A. M. Steigerwald Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 1512 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. M. Steigerwald Co. and Frank E. Ritchie and Chi-
cago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-CIO
Master Printers Credit Union and Frank E. Ritchie
and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, AFL-
CIO, and International Typographical Union, AFIT
CIO. Cases 13 CA 16043, 13 CA 16154, 13 ('A
16044. and 13 CA-16155
July 13, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHIAIRMAN FANNING AND MEIMBERS JEINKINS
ANDI PIN F.LO
On March 29, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding.' Thereafter, Respondents filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Par-
ties filed a reply brief to Respondents' brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent A. M. Steigerwald Co., ('hi-
cago. Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, and Respondent Master Piinters Credit I ti on.
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns. shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
A compin t againsit lic Misoter Printels Ass ciitlon of ihf Printitln
Indusirs of Illinoi,, \ssoclatil, . Inc. a as d istiissd pursuant to a s niticn
stirulatin between the pai ties
- In the absence of exceptions. Nse adopl ir f(irrrla tihe Adn tinlsllitaie
Lass Judge's finding that b? Ilin tailting Illembership in the Association.
which memibership mnikcs it a p;lricipmnl in Respondenit ('rcdot f ni n. Re-
spondent Steigerwald did not ma.intain a credit unionll which dis imnlntlies
against those eltipl]oees who exercise therir rights tinder the Act to slcict a
hargaining teprenletutlvse and achieer it collective-bargaining agrerrlement
through giood-fith negotiations
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in Chicago, Illinois, on October 26,
1977.1 Based upon charges filed by Frank E. Ritchie, an
individual, in Case 13-CA-16043 that A. M. Steigerwald
Company (herein called Respondent Steigerwald), in Case
13 CA-16044 that Master Printers Credit Union (herein
called Respondent Credit Union or the Credit Union), and
in Case 13-CA-16045, that the Master Printers Association
of the Printing Industry of Illinois Association, Inc. (herein
called the Association), and further charges by Chicago
Typographical UInion No. 16, AFL--CIO, and Internation-
al Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, in Case 13-CA-
16154, that the Association, in Case 13--CA-16155 that Re-
spondent Credit Union, and in Case 13-CA-16156 that
Respondent Steigerwald, have engaged in, and are engag-
ing in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29
LI.S.C., § 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein
called the Board), by the Regional Director for Region 13,
issued an order consolidating cases and a consolidated
complaint on April 26, 1977, alleging that Respondents en-
gaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, and after due consideration of
the briefs submitted by Respondents, the Charging Parties,
and the General Counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I [HE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Respondent Steigerwald is an Illinois corporation en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing tags and labels in
Chicago, Illinois. During the past year, Respondent Steig-
erwald purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,1000 directly from suppliers located in States other than
the State of Illinois.
TIhe Association is an association of employers in the
printing industry within the State of Illinois. Said associa-
tion is subdivided into two industrial relations divisions:
Master Printers Association (herein called MPA) and
Franklin Association or Union Employees' Association
I granted the motion of the General Counsel to amend the name "the
1Master Printers Section of the Printing Industry of Illinois Association"
ihicrever it appear-s in the complaint to read "the Master Printers Associa-
tion oi the Printing Industry of Illinois Association, Inc." In addition, par. 6
of !he complaint was amended by deleting the references to Respondents
Steigersaid and Master Printers Association leasing only Respondent
Credot Lnion Par. VII(a) was amended to read as follows:
On or about October 12. 1976, Respondent Credit Union by its sup-
ervisor and agent. Valerie E ) Dusing. told employees of Sicigerwald
that if they selected Chicago Typographical Union No. 16. AFL-CIO,
as their bargaining agent and if said labor organization and Respon-
denit Steigersiald negotiated a contract theN could no longer be mem-
bers of Respondent ( redit Union.
236 NLRB No. 208
1512
A. M. STEIGERWALD (CO.
(herein called UEA). MPA is made up of the employer
members of Respondent Association whose employees are
not represented by a labor organization. UEA consists of
employer members of the Association who are parties to
collective-bargaining agreements with labor organizations.
Since April 1943, Respondent Steigerwald has been a
member of the Association.
Respondent Credit Union is an Illinois corporation with
its place of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is en-
gaged in the business of operating a credit union. During
the course of the fiscal or calendar year 1976, Respondent
Credit Union had gross income from loans, deposits, and
investments in excess of $500,000; $5,000 of said income
was derived from loans made in States outside the State of
Illinois. Respondents Steigerwald and Credit Union are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VE[)
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED tNFAIR LABOR PRA(CTIciES
Respondent Credit Union was incorporated in 1964 and
was chartered by the State of Illinois in that year. Its mem-
bership has been limited to employees of employers who
belong to the Association. At all times during its existence
and continuing to the present, the standard bylaws of Re-
spondent Credit Union, which are on file with the State of
Illinois Department of Financial Institutions, Credit Union
Division, limit membership in Respondent Credit Union as
follows:
Any employee of an employer associated in the print-
ing industry which is a member of the Printing Indus-
try of Illinois Association, Inc.. whose employment is
not covered by a collective-bargaining agreement.
That bylaw has been, and is currently being, enforced.
During the month of October 1976. approximately 40 or
one-half of the employees of Respondent Steigerwald be-
longed to Respondent Credit Union.
On or about October 12, 1976. Respondent Credit
Union, by its supervisor and agent. Valerie E. Dusing. sent
the following letter to all of the employees of Respondent
Steigerwald:
MPCU,'Master Printers Credit Union
200 East Ontario Street/Chicago, Illinois
60611/312/751-0440
October 12, 1976
Dear A. M. Steigerwald Employee:
We at Master Printers Credit Union understand that
an election will be held on October 22nd to determine
whether you wish to be represented by Chicago Typo-
graphical Union # 16. Your free choice of election is a
right guaranteed by federal law, however, we are writ-
ing to you today to inform you of one of the possible
consequences of the decision that you will make on
October 22nd.
If the majority of you choose the Typographical
Union as your bargaining agent and if the Union and
your employer negotiate a contract you will no longer
be within the field of membership of Master Printers
Credit Union.
What does this mean to you? It means simpl . .
this: To those of you who have not yet joined the
Credit Union you will be ineligible to join because
your employment would then be subject to a collective
bargaining agreement. In addition, since it is a long
standing policy of our Board of Directors to empha-
size the extension of services. particularly credit grant-
ing services to those actually within the field of mem-
hership, you would not be able to obtain loans in the
future.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call our office.
Very truly yours.
/s/ Valerie E. Dusing
Valerie E. Dusing
General Manager
On or about October 19. 1976. Respondent Steiger-
wald, by its supervisor and agent. Charles .A. Slaugh-
ter, sent the following letter to all of its employees:
A. M. S I(;GFRW'.I I) (().
2160 N. Ashland Avenue Chicago. Illinois 60614
312--384 750
October 19. 1976
Dear Fellow Employees:
I understand that Master Printers Credit Union has
written to all of you indicating that, in accordance
with its by-laws, it would no longer be able to serve
you in the same manner it has up to the present time
should you choose Chicago Typographical Union No.
16 as your bargaining agent on October 22nd and a
contract was signed between the Union and the Com-
pany.
While there is nothing that I can do about this deci-
sion of the Credit Union, I wish to assure you that the
company would. if asked by the Union, bargain in
good faith in an endeavor to replace the Master
Printers Credit Union. However, I am concerned
about our ability to find a satisfactory replacement. It
is impractical to organize a credit union for a group as
small as our company. The Typographical Union does
sponsor a Credit Union but it only pays 5', dividend
on savings. it's savings are not federally insured. and it
has a $7.500.00 limit on loans.
I would hope that we would not lose the services of
Master Printers here at Steigerwald but. I wish to re-
state to you that we will bargain, in good faith. to
attempt to find a replacement.
Very truly yours.
A.. M. Stl(i RA' LI) ((O.
s Chuck Slaughter
Chuck Slaughter
Vice-President
1513
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties agreed to the foregoing facts in a written
stipulation which was made part of the record herein. The
parties also agreed to drop the complaint against the Asso-
ciation. Thus, Respondents Steigerwald and Credit Union
are the only Respondents in this case.
Discussions and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that Respondent Credit
Union is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by main-
taining in effect the above-quoted bylaw because on its
face it interferes with and coerces employees. The General
Counsel also contends that the October 12 letter sent by
Respondent Credit Union to the employees of Respondent
Steigerwald, quoted above, in which it told them of the
consequences of their choosing the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative is a threat, also in violation
of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. Finally, the General Counsel
contends that the October 19 letter sent by Respondent
Steigerwald to its own employees, quoted above, iterated
the threat and therefore Respondent Steigerwald, while not
alleged as responsible for the bylaw, by adopting the threat
and publishing it as its own, has also violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
The General Counsel seeks as a remedy that Respondent
Credit Union be ordered to eliminate the discriminatory
bylaw and that an appropriate order issue against the al-
leged threats of October 12 and 19.
The Charging Parties' Contentions
In addition tojoining in with the General Counsel in the
above-stated contentions, the Charging Parties contend
further that, inasmuch as during the critical month of Oc-
tober 1976 approximately one-half of the employees of Re-
spondent Steigerwald covered by the Board-directed elec-
tion were members of Respondent Credit Union, and that
as long as Respondent Steigerwald remains a member of
the Association and a participant in its Credit Union, Re-
spondent Steigerwald is actively maintaining a credit union
which discriminates against those employees who exercise
their rights under the Act to select a bargaining representa-
tive and achieve a collective-bargaining agreement through
good-faith negotiations. Charging Parties point out that
there are two qualifications for participation in the Credit
Union: (1) The employee must not only refrain from cov-
erage under a collective-bargaining agreement, but also (2)
a member of the Credit Union must be an employee of an
employer member of the Association. Respondent Credit
Union exists not only for employees in general in the print-
ing industry of Illinois, but also for employers of a multi-
employer association who remain nonunion; and, as long
as Respondent Steigerwald remains a member of the Asso-
ciation, Respondent Steigerwald's employees will be sub-
ject to a discriminatory credit union plan. In sum, the
Union's contention is that said employer also violated the
Act by maintaining a benefit for its employees which dis-
criminates against union membership or the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the Act. Thus, the Union recom-
mends a finding that both Respondent Steigerwald and
Respondent Credit Union are in violation of the Act by (1)
maintaining a discriminatory and exclusionary credit
union and (2) threatening employees with loss of credit
union benefits should they select a labor organization as
their bargaining representative and be covered by a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
Respondents' Contentions
Respondents contend that neither has violated the Act
either by maintaining in effect the bylaw in question or in
sending the October 12 and 19 letters. Respondents con-
tend that the Credit Union may with apparent impunity
restrict its own membership not simply to its own mem-
bers, but only to those of its members who are in good
standing; and, inasmuch as this "evident encouragement of
tractable union membership is permitted to exist without
censure by the General Counsel, it follows that the MPCU
should be permitted to accept as members only employees
whose employment is not covered by a bargaining agree-
ment." Respondents also contend that Respondent Credit
Union's limitation does not foreclose "unionized employ-
ees" from belonging to a credit union in that, if Respon-
dent Steigerwald's employees had chosen union representa-
tion, they could have joined either the Typographical
Union's credit union or negotiated for another credit union
with their employer "who undisputably stood ready to bar-
gain in good faith." Respondents further contend that,
while the employees may wish to be represented by a union
and still retain Respondent Credit Union membership, the
Act recognizes that unionization may be lawfully attended
by manifold disadvantages, and that it is permissible to
inform employees of these disadvantages during election
campaigns.
Respondents cite the Curley Printing Company cases
(Curley Printing Company, Inc., 159 NLRB 1489 (1966);
Curley Printing Company, Printing Industry of Nashville,
Inc., and Printing Industries of America, Inc., 169 NLRB
251 (1968)) to support their contentions. In the Curley
Printing Company cases, the employer, Curley, the Print-
ing Industries of America (PIA), and the Printing Industry
of Nashville (PIN) were the parties charged with unfair
labor practices. Similar to the circumstances of the instant
case, in Curley the nonunion "section" of PIA offered a
group health insurance program to its members, nonunion
employers, including Curley. The insurance program ex-
cluded employees covered by a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. However, as pointed out by the General Counsel, the
Board never reached the issue of the legality of that provi-
sion. Curley Printing Company was the named Respon-
dent over whom jurisdiction was asserted based upon its
commerce facts. PIA and its nonunion subdivision, PIN,
were brought into the case on the theory that they were
acting as agents of Curley. The Board found that no such
agency relationship as alleged existed, and that PIA and
PIN were separate, incorporated trade associations that of-
fered its members, including Curley, a group health insur-
ance program which Curley could accept or reject as it
chose. When Curley accepted the insurance program, its
relationship with PIA was that of a customer, or the rela-
tionship of principal with principal rather than as principal
1514
A. M. STEIGERWALD CO.
and agent. The Board went on to state (169 NLRB at 251)
that:
Inasmuch as they were not agents of Curley in the
matter of insurance coverage, and as no other basis for
so holding appears, PIA and PIN cannot be held to
have discriminated against Curley's employees in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.2
The General Counsel's theory in the instant case is not
that Respondent Credit Union is an agent of Respondent
Steigerwald, but rather, each is a respondent engaged in
commerce based on its own business operations. With re-
spect to Respondent Credit Union, the theory of the Gen-
eral Counsel's case is that it is a separate respondent who
has committed per se 8(a)(l) violations by virtue of bylaws
that on their face discriminate against employees who se-
lect a union to represent them for collective-bargaining
purposes. Moreover, it does not matter that the employees
affected herein are not employees of Respondent Credit
Union but employees of another employer; namely, Re-
spondent Steigerwald. In Fabric Services, Inc., 190 NLRB
540 (1971), the Board adopted Administrative Law Judge
Arthur Leffs findings, conclusions, and recommendations
in a case in which an employer defended the complaint's
unfair labor practice allegations against it solely on the
ground that it was not the affected employees' employer
and, therefore, as a matter of law could not be found to
have violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by its action to-
ward them. Administrative Law Judge Leff, in his Decision,
stated (190 NLRB at 541-542):
I reject that defense as without merit. I find no basis,
either in the declared policy of the Act or in any delin-
eating provision of it for construing Section 8(a)(1) as
safeguarding employees in the exercise of the Section
7 right only from infringements at the hands of their
own employer. To the contrary, the specific language
of the Act clearly manifests a legislative purpose to
extend the statutory protection of Section 8(a)(1) be-
yond the immediate employer-employee relationship.
Thus, Section 8(a)(l) makes it "an unfair labor prac-
tice for an employer-to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7." And Section 2(3) declares, "The term
employee shall include any employee, and shall not be
limited to the employees of a particular employer, un-
less the Act explicitly states otherwise."
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Credit Union is in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by maintaining in
effect the discriminatory bylaw quoted above, and by
threatening employees in its October 12 letter with denial
of credit union participation if they exercise their right to
choose a union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
With respect to Respondent Steigerwald, I do not find.
2 In that case there was an actual cancellation of the insurance coverage
of Curley's employees upon conclusion of the contract between (urles and
the union as mandated by the terms of the trust indenture and the belays *,f
the Master Printers Section of PIA
as urged by the Charging Parties, that by maintaining
membership in the Association, which membership makes
it a participant in its Credit Union, Respondent Steiger-
wald is actively maintaining a credit union which discrimi-
nates against those employees who exercise their rights un-
der the Act to select a bargaining representative and
achieve a collective-bargaining agreement through good-
faith negotiations. As in Curley, supra, there is no evidence
of an agency relationship here. Respondent Steigerwald
has no control over Respondent Credit Union or its by-
laws.
However, I do find that Respondent Steigerwald vio-
lated Section 8(a)( l) of the Act b) threatening its employ-
ees with loss of Respondent Credit Union privileges
through its letter dated October 19, 1976.
IV IHE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Credit Union is in viola-
tion of Section 8{a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the dis-
criminatory bylaw. I recommend that Respondent Credit
Union be ordered by the Board to delete said discrimina-
tory bylaw from its bylaws. C'. G. Conn. Ltd., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Crowell Collier and MacMillan, Inc., 197
NLRB 442 (1972). enfd. 474 F.2d 1344 (C.A. 5, 1973).
Having found that Respondents Credit Union and Steig-
erwald have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
threats contained in their letters of October 12 and October
19, respectively, I shall also recommend that they cease
and desist from threatening employees with loss of credit
union benefits should they select a labor organization as
their bargaining representative and be covered by a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
('ONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Credit Union and Steigerwald are em-
ployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining a discriminatory and exclusionary
credit union. Respondent Credit Union has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with loss of credit union
benefits should thev select a labor organization as their
collective-bargaining representative and be covered by a
collective-bargaining agreement, Respondents Credit
Union and Steigerwald have engaged in, and are engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
1515
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
1. Respondent Master Printers Credit Union, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
cease and desist from maintaining a discriminatory and
exclusionary credit union.
2. Respondents Master Printers Credit Union and
A. M. Steigerwald Co., Chicago. Illinois, their officers.
agents, successors, and assigns, shall cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of credit union ben-
efits should the) ' select a labor organization as their bar-
gaining representative and be covered by a collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Respondents shall take the following action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Respondent Master Printers Credit Union shall
amend its bylaws by deleting the requirement which limits
the membership in the credit union to any employee of an
employer associated in the printing industry which is a mem-
ber of the Printing Industry of Illinois Association, Inc.,
whose employment is not covered by a collective-bargaining
agreement.
(b) Respondents Master Printers Credit Union and
A. M. Steigerwald Co. shall post at their respective places
of business in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached no-
tices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B" respective-
ly.4 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 13. after being duly signed by
each Respondent's authorized representative, shall be post-
ed by said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what
steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board's having found, af-
ter a hearing, that we violated Federal law by maintaining
in effect a bylaw which limits membership in the Master
Printers Credit Union to any employee of an employer as-
sociated in the printing industry which is a member of the
Printing Industry of Illinois Association, Inc., whose em-
ployment is not covered by a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, we shall delete such provision from our bylaws, and
we will not threaten any employees with loss or denial of
membership because they choose a union as their bargain-
ing agent and the union and the employer negotiate a con-
tract for their benefit.
MASTER PRINTERS CREDIT UNION
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board's having found, af-
ter a hearing, that we violated Federal law by threatening
you with loss of Master Printers Credit Union privileges if
the majority of you choose the Typographical Union, or
any other union, as your bargaining agent, we will cease
and desist from threatening you with loss of credit union
benefits should you select a labor organization as your bar-
gaining representative and be covered by a collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
A M STEIGERWALD CO,
3 In the esent no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102
,48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted bs the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order-. and all objections thereto shall be deenled
waived for all purposes.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted hs Order
of the National I.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States ('ourl of Appeals tEliforcing an Order of the
National I.abor Relations Board."
ORDER
1516