the subject received little attention from the parties. As I see it, they never discussed
it. But, quite frankly, I believe that even the publishers regarded themselves as bar-
gaining individually. In the Free Press of January 17, 1956, under the byline of
William Chapman, assistant city editor, a news article recited that the "[Guild],
[Photo-Engravers], and [Teamsters] -representing newspaper truckdrivers-nego-
tiate separately with each newspaper," a statement never corrected. And, at this
hearing, James T. Dorris, associate business manager of the Free Press, in charge
of labor relations there since mid-1956, testified on cross-examination that it was
not his position that the publishers bargained jointly with the Teamsters. (On re-
direct, he said he meant that the publishers would not sit down with the Teamsters
in the same room.) I have no evidence of the Teamsters' past feelings on the
matter.55
On balance, the total picture of negotiations, based on the credited testimony,
convinces me, and I find, that the Teamsters bargained individually with each of
the publishers.
4. Concluding findings on the suspension agreement
Having found that Respondents were and are parties to an agreement that one
publisher suspend publication in support of the other faced by strike or picket line,
having found that the agreement encompassed situations involving strikes or picketing
by the Teamsters, and having found that the Teamsters bargain individually rather
than jointly with the publishers, I find that the breadth of the suspension agreement
renders it violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Board has held that, absent special circumstances, an employer may not,
during bargaining negotiations, either threaten to lock out or lock out his employees
in aid of his bargaining position. Such conduct, the Board has held, presumptively
infringes upon the collective-bargaining rights of employees, and the lockout amounts
to discrimination.56
The passing years have shed light on the meaning of the phrase "special circum-
stances." The Supreme Court has determined, in the so-called Buffalo Linen case,57
that an employer may lock out his employees as a defensive measure to protect
the integrity of a multiemployer bargaining unit against "whipsawing" by a union.
Likewise, a lockout is permissible where hardship renders it economically unfeasible
for an employer to maintain operations in the face of an imminent strike.58 And I
would assume, a fortiori, that an advance intention, or agreement between affected
employers, to implement these rights would not be unlawful. Moreover, it has been
specifically held that advance agreement to suspend operations in the event of a
series of unauthorized work stoppages is not violative of the Act.59
ss Because it would beg the question, I place no reliance, in this respect, on Teamsters'
threats, past or present, to strike one newspaper and not the other; as equally question-
begging, I do not rely on Butz' reaction-to close down both papers if one was struck.
ce American Brake Shoe Company, Ramapo Ajax Division, 110 NLRB 820, set aside
244 F 2d 4S9 (C A 7), finding special circumstances, contrary to Board determination
ar N L R B. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, etc. (Buffalo Linen Supply Co.), 353 U.S. 87.
°Betts Cadillac Olds, Inc, et at, 90 NLRB 268 (inability to assure customers of com-
pletion of work) ; Duluth Bottling Association, et at, 48 NLRB 1335 (spoilage of mate-
rials) ; International Shoe Company, 93 NLRB 907 (operative difficulties in running plant
in face of partial strike among integrated departments).
11 Publishers' Association of New York City, et at., 139 NLRB 1092.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1021
It has never been held that the right to lock out employees is necessarily a
corollary of employees' right to strike which is guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.66 And where it has been found that a lockout was motivated by a desire to
defeat employees' organizational or otherwise protected activities, a violation has
been found.61
Respondents argue for an extension of the Buffalo Linen doctrine to cover a lock-
out by employers over common issues. They argue that to confine the principle-
to the protection of a multiemployer unit-would be to take a "mechanical, wooden
approach" to the problem. They urge that the logic of the Buffalo Linen case equally
applies to this situation, as it affects the Teamsters.
As I see it, Buffalo Linen, among other things, adjures the Board to weigh the
conflicting interests of employee and employer in determining to what extent the
right to lock out may infringe upon the right to strike. I agree that a wooden,
mechanical approach may not be used; the test, as I see it, is whether special circum-
stances favoring a suspension of business operations outweigh the statutory right to
strike.
Whatever may be the case with respect to the instant suspension agreement as it
might have been directed toward preserving the integrity of a multiemployer unit, I
see no special circumstances justifying its extension to cover, as it did here, single-
unit Teamsters' disputes. I do not believe that the reasoning of Buffalo Linen was in-
tended to cover, or should cover, cases of common issues. Farflung employers in the
same industry have common issues; diverse employers in an area have common issues.
To permit supportive lockouts over common issues would, in my opinion, be a serious
and unwarranted restraint upon the right to strike.62
For these reasons, as indicated, I find t h,3 Respondents' suspension agreement to
extend beyond the lawful limits of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and, therefore, to
constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (1).
In so finding, I do not adopt or use the contention made by General Counsel,
in asserted reliance on Buffalo Linen, that Respondents' actions were unlawful in view
of their relative superiority- size-wise-over the unions involved. Even if this were
part of the Supreme Court's reasoning-and I am not sure that the Court was not
merely citing an example of the type of situation which might arise rather than a
factor upon which it would rely 63-the facts in this record do not support the General
Counsel's contention.
Respondents argue, finally, that, even if there was a suspension agreement, there
was no violation of law absent implementation. Assuming no implementation (but
see section III, D, 5, The 1962 suspensions, infra), there was communication. All
of the evidence which persuaded me that such an agreement existed,64 with the
possible exception of that relating to Mr. Dorris' memorandum to his superior, con-
stituted evidence of publication of the fact as well . Clearly, implemented or not,
a suspension agreement as described above, made known to employees, tends to
inhibit them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
One other item deserves mention. I do not rely, in arriving either at the above
conclusions or at the conclusions reached in section III, D, 5, The 1962 suspensions,
infra, upon the factor of strike insurance. Having given the matter careful considera-
tion, I do not regard the availability of such insurance to Respondents-any more
than the existence of strike benefits for the employees-as persuasive one way or
the other.
5. The 1962 suspensions
The General Counsel alleges that, pursuant to their suspension pact, the Free
Press and the News engaged in a number of suspensions of publication in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Alternatively, he urges that, even absent a
6o The Supreme Court, in Buffalo Linen Supply Co., supra, specifically refrained from
passing upon this question
el N L R B. v. Somerset Classics, Inc. and Modern Mfg. Co., Inc., 193 F. 2d 613 (C.A. 2),
cert. denied 344 U.S. 816 ; N.L R.B. v. Sam Wallick and Sam K Schwalm, d/b/a Wallick
and Schwalm Company, et al., 198 F. 2d 477 (CA. 3) ; Olin Industries, Inc, Winchester
Repeating Arms Company Division v. N L.R.B., 191 F. 2d 613 (C A. 5), cert. denied
343 U S. 919
61 1 note that the Board refused to extend the Buffalo Linen principle to a situation
wherein, although the unit throughout which the lockout was extended was a multi-
employer unit, the reason for the lockout was something other than protection of the
integrity of the unit. Anchorage Businessmen's Association, Drugstoi a Unit, and tits-
Member Employees etc., 124 NLRB 662, 668-669.
0 See Buffalo Linen Supply Co, supra, page 9G.
04 See section III, D, 2, The suspension agreement, supra.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suspension agreement, these suspensions constituted 8(a) (1) and (3) violations. The
suspensions in question are the Free Press suspenion of February 15, 1962 (see chron.
11); the News suspension of April 12 to 14, 1962 (see chron. 17); the News sus-
pension of April 16 to 19, 1962 (see chron. 19 to 21); and the Free Press suspen-
sion of May 8 and 9, 1962 (see chron. 28).
I find that the Free Press suspended publication of its February 15, 1962, issue
(which would have been printed February 14) pursuant to the suspension agreement
which I have heretofore found to have been in existence. This, however, is not
dispositive of the matter. For, on two basic grounds, I perceive no violation of law
in this failure to publish by the Free Press.
(1) The suspension arose out of an interruption of work at the News brought about
by a "meeting" of paper and plate handlers. This meeting was the sixth of a series
of such interruptions, at both the News and the Free Press, within a period of 8 days.
The interruptions were the subject of a telegraphic protest, on behalf of both papers,
by the Association on February 12. Moreover, it can be fairly inferred, from PPH
international action of February 12 (chron. 9), that the meetings were unauthorized
if not unlawful. Finally, as I have found, the cause of the February 14 shutdown
at the News was the paper and plate handlers' dissatisfaction with or efforts to in-
fluence the contract negotiations then being jointly conducted with the publishers.
If from no other viewpoint, Respondents were justified in taking their action to pre-
serve the unit bargaining, in accordance with the Buffalo Linen principle.
(2) Finally, there was no loss of employment. I gather that the General Counsel
would have me conclude that, even though no employment is immediately lost, a
suspension of newspaper publication results in community pressure on the striking
union to end the strike I do not deem it necessary to pass upon this "conclusion"
as it might be affected by long-lasting periods of publication-suspension; in this
instance, I do not find the nature and degree of the suspension, if it constitutes
discrimination, to have a tendency to or to be likely to discourage union
membership.65
For reason (1) given above, I find no violation in the May 8 and 9 suspension of
the Free Press. (As noted above, the General Counsel urges that these suspensions,
as well as others, were effectuated pursuant to the suspension agreement which I
have heretofore found unlawful; therefore, it might be argued, however they might be
justified standing alone, they are unlawful as the fruit of an unlawful pact. The short
answer to this is, to the extent that they resulted from the suspension agreement, it was
from that part of the agreement which, if standing alone, 1 would have found to be
lawful I shall find no violation, as such, in these acts )
Likewise, I find no violation with respect to the News' suspension of April 12 to 14,
but only for reason (2) above; as far as this record reveals, there was no loss of
employment or wages.
I reach a different result with respect to the News' suspension of April 16 to 19.
For reasons set forth in section III, D, 4, Concluding findings on the suspension
agreement, supra, I find that the suspension of publication by the News during this
period interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act; and that, in addition, the loss of employment
occasioned by the second suspension, constituted discrimination which discouraged
union membership. (I find that the News took this action pursuant to the suspension
agreement between Respondent and that, therefore, the suspension of April 16 to 19,
1962, constituted a violation of 8(a) (1) and (3); but that, even if there were no proof
of such agreement, the suspension would be unlawful on the part of the News alone.)
6. The double-masthead of April 16, 1962
Counsel for the General Counsel urges that the News' publication of the double-
masthead on April 15, 1962 (see chron. 17) violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act since
it constituted an attempt to provoke a strike at the News. thus either avoiding the
necessity of a lockout there or furnishing a pretext for such lockout.
The issuance of the double-masthead undoubtedly assisted, and was designed to
assist, the Free Press, which was then beset by a Teamsters picket line; undoubtedly,
also, it constituted the performance of struck work. Moreover, its preparation ne-
cessitated the crossing of a picket line by employees who were members of the
picketing union.
On the other hand, Respondent News put forward a logical, nonunion-connected,
reason for the event- the fact that Easter Sunday fell 1 week later-a newspaperless
week in which merchants would anticipate substantial shopping. As for the an-
65 Publishers' Association of New York City, et al , supra (IR), as approved by the Board
on broader grounds.
THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1023
ticipated reprisals to cross a picket line, the News had no more reason to believe
that there would be "trouble " than there had been in connection with the 1957
double-mastheads (see chron. 3) 66
Except for lockout action , I know of no precedents for finding unlawful any action
taken by one employer in support of a struck employer , and I find no violation here.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,' and sub-
stantial relation 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 Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) by being parties to an
agreement which unduly interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights, I shall recommend that they cease giving effect to
any such agreement. Also, having found that, pursuant to such agreement, they
discriminated with respect to the tenure of certain employees from April 16 to 19,
1962, inclusive, I shall recommend that, jointly and severally, they make these
employees whole for the loss of employment suffered by them because of the dis-
crimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount
he would have earned but for said loss of employment, less his net earnings during
the period of such loss.67 Backpay shall include interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum computed quarterly.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are of a character striking
at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall also recommend that
Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, and upon the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Free Press and the News are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the Association is their agent.
2. PPH, the Pressmen, the Photo-Engravers, the Stereotypers, the Mailers, the
Teamsters, the Guild, the IBEW, the ITU, the Engineers, the Machinists, the Me-
chanics, the Building Service Employees, and the Carpenters are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of certain employees
from April 16 to 19, 1962, inclusive, to inhibit the right of employees to strike,
Respondents Free Press, News, and Association engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct; and by entering into, maintaining, and enforcing an
agreement whereunder, if either the Free Press or the News suffer a work stoppage
because of employees' refusal to work or because of a picket line (the sole limitations
of which agreement are that it does not apply to disputes and resolution of which
is outside the scope or authority of either publisher and that it does not apply to
a dispute with a union which does not deal with both publishers), the other will
18 The witness Thiel testified that, sometime in 1960, Butz had conceded to him that the
1957 mastheads were designed to "trap" the union into extending its picket line to all
newspapers, thus obviating the necessity for supportive lockouts. Butz, testifying, denied
making the statement. Thiel's testimony did not have the ring of truth ; in my opinion,
the statements attributed to Butz were quite out of character with his dealings with unions,
as displayed at this hearing I credit the denial.
611 have heretofore found that the discrimination occurred pursuant to the suspension
agreement mentioned above; hence, the joint and several obligation I have eaiier in-
dicated that I regarded the suspension of April 16 to 19 to have been violative of Section
8(a) (1) and (3) on the part of the Respondent News even if it had not been pursuant to
the agreement ; in such case, I would have recommended imposition of the backpay obliga-
tion on the News only.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suspend its own operations-Respondents have interfered with , restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, in violation of Section 8(a)( I) thereof.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of'the Act.
6. Except for the above , Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint herein.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Merner Lumber and Hardware Company and Retail Store Em-
ployees Union , Local 428, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion , AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA-f493. January 15, 19641
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 ('b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fan-
ning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.'
' The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Merner Lumber and Hardware Company, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter , arising from a charge filed December 11, 1962, and a complaint dated
March 7, 1963 , was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Palo Alto,
California , on 5 hearing days from April 18 through May 23, 1963 . At issue is
145 NLRB No. 105.