Tribune Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 841 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 841 Tribune Publishing Company, Petitioner and Boston Typographi- cal Union #13, affiliated with International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case No..1-RM-485. June 26, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National.Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ernest Modern. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Boston. Typographical Union #13, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: For some years the Union has been the recognized representative of the Employer's composing room employees. The most recent con- tract covering these employees had a February 28, 1963, expiration date. - On December 16, 1962, the Union notified the Employer that it was terminating this contract because the Employer had violated it. On the following day, the composing room employees of the Employer went on strike. The Union has, since then, picketed the Employer with signs charging the Employer with being unfair to the Union. After the strike began, the Employer permanently replaced all the strikers. The Employer-Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of its composing room employees.' The Union moves to dismiss the petition, contend- ing that it represents only the individuals on strike, and not the re- placements. We. construe the Union's position as a disclaimer that it represents a majority of the employees in the recognized unit. It ap- 1 The Union, which presented no witnesses at the hearing , contends that this Employer is part of a multiemployer unit. As we are dismissing the petition for other reasons, we find it unnecessary to consider this contention. 147 NLRB No. 99. 842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pears that the Union has made no request upon the Employer for recognition and bargaining since the inception of the picketing, and the record contains no evidence which is inconsistent with its dis- claimer or with its claim that the purpose of the picketing is to protest the Employer's breach of contract. Accordingly we find that no ques- tion exists concerning the representation of the Employer's employees. We shall therefore dismiss the petition z [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting : Unlike my colleagues, I would find that the Union has not made an effective disclaimer of representative interest and would, therefore, grant the Employer's request for an election. When the Union called the strike to protest an alleged breach of contract, it was the recognized, contractual representative of the Em- ployer's composing room employees under a contract which had several months to run. In view of the stated reason for the strike the Union then was, in my opinion, clearly asserting its continuing claim to be such a representative. Despite the fact that the Employer has perma- nently replaced all the strikers, the Union has continued to picket for more than 16 months, without any change in its signs charging the Employer with being unfair to the Union, and was still picketing at the time of the hearing. Moreover, the Union has not expressed any clear intent to abandon its claim to be the representative of the com- posing room unit, but, on the contrary, asserts in its brief. that it repre- sents the striking composing room employees; that the "picketing from its inception was in protest of the employer's violation of the agree- ment"; and that under the most recent contract it represented the Em- ployer's composing room employees as part of a multiemployer unit. In these circumstances, I cannot construe the Union's bare statement made for the first time at the hearing herein, that it does not claim to represent the employees hired as replacements, as an unequivocal dis- claimer of its continuing desire to represent these employees' Ac- cordingly, I would find that a question of representation exists, and direct an election in the contractual unit of the Employer's composing room employees.' 2 Chickasaw Hotel Company, d/b/a Chisca Plaza Motel Hotel, 132 NLRB 1540. See also Martino 's Complete Home Furnishings , 145 NLRB 604 ; Cockatoo , Inc., 145 NLRB 611. 8 See my dissenting opinions in Cockatoo, Inc., supra , and Martino 's Complete Home Furnishings, supra. Accord , the dissenting opinions in Franz Food Products . of Green Forest, Inc., 137 NLRB 340, and Houston Building & Construction . Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Company ), 136 NLRB 321. 4 The record in my opinion supports the Employer's contention that a unit limited to its composing room employees is the appropriate unit in this case.