The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
established multiemployer unit and that the requested unit limited
in scope to the Employer is inappropriate 4 We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 The A. B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc., 140 NLRB 212. The case of U.S. Pillow Corporation,
137 NLRB 584, relied upon by the Regional Director, is distinguishable on its facts, as
there the antecedent bargaining history prior to the pending multiemployer contract was
single employer in scope whereas here we find that no single-employer bargaining history
exists.
The Lord Baltimore Press , Inc. and Local 90, Amalgamated
Lithographers of America . Case No. 38-CA-14 (formerly 18-
CA-1825-0). February 24, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 8, 1964, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
An answering brief was filed by the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Members Fanning, Brown, 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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
i Following a Board-directed election (144 NLRB 1376), the Regional Director overruled
Respondent's objections to the election and certified the Union (decision not published in
NLRB volumes). In the course of the instant hearing, Respondent attempted to elicit
testimony and to introduce evidence pertaining to Respondent's objections in the prior
representation proceeding, including the transcript of the record of that case. The Trial
Examiner correctly refused to receive such evidence, which Respondent's counsel con-
ceded was neither newly discovered nor previously unavailable. National Van Lines,
123 NLRB 1272, 1273. Moreover, as was found in the representation case, even if the
union officials made the alleged preelection statements to the effect that the Company
had bribed the Board agent in a prior unfair labor practice case, this campaign propaganda,
although not condoned by us, is not of such a nature as to require that the election be set
aside. See F. H. Snow Canning Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 714 (re objection N,o 1).
151 NLRB No. 30.
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC . 237
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts
as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
1 The address given in the last paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision is amended to read: "Citizen' s Building , Fourth Floor, 225 Main Street
Peoria, Illinois , Telephone No. 673-9061, Extension 254."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on March 25, 1964, by Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union or Local 90, the General Counsel
for the National Labor Relations Board , hereinafter referred to as the Board , issued
a complaint on April 16 , 1964, against The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent or the Company , alleging violations of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (61 Stat. 136), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Respondent
thereafter filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was subsequently held in Clinton, Iowa, before
Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis, at which all parties were represented by coun-
sel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence pertinent
to the issues, and to engage in argument. Timely briefs were subsequently filed by
all parties.
Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Maryland corporation, maintains a plant in Clinton, Iowa,
where it is engaged in the business of printing folded boxes. During the 12-month
period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent shipped
products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Clinton, Iowa, plant directly to points
located outside the State of Iowa. The parties admit, and I find, that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I find, that Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In this proceeding the Respondent, in effect, seeks to test the Board's representa-
tion procedures and its certification of the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of certain of its employees, by denying the appropriateness of the unit as
established by the Board in its Decision and Direction of Election (Case No. 18-RC-
5534),2 and challenging the validity of a supplemental decision on objections to
conduct affecting the results of election and certification of representative subse-
quently issued by the Regional Director for Region 18.
The undisputed facts reveal that, pursuant to a representation petition having
been filed on May 15, 1963, by Local 90, by which the Petitioner sought to sever
1 A motion filed by counsel for the Respondent after the close of the hearing to
correct the transcript in several particulars, which motion was subsequently concurred
in by counsel for the General Counsel, is hereby granted, and Is received in evidence as
Trial Examiner's Exhibit No 1.
2 The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., 144 NLRB 1376.
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer 's lithographic employees from an existing production and mainte-
nance unit represented by the Intervenor ,3 a hearing was conducted on July 17 and
18, 1963. ^ Thereafter , on November 4, 1963, the Board issued its Decision and
Direction of Election , in which it directed that an election be held in a voting group
comprised of "all employees engaged in lithographic production work." 4 On
November 15, 1963, an election was conducted among the lithographic employees,
which resulted in 31 ballots having been cast for Local 90, 25 for the Intervenor,
and 2 challenged . Thereafter , on November 22, 1963, the Employer filed objec-
tion to conduct affecting the results of the election and demand for a hearing. Sub-
sequent to an investigation by the Regional Director , the latter , on December 26,
1963, issued a supplemental decision on objections and conduct affecting the
results of election and certification of representative , denying the Employer's
request for a hearing , and, in overruling the Employer 's objections , concluding that
the objections "do not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct
affecting the results of the election ." As a result thereof, and pursuant to the
Board's earlier directive , the Regional Director issued a certification of represent-
atives to Local 90 as the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of the Employ-
er's lithographic employees.5
Subsequently , on January 13, 1964, - the Employer filed with the Board, a request
for review of Regional Director 's Supplemental Decision , requesting in the alterna-
tive a hearing be held on the issues raised by the Employer's objections. By tele-
type, dated February 7 , 1964, the Board denied the Employer's request for review
on the ground that "it raises no substantial issues warranting review ." Thereafter;
on February 10, 1964, the Union requested that the Employer enter into contract
negotiations , which request was denied by the Employer on March 13, 1964.
Having admitted the above facts, including the refusal to bargain with the Union
as to the unit certified by the Board , the Respondent takes the position that its
refusal was not unlawful on the ground that ( a) the Board erred in its unit deter-
mination , rendering the certification of the Union for said unit improper , and (b)
the Regional Director erred in ( 1) overruling the Employer 's objections to conduct
affecting the results of election G and (2) denying the Employer 's request for a
hearing during which evidence in support of the objections might be established.T
$ Clinton Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union Local 7 11, AFL-CIO.
I In ordering an election among the lithographic employees the Board directed that in
the event that a majority of said employees voted for Local 90, the Regional Director was
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit , which the Board
found under the circumstances , to be an appropriate bargaining unit.
5 Specifically , the appropriate unit certified , as directed by the Board , is as follows:
All employees engaged in lithographic production work, including pressmen , feeder
operators , platemakers, inkmakers, and their apprentices , trainees , and helpers ; ex-
cluding all other employees , office clerical employees , professional employees, watch-
men, guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act
"As a basis for its objections to conduct affecting the results of election , upon which
the Employer asserted that the election should be set aside , the Respondent alleged that
(1) The union officials made false , inflammable , and malicious statements immediately
prior to the election concerning the Employer, the Employer ' s counsel , and Board agents,
to wit: "( a) That the Board agent who was assigned to investigate the charges in Case
No. 18-CA-1305 , which charges allege that the Employer ' s recognition of the Printing
Specialties and Paper Products Union was improper , was bribed by the Company's counsel
so that he would not find a violation of the Act, as alleged in the charges ( b) That
the Company ' s counsel had bribed the said Board agent , as set out in paragraph (a)
above, to avoid a finding by the Board that a violation of the Act occurred , further that
the bribe was accepted by the Board agent who thereafter did not properly investigate the
charges, resulting in a withdrawal by the Petitioner of the charges in Case No. 18-
CA-1305 , further , that the said case was not closed at the Board , but that the Petitioner
had withdrawn its charges without prejudice to their being reopened "
(2) Prior to the election , the Petitioner , through its officials, made threats , including
those of bodily injury, to employees eligible to vote in the election.
7 During the course of the hearing , although offering no evidence concerning the unit
issue , the Respondent attempted to elicit testimony and to introduce into the record
evidence pertaining to the Respondent 's objections in the representation case. Upon
being assured by counsel that such evidence was not "newly discovered " and that the
Respondent had in its possession no evidence that was prior thereto unavailable, I refused
to receive such evidence or to allow the introduction of testimony as to matters contained
in the Respondent ' s offer of proof pertaining thereto. -
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC. 239
As both of these issues, and the Respondent's position with respect to each, were
raised before the Board by the Respondent in the latter's request for review, and,
as I view the Board's ruling thereon, as well as its prior unit determination and
certification of the Union in the representation proceeding as conclusive and bind-
ing upon me,s rendering the unit issue other than properly the subject of litigation
in this proceeding, I am compelled to find, as I do, that, on the basis of the Board's,
rulings in the representation case, the Union since December 26, 1963, has been the
exclusive bargaining representative for all of the employees in the unit heretofore
found appropriate, and that the Respondent, since March 13, 1964, has refused to
bargain with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5), and derivatively,
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice,.
it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-,
tive action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Lord Baltimore Press, Inc, is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since December 26, 1963, Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers of America,
has been the exclusive bargaining representative within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act for all employees engaged in the Employer's lithographic production work,
including pressmen, feeder operators, platemakers, inkmakers, and their apprentices,
trainees, and helpers; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By refusing on March 13, 1964, and thereafter to bargain collectively with
Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of all its employees in the above-described appropriate unit, The Lord
Baltimore Press, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, The Lord
Baltimore Press, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 90, Amalgamated Lithographers
of America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of its employees engaged
in lithographic production work, including pressmen, feeder operators, platemakers,
inkmakers, and their apprentices, trainees, and helpers; excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
s Air Control Products of St. Petersburg , Inc, 139 NLRB 413, Allis-Chalmers Manu-
facturing Company, 120 NLRB 644; Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc, 117 NLRB 1719;
Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc, 117 NLRB 1619
240 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 90, Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the certified appropriate unit and embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in Clinton, Iowa, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 18, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by it, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for at
least 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.I°
0In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
io In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Local 90, Amalgamated
Lithographers of America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of
our employees in the certified bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
The bargaining unit is:
All employees engaged in lithographic production work, including press-
men, feeder operators, platemakers, inkmakers, and their apprentices,
trainees, and helpers; excluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT by refusing to bargain collectively through Local 90, Amal-
gamated Lithographers of America, or in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC.,
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, 316
Federal Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Telephone No.
334-2611, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.