The Hearst Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 1405 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

THE HEARST CORP. 1405
The Hearst Corporation , News American Division and Baltimore
Typographical Union No. 12, International Typographical
Union , AFL-CIO and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 355, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America and Baltimore Lithographers and
Photoengravers Union , Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photo-
engravers International Union , AFL-CIO and News Union of
Baltimore , Independent and Baltimore Stereotypers Union
Local No. 10, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers
Union of North America , AFL-CIO and Newspaper Web Press-
men's Union Local No. 31, Subordinate of the International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America,
AFL-CIO and Local Lodge 186, International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO and Circulation Distributors ' Union,
Local No. 503, a Subordinate Union of the International Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-
CIO and Baltimore Mailers Union , Local No. 88, Subordinate
of International Mailers Union and Local 24, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases 5-CA-
3116, 3117, 3119, 3120, 3121, 3126, 3129, 3141, 3142, and 3119.
December 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 23, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel, ' and the Charging Parties, Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local No. 355, Baltimore Stereotypers Union
Local No. 10 , and Lodge No. 186, IAM , filed exceptions to the Deci-
sion and supporting briefs . The Respondent and Intervenor. A. S.
Abell Company , filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs, and
Intervenor , Washington Newspaper Guild, filed an answering brief
to A. S. Abell 's cross-exceptions.
1 Local No. 24 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO ; Baltimore
Mailers Union No. 88, International Mailers Union; Circulation Distributors ' Union, Local
No. 503 , International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-
CIO; and Local 2-P, Lithographers & Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, all
filed exceptions adopting the General Counsel's exceptions . The American Federation of
Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations filed a motion for leave to file a statement of
views , together with such statement , and Respondent requested that such leave be denied
and the statement be disregarded.
161 NLRB No. 113.
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The National Labor Relations 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby
adopts the findings,3 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
2 The Washington Newspaper Guild, hereinafter referred to as the Guild, has requested
oral argument . The request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner for the reasons he stated that the refusal of the ITU
and Teamster members to cross the Guild picket line at the plant of the Sun Papers was
a strike In violation of the collective-bargaining contracts between those unions and the
Sun Papers, and that the strikers thereby engaged in unprotected activity, against which
the employers were privileged to take lawful defensive action. New York Mailers Union
Number Six v. N.L R.B., 327 F.2d 292, 297 (C.A. 2), affg. 139 NLRB 1092. We deem it
unnecessary to decide whether, as found by the Trial Examiner, the Unions were respon-
sible for the conduct of their members and therefore themselves breached their agreements.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before Trial Examiner
Thomas A. Ricci on June 29 and 30, and on July 1 and 2, 1965, at Baltimore,
Maryland. Upon charges filed by 10 labor organizations, all against the Hearst
Corporation, News American Division, herein called the Respondent, or the Hearst
Company, a consolidated complaint was issued. The principal issue litigated is
whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the statute in laying
off most of its employees represented by the various Charging Party Unions. The
A. S. Abell Company, another newspaper publishing company, was permitted to
intervene in the proceeding and participated to the extent that its interest appeared.
Intervention was also granted at the hearing to the Washington Newspaper Guild.
After the close of the hearing briefs were filed by the General Counsel, the
Respondent, the A. S. Abell Company, the Washington Newspaper Guild, and a
single brief on behalf of ITU Local No. 12, Teamsters Local 355, and Baltimore
Stereotypers Union Local No. 10.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Hearst Corporation, existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware,
maintains an office in the City of Baltimore, Maryland, where it is engaged in the
printing and publishing of a daily newspaper. In the normal course of its business
it annually grosses in excess of $200,000 through printing and publishing its news-
papers, subscribes to interstate news services, publishes nationally syndicated
features, and advertises goods sold in interstate commerce. The complaint alleges,
the Respondent does not deny, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to exercise jurisdiction here.
II. THE UNIONS INVOLVED
The 10 Unions which filed charges here, precisely identified and enumerated
below, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
THE HEARST CORP. 1407
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Principal Issue of the Case
There are two major newspaper publishing companies in the City of Baltimore:
the A. S. Abell Company, which publishes daily and Sunday papers called The
Sun Papers, and the Hearst Corporation, publisher of daily and Sunday newspapers
called The News American. Some of the employees of both these companies are
represented under single multi-employer, collective-bargaining agreements, largely
by what are called craft unions; other categories of employees bargain with their
respective employers under separate contracts, in some instances through different
unions. In the spring of 1965 the Sun Papers were in process of negotiating a con-
tract with the Washington Newspaper Guild, the labor organization certified as
bargaining agent for its editorial, news, library, and commercial departments. Nego-
tiations faltered, and on April 17 the Guild called a strike; it started picketing the
Sun building. Two other groups of Sun Paper employees-printers represented by
ITU Local 12, and Chauffeurs and related categories represented by Teamster
Local 355-refused to cross the picket lines; in consequence, by Monday, April 19,
the Sun was unable to print and distribute its newspapers and decided to discon-
tinue publication altogether. Although the remaining Sun employees, mostly repre-
sented by other unions, were willing to continue at work, all Sun Paper workers,
except a limited number of essential personnel, were furloughed until further
notice.
Advised on the evening of the 19th of the Sun's decision to cease publication,
the Hearst Company decided to discontinue its entire publication, and on April 20
notified all of its employees except a necessary complement not to report until
further notice. From that day through May 27 neither company printed any papers.
Negotiations between the Sun and the Guild continued; on May 25, the printers of
ITU Local 12 returned to work at the Sun through the Guild picket line, and on
June 3, with a contract agreement reached, the Guild ceased picketing and both
papers returned to normal operations. All employees who desired were returned
to work at both companies.
The complaint names the Hearst Company as Respondent, and charges it with
illegally locking out its employees, and thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
as to each of them. Hearst admits that its only reason for discontinuing the news-
paper was because of what happened at the Sun Papers: the Guild strike, the
refusal of printers and Teamsters to cross the picket line, and the resultant inability
of the Sun to put out its papers. The hearing consumed 4 days but the truly
pertinent facts are not in dispute. During the hearing, and throughout the extensive
briefs of the lawyers, many theories were advanced, both by the General Counsel
to explain the complaint and by the Respondent in exculpation There is also a
comprehensive brief submitted on behalf of the Abell Company, Sun Paper pub-
lisher, which was granted intervention for the purpose of protecting its interests
in collective-bargaining agieements which join-as to some categories of employ-
ees-workmen of both newspapers in single bargaining units. Of the many conten-
tions, both legal and factual, only some justify consideration here and will be
discussed below. Many of these are predicated upon out-of-context excerpts from
Board and court decisions dealing with lockouts, and obscure rather than explicate
the real questions presented. Clearly the Hearst Company was not in dispute with
any of its employees and its lockout action hurt them in consequence of what
others had done. It is equally clear that the two companies-Abell and Hearst-
are separate employers, indeed, competitors, and whatever employee activity occurred
at the premises of the Sun Papers had no direct relationship with the Hearst
Company as an employer. It is on these plain realities that the General Counsel
rests his fundamental theory, and argues no employer may legally lay off, furlough,
or otherwise discriminate against its own employees because of the concerted or
union activities of any other company's workmen.
Hearst, the Respondent, ties itself to the labor dispute at the Sun Papers-and
thereby makes itself party to those events-through the fact that the ITU printers
and Local 355 Teamsters drivers who refused to cross the picket line of the Guild
were then, and long have been represented in collective bargaining in single multi-
employer units combining employees of both companies. On this one fact-equally
undisputed-it speaks of "whipsaw" tactics by the ITU and by the Teamsters,
economic justification, a balancing of power between employers and unions, with
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officials of both newspapers at the hearing repeatedly explaining the lockout as
intended to "preserve the integrity of the multiemployer bargaining units." How-
ever phrased, the heart of the Respondent's defense is the contention that there
was a contractual relationship between Hearst and the printers and distributors
who, by their refusal to cross the Guild picket line at the Sun, engaged in a strike
which violated that contract, both in its literal sense-asserted no-strike clause-
and in its basic spirit-single unit , multiemployer bargaining.
The defense consisting of alternative but not mutually exclusive arguments,
logical appraisal of their merits would present them as follows: (1) Did a portion
of the employees covered by single contract strike in violation of its terms and
thereby justify broadside reactions by the contract "employer," defined as both the
Abell Company and Hearst? If the ITU Local 12 and Teamsters Local 355 con-
tracts must be read as binding promises by these unions not to engage in any strike
during their terms-including mass work stoppages grounded upon plain refusal
to cross a picket line-it would appear that the employer party to the agreements,
in this instance Abell and Hearst combined, could lawfully compel work stoppages
coextensive with the contract coverage by discontinuing publication of all
newspapers.'
(2) If the contracts in question do not restrain the two local unions from striking
in this situation, was the strike action by the employees of the Sun Papers alone
a "whipsaw" tactic in collective bargaining such as to legalize the counterpart
weapon in the hands of Hearst in locking out its employees in retaliation? If this
question were reached, the answer would require consideration of the import of
the recent Supreme Court decisions in American Shipbuilding Company v.
N.L.R B., 380 US. 300, and N.L.R.B. v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, as well as other
related Board and court decisions.
As will appear below, the record in its entirety requires a finding that by the
contracts then in effect between ITU Local 12 and Teamsters Local 355, on the one
hand, and the newspaper companies jointly on the other, the parties intended
there would be no strikes during the terms of the agreements in consequence solely
of picketing by other unions. Accordingly, only those questions necessary for
clarification and resolution of this one finding need be answered here.
Work Stoppages and Employer Response
In the beginning of April 1965 there were in effect six contracts joining in a
single multiemployer bargaining unit employees of both the Sun and the Hearst
newspapers, as follows:
1. Baltimore Typographical Union Local Composing room men, such as hand
No. 12. compositors, typesetters, etc
2. Teamsters Local 355________________ Chauffeurs, helpers, dispatchers,
platform and garage employees
3. Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen's Pressroom employees.
Union No. 31.
4. International Stereotypers and Electro- Stereotyping dept. employees
typers Union of N.A., No. 10.
5. Baltimore Photoengravers Union No. 2_ Photoengraving process employees.
6. Baltimore Mailers Local No. 88______ Mailing room employees
In addition, other employees of the Hearst Company were covered by single em-
ployer contracts, as follows:
1. Teamsters Local No. 355_____________ Road men in Baltimore.
2. News Union of Baltimore----------- Reference dept., editorial dept.,
commercial art dept., advertising
dept , circulation, office, etc.
3. Circulation Distributors' Union No. 503_ Circulation district (sales) men.
4. IBEW Local 24____________________ Electricians and apprentices.
5. IAM Lodge 186 Z__________________ Maintenance machinists.
Like the Hearst Company the Abell Company, publisher of the Sun Papers, also
was party to collective-bargaining agreements for other categories of its employees
in single employer units. The only one such contract pertinent to the issue of this
' Publishers' Association of New York City, 139 NLRB 1092.
2 A contract with IAM Lodge 186 expired on February 20, 1965 ; a new one was in
process of negotiation at the time of these events and was duly executed later.
THE HEARST CORP. 1409,
proceeding was that which it had made with the Baltimore Newspaper Guild,
executed in 1962, and by its terms due to expire at midnight, April 16, 1965. This
contract covered editorial, news, library, and commercial department employees. The
Baltimore Newspaper Guild was replaced as collective-bargaining agent of these
employees by the Washington Newspaper Guild by virtue of a Board certification
on March 28, 1965, following a Board-conducted election. And it was the strike,
and the picketing, of the Washington Guild before it could agree with the Abell
Company upon a new contract, which set in motion the chain of events leading
to this proceeding.
In addition there were some categories of employees, numerically few, who
worked for both newspapers and were not represented by any union.
At about noon on Saturday, April 17, the Washington Guild called its strike
and established a picket line at virtually all entrances to the Sun building. Of the
approximately 650 employees it represented, about 200 remained at work. The
printeis represented by ITU Local 12 and the chauffeurs, distributors, platform men,
etc., covered in the Teamsters Local 355 joint contract, honored the picket line.
Of the 14 printers scheduled for work at 2:40 p.m., only 4 came, and of the
approximately 90 due for the late shift that same day to print the Sunday papers
only 6 crossed the picket line to work. On Sunday 90 printers were scheduled, of
whom 14 arrived, and Monday morning the number was 30 out of 110 scheduled.
During this shift Monday morning these 30 left for a chapel meeting of Local 12;
they never returned.
As to the chauffeurs and others covered by the Teamsters contract, those who,
had started their shift before noon on Saturday worked back and forth through
the picket line, but of the 50 men scheduled for the night shift that day only 2
came to work. No Teamsters Local employee crossed the picket line at all on
Sunday or Monday. The Abell Company somehow, even with a limited number of
printers, managed to print its paper both for Sunday and Monday, and they were
delivered by other employees.
While this was going on, all other employees of the Sun Papers worked as usual,
ignoring the picket line. This included employees covered by separate single
employer unit contracts , as well as those covered by joint multiemployer agree-
ments and represented by Pressmen's Union No. 31, Stereotypers Local No. 10,
Photoengravers Local No. 2, and Mailers Local 88.
At 9 p.m. Monday evening the Abell Company decided to discontinue all pub-
lication, and so notified the bulk of its employees , without distinction between
those covered by union contract and those not. Immediately upon making this
major decision, General Manager Bertsch of the Sun Papers notified the Hearst
Company of the proposed shutdown. Acting pursuant to prearrangement , the next
day Hearst advised the great majority of its workmen not to report for work until
further notice. Its letter to each reads:
Sun employees covered by the two enumerated contracts [1TU Local 12 and
Teamsters Local 355] have refused to cross the Guild picket lines and to
report for work at the Sun plant . The News American deems such refusal a
violation of the joint contracts with the Unions above named , and is a threat
to the interest of Sun and News American in bargaining on a group basis.
Hearst's Tuesday newspaper-the News American-was printed on Monday for
Tuesday's issuance because the employees were already at work by the evening of
Monday. No Hearst paper was published thereafter. Between 150 and 200 employ-
ees were retained for work required despite discontinuance of the paper. These
included a limited number of persons in accounting, classified advertising, circu-
lation distribution, mechanical craft, maintenance, and stores. With time this num-
ber was further reduced, until virtually only a skeleton crew remained.
Among the persons laid off as an inevitable consequence of discontinuance of
the Hearst papers were employees covered by each of the 11 union contracts to
which the Respondent was a party.3 All of the employees, of course, were at all
times willing to continue at work, and it is these union groups covered by contracts
who joined to become the Charging Parties in this proceeding, accusing the Hearst
Company of illegally furloughing them because of the concerted activities of others,
and with which they were not involved.
s Only 10 unions filed charges because Teamsters Local 355 held two contracts with
Hearst, one a single employer agreement, and the other one of the two critical muitieni-
ployer arrangements
2 6 4-18 8- 6 7-v o f 161-90
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 25 virtually all of the ITU printers-about 380-offered to return to
work for the Sun Papers and were welcomed back. The full scheduled complement
of 73 men due for a shift that day crossed the Guild picket line, which had never
been discontinued. With whatever employees who had not joined in the original
strike of the Washington Newspaper Guild and were still readily available, the Sun
Papers were able to resume publication by May 27. The Teamsters employees-
chauffeurs, platform men, etc.-persisted in their original resolve and continued to
honor the picket line. By May 27 the Respondent also recalled all of its employees
and resumed full publication of its newspapers.
On June 3 the Abell Company and the Washington Guild came to terms, they
agreed upon a new contract, and the picket line disappeared. There is no indication
that any employee who then wished to return to work-regardless of union affilia-
tion or prior strike activity-was rejected.
Was the Concerted Work Stoppage by the Printers and the Chauffeur Gioup a
Strike for Which Their Respective Local Unions are Accountable9
The General' Counsel does' not concern himself with whether the refusal of the
printers and the chauffeurs to cross the Guild picket line be viewed as individual
action taken separately by each employee as a matter of personal conviction, or a
regularly authorized concerted strike activity undertaken by their' respective unions.
Under his theory of complaint it is immaterial how such a question might be
resolved, for he argues that in either event those activities bore no relationship
either to the contract terms or t& any collective bargaining these unions ever car-
ried on with the Hearst Company.
In order to scuttle the Respondent's argument that the lockout was defensive
action "to preserve the integrity of^the multiemployer unit," counsel for ITU Local
12, one of the Charging Parties, contended at the hearing that when the printers
refused to cross the picket line at the Sun Papers each was acting' as an individual
to satisfy the dictates of his own conscience. He resists any implication that this was
"union" action, or, indeed, strike in the conventional sense of the word. Somewhat
indirectly Teamsters Local 355, also a Charging Party, advances the same explana-
tion for the refusal of the chauffeur group to work at the Sun Papers. On this basis
these two unions argue that even assuming the Abell Company could have disci-
plined its own employees for refusing to work, the mass work stoppage must be
viewed as unrelated to either union , and therefore disassociated from either of the
joint contracts or of the multiemployer bargaining units.
The Washington Guild warned the Sun Papers that no contract would mean no
work, and therefore, days before the April 17 deadline, James Becker, business
manager, conferred with the officials of all the unions to learn what they might do
in the event of picketing. He was reassured by all that the men would work. Charles
Miller, president of ITU Local 12, and Emil Seegar, its secretary, told him ". . . on
behalf of the Baltimore Typographical Union they [sic] position was that they
would honor the contract. They said it was their intention to inform the Interna-
tional President of the situation but he was sure what the answer and the instruc-
tions would be." Harry Cohen, president of Teamsters Local 355, said, ". . . that if
the paper was successful in printing and putting the papers on the loading dock that
his men would move . . . He' said he would recommend that they would move
them, but he again, made the reservation that possibly some men might not
report."
On April 15, 2 days before the strike, a chapel meeting of the ITU Sun Papers
printers was held by Local 12. President Miller spoke of a telegram he had received
from the - International Union, and both he, Miller, and Seegar, the secretary-
treasurer, "advised the Local members that they had a contract and they should
continue working, and the President also backed up his position that the members
should continue working, and that there was a possibility of losing their jobs in case
they did not."
As soon as the printers refused to cross the picket line on the 17th, Becker again
called Miller, who said he would see what he could do, and then apparently com-
municated by telegram with Elmer Brown, International president of the ITU, at
his main office in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Becker also immediately telegraphed
Brown, saying, among other things: "Urge your assistants to have all ITU members
honor contracts by reporting for work." Brown immediately answered Becker with:
"Baltimore Typographical Union reports Local Union position is that our members
must comply with local contract. We have asked him for full and complete report
regarding compliance."
THE HEARST CORP. 1411
Within hours, before 6 p.m. that same day, Brown sent the following message to
Miller and to Local 12:
Mr. Becker has been advised that you have been informed of local union con-
tract responsibilities and that ITU has asked you to make a full and complete
report regarding compliance by our members. It is the obligation of each mem-
ber to fulfill contract requirements. Failure of members to perform work in
accordance with the contract cannot be recognized as a lockout under any cir-
cumstances. Members should be aware of the dangers of the use of electronic
and computer equipment available to set type. It is imperative that every indi-
vidual member of Baltimore Typographical Union do his part to protect the
Union's contract and our union jurisdiction by performing normal work as
required by contract and ITU laws. By order of the executive council Interna-
tional Typographical Union.
The printers ignored this directive from the International Union executive coun-
cil. When the 30 members of Local 12 who reported for work on Monday morning
left, in the middle of their shift, for another chapel meeting of the Sun Papers print-
ers, the telegram was again read to them by Miller. Again the president and the
secretary-treasurer urged all of them to remain at work despite the picket line; they
relayed further communication from the International to the effect there would be
no remuneration or benefits from the ITU for those who refused to work. But
McGaffin, vice president, and Daddino, chapel chairman, both of whom also spoke,
made clear they, as a matter of "principle," would not cross the picket line; they did
not. Miller and Seegar were employed elsewhere; the only other officer of Local 12
was Turner, recording secretary and employee of the Sun Papers, and he too
refused to work.
Again on Wednesday, April 21, the printers met at a chapel meeting, and again
Miller told them their jobs were in jeopardy. On the 23rd Miller sent a telegram to
Brown, the International president, accused the Sun Papers of locking out the print-
ers, and added: "Local Union asked ITU executive council to consider request for
lock-out benefits for members of the Sun Papers chapel . . . further requests Inter-
national representation during this situation for assistance." Local 12 never received
either the strike or lockout benefits, or the "representation" from its International.
When practically all the Teamsters members scheduled for the afternoon shift on
Saturday refused to work, Norman Phillips, vice president and business agent of
Local 355, was roving about the streets. The day before he had assured Harold
Archer, the Sun Papers transportation supervisor, that his men "would honor our
contract if the papers were put on the platform we would deliver them." He said the
same thing to the employees Saturday when they turned to him for advice. He told
them that the Teamsters Joint Council of Baltimore did not recognize the picket
line. Phillips testified at the hearing that the men simply ignored his warnings that
they could be discharged for refusing to cross the picket line.
Shortly after the shutdown by both newspapers, Local 12 issued emergency travel-
ing cards to all who desired them; these were signed by Miller and Seegar. Vice
President McGaffin, the only local union officer who testified, said that the cards
were based on "a directive from the ITU." The cards made it possible for members
to find work in other cities without losing their standing in Local 12. About 275
were issued to the approximately 380 members who had quit work at the Sun
Papers.
On May 17 the International Union ordered the Baltimore Local to recall these
traveling cards from all former Sun Paper employees on the ground that there had
been error, and that only Hearst paper printers should have received them initially.
That same day International President Brown sent the following message to Local 12:
Machinists or any other member of Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12
are not to be discouraged from returning to work at Baltimore Sun. It is duty
of responsible officers of Baltimore Typographical Union to advise, instruct
and encourage members to return to work at Sun and comply with terms of
contract. This duty is to be performed without regard, consultation, influence
or interference of Guild or any other union or group. Get the message to mem-
bers of Baltimore Typographical Union their first obligation is to themselves
and their union. Get this message to them while they can still protect their jobs
and jurisdiction under a valid contract. Let's have no interference with mem-
bers' rights to work and discharge obligation under a contract entered into in
good faith.
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The message was received on May 20; within a few days all but four or five Sun
Paper printers had returned to Baltimore and surrendered their traveling card By
the 25th they were all back at work, disregarding the Guild picket lines.
However the simultaneous mass action of the printers and the chauffeur group is.
described, it was concerted strike activity for which their respective local unions
must be held accountable. This is not a case of wildcat dissension by a small group
out of many, where the conduct of the few may be said to reflect one view and the
contrary behavior of the large majority be considered instead as revealing the oppos-
ing position of the "union." Everybody who could have joined the work stoppage
here did so; they moved with clock-like precision timing; and each and every
employee involved had one and the same objective-support of the strike called by
the Washington Guild. Cohen and Phillips, of Teamsters Local 355, feared the loss
of jobs and thought their members were ill-advised to disagree; not one member
deserted the group. Miller and Seegar, the very union officers who had signed the
contract then in effect for ITU Local 12, were convinced it outlawed such a massive
concerted refusal to work, and they directly told the members to refrain; by their
words and example the rest of the ITU Local officers encouraged the membership,
to do otherwise. When two officers oppose the strike, and other agents, together with
all of 380 printers employed by the Sun Papers think otherwise and simultane-
ously cease work, just who constitutes the Union? To hold, as the representative of
the unions urge, that every single one of these workmen, all members of disciplined
labor organizations, acted independently of the opinion and belief of all others who,
moved with them, would ignore the realities of industrial life and traditional union
activities. ". . experience teaches that it is exceedingly improbable that virtually
the whole of a group of more than 100 men, particularly where they are organized,
will, without common agreement or direction, quit work virtually en masse as a
result of as many different individual decisions arrived at independently, yet fortu-
itously at the same time." 4
True, there is no direct evidence of inducement by either union, as such, but
union responsibility in this type of situation need not rest upon out-and-out confes-
sion. ". . a strike call may be given in a forthright fashion or informally in a
manner which is understood by the initiated." 5
In the case of ITU Local 12, issuance of the travel cards by the same officers who
advised against striking strongly strengthens the inference that this was a printers'
strike, which their local union, however reluctant some officers, supported. Miller
and Seegar personally signed the one document which each striker needed to carry
out his "individual" strike resolve. And when, whatever its reason, the "union" can-
celed the work permits, there was an instantaneous about-face by each and every
printer. It seems clear that if ITU Local 12 really opposed the concerted action of
its members, all it had to do was withhold the travel cards in the first instance.
Moreover, just as the initial, consistent, and uniform behaviour of both groups at
the inception of the work stoppage leads to the inference that this was union strike
action, the equally concerted and simultaneous abandonment of the decision to
honor the picket line confirms the conclusion solidly.
The Charge that the Guild Picket Line Was Illegal
When the Washington Newspaper Guild was certified by the Board in March of
1965, there was in effect, and due to expire on April 16, the Sun Papers' contract
with the Baltimore Newspaper Guild. No notice of labor dispute was given by the
Washington Guild to any State agency when it struck on the 17th. The Respondent
contends that under Section 8(d) of the Act, the Guild then stood in the posture of
a labor organization having a contract "in effect," that it was obligated to give such
notice to the Maryland State Department of Labor, that its failure to take such
step was in violation of that Section of the Act, and that in final analysis its strike
therefore constituted an illegal refusal to bargain with the Sun Papers violative of
Section 8(b) (3) of the statute.6 Continuing with this theory of defense, Hearst then
*Roane-Anderson Company (Local 760, International Brotherhood of Electrical To) heis,
AFL), 82 NLRB 696.
5 H. M. Newman d/b/a H. M. Newman, 85 NLRB 725, enfd. 187 F 2d 488 (C.A. 2). See
also U.S. v. International Union, UMTA, 177 F.2d 29 (C.A.D C)
O The Abell Company, publisher of the Sun Papers, filed a charge against the Guild
alleging such an unfair labor practice ; upon investigation the Regional Director refused to
issue a complaint in that case on the grounds, among others, that because of the Guild's
intervening certification by the Board, ". . . the duties imposed [by Section 8(d)] shall
become inapplicable."
THE HEARST CORP. 1413
.argues that when ITU Local 12 printers and Teamsters Local 355 distributors
refused to cross the Guild's picket line, they too were engaged in illegal activity,
that their union or concerted action was tainted with the illegality of the Guild's
-conduct. From this assertion Hearst, as Respondent, concludes that it therefore was
privileged to lock out all of its own employees.
There is no merit in this contention. If the mass refusal to work at the Sun Papers
by the printers and the Teamsters was in fact a strike by their respective unions in
violation of the joint contracts they held with the two newspapers, or a whipsaw
tactic aimed at dividing and thereby weakening the economic position of the com-
bined employers, the Respondent may have been justified in law in forcing its coun-
terpart employees to cease work. In that event the character of the picket line which
the printers and Teamsters honored would be completely irrelevant. In short, the
reason why the Guild struck the Sun Papers, or the manner in which it acted, could
have no relationship to the Hearst Company's interests in the matter. The only
avenue of concern which the Respondent could possibly have with the events which
occurred at the Sun Papers must be via the joint representation of the Printers and
Teamsters in multiemployer contracts, to which Hearst was a direct party. The
Respondent does not concede that, absent any illegality in the Guild's picketing
activities, Hearst itself must be viewed as a strict neutral having no interest at all in
any of the employees of the Abell Company. But if, for purposes of considering
this defense in its true light, the fact of the joint representation of Printers and
Teamsters be ignored, all that remains is one employer discriminating against its
own employees because of the concerted or union activity, legal or illegal, of a sepa-
rate and totally unrelated company's workmen. By like reasoning it would have to
be said any employer-perhaps a trucking company using drivers covered by con-
tract with Teamsters Local 355, or a printing company having employees repre-
sented by ITU Local 12-could lock out its workmen because of the picket line
activities of Teamsters Local 355 or 1TU Local 12 members employed by the Sun
Papers. No precedent has been cited for so broad and novel a legal argument under
this statute, and no detailed rationale is needed for rejecting it.
In justice, however, it must be said there is no basis for finding that the strike by
the Guild was in fact violative of Section 8(d) and (b)(3) of the Act. When late in
1964 the Washington Guild asked to be recognized as the alter ego of the Baltimore
Guild, following an asserted merger of the two unions, the Abell Company refused
to accord it recognition and insisted the two were not one and the same labor
organization. That company persisted in this contention when in January of 1965
the Washington Guild filed a petition with the Board requesting that the original
certification in favor of the Baltimore group be amended to substitute the Wash-
ington organization in its place. More, the Abell Company filed its own petition for
an election, claiming there existed between the two guilds a question as to which of
them was entitled to represent the employees. And it was only after the Board
found the question to require an election, and the employees voted on the matter,
that the Washington Guild was certified by the Board and recognized by Abell.
It sits poorly with the Sun Papers attorney, who was permitted to intervene at
the hearing, and who, before the strike, personally voiced his client's insistence that
the Washington Guild and the Baltimore Guild were not one and the same, to say
that the new Guild was really the Baltimore Union in the first place, and to attempt
to saddle it retroactively with a fatal burden it was willing to assume originally. If
ever a situation dictated application of an equitable estoppel principle, this is it.
But the statute is primarily concerned with the rights of employees; the Board has
already found that the Washington Guild is a labor organization in its own right,
and the unsupported assertions of the Respondent now are not sufficient reason to
ignore the plain language of Section 8(d). The Guild enjoys "an intervening certi-
fication," and therefore cannot be held to have engaged in an illegal strike merely
because it did not serve 30 days' notice of dispute upon the Maryland State Labor
Department, even assuming that organization to be the effective State agency in
this instance.
Was the Failure of the Printers and the Chauffeur Group to Cross the Picket Line
a Violation of Their Respective Unions' Contracts?
Both the ITU Local 12 contract and that of Teamsters Local 355 in effect in
April 1965 contained clauses limiting the right to strike. The ITU contract contains
the following section:
Section 8. The language and spirit of this Agreement guarantee the prompt and
faithful performance by the Union and the Office of all obligations imposed by
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the terms of this Agreement. Both parties agree that whenever any differences
of opinion as to the rights of either under the Agreement shall arise, or when-
ever any dispute as to the construction of the contract or any of its provisions
takes place, such difference or dispute shall be promptly resolved in the manner
provided in this contract without strike, lockout, diminution, or interruption of
any kind, to the end that fruitless controversies shall be avoided, good feeling
and harmonious relations be maintained, and the prosecution of the business in
which the parties have a community of interest shall be assured.
Teamsters Local 355 contract contains the following section:
19 Continuous and uninterrupted delivery by the Companies of their newspa-
pers and orderly collective bargaining relations between the Companies and the
Union to secure prompt and fair disposition of grievances being an essential
consideration for this Agreement, it is agreed that the Union and its members
individually and collectively will not, during the term of this Agreement, cause,
permit, or take part in any strike, sit down, picketing or other curtailment or
restricting of the delivery of the Companies' newspapers until the procedure
hereinafter provided for the settlement of grievances has been exhausted; and
the Companies agree not to engage in any lockouts. Should any complaint or
grievance arise which cannot be amicably adjusted between the parties hereto
within 5 days (this time may be extended by mutual agreement), then such
matters shall be submitted to arbitration upon the written request of either
party as follows:
Both agreements also include detailed provisions for the processing of grievances.
Repeatedly throughout the ITU contract the grievance procedure clauses refer to
the type of dispute which is intended to be channeled into the peaceful adjustment
process. Section 34: "If any controversy arises as to the interpretation or enforce-
ment of this agreement. . . ." Section 35: ". . . disagreement as to interpretation or
enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, .." And Section 39 reads as fol-
lows: "The controversies or disagreements which may be referred to the President
of the Union and the Business Managers of the newspapers or their representatives
or to the Joint Standing Committee, and decided in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 33 through 39, shall be limited exclusively and specifically to differences
in the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of this contract, including the
question of whether, under Section 5, the disputed issue is covered by the terms of
this agreement, and including the interpretation of all language contained in this
contract."
The Teamsters contract speaks more broadly of the area of dispute subject to
the grievance process; it applies the grievance practice to "any complaint or griev-
ance" that might arise. Both contracts also establish final, binding arbitration to
what each calls the "Board of Arbitration."
The Respondent concedes, as it must, that this no-strike language of the contracts
is not unequivocal as to the scope of the Union's surrender of the statutory right to
refuse to cross a picket line. Nevertheless, the Respondent contends that on the basis
of the totality of the agreements and other proof contained in the record evidencing
the intent of the parties, it must be found that each of the locals had in fact agreed
that for the duration of the contracts the employees would work without interrup-
tion, at least to the extent of ignoring picket lines such as that of the Washington
Guild in this instance.
The contracts make no reference whatsoever to picket lines, or to employee rights
to respect them in the course of their employment. It cannot be said, therefore, as
the Respondent argues, that the "dispute" between General Manager Becker, of the
Sun Papers, and the Unions, over the question of whether the employees should or
should not work, involved "interpretation or construction" of the terms of the agree-
ment Disagreement it certainly was, but the issue could not reasonably be com-
pared with questions that normally give rise to "grievances" in the accepted sense.
The printers made no claim upon the Sun Papers based upon contract rights; and
certainly the chauffeur group had no "complaint or grievance" against their
employer that could logically have been resolved through the Board of Arbitration.
If the position of the Respondent must prevail as a defense to this complaint, it
cannot be because the Unions should have channeled their desire not to cross the
Guild picket line into the grievance procedure and awaited final arbitration before
exercising this statutory right. In fact the very assertion that the Unions were obli-
gated to await arbitration before action is but artful rephrasing of the claim they
had surrendered all right to do so. It is a rare picket line indeed that outlives griev-
ance and arbitration procedures.
THE HEARST CORP. 1415
If the record contained no more than the contracts themselves, the defense based
on alleged contract violation would fail. The right to strike, or not to cross a picket
line, is guaranteed by the statute,7 and as such can only be bartered away in collec-
tive bargaining with "clear and unmistakable" language.8 Such is not the case here
and no serious contention to that effect is advanced.
Moreover, there is much persuasion in the General Counsel's argument that if
there be any ambiguity in these two no-strike provisions, it is largely offset by the
affirmative indications appearing in the contract language pointing to an intent to
limit the agreed-upon restraint to disputes directly cognizable under the respective
grievance procedures. Section 8 of the ITU contract expressly speaks of "differences
of opinion as to the rights of either under the agreement," and "disputes as to the
construction of the contract or any of its provisions." The Teamsters agreement also
ties the no-strike language to "grievances," and both contracts merge the prohibi-
tion with ultimate decisions of the Board of Arbitration, whose jurisdictional prov-
ince is necessarily bound within the limit of grievance disputes.
Only recently, in a unanimous decision, the Board ruled that a contract substan-
tially comparable to the two here in question did not prohibit strike action over a
dispute outside the scope of the grievance machinery. In San Juan Lumber Co., 154
NLRB 1153, the grievance clause covered "grievances with respect to the operation
of this agreement or any article thereof," and the union promised not to strike "until
every peaceful method of settlement of the difficulty shall have been tried." In
upholding the right of employees to strike in protest over the payment of wages with
bad checks, the Board said that ". . . the employees' right to strike action was not
deferred by the no-strike provision, . . . was not in conflict with that provision."
All this notwithstanding, although the contracts in this case do not "clearly
and unmistakably" waive the right to strike in any and all circumstances, neither
do they beyond question limit the purported extent of the restraint within the con-
fines of traditionally grievable disputes. The ITU clause does speak of the "spirit of
this agreement" guaranteeing prompt performance by the Union, and the Teamster
contract stresses "continuous and uninterrupted" delivery of the newspapers. An
element of ambiguity in both contracts there is; comment upon the degree of ambig-
uity here, or in comparable contracts, or in others considered in reported decisional
precedent, would be futile for complex language inevitably leads to irreconcilable
disagreement regarding its meaning. It is for this reason that the Respondent relies
heavily upon evidence external to the agreements as proof of the real intent of the
parties.
The lead decision, and the determining precedent here, for both the view that
these contracts are ambiguous and the eventual conclusion that collateral evidence
proves agreement not to strike in this situation, is the Supreme Court opinion in
N.L.R.B. v. Rockaway News Supply Co,., 345 U.S. 71. In that case a union member
was discharged for refusing to cross the picket line of another labor organization at
a place of delivery in the course of his work assignment. The contract clause there
read: "No strikes, lockouts or other cessation of work or interference therewith
shall be ordered or sanctioned by any party hereto during the term hereof except as
against a party failing to comply with a decision, award, or order of the Adjustment
Board." The Court construed this language to be sufficiently broad as to strip the
employee of his statutory right to engage in strike action. The opinion of the Court
does not make clear whether in so finding it also relied upon the fact that in the
negotiations preceding the contract, the union had attempted, without success, to
prevail upon the employer to incorporate in the agreement a further clause permit-
ting the employees to refuse to cross such a picket line; evidence of that fact had
seemingly been rejected by the Trial Examiner. As the Court said: "If this be con-
sidered ambiguous in meaning, respondent offered, as evidence of its intent and
meaning, to prove that during the negotiations one of the demands made by the
union was a clause in the contract with reference to work stoppages which would
have said `No man shall be required to cross a picket line,' that this clause was
rejected by respondent and the union acquiesced in the rejection and consented to
the no-strike clause as above recited. The Trial Examiner said: `All right, let the
offer of proof appear in the record.' From this it is not clear whether it was
accepted or rejected."
7 Cyril DeCordova and Bros., 91 NLRB 1121 ; Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union No. 79 v. N.L.R.B. (Redwing Carriers, Inc. and Rockana Carriers, Inc, Intervenors),
137 NLRB 1545, enfd. 325 F.2d 1011 (CA.D.C.).
8Timken Roller Bearing Co., 138 NLRB 15, enfd. 325 F.2d 746 (C.A. 6), cert. denied
376 U.S. 971.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It may thus be argued that, even apart from the external evidence of intent, the
Court deemed the cited contract language in Rockaway News a full no-strike clause
standing alone. There is too great a similarity between that language and the clauses
here in question-particularly that of Teamsters Local 355 contract-to be ignored.
Where the union agreed in Rockaway News not to strike except to vindicate an
adjustment board order, Local 355 promised not to strike until the grievance pro-
cedure had been exhausted, obviously meaning when in support of a decision of its
board of arbitration. And ITU Local 12 was bound to settle its disputes "in the
manner provided in this contract without strike." But it is not necessary to consider
whether the Court in fact found the Rockaway News clause per se a broad no-strike
proscription, and then to inquire further whether or not the Local 12 and Local 355
contracts carry the frailty of exactly comparable ambiguity so as to require a like
construction apart from all other evidence. Clearly the Court intended to rule as a
minimum that an ambiguous contract coupled with collateral evidence of the type
there offered must be construed as a surrender, during the terms of the agreement,
of the simple right to refuse to cross a picket line.
Here, the record shows without equivocation that in 1962, while negotiating the
-very contract in effect during the April 1965 events, Local 355 proposed a clause
reading as follows:
It shall not be a violation of this Agreement and it shall not be cause for dis-
charge or disciplinary action in the event an employee refuses to enter upon
any property involved in a labor dispute or refuses to go through or work
behind any picket line, including the picket line of Unions party to this Agree-
ment and including picket lines at the Employer's place or places of business.
The proposal was discussed, the joint newspaper companies refused to agree, and
the clause was discarded. Local 355 proposed a like clause for inclusion into the
renewal agreement being negotiated in May 1965, and it was again rejected by the
-employers after discussion.
To this must be added the fact that Harry Cohen, president of Local 355, who
executed the 1962 contract for his union , told both the Abell Company and his
members at the time of the Guild strike that in his opinion a refusal to cross the
picket line would dishonor the agreement.
The collateral evidence of intent in the case of the ITU Local 12 agreement is
different in kind but no less revealing. Virtually all the officers of that union, both
local and International, were positive, indeed quite vocal, and that the contract
required the printers to work despite the Guild strike. Repeatedly they urged the
members to "honor the contract"; the local officers reassured the employer in
advance that this is how they understood the agreement; Brown, from Colorado
:Springs, assured Business Manager Becker in the same vein, and made the local
union understand they could look to no benefits or other "assistance" from the
International so long as they "failed to perform work in accordance with the
contract."
Further, the scheme of the contract itself in a sense provides that the ITU gen-
eral laws, and thereby the Executive Council of the ITU International, should have
a voice in the merits of disputes that might arise during the life of the agreements.
The efforts made by the ITU central office to prevail upon the printers to conform
with "the requirements of the contracts" were not the gratuitous offerings of
strangers to the contractual relationship. Appended to the agreement there appears
,the following statement:
This agreement is approved as being in compliance with the laws of the Inter-
national Typographical Union, as limited by the Taft-Hartley law, and the
undersigned, on behalf of the Executive Council of the International Typo-
graphical Union, hereby pledges, as a matter of union policy only, its full
authority under its laws to the fulfillment thereof without becoming party
thereto and without assuming any liability thereunder.
.International Typographical Union
Elmer Brown
President
In turn , the TTU general laws provide that questions concerning the construction
and meaning , or the rights to be exercised, under contracts of ITU locals, are
matters to be determined first by the executive council in Colorado Springs, par-
ticularly with respect to strike action. A specific provision of the ITU general laws
provides: "The Executive Council shall have authority to interpret and enforce
contracts and agreements ." Article XX, Section 8.
THE HEARST CORP. 1417
In the strict sense of contract law the International Union was not party to the-
contract, and it is true the indirect incorporation of its general laws into the
agreement gave the executive council only a tangential authority so far as the
employers were concerned. Certainly Local 12 and the two newspaper companies
did not agree that in any dispute that might arise between them the ITU executive
council should be the final arbiter and its decision binding upon them, especially
in such matters as the statutory rights of individual printers. And it must be
clearly understood that if in the end, the Hearst Company's action in locking out
its own employees is to be deemed not violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, it
is not by virtue of a rational extension of the position taken by this council on'
April 17, 1965. The question of the legality of the Respondent's conduct must
always rest with the Board, and could never fall within the authority of either
party to the contract. However, the weight to be accorded the clearly expressed
understanding of the executive council as to what the union party understood as
its real intendment , is an entirely different matter. In the total circumstances that
view, direct and unequivocal, is most persuasive.
Nor is this proof of initial intent negated by the fact that the local union officers
later issued travel cards to Sun Paper printers who struck. Within the month the
International announced it had been in error to issue these cards, that only those
members of Local 12 who had been released against their will by the Hearst
Papers should have been so favored. As both groups of idle printers, the willing
and the unwilling ones, were members of the same local, such an error could well
have occurred, and there is no reason for not believing that this is precisely what
happened. In sum , the evidence as a whole shows clearly that both the local
officials and the international officers originally intended the ITU Local 12 con-
tract to preclude any strike action of this type, and that they were satisfied, when
the provocation arose, it had been so written.
In his comprehensive brief the General Counsel makes no reference to any of
this collateral evidence of intent; he rests solely on the assertion, properly
advanced, that neither contract "clearly and unmistakably" waives the statutory
right. The case precedent cited to support the complaint on this point is therefor
inapposite here .9
The Board' s decision in San Juan Lumber Co., supra, was issued after the briefs-
were filed in this proceeding. There was no evidence there of any intent by the
parties to broaden the apparent limitation of the scope of the no-strike clause as
set out in the contract; that case is therefore clearly distinguishable from the facts
shown here. Three members of the Court dissented, on the very point discussed
here, from the majority opinion in the Rockaway News decision of the Supreme
Court; moreover, the issues on which the Board's decision in that proceeding rested,
which were presented to the Court of Appeals, and which eventually were briefed
to the Supreme Court by the Board, did not include the question concerning the-
breadth of the contract no-strike clause. The Board may therefore choose to pre-
sent this question anew for court review, on the basis of more deliberate expert
evaluation of all the industrial relations factors involved. As the law now stands
I have no choice but to find that the contracts of both ITU Local 12 and Teamster
Local 355 in effect provided that the men would not engage in or sanction strike
during their terms in this type of situation . I find that when the printers and
chauffeur group refused to cross the picket line of the Washington Guild at the
Sun Papers, they and their local unions , violated the terms of the multiemployer
collective-bargaining agreements then in effect.
In general support of the complaint the General Counsel introduced evidence
intended to prove that apart from any considerations of no-strike contract clauses
or of joint defensive measures taken by multiple employers, Hearst in fact was
motivated by a direct intent to assist the Sun Papers in their negotiations with the
Washington Guild, and/or to discourage the union activities of all employees, its
own as well as those of Abell Company. The contention here is that even assuming
the Respondent may have had the privilege, under the statute, to discontinue publi-
cation on the grounds of contract violations or to preserve the integrity of its multi-
employer bargaining units, its action did not rest on those factors. The argument is
6 In Mastro Plastics Corp., and French-American Reeds Mfg Co., Inc v N L R B , 350,
U.S. 270, the strike protested the employer's unfair labor practices ; in N L R B v Knight
Morley Corp., 251 F.2d 753 (CA. 6), there was no strike at all , the remaining cases cited
relate to the waiver of wage data information or the right by a union to be consulted
regarding raises.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then made that if in fact an employer 's purpose is to discourage union activity
directly, the mere existence of a situation which could otherwise furnish a legal
defense to discrimination in employment , cannot serve as a defense to conduct
which must be found illegal in the end.
Most of the facts , not really controverted, upon which the government relies
for this contention , are directed to the second of the Respondent 's principal
defenses-that as one of two joint employers it had a right to preserve the busi-
ness interests of both by forcing a work stoppage coextensive with the entire bar-
gaining unit. It will be recalled, as set out in the beginning of this report, that this
Is a primary theory of defense, the other resting upon the concomitant claim that
the very contracts outlawed any strike. As it now appears that this latter defense
suffices as adequate grounds for dismissal of the entire complaint , there is no
occasion to consider in any sense in this case the balancing of an employer's eco-
nomic lockout weapon against a proper strike not tainted either by legal or con-
,tract proscription.
But it is not clear that the General Counsel would apply this asserted direct
proof of illegal motive to the defense of economic justification alone; in his brief
he seems to argue further. At one point the flat assertion is made that the lockout
in this instance was "demonstrably destructive of employee rights and not justified
by the service of significant or important business ends." But if the facts support
such a conclusion , even a contract violation by the two local unions might not
excuse Hearst's action.
Officers of both newspapers testified that the shutdown at the Hearst papers
reflected implementation of an agreement that in the event a strike by employees
covered in single multiemployer contracts prevented continued publication of one
paper , the other would discontinue its own . The government disputes this assertion.
Some of the evidentiary items said to prove the Respondent 's "antiunion activi-
ties animus" are of so little persuasion as to merit no serious discussion. Among
these are the following facts. (1) In its letters to employees both before the Guild
strike, and at the very moment of the layoff, the only reason stated by Hearst for
its action was the claimed illegal character-because of violation of contracts-of
the printers ' and the chauffeurs ' refusal to work. (2) The agreement between the
two companies was oral and not written . ( 3) The decision to act was made sud-
,denly, and was not based upon a "hallowed, time honored arrangement ." (4) While
considering the Guild 's warning that it would strike , General Manager Bertsch, of
the Sun Papers , formally inquired of the Hearst ' Company , among other things,
what it would do in the event the Guild did strike but failed to force discontinu-
ance of the Sun Papers.
Whether the two-employer agreement be oral or written, whether or not it be-
new, unprecedented reaction to the immediate events, are questions bearing no-
relevance to the issue at hand . 'The applicable rule stands entirely apart from such
considerations . "The Board and the Supreme Court have long held that strikes in
violation of the contract are unprotected , and that no violation can' be found for
.interfering with such activity . See American Gilsonile Company , 121 NLRB 1514;
N.L.R.B. v., Rockaway News Supply Company, Inc., 345 U.S. 71.... Given the
admitted facts of associationwide bargaining , and the unitwide nature of the prob-
lem, we think it reasonable that the Respondents reacted to the series of illegal
stoppages on an associationwide basis." 10
On April 24, a week after the Guild strike , management of the Hearst Company
invited representatives of virtually all the unions , representing its employees to a
conference . The Company proposed that the printers-including both those of the
Sun Papers and of Hearst-come to work at the Hearst plant and set type for both
-companies ' newspapers in the one building ; the suggestion was that both companies
resume operations at that single location . Alternatively Hearst suggested publica-
tion of a single newspaper with a combined masthead reading "Sun-News Ameri-
can." The Company believed that such an all-inclusive group of employees could,
work 24 'hours a day in'the Hearst facilities. The Unions refused the offer.
Was this an attempt by the Respondent to frustrate the Guild's picket line at the
Sun Papers and therefore evidence that its underlying motive was not insistence
upon coherent compliance with the contracts by employees , but a desire to assist
the Abell Company in its economic struggle with a group of employees-the Guild
11 Publishers ' Association of New York City, supra.
THE HEARST CORP. 1419
complement-having no relationship with the Hearst Company? The General
Counsel so argues, and in further support points to an admission by William Mills,
Hearst general manager. At the hearing Mills was asked had he considered the
possibility that concessions made by the Sun Papers to the Guild might compel like
concessions by Hearst to its editorial, news, advertising, etc. employees. He replied:
"I think that thought is always present. I mean , it would be rather inconceivable
to think that employees would go to work for one union at the Sun and for
another union at the News American without some comparable relationship
between them."
Finally, an inference of illegal motivation is also said to rest upon the fact that
Hearst was not satisfied with laying off printers and chauffeurs, when it closed
down, but also sent home employees who could not conceivably have been asso-
ciated with the picket line activities at the Sun Papers. The unarticulated conten-
tion here, apparently, is that Hearst should have continued at work the pressmen,
the stereotypers, the photoengraving employees, the mailing room workers, all
covered by multiemployer contracts but whose fellow union members had violated
no agreements at all, as well as roadmen and distributors represented by Teamster
Local 355, white collar employees represented by the News Union of Baltimore,
circulation district men of Distributors Union No. 503, electricians covered by con-
tract with IBEW Local 24, and maintenance machinists members of JAM Lodge
186, all of whose union contracts did not reach into the Sun Paper employees.
Special significance is placed upon the Respondent's failure to retain about six
machine maintenance men represented by the IAM, because they could have per-
formed repair or rehabilitation work on the machines while the plant as a whole
was shut down.
Considering the record in its entirety, I do not believe these particular facts
sufficient to prove affirmatively that the Respondent's motive was to discourage
union or concerted activities. Hearst's announced position, before the events, was
that the Local 12 and Local 355 contracts bound these unions not to strike; this
is what it told the union officers, what it explained to each employee laid off as
the reason for the shutdown, and what in fact happened. The fact that Hearst
found it necessary to lay off additional categories does not impair the persuasive-
ness of its assertion that curtailment of employees' self-organizational rights was
not a factor in the decision. Even assuming the newspapers could have been
delivered for an extended period by employees other than the chauffeurs and plat-
form men, certainly they could not be printed at all without the printers. The
Board's conclusion in the New York Mailers case is particularly apt:
Because of the integrated nature of the publishing industry, it seems clear that
a unit-wide lockout of one craft would necessarily result in a suspension of
work for all crafts. We are therefore unwilling to engage in the impractical
distinction that Respondents could have responded by locking out all members
of the offending crafts, but not members of the other crafts.
And, in a case of this magnitude, the failure to retain the six IAM maintenance
machine men is indeed a trivial incident. Out of a total laid off complement of
perhaps 900 these six would be the tail wagging the dog. There is no allegation
that if in the end all other layoffs are found to have been privileged under the Act,
the suspension of these particular few should nevertheless be held illegal. I deem
it of no greater significance, to the issue of the case as a whole, that Hearst had
certain supervisors make rounds to collect outstanding accounts from customers
instead of continuing temporarily, perhaps on a part-time basis, the rank-and-file
circulation men whose duties it had been, in part, to do this work. Within a matter
of days these loose ends had been cleared up and all of the work ceased until
resumption of publication a month later.
On the basis of the record in its entirety, and with reliance primarily upon the
fact the strike of ITU Local 12 and of Teamsters Local 355 at the Sun Papers
violated their collective-bargaining agreements then in effect with both the Abell
Company and the Respondent, I conclude that the essential allegations of the com-
plaint are not supported by the evidence. I shall therefore recommend dismissal of
the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed.