A. H. Belo Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. H. Belo Corporation and Lewis E. Elam,
Jr., Donald R. Melton, Ronald J. Payne, and
Charles R. Mitchell . Case 16-CA-2678.
May 31,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 18, 1966, Trial Examiner George L.
Powell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
brief in support of said exceptions, and the Charging
Parties filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's
exceptions and in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision, and cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 and the entire record in the
case, including the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and
briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the following addition.
The Trial Examiner failed to conclude, as alleged
in the complaint, that the Respondent, in fact,
discharged and refused to rehire the 68 mailing room
employees named in his Recommended Order. We
find merit in the Charging Parties' exception to the
Trial Examiner's failure in this regard.
On May 7, 1966, Respondent's mailing room
employees engaged in a concerted work stoppage in
protest against their terms and conditions of
employment and upon Respondent's refusal to
discuss such matters with their informally appointed
representatives.
The employees' committee confronted Mailing
Room Superintendent W. B. Wilson with their
grievances and, after a short, abortive discussion,
Wilson ordered them out of his office. Shortly
thereafter, another supervisor, W. Conkle, shouted
to the entire group through his office window,
ordering them off Respondent's property and stating
' N L.R.B v. Washington Aluminum Co , 370 U.S 9, affirming
126 NLRB 1410
2 Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner's
recommendation that it engage in collective bargaining, upon
request, with "whatever bargaining agent is designated as the
165 NLRB No. 8
that they no longer worked for Respondent. Finally,
that night when the group of strikers appeared at
Respondent's premises and unconditionally
requested reinstatement to their mailing room jobs,
Superintendent Wilson refused them because, as he
stated, they had walked off their jobs. Thereafter,
Respondent removed the strikers' names from its
list of mailing room employees and has persisted in
its refusal to reinstate them. In view of the foregoing,
and other supportive evidence in the record, we find
that Respondent discharged its mailing room
employees on May 7, 1966, and has continually
refused to reinstate them in reprisal for their
engaging in a concerted work stoppage.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that these
employees engaged in protected concerted activity
within the ambit of Section 7 of the Act.'
Consequently, the Respondent's conduct in
discharging and refusing to reinstate them for this
legitimate exercise of their rights is violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; thus, the remedies
recommended by the Trial Examiner are
appropriate.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, A.H. Belo Corporation, Dallas, Texas,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete paragraph 2(d) from the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and reletter
present paragraphs 2(e) and (f) as paragraphs 2(d)
and (e), respectively. Correspondingly, delete the
next to the last paragraph from the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Notice.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) of
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"(b) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing any of its employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act."
3. Add the following Armed Forces provision
contained in paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order to the Examiner's
Recommended Notice:
exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit in the mailing room " Because material matters relating to a
bargaining order were neither alleged nor litigated, we find merit
in Respondent's exception.
BELO CORPORATION
Note: We will notify each of the above employees
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE L. POWELL, Trial Examiner: With all parties
represented by counsel, this proceeding was heard on
July 19 and 20, 1966, in Dallas, Texas, on complaint of the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called General Counsel, and answer of A.H. Belo
Corporation, herein called Respondent.'
The issues raised by the complaint and answer are: Did
the Dallas Evening News, through its agents, refuse to
consider or process a grievance of certain "extra" boys
including "slippers"; because of this refusal did they
strike; and did they seek to terminate the strike by making
an unconditioned offer to return to work. Also involved
were issues of whether they were discharged on
May 7-and were refused rehire by Respondent. Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act, is involved.
Timely briefs were received from the General Counsel
and from the Individuals on August 17, and from
Respondent on August 18.2
Upon the entire record, including the parties' briefs and
my observation of the witnesses while on the stand, I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
It is admitted by the parties, and I find , that Respondent
is engaged in publishing the Dallas Morning News and in
operating radio station WFAA and television station
WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas. During the past calendar year
Respondent , in the course and conduct of its newspaper
publishing operations , held membership in or subscribed
to various news services including The Associated Press,
the United Press International , and the New York Times
News Service . It also published various syndicated
features including Publishers Newspaper Syndicate and
Bell-McClure Syndicate . Further , it advertised nationally
sold products and services including American Airlines,
Eastern Airlines , and the Manhattan Life Insurance
Company. Its gross revenues from its publishing
operations were in excess of $200,000 . Accordingly,
Respondent admits and I find Respondent to be engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Employee Status
Lewis E. Elam, Jr., Donald R. Melton, Ronald J. Payne,
and Charles R. Mitchell, herein called the Individuals,
filed the charges in this case against the Respondent on
their own behalf and on behalf of 64 others (listed on
Appendix "A" of the complaint), who worked regularly on
Wednesday and Saturday nights, and on such other nights
23
as directed, in the mailroom of the Dallas Morning News
"slipping," bundling, and preparing the printed papers for
distribution. Respondent employs 9 or 10 "regulars" who
work daily in the mailroom but in order to get out the more
bulky Thursday and Sunday editions Respondent used
these 68 high school and college students aged 16 to 18,
calling them "extra boys." Respondent attempted to cast
doubt on the regularity of their employment but its
supervisor, Wilson, admitted that they worked "every
week" on Wednesdays and Saturdays even including
holidays and that they also work days on which
Respondent posts notices of special runs. Melton credibly
testified that he had worked for Respondent for about 2
years prior to May 7, 1966, averaging about 24 hours of
work per week over the 2-year period.3
I find the Individuals and the remainder of those listed
in the Appendix of the complaint, all herein referred to as
"the boys," to be "employees" of Respondent's "mail
room" within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act.
1. May 7,1966
During the week before Saturday, May 7, the boys
talked among themselves about what they thought to be
their low wages, long hours, unsafe practices, lack of
safety devices on machinery, and other grievances. The
wages ranged from $1.25 to $1 50 an hour or $12.50 for
"slipping" 10,000 papers. The hours were very long
evidenced by the fact that sometimes the boys would work
15- or 16-hour stretches reporting in at 11 a.m. and work,
with little time off, until 2 or 3 a.m. the following morning.4
Whatever the cause, be it long hours with little rest or
carelessness, there was evidence that Tony Stevens had
been hurt falling from a conveyor and another "got his
head smashed up" in a similar accident.
The complaint issued on June 22, 1966, based upon a charge
filed by the Individuals on May 11, 1966 The answer by
Respondent was filed on June 29, 1966 All dates are in 1966
unless otherwise noted
2 Joint exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were received by me on July 25, 1966,
with a stipulation by all the parties that they be received into
evidence The stipulation and the joint briefs are hereby admitted
into evidence.
Wilson's testimony in pertinent part follows
MR WELLS You mean you will put a slip on the board on
Wednesday night for these boy[s] to see that the next time
they are wanted is, say 8 o'clock on Thursday or 9.30 on
Friday, or whatever time it is Saturday?
THE WITNESS [Wilson] We do an extra slip
MR WELLS And you expect these boys that are working
there Wednesday night to observe that bulletin board and
guide themselves accordingly to come back to work9
THE WITNESS We not only expect it , but they do it
One of the grievances Lewis Elam tried to bring up before
Wilson on May 7 had to do with an accident the preceding
morning in which Frost had cut off part of his finger in the moving
machinery The same thing had happened sometime before to
Elam The testimony of Wilson as he was questioned by Mr Wells
follows
Q You told him [Frost], "If you just be careful, you
wouldn't be cutting your finger 9"
A That's true
Q And he [Frost] complained at the time it happened to
him at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, after he had been
working since 11 o'clock the previous morning, and he was
tired 9
A If a man is tired , does he put his hand on moving
machinery?
Q Is that what Mr. Lewis Elam tried to tell you in your
office that morning?
A. That is what he said
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The boys wanted a wage increase, a minumum
guarantee for call-in pay, pay for one-quarter hour's work
rather than only for one-half hour's work, and a rest period
every 5 hours. The normal work schedule was from
11 a.m., with 30 minutes for lunch between 12 and 12:30
p.m., straight through to 7:30 or 8 p.m. when there was a
30-minute supper break. Then they would work until
10 p.m. After a 1-hour break work began again at 11 p.m.
with quitting time at 2 or 3 a.m. the following morning.
These were the matters discussed among the boys on
Friday night, May 6, at a meeting in front of the News
building attended by about 40 and chaired by James
Bennett. Bennett told them "that we ... were going to get
something better for them ... or we weren't going to
work."
The following morning, May 7, the Individuals 'told
Wilson, superintendent of the mailing room,5 that they
wanted to talk to him. He let into his office a group of 14 of
the boys. Wilson then was handed a handwritten list of the
boys' grievances. They also complained about the lack of
safety features on the machinery. Wilson heard their
requests and asked them by "what authority" were they
speaking for the boys. They told him to look out the
window where he could see the remainder of the more
than 60 mailroom employees (the boys) standing looking in
the office at a time when they ordinarily would have been
working.
They asked Wilson what he was going to do about the
grievances. He replied, "Well, I have no authority.... All
I can tell is tell you I will talk with Mr. Blum and see what I
can do in the next 3 or 4 weeks." The boys asked Wilson to
telephone Blum. He refused, asserting, "Well, I didn't
even know where Mr. Blum is. It is his day off ... I don't
know how to get hold of Mr. Blum." Milton asked him to
call Blum's house at his, Melton's, expense but this was
refused. Melton then asked Wilson if he, Melton, could
call Mr. Blum's house to which Wilson replied that he
could not. Melton asked for permission to talk to Blum and
this too was refused by Wilson.
Melton then said, "Will you give us something definite,
then, give us something we can be sure of?" Further
according to Melton's credited testimony, Wilson replied,
"Well, no I can't. Maybe in the next 3 or 4 weeks.... Now,
you all can either get back to work or get out." Melton
replied, "I am gone."6
The boys then all congregated on the walkway between
the Communications Center and the News building, where
Melton and Payne reported on the meeting with Wilson,
telling them that Wilson would not give them anything
definite and would not let them talk to Blum but instead
talked of "three or four weeks." A few of the boys,
however, some four, five, or six, went to work as scheduled
and did not participate in the mass meeting.
Melton and Bennett went back into the News building to
get their personal belongings. They were met by Wilson
who grabbed Melton by the shirt collar saying, "What are
you doing here? You don't work here, get out." However,
5 Wilson's title was admitted by Respondent in its answer
6 Wilson's testimony is quite similar except he testified that he
said, "Then, if you don't want to work, please step out." I do not
credit this more gentlemanly statement as it is out of character
with his attitude toward the boys as manifested in the trial Also it
is out of keeping with his treatment of Melton later on that
morning as will be detailed later
Wilson's insistence that he told the boys "next week, if you
want a meeting with Mr Harrison and Mr. Blum, next week I will
Melton was permitted to get his clothing and returned to
the assembled boys.
In about 15 minutes Wilson appeared and asked the
boys if they were ready now to go to work. Melton
requested an additional 15 minutes for the boys to talk it
over.7
According to Melton's credited testimony the following
happened:
Q. Okay. Then what happened? Did any
discussion take place within that fifteen minutes or
so?
A. Yes, sir, we had a long discussion on what
everybody was in agreeance with staying there, some
of them wanted to take a vote. I said, "No, no,
everybody makes up their own mind. Nobody is going
to decide the fate of anybody. It is going to be on an
individual basis. If you want to go back to work,
nobody is going to say anything about it. If you want to
stay here, fine."
Q. Then what happened?
A. I said, "Anybody wants to go back to work, go
on, and I will go and tell Mr. Wilson that the rest of us
are staying." So I did.
Q. Nobody went back, everybody stayed over there
together and made up their own mind?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then after that, did you ever have any further
contact with Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes, sir, he come back a little later. About ten,
fifteen minutes, he came back and told us that we
would either have to go back to work or get off the
Dallas Morning News property.
Q. At that time, you went to the parking lot?
A. Yes, sir, we were still on the parking lot.
Q. Tell us as slow as you can what he told you?
A. He came walking out of the building, followed
by him were security guards stationed there during
the day to make sure nobody got on the lot for parking
that wasn't supposed to be there. It kind of looked like
he meant business. He told us to get off the lot if we
weren't going back to work.
After the 14 boys had left Wilson's office but before
Wilson came out to ask them if they were ready to go back
to work, Wilson had called Blum "at about 11:30 or 11:45"
telling him "the boys had walked out." Blum asked Wilson
if he were "doing all right getting the paper out." Wilson
told him "we are calling in help" and Blum replied, "Well,
keep up the good work." No mention was made in the
conversation about grievances. Apparently Wilson did not
give them much thought as he testified:
Q. Mr. Wilson, if you wanted to be fair to these
boys, wouldn't you, when you went out there in that
parking lot, wouldn't you have told them, "I have just
talked to Mr. Blum, we can set this thing up Monday
or Tuesday of next week-now, you all go on back to
work so we can get this paper out." Did that ever
occur to you?
A. No, I don't think it did.
set it up next week," is not credited It is inconsistent with the 3-
to 4-weeks' prediction a few minutes earlier without indicating a
change of heart. Moreover, although he had meanwhile talked
with Blum he had not asked Blum to arrange a meeting with the
boys nor did he indicate to the boys that he had talked to Blum. As
noted above, a few minutes earlier he had refused to let Melton
call Blum, and had told the boys he did not even know where
Blum was
BELO CORPORATION 25
The boys remained in the News parking lot for a short
time thereafter , until Supervisor Conkle shouted to them
and told them to "get off his property , we didn 't work there
anymore."
Meanwhile , Wilson returned to the parking lot and told
the boys to get off the News' property. The boys thereupon
moved in a body to a public park, Ferris Plaza,
immediately across the street to the north of the News
building. There they wrote out a list of their grievances,
designated 5 of their number as "spokesmen ," and 63 of
them signed the document . This document is reproduced
as follows:
Made May 7,1966
We the undersign [ sic] were given the concent
[sic] by the extra boys on the foiling [sic] page
to speak for them at a meeting to review our
request and grievances.
Committee members
1. Ronald J. Payne FE 7-3877
2. Donald R. Melton AX 8-2569
3. Charles R. Mitchell BR 9-8773
4. Ruben Walker FR 1-1990
5. [blank]
These action [ sic] are due to the refusal to bargain by
the Mailing Room Superintendent Red Wilson. [end
of page 1]
Made May 7,1966 Request & Grievances
1. $15 for 10,000 papers on Saturday. $1.50 for 1
thousand papers on Saturday.
2. 15 [cent]-25 [cent ] raise for everyone.
3. 5-6 min. for everyone.
4. Safety shields on machines.
5. Brakes [sic] every five hours.
6. Paid by 1/4 hour instead of 1/2 hour.
[end of page 2]
Made May 7,1966
[There followed sixty-three signatures of the
boys working in the mail room.]
About mid-afternoon, Melton and Payne walked across
the street to the News building to see Wilson, but the
security guard there barred their entry telling them that he
had been instructed "to keep us off the property."8
The boys remained on the public plaza all day until
about 8 p . m. when they were invited to the I .T.U. union
hall. At the hall they discussed their problems and decided
to return to Respondent 's plant and offer to return to work.
The Respondent ' s answer admitted and Wilson
admitted that the boys all sought and were denied
reinstatement at or about 10 :30 p.m. The credited
evidence is that at or about 10:30 p . m. that night the boys
returned to the plant in a group where Melton , speaking
for the entire group , "told them [ Wilson ] we'd like to have
our jobs back and go back to work right away." Wilson
refused to reinstate them telling them , "No, you cannot.
You walked off the job." Melton insisted that they had
been "fired , discharged." Wilson reiterated that they
would not be taken back because "you walked off.... you
walked off and left a job of your own accord ." He made no
mention of replacements at the time yet that became one
of his positions at the hearing herein.
The boys kept insisting on their jobs and then asked for
their pay to date. Wilson refused the job offers but told
them they could return for their pay next Wednesday. The
boys remained until the police, at the Respondent's
instigation , told them to get off the News' property as they
were trespassing.
The following day, Sunday, May 8, Payne went to the
News' to work according to the schedule which had been
made the previous Thursday . He was stopped by the guard
and was told that he was not to be admitted . Payne asked
to talk to Conkle , assistant superintendent of the mailing
room , on the telephone . The guard permitted the call.
Payne's undisputed evidence is:
Q. (By Mr. Wells) What did Mr Conkle say to you,
and what did you say to him on the intercom?
A. Well, I picked it up , and I said , dialed the
number , and said , "Mailing Room ," and I said, "Mr.
Conkle, I'd like to talk to you for a few minutes."
He said , " I have nothing to say to you ." I said,
"Well, Mr . Conkle, I have a right-"and I got about
that far , and he hung up the phone.
Q. Is that the extent of the conversation?
A. That was the full extent of the conversation.
The following day, Monday, May 9, Payne, meeting with
Blum and Harrison in the News office, handed Blum a
written memorandum of the employees ' grievances and
asked what could be done, Blum replied, "I don 't see why
you have anything to say. You are not an employee of this
company any longer." Blum kept saying, "the extra boys
had tried to hold up the operation of the paper , . . . and no
individual , or group of individuals , was ever going stop the
Dallas Morning News from going out."
On Tuesday, May 10, Melton and Jim Templeton had a
similar conversation with Blum and Harrison . Blum again
reiterated : "I don 't know why you are interested [about
resolving grievances ] you are not an employee of this
company," and "no individual or group of individuals
would stop this paper from going out."
Blum was present at the hearing but did not testify. Nor
did he make any reference in his conversation that the
boys had been replaced.
2. Defense of "replacement"
Wilson insisted at the hearing that the boys had all been
"replaced" by 9 p . m., May 7. But on cross-examination he
admitted : That since May 7, "We did have a little trouble
getting help in the mailing room ." He testified:
Q. And you have advertised all over the State of
Texas for mailers , haven't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the same time you were taking these boys
that had worked regular extra for you off the list of
even probable employment?
A. The boys had quit . I had no choice in taking
them off.
Moreover, the alleged "replacements " hired on May 7,
were "people out of [the News] office [called] to come
help . out ." Solicitors , who had been asked to get
anybody they could get, brought in "their boys," and Boy
Scouts of America. Wilson acknowledged that he turned to
every possible source "whether or not a man had any skill
as a slipper or not ." The following excerpt from Wilson's
testimony on cross-examination is revealing:
Q. . . . You had to take whatever you could get?
A. Not whatever we could get, no, sir, we had a
choice. Fifteen years olds, we didn 't work . Fourteen
year olds, we didn't work, but we took them from
sixteen on up that were able to work.
8 This is from Melton's credited testimony.
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. You take them from sixteen on up whether they
are experienced or not or whether you had to get them
through the Boy Scouts or from the solicitors or from
the office boys up in the News office, or wherever else
you could get them, didn't you?
A. Right.
Q. And some of these boys just wore themselves
out by 6:00 or 7:00 o'clock and had to leave, didn't
they?
A. Had to leave?
Q. Well, at least they said they did?
A. They said they wanted to go. They didn't have
to leave, no, it was their choice.
Q. Their choice was because they were not
experienced in this work, and they just wore
themselves out, even though they were topping and
not slipping?
A. The first night I worked, I wore myself out too.
Q. So by 10:30 that night you had the choice of
keeping on these people who were worn out tired and
unable to slip, and the best they could do was
top-that was the choice on the one hand, or on the
other hand, you could take your experienced crew of
sixty people who were there begging to go back to
work, isn't that right?
MR. LESH: I will object to that. I don't believe there
is any testimony, and he wouldn't be in a position to
testify whether they were too tired, unable to slip.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I will permit the questions.
Q. (By Mr. Wells) Isn't that right?
A. (No response.)
Q. The boys were tired, isn't that right?
TRIAL EXAMINER: Will you read his answer?
(The last answer was read by the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: This crew of sixty told me they
didn't care to work for me, so I respected their
wishes.
Q. (By Mr. Wells) They were there telling you at
10:30 they wanted to come back to work, and they
cared to work for you?
A. They was demanding, then, because they said,
"We have the union behind us, we have the Labor
Relations Board. You are forced-"
Q. You thought you ought to discipline them
because of what they had done earlier in the day?
A. Not at all, because in previous years, whenever
a man says he doesn't want to work for us, we respect
his wishes. If he comes back two or three times after
that, and definitely shows he is interested in working,
then I will reconsider him if he is worth taking back
on.
Q. Did you tell the boys that at 10:30 that night, or
at any other time?
A. I told the boys they had quit, that it was their
decision.
Respondent denied having a master payroll but
admitted keeping a list of all extra boys in the mailroom.
After the hearing in the instant case, I accepted into
evidence some joint exhibits filed by all the parties. These
joint exhibits are the lists of the boys kept by Respondent.
One of them is the list of May 7, one is the list as of May 8,
and the other is a list as of the following month of June. It
B Sec 8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7
Section 7 states-
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to Self-organization
is noted by comparing these lists, that although the boys'
names appear on the May 7 lists they do not appear on the
later lists of May 8 or June (except for the few boys who
did not walk out on May 7 ). The General Counsel and
counsel for the Individuals emphasize the fact that the
boys who engaged in the walkout on May 7 were not on the
May 8 list even though on May 7 at 10. 30 p.m. they offered
to return to work and at that time permanent replacements
had not been hired.
Wilson admitted that "nobody even suggested to ...
[the May 7 replacements that] ... they were getting a
permanent job." It was not until toward the end of the shift
Sunday morning (sometime after 10:30 p.m. Saturday) that
the replacements were advised of the availability of future
work . Accordingly , I find the boys were not permanently
replaced until several hours after they had requested
reinstatement.
Wilson testified in effect , that he was following a policy
that "where a boy quits, we let him cool off for a while."
B. Analysis and Conclusions 9
Taking Up first the proposition of Respondent that
"where a boy quits, we let him cool off for awhile," we
have the question of whether this applies to the instant
case, and if so is there a violation of the Act by maintaining
its established policy.
The evidence reveals that the supervisor told the boys
on several occasions over a period of about 4 hours "either
go back to work or get off the premises." An employer has
this right to require its employees to work or leave the
premises. The employees cannot engage in a strike or a
concerted refusal to work and at the same time remain at
their job stations. The important question to be resolved in
this case is whether Respondent was telling the boys to
take their concerted activity off the premises (a legal
position) or was Respondent telling the boys to abandon
their concerted activity or be considered as having "quit"
their employment (an illegal position).
The Respondent has consistently maintained the
position that the boys "quit." It has never considered their
action as a protected concerted activity under Section 7 of
the Act. This conclusion follows from actions and
statements of Respondent's agents. As illustrations,
Respondent followed its procedure relating to boys who
quit by letting them "cool off for awhile"; it took their
names off the list of extra boys it regularly calls in to work;
Wilson refused the boys' application to return to work at
10:30 p.m. Saturday because they "walked off and left a
job of [their] own accord"; Conkle refused to talk to
Payne on Sunday, the following morning; Blum also
refused to talk to Payne on Monday, the next day, telling
him "you are not an employee of this company any
longer"; and on the very day of the walkout, Saturday,
Melton and Bennett attempted to get into the News
building to get their personal belongings but were met by
Wilson who grabbed Melton by the shirt collar saying,
"What are you doing here? You don't work here, get out."
I conclude from this evidence that Respondent was giving
the boys the "Hobson's Choice," a choice without an
alternative, of giving up their right to engage in protected
concerted activity or being considered as having quit their
. to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection .
BELO CORPORATION
employment. By making continuous employment
conditioned on giving up the right to engage in a concerted
walkout, Respondent has interfered with and restrained its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and in so doing has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. The Respondent did not accept the fact that the
employees had not only the right to concertedly present
their grievance but also the right, under these
circumstances, to cease work. Wilson admits he made no
adjustments when grievances were presented him on
Saturday morning.
But even assuming, without deciding, that the boys in
the instant case "quit" their employment because
Respondent refused to process their grievances over
wages, hours, and working conditions (which indeed was
all the boys were interested in), there is a violation of the
Act here because at 10:30 p.m., Saturday they applied for
reemployment (rather than "reinstatement," the term
used if a "strike" rather than a "quit" were involved) an
reemployment was denied them. It was denied them
admittedly in order to chill their concerted action. To
force the boys to "cool off for awhile" interferes with,
coerces, and restrains them from engaging in the
concerted action of quitting brought about by the fact that
the grievances over working conditions, etc., were not
processed. N.L.R.B. v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263,
275 (1965). The policy of the Congress in enacting the Act
was to protect employees when they concertedly engaged
in just such activities. Accordingly, Section 8(a)(1) is
violated.
Not only did the refusal to take the boys back at 10:30
p.m. on Saturday, May 7, violate the Act but again on
May 8 when Respondent removed them from the list of the
boys, Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained
its employees who were engaging in protected concerted
activities for their mutual aid and protection. The law on
these points is set out in the following cases: Morrison-
Knudsen Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. 358 F.2d 411 (C.A. 9);
N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Com-
pany, Inc., 130 F.2d 503 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Schwartz,
146 F.2d 773 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life
Insurance Company, 167 F.2d 983 (C.A. 7); Carter Car-
burator Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 140 F.2d 714 (C.A. 8);
N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, Inc., 370
U.S. 9.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, and in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom, offer to reinstate the employees named herein
to their same or substantially equivalent jobs, with
backpay from 10:30 p.m., May 7, 1966, computed in
accordance with the formula set forth in F.W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, and that it post an appropriate notice.
27
The nature of the unfair labor practices is such that an
additional order will also be recommended. As the strike
began over the refusal of the Respondent to bargain with
its so-called extra employees in the mailroom by refusing
to process a grievance over wages, hours, and terms and
conditions of employment, it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively with
whatever bargaining agent is designated by a majority of
its mailing room employees in an appropriate unit.
Further, as the nature of the unfair labor practices has
caused the loss of employment it goes to the very heart of
the Act and is such that a broad cease-and-desist order
appears warranted and will be recommended. N.L.R.B. v.
Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532,536 (C.A. 4).
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions and on the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The boys are employees within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act.
3. By refusing to reinstate the boys to their jobs at 10:30
p.m., May 7, 1966, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent A.H. Belo Corporation, its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees from engaging in concerted activities for their
mutual aid or protection by refusing them employment or
by removing them from the list of employees regularly
used by Respondent to fill "extra" jobs in the mailroom of
the News.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to reinstate (if not already so reinstated) each
of the following named persons to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole in the manner described in the portion of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
Aguuar, Glen
Alcala, Joe
Arredondo, Ted
Beard , Jimmy D.
Bennett, James
Blackwell, Rickey
Blythe, Mike
Burgess, Billy
Byrd, Larry
Carter, Ray
Castro, Rosendo
Chamberlain, Joe
Davis, John
Dean, Tommy
Doerr, Mike
Duncan, Mike
Elam, Lewis E., Jr.
Gatlin, Bobby
Gooch, Jerry
Graves, Jay Kenneth
Hamm, David
Haney, Robert
Hilton, Mike E.
Holleyhead, Jimmy
House, Ross T., Jr.
Howard, Parker
28
Hugghins , Ronald
Jeter, Ronnie
Jones, Marshall
King , Donald
Land, Jimmy
Lang, Bruce
Luckert, Gary
Luckert, Glenn
Malone, Ryzie
Martinez,David
McCasland, Roger
McCutchen, Robert
McCutcheon, David
Melton, Donald R.
Miller, Marshall S.
Milliron , Wesley
Mitchell, Charles R.
Mitchell, Richard
Neal, Steve
Noah, Victor, Jr.
Pollock, Larry Paul
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Payne, Ronald
Posey, James
Raley, Bill
Salazar, Julian L.
Sellers, Gary
Smith, Melvin
Spears, Eugene
Stephens, Tom
Stone, Dewayne
Swan, Joe
Funnell, Leo
Walker, Joe
Walker, Rickey
Walker, Ruben
Whatley, Jimmy
Williams, Hal
Williams, Ronnie
Wilson, Albert
Yeakley, Mark
Zimmerle, Robert
Zipperer, Bob
(b) Notify each of the above if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board , or its agents , for examination and copying, all
records including, for example, payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, and personnel
records and reports necessary to determine the amounts of
backpay due.
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with whatever
bargaining agent is designated as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit
in the mailing room and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
(e) Post at its place of business at Dallas, Texas, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is 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."
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discriminate in the hire and tenure of
employment of employees who engage in concerted
activity for their mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce any of our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the following employees their
former jobs and make them whole for any loss of pay
since 10:30 p.m. May 7,1966.
Aguilar, Glen
Alcala, Joe
Arredondo, Ted
Beard, Jimmy D.
Bennett, James
Blackwell, Ricky
Blythe, Mike
Burgess, Billy
Byrd, Larry
Carter, Ray
Castro, Rosendo
Chamberlain, Joe
Davis, John
Dean, Tommy
Doerr, Mike
Duncan, Mike
Elam, Lewis E., Jr.
Gatlin, Bobby
Gooch, Jerry
Graves, Jay Kenneth
Hamm, David
Haney, Robert
Hilton, Mike E.
Holleyhead, Jimmy
House, Ross T., Jr.
Howard, Parker
Hugghins , Ronald
Jeter, Ronnie
Jones, Marshall
King , Donald
Land, Jimmy
Lang, Bruce
Luckert, Gary
Luckert, Glenn
WE WILL bargain
bargaining agent is
Malone, Ryzie
Martinez, David
McCasland, Roger
McCutchen, Robert
McCutcheon, David
Melton, Donald R.
Miller, Marshall S.
Milliron, Wesley
Mitchell, Charles R.
Mitchell, Richard
Neal, Steve
Noah, Victor, Jr.
Pollock, Larry Paul
Payne, Ronald
Posey, James
Raley, Bill
Salazar, Julian L.
Sellers, Gary
Smith, Melvin
Spears, Eugene
Stephens, Tom
Stone, Dewayne
Swan, Joe
Funnell, Leo
Walker, Joe
Wlker, Ricky
Walker, Ruben
Whatley, Jimmy
Williams, Hal
Williams, Ronnie
Wilson, Albert
Yeakley, Mark
Zimmerle, Robert
Zipperer. Bob
collectively with whatever
designated the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees in the
appropriate unit in the mailing room and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
All our employees are free to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid and protection.
BELO CORPORATION 29
A. H. BELO CORPORATION from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
(Employer) or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
Dated By or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
(Representative ) (Title) directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor,
Meacham Building , 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth,
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Texas 76102 , Telephone Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131.