American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise or unilaterally grant wage increases in violation of
Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to withdraw their designation of or member-
ship in General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 563, affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization of our employees, or assist them
in doing so.
WE WILL NOT encourage or assist employees to form their own bargaining
committee.
WE WILL NOT refuse, upon request, to bargain collectively with General
Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 563, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit*
All employees of Fox Valley Truck Service, Inc., excluding parts depart-
ment, stockroom, and office clerical employees, guards, professional, man-
agerial, and sales, employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form a labor
organization, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective baigaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right is affected by the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Lyle Burt immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any employees hired subsequent to
his discharge, and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with General Drivers and Help-
ers Union, Local 563, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
Fox VALLEY TRUCK SERVICE, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 744 North
Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Telephone No. 272-8600, Extension 3860,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
American Newspaper Guild , * AFL-CIO, and Youngstown News-
paper Guild No. 11 , American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO and
Youngstown Arc Engraving Co. Case No. 8-CC-223. June 09,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 5, 1965, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
153 NLRB No. 73.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 745
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent
consistent herewith.
The facts are not in dispute and are fully set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Decision. In brief, the Respondents, in furtherance of a
labor dispute with Vindicator Printing Company, publisher of the
Youngstown Vindicator, picketed all entrances of Vindicator's build-
ing beginning August 18, 1964.1 Youngstown Are Engraving Com-
pany, referred to herein as Are, occupies space in the same building,
and its employees use the same entrances as employees of Vindicator.
Are, under an oral arrangement with Vindicator, does all photoengrav-
ing required by the latter, which work constitutes approximately 30
percent of Arc's business. Between August 19 and September 7, Arc's
employees were permitted to enter the building only after Arc's
president agreed, on a day-to-day basis, not to do photoengraving for
Vindicator or for any person advertising in the newspaper. On Sep-
tember 8, 9, and 10, Respondents refused to renew the agreement and
certain of Arc's employees refused to cross the picket line, although
its managerial and nonunion employees did enter the building. The
Trial Examiner found that the Respondents, by this conduct, violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. While we agree with his
conclusion, we do not adopt his reasons for so holding.
1. The Trial Examiner, in finding that the Respondents intended
to, and did in fact, extend their dispute beyond Vindicator, relied,
inter alia, on his holding that Respondents did not satisfy all the con-
ditions for permissible common situs picketing set forth by the Board
in the Moore Dry Dock decision,2 because the picket signs did not
clearly show that the dispute was with Vindicator. We do not agree
that this requirement was not met.
1 The record shows that there was shoulder-to-shoulder picketing, blocking of entrances,
scuffling, manhandling of employees, and issuance of instructions that "bodily contact"
be exchanged as a condition to the "opening" of picket lines This conduct was found
by the Board to be violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) in 151 NLRB 1558, issued April 12,
1965
2 Sailors' 'Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record indicates that at all times during the picketing until Sep-
tember 11,3 there were three picket signs displayed simultaneously.
All bore the introductory legend :
Local 11, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO
On Strike
plus one of the following three statements :
Until the Vindicator bargains fairly
To : Protect our Jobs
To End : No 7-day week, sick leave, vacations, holidays, security
Thus, although only one picket sign legend mentioned the primary
employer by name, all were displayed simultaneously and together
and hence must be read together. In addition, the Respondents dis-
tributed approximately 60,000 leaflets showing that the dispute was
with Vindicator. The clear identification of the striking union on the
signs further served to reveal that the dispute was with the publisher.
Under these circumstances, we find that the signs sufficiently identi-
fied the dispute as one with Vindicator.-'
2. Notwithstanding our conclusion that the primary employer was
sufficiently identified on the picket signs, we agree with the Trial
Examiner that the Respondents' picketing had as an object the induc-
ing of Arc's employees, by coercion and threats, to refuse to work for
Are in order to coerce Are not to produce photoengraving plates for
Vindicator or for any other person intending to advertise in Vindi-
cator's newspaper. Respondents adamantly refused to permit Ares
employees to cross the picket line to perform any work at all, regard-
less for whom destined, unless Are would agree not to prepare any
work directly or indirectly for Vindicator.5 We find that by this con-
duct Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act .6
3 On September 11, 1964, the picket sign legends were changed following a court order
pursuant to a stipulation.
4 See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No . 59 (C. F. Andersen,
,an Individual, d/b/a Andersen Company Electrical Service ), 135 NLRB 504. Cf. Phila-
delphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union , Local 125 ( Atlantic Main-
tenance Co .), 136 NLRB 1104.
6 We find no merit in the Respondents ' argument that because some of the work per-
formed by Are is part of the primary employer's normal day-to-day operation, it is an
inseparable part of the primary strike and protected by the Act. There can be no argu-
ment that if Are were located in some other building, for example across the street, the
Respondents could not lawfully picket at Arc's premises to prevent Arc's employees from
performing services for Are even if destined for Vindicator We do not believe that a
different conclusion is warranted because Arc is located in the same building as Vindicator.
In this connection we note that Respondents sought to accomplish more than normally
may be hoped for by primary picketing, i e , to appeal to secondary employees not to cross
the picket line to effect deliveries to the primary employer
6 See Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584 , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Old Dutch Farms,
Inc.), 146 NLRB 509, enfd 341 F. 2d 29 (C.A. 2).
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 747
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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondents, American Newspaper Guild,
AFL-CIO, and Youngstown Newspaper Guild No. it, American
Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, Youngstown, Ohio, their officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
1. Delete paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order.
2. Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order.
3. Delete the first indented paragraph of Appendix A.
MEMBER ZAGORIA took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum in Youngstown,
Ohio, on November 4. 1964, on complaint of General Counsel' and answer of
Respondents denying violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )( B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act). All parties appeared and were represented
throughout the hearing by counsel , who were afforded full opportunity to present
evidence , examine and cross-examine witnesses , and propose findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Subsequent to the hearing , briefs were received from the parties,
who were allowed ample time for that purpose . All evidence and briefs have
been carefully considered . Upon the entire record 2 and my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION , RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ; CHARGING PARTY
AND OTHER PERSON INVOLVED
Respondents American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO (American Guild) and
Youngstown Newspaper Guild No. 11, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO
(Local 11) each are , and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
The Charging Party, Youngstown Arc Engraving Co. (Engraving) is, and at all
times material herein has been, an Ohio corporation having its office and place of
business in Youngstown , Ohio, engaged in producing and supplying photoengravings,
artwork, and commercial photography , in excess of $50 ,000 of which is shipped and
transported annually from that place and State directly to points outside that State.
Vindicator Printing Company (Vindicator) is, and at all times material herein
has been, an Ohio corporation , engaged in the publication in Youngstown , Ohio, of
a newspaper known as The Youngstown Vindicator. In the course of its 1963
operations , Vindicator held membership in or subscribed to news services including
Associated Press and United Press International, published national syndicated fea-
tures including Herblock, Drew Pearson , David Lawrence , and Walter Lippmann,
and derived gross ievenues exceeding $200,000 from its said business, in the conduct
of which Vindicator regularly utilized services and purchased products of Engraving.
'Issued through the Regional Director for Region 8 on September 16, 1964 , based upon
a charge filed by Youngstown Are Engraving ( herein denominated Youngstown Are En-
graving Co .) on August 20, 1964. Date references are 1964 throughout unless otherwise
specified
-As corrected
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that Engraving and Vindicator each are, and at all times material herein
have been , employers and persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and Section
8(b)(4) of the Act; and that assertion of jurisdiction in this case is proper.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Employers and Unions involved
The Youngstown Vindicator, published by Vindicator, is the only daily news-
paper of Youngstown, Ohio. Since on or before August 18, Vindicator has been
involved in a labor dispute with Respondents Local 11 and American Guild.
Engraving (Charging Party) is a Youngstown firm which makes photoengravings
of pictures , snapshots , sketches , and artwork . Such photoengravings are utilized in
reproducing the photoengraved matter in a printed medium such as a newspaper
or advertisement.
During the period here material, Engraving 's total staff consisted of 22 persons;
viz, 4 management personnel , 2 salesmen , 1 commercial photographer , 3 commer-
cial artists , 8 photoengravers , 2 office clerks , and 2 shipping room employees. Of
these, only the photoengravers were unionized , as members of Photoengravers Union
No. 63, Industrial Photoengravers Employees Union of North America (Photo-
engravers Union ), not a party to this proceeding . At no material time has Engraving
or any of its employees been involved in a labor dispute with any union 3
Engraving is capitalized at 500 shares of stock valued at $100 per share , of which
490 shares , distributed among 13 stockholders , are outstanding . The 4 major (and
majority ) stockholders , each owning 90 shares ( i.e , $9000 each ) and each an
officer and director, are Edwin C. Olson (president), George B. Snyder (vice presi-
dent in charge of sales ), Duncan Sutherland ( treasurer and office manager ), and Mr.
Boehm (secretary and production manager ). At most 3 Vindicator stockholders
together own a total of 25 shares ( i.e., $800 or $900 each ), or 5 percent of the total
outstanding stock of Engraving ; 4 no Engraving stockholder , other than these 3,4
owns any shares in Vindicator.
Vindicator does not have its own photoengraving facilities . Until the inception
of Respondents ' strike against Vindicator , all local photoengraving work of Vindi-
cator was done by Engraving. This was not contractually required, but occurred
simply as a matter of practice , photoengravings desired by Vindicator being individ-
ually ordered by Vindicator from Engraving and billed by Engraving to Vindicator.
These fell into the following categories: photoengravings of wirephotos to be
published as part of normal daily news: weathermaps ; and photoengravings of illus-
trations for advertisements.5 In actual practice , photoengravings in connection with
major advertising , such as that of department stores , were not ordered by Vindicator
from Engraving, but were furnished to Vindicator directly by the advertiser or the
advertiser 's servicing advertising agency ( which , in turn, had previously procured
them directly from Engraving. a competitor of Engraving , or elsewhere ); national
advertising illustrations were supplied to Vindicator directly by the advertiser (or
its servicing advertising agency ) in mat form , not requiring photoengraving.
Engraving produces only about one-half of the local photoengraving appearing
in the Vindicator. Although Vindicator is an important individual customer of
Engraving , Engraving 's work for Vindicator comprises less than one -third of
Engraving 's business . Thus, in the past several years , of total Engraving annual
sales ranging from around $350,000 to $385,000,° only 27.5 to 29.5 percent were
to Vindicator, and an additional 5.8 to 7.7 percent "could" eventually be published
8 At all material times, Engraving has been a party to a subsisting collective agreement
with Photoengravers Union Neither of Respondent Unions has at any time sought to
unionize or represent any Engraving employee.
* These 3 are William F Maag , Jr, editor of Vindicator , 9 shares ; William J Brown,
general manager of Vindicator , 8 shares ; and Miss Elizabeth Brown ( sister of William
J. Brown and niece of Maag), who may not be a Vindicator stockholder , 8 shares Of the
foregoing , Brown is a vice president and director of, but has taken no active part In,
Engraving ; and his attendance at directors ' meetings has been irregular , and he has at-
tended no meetings since August
5A newspaper without photoengravings would for practical purposes be without pic-
tures , advertising and other Illustrations . and weathermaps
6 Total annual sales for 1962 and 1963 were approximately $353,000 and $383,000.
Sales In 1964 through July 31 were about $220,000
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 749
in The Vindicator . 7 In the same period, Engraving sales to customers other than
Vindicator amounted to 70.4 to 72.4 percent; and, to customers other than Vindi-
cator or which "could' eventually be published in The Vindicator, 62.7 to 65.9
percent.
Engraving 's sole business location is in the Vindicator building, where it has for
some years occupied approximately three-fourths of the third floor pursuant to an
oral lease under which it pays Vindicator rent of $366.66 per month. There are no
other tenants, and Vindicator occupies the iemainder of the floor and building 8
Engraving's rental arrangement with Vindicator covers only use and occupancy of
the leased third floor area and access thereto, and does not involve Engraving's use
of any other portion of Vindicator's premises or Vindicator's property, facilities,9
or personnel. Engraving owns all equipment (photoengraving, machinery, furniture,
office and other supplies) on its premises . Engraving purchases all of its own
equipment and supplies , receiving none from Vindicator . Engraving hires its own
personnel; Vindicator has no hiring, firing, supervisory, or other authority over any
Engraving personnel . Engraving handles the maintenance of its premises and even
hires its own janitor. In no way does Vindicator control or supervise any of the
business operations of Engraving. The labor as well as other policies of Engraving
are separate and distinct from those of Vindicator; there has been no consultation
between officials of the two companies with regard to the labor policy of either
company, with the single exception noted below.lo In brief, the relationship of
Vindicator and Engraving has been purely that of landlord-tenant and customer-
supplier.11
B. The situs
Vindicator 's sole location is in the Vindicator building, a four level structure on
the northeast corner of Chestnut and Boardman Streets in Youngstown . There are
three entrances to this building : ( 1) the front or main entrance , about 7 to 10 feet
wide, on Chestnut Street ( i.e., west side of building ), normally utilized by Engrav-
ing employees about 30 percent of the time ( i.e., 30 percent of the access of Engraving
employees to and from the building is via this entrance ); ( 2) the back or "side"
entrance , about 40 to 50 feet wide , off Boardman Street ( i.e., near southeast corner
of the building ), normally utilized by Engraving employees about 70 percent of the
time; and ( 3) the freight entrance, at or near the northeast corner of the building,
normally utilized by only four or five Engraving employees . A photograph in evi-
dence 12 facilitates visualization of the situs and locale of the events about to be
described.13
7I e., photoengravings not ordered by Vindicator , but ordered directly from Engraving
by other customers of Engraving and which "could," and almost invariably did, appear
in the Vindicator.
8 The building itself, including its location and entrances , is described below.
0 As a building tenant, Engraving does , of course , use the building freight elevator and
freight delivery platform . In so doing , however, Engraving uses its own dollies. Engrav-
ing also on occasion utilizes a dumbwaiter to facilitate delivery of completed photoengrav-
ings to Vindicator 's composing room. Material sent by Vindicator to Engraving for
photoengraving is normally hand delivered to Engraving' s premises by Vindicator's copy-
boys from the second floor. If photoengravings are too large or otherwise inappropriate
for delivery via dumbwaiter , they are delivered to Vindicator by personnel of Engraving,
and at no time by personnel of Vindicator. Since completed photoengravings are normally
desired in about 11/ hours in order to appear on time in current issues of the newspaper,
location of photoengraving facilities close to ( although not necessarily in the same build-
ing as ) the place of publication of the newspaper is convenient and presumably
advantageous.
10 The sole exception has been that , after the daily compact between Engraving and
Respondent Unions , described below, under which unimpeded access by all Engraving em-
ployees to the building was permitted by Respondents on condition that Engraving refrain
from doing any photoengraving for Vindicator or which might appear in the Vindicator,
Olson ( president of Engraving) explained this to Brown ( general manager of Vindicator),
who told him to "do whatever is best for the good of your company "
11 This is apart from the slight stock ownership and other relationship described in foot-
note 4, supra, which were not shown to have controlling significance , and which I be-
lieve may fairly be regarded as insubstantial if not minimal.
12 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
13 The foregoing findings as to Employers and Unions involved and as to the situs are
based upon uncontroverted credible testimony of General Counsel ' s witnesses Olson and
Sutherland.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The events
Wednesday, August 19
Engraving President Olson credibly testified that when he arrived at the Vindicator
building on Wednesday morning, August 19, about 7:45,14 he observed many
sign-carrying pickets atound the building.15 Proceeding to the rear or "side" (i.e.,
Boardman Street, near southeast cornet of building) entrance which he (as well as
most other Engraving employees) normally used, he saw 20 to 25 pickets there, about
one-half dozen of them carrying signs. The pickets appeared to be "shoulder to
shoulder and they would have had to step aside in order to permit me [Olson] to
go through." At the point where he approached the picket line it was "several
deep." When one picket told another that Olson was "trying to get through the
line," the other picket said, "Nobody gets into the building They are on strike "
Another picket, who knew Olson, suggested that he see Local 11 Vice President
Richard Riley (a Vindicator editorial employee) at the front of the building.
Encountering Riley at the corner of Boardman and Chestnut Streets, Olson told him
that he "would like to go in to work." Riley proceeded with Olson to the front
entrance and explained to the pickets there-numbering about 8 or 10, with about
4 carrying signs-that he knew Olson as an Engraving employee and "we [i.e.,
Engraving employees] were allowed to come and go and enter the building."
Olson then entered and left the building that day without incident, as did the other
Engraving employees.
The Picket Signs
It was stipulated by the parties at the hearing that from on or about August 20 to
September 11, in support of their labor dispute with Vindicator , Respondents have
continuously picketed at the Vindicator building with signs of three types , simul-
taneously displayed ; and that until September 11 all signs bore the introductory
legend:
Local 11 , American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO
On Strike
plus one of the following three additional expressions:
(1) Until the Vindicator bargains fairly
(2) To: Protect our Jobs
(3) To End: No 7-day week , sick leave, vacations,
holidays, security
Thursday, August 20
When Olson arrived at the building the next day (Thursday, August 20), about
7 40 a.m., he was met outside by his fellow Engraving officials, Sutherland and
Boehm, who had been unable to gain access to the building. The three then
approached the front entrance, where they were met by Robert Bruner, who was
introduced as the "International Guild representative in charge of this particular
situation." Olson explained that he was an employee of Engraving which occupied
the third floor, "in no way connected with the Vindicator and we would like to go
in and go to work." Bruner replied, "No, no one enters the building." Olson asked
him why. Bruner answered, "Because you made [photoengraving] plates for the
Vindicator on the prior day." Olson and Sutherland then left to seek legal advice,
returning around 8.45 and again attempting to ascertain from Bruner whether they
could enter the building. Bruner then said he would give Engraving management
personnel "a sort of a safe conduct pass through the picket line " When Olson asked,
"What about our employees," Bruner replied, "They are free to cross the picket line"
and that "nobody was prevented from going into the building." Olson inquired,
"In other words, they do not get the safe conduct pass?" Bruner answered, "No,
they must cross the picket line." Olson asked, "Is there anything we can do to get
in to work?" Bruner thereupon "proposed that if I [Olson] gave him my word as
a gentleman that we would produce nothing that would appear in the Vindicator
today or ever that they would open the picket lines enabling our men to go in to
work."
14 Engraving employees ' work hours are 8 to 5 , except Saturday from 8 to 12 30. They
normally enter the building for work between 7 .30 and 8 and , in the absence of overtime,
normally leave between 4 and 5. On Saturdays there is usually only a skeleton crew of
one to three office personnel and three photoengravers.
Ic Olson testified that he had seen a television newscast the previous night, August 18,
indicating picketing around the building about 10 p in.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 751
Bruner's version of the foregoing is that when he was approached at the front
of the building on Thursday, he told Olson that because Engraving had produced
photoengravings for the Wednesday edition of the Vindicator, "it was our position
that we were not going to make it easy for the Vindicator to get engravings" and
that "I was not going to remove our picket line"; that "we were not keeping them
out of the building. We would not remove our picket line, and that . if their
legal counsel told them this is a violation of the Act, that was his opinion but it was
our opinion that it was not", that Respondents had "no problem" with Engraving's
nonunion employees, but that so far as Engraving's photoengravers were concerned:
I [Bruner] told him [Olson] again that we would not remove our line unless there
was an agreement between his company, namely, him and ourselves. That
there would be no production of work which would appear in the Vindicatoi.
Only on that basis would we remove our line and take away the necessity of
his Union people having to make the decision as to whether they wanted to
go in or not.
Bruner further testified that although he told Olson "we were not going to keep the
management or office people out," he also told him that "we would not remove our
line.... I told him we were not issuing any [safe-conduct] passes at all. That each
individual would have to make their decision as to whether they were going to go
in." In explanation of what he meant by "each individual," to his counsel's ques-
tion, "By `each individual' you are now referring to anyone who approached the
line," Bruner answered, "Anyone."
Since Bruner was leaving the scene and Olson wished to discuss Bruner's proposi-
tion with his managerial colleagues, Olson asked Bruner, "Would it be all right if
Mr. Sutherland and I go to the front entrance and tell the pickets that we have your
permission to go into the building" Bruner's response was, "No. No one can
get through that picket line unless I personally escort you through the picket line."
When Olson asked to be escorted through the line, Bruner told him to wait until
he (Bruner) returned from strike headquarters The foregoing took place on Board-
man Street opposite the Vindicator building. When Bruner returned, around 9:15,
Olson, Sutherland, and the Engraving employees were still congregated on the
opposite side of the street, where Olson had asked the Engraving employees to wait
pending clarification of the situation. Upon Bruner's return, he crossed the street
with Olson and Sutherland and "explained to the pickets at the front entrance of
the building that we were management personnel of the Youngstown Arc Engraving
Company and we were to be permitted to go into the building." Boehm (Engraving
secretary and production manager) had meanwhile gained access to Engraving
premises in order to answer the telephone. Within the building, Olson, Sutherland,
and Boehm decided that since there was "considerable other [i.e., non-Vindicator]
work that had to be out and we couldn't get it out with our employees on the
opposite side of the street," they would accept Bruner's terms not to produce plates
for Vindicator. Apparently the pledge covered not only plates ordered by Vindi-
cator, but also work ordered by advertisers such as local department stores for use
in connection with advertisements published by them in the Vindicator, since Olson
indicated on cross-examination by Respondents' counsel that he "also refused to
work directly for the companies that might want to publish it [i.e., photoengravings
ordered by such companies, other than Vindicator, from Engraving] in the Vindi-
cator." 16 Accordingly, Olson sought Bruner out at the Unions' strike headquarters
in a nearby hotel and conveyed this decision to Bruner, who was accompanied by
Fred T. Kearney, president of Local 11. Olson told them that Engraving would
make this agreement on a "day-by-day basis." After Bruner discussed it with
Kearney and an unidentified individual, and Kearney stipulated that ".... this also
means that your employees will leave the premises of the building at quitting time,"
Olson agreed Accompanied by Bruner and Kearney, Olson then returned to the
scene, gathered the Engraving employees together, and crossed the street to the
building. After Bruner explained to the pickets, who were deployed at the main
entrance "shoulder to shoulder," what had transpired and "that [Olson] had given
[his] word as a gentleman and that if they would please open their picket line to
permit [the Engraving] employees to enter the building," the pickets physically
opened their lines so as to permit the Engraving employees to enter the building.
All of the Engraving employees were thereupon and for the balance of that day
allowed unimpeded access to and from the building.
16 This is consistent with Bruner's version of the agreement or pledge "that his [Olson's]
employees would not produce engravings . . . which would appear in that day's Vindica-
tor or in any future edition of the Vindicator . . . .
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents' witness Bruner testified that after Olson gave the foregoing pledge,
Bruner said to him that "on that basis I will remove the picket line," which "would
actually mean their [i.e., the pickets] moving away. . . Bruner described the
pickets' operations thus:
At times they were stationary, at times they were moving. When they were
moving, they would usually move in a long oval in front of the entrance... .
They might be [standing] anywhere in the general area of the front door .. .
at times they would not be blocking the door, physically, I mean, it wasn't
completely blocked off. It would necessitate an individual walking around
somewhat . . . it was possible for people to walk into the front door.
Further, according to Bruner, when management personnel of Engraving entered the
building, the pickets were "quite probably" first instructed by Bruner to "move aside
or let them through":
because whenever we want specifically to see that someone got through, in
other words, if there were a number of people in the way, you would go to the
pickets and tell them to open up or move aside because they might be blocking
the entrance. They might be stationary, at the present time . . . at any given
time, there might be a number of pickets there and the entrance might be
blocked because of the numer of people.
Admittedly, according to Bruner:
there were times when a person could not reasonably get through because of
the number of pickets or because of the particular juxtaposition of the pickets
with regard to the entrance.
Friday, August 21
When Olson came to work around 7:35 a.m. the next day (Friday, August 21),
he awaited the arrival of Engraving employees, who were assembling across the
street from the building. At about 5 minutes before 8, they crossed over to the
main entrance, where there were two policemen Olson told one of the policemen
that they were employees of Engraving which occupied the third floor, were not part
of Vindicator, and would like to go in to work. After the policeman instructed the
pickets to "move aside," Bruner interposed that "management personnel" of Engrav-
ing were free to come and go but that "the employees or Union members yesterday
refused to cross the picket line." Olson took issue with this and was supported by
Ray Brown, shop foreman of Engraving's photoengravers and secretary of the
local photoengravers union. During this exchange, the pickets, who had been
marching in a circle in front of the entrance, stopped and were "two deep, shoulder
to shoulder" as they listened. Olson said, "Well, let's go in to work." Thereupon,
according to Olson:
We attempted to go through the picket line. The policemen attempted to move
the pickets aside. All of a sudden the policemen disappeared. There was some
pushing and scuffling and so forth. Three or four of our employees managed
to get through the picket line into the entrance of the building. None of the
three or four were Union employees. This definitely was getting us nowhere;
we sort of fell back. Mr. Bruner again said, "The management personnel of
this company are free to enter and leave as they please. However, the Union
members must work their way through the line."
Meanwhile, a Vindicator employee had grabbed one of the Engraving employees and
said, "You are a union member. You are not going into that building." The par-
ticular Engraving employee who had been grabbed was not a union member and
said so; when Olson confirmed this and told Bruner he should be allowed in, he was
permitted to enter. The same episode was repeated with another Engraving employee,
who was also grabbed by the Vindicator employee with the words, "You are Union
[sic] member and not going into the building." However, when the same explana-
tion was made, he, as well as other nonunion employees of Engraving, were individ-
ually permitted to enter the building None of the Engraving photoengravers, who
were standing in a group, had entered the building. At this point, a few minutes
after 8, three police cars arrived. Olson told the police they wanted to go into
the building. The police told him that under the law each employee had the right
individually to request police protection, but that he (Olson) "cannot ask for it for
the group." Following a discussion with his associates, Olson returned and, after
he renewed the agreement not to produce any photoengravings for or to appear in
the Vindicator, "the picket lines were opened and our Union employees were then
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 753
permitted to enter the building." The agreement was made by Olson with Bruner
in the presence of the pickets and Engraving' s union employees. After Bruner
communicated it to the pickets and asked them to "please open their picket lines
so as not to embarrass oar [i.e., Engraving] Union members," the picket lines were
opened and the remaining Engraving employees were permitted to pass through. As
on the preceding day, no Vindicator work was produced by Engraving, although
there was such work on hand currently to be done.
Respondents' version of the events of Friday, August 21, as testified by Bruner,
differs from Olson's in. a number of respects. Thus, according to Bruner, on that
day Olson told him that he (Olson) did not want to renew the agreement. As to
this, Bruner additionally testified, "I wanted him to but I don't remember if I
specifically asked him to. I told him that, on that basis, I would not remove the
picket line." Bruner denied that on that or any other day he told Olson that union
members or anyone "would have to work their way through the line." For reasons
to be described, I credit Olson's version in both of these particulars.
Bruner testified at length with regard to the conduct of the pickets on Friday,
August 21, and the underlying instructions or guiding principles imparted to them
by Respondents for the government of their activities. Bruner testified that the
pickets had instructions that when they were standing in the way of persons approach-
ing, "when they were touched they were to yield." By "touched" he indicated that
he meant "physically touched," and explained:
I mean, for example, that if there were three people standing there and they
were touched, meaning that there was some body contact, that they were to
part and let this person through. . . . There were a couple of times when I
actually told the pickets to part because you have got different shifts coming
on at different times, and perhaps not all the people get specific instructions.
Further, according to Bruner, when a person desiring to enter the building requested
permission from a picket to do so:
The pickets were requested or required [by Respondent Unions] to ask for
identification. For example, "Are you a citizen?" "Are you an employee
of Arc Engraving?" "Are you an employee of Youngstown Vindicator?" .. .
They [i.e., the pickets] were told to allow free access, ingress and egress, but
specifically the pickets were told not to block anyone's entrance where there
might be an incident on the picket line. If they were standing there and some-
body came up there, certainly do not stand in their way to the point where
they physically had to be moved. That's what I mean by touching.
Bruner subsequently testified, however, that he had misunderstood the question and
that physical contact was not necessary; his clarification was that with respect to
persons seeking entrance to the building, pickets were under instructions to "ask
the purpose of their visit" but "don't go to the point that where you physically block
these people. If somebody charges your line, then you are going to get an incident.
Somebody is going to get knocked down. They are going to yield, I remember this
word. To `yield.' " 17
Monday, August 24, and Subsequently
Each morning from Monday, August 24, until the beginning of September, Olson
met the congregated Engraving work force across the street from the building before
8 a.m., crossed with them in a group to the front entrance, and, after Olson gave the
usual pledge for that day to the union representative (Kearney, Riley, etc.), the
latter would ask the pickets "to open their picket lines so as the Youngstown Arc
Engraving Company employees may enter the building," whereupon the pickets did
so and "we [i.e., Olson and the Engraving employees] were permitted to enter the
building without any problems." At the beginning of September, the format of
entering into the pledge or agreement changed in that Olson would inform the
Engraving employees each morning that "we would not ask them to make any plates
for the Vindicator, at which time they then made the agreement and we proceeded
in to work without any problems." Each morning during this period, until Septem-
17 Whatever Respondents ' Instructions to its pickets , whether or not involving the ne-
cessity for bodily contact before "yielding," there is no indication that persons seeking
entrance to the building were aware of any such "Open Sesame" to entrance without con-
tinued impediment and restraint by the pickets , and even risk of bodily harm in the event
first "contact" was on the part of the person seeking to get in.
796-027-66-vol. 153-49
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 8, all eight Engraving photoengravers would form up as a group across the
street and, after the daily pledge had been given, the picket lines were opened up
and they would proceed to enter the building as a group.18
On the days when the pledge was given by Engraving to Respondent Unions, no
photoengraving work for, or destined for use in, the Vindicator was performed by
Engraving or on Engraving's premises. During this period, photoengraved news-
photos appeared in the Vindicator, but they were of old vintage or possibly inappro-
priate "fillers," or had not been made by Engraving. During this period, without
Vindicator's knowledge, on Friday, August 21, Olson communicated with Adcraft
Engraving, Engraving's local competitor, and asked the latter "if they would produce
photoengravings ... for the Youngstown Arc Engraving," which Adcraft agreed to
do; thereafter, Engraving turned over to Adcraft photoengraving orders received
from Vindicator, and Adcraft billed Engraving, which in turn billed Vindicator.
Commencing Tuesday, September 8, as the Engraving employees were congregat-
ing as usual on the other side of the street, a Vindicator employee approached and
informed them that Respondent Unions "would no longer make the agreement with
us [i.e., Engraving]." Consequently, the Engraving photoengravers did not come in
to work that day or on either of the following 2 days (Wednesday and Thursday,
September 9 and 10), and no photoengraving work whatsoever-neither for Vindi-
cator nor for any other customer of Engraving-was done by Engraving or on its
premises, although there was work on hand in both categories currently to be
done.19
On Friday, September 11, following a meeting with counsel for Respondent
Unions, the Engraving photoengravers returned to work and have continued to
work from then until the date of the instant hearing, on plates including those of
Vindicator, without any agreement or pledge to refrain therefrom, and without
impediment to their access to and from the building, although picketing has con-
tinued, but from that date on with a modification in the language of the picket signs.2°
The parties stipulated at the hearing that commencing September 11 there was
added to the aforequoted introductory legend on the picket signs the words " against
the Vindicator," so that thenceforth the introductory legend, common to all of
those signs, read
Local 11, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO,
On Strike against the Vindica,or.
Bruner likewise testified that during this period "the picket line would be removed-
provided the [Engraving] employees would not be asked or directed to do any
work for the Youngstown Vindicator," and that "The picket captains were instructed
as to the details of the gentlemen's agreements which they could accept, and on
receiving the gentlemen's agreement and the other party, they were then to remove
the line from that door." According to Bruner, however, on September 7 (Labor
18 Although during each day of the first week (August 19 to 21) of the picketing there
were 20 to 25 pickets at the rear entrance and 8 to 10 at the front entrance, during the
second week (August 24 to 28), there were considerably less-3 or 4 at the rear and 2
or 3 at the front, the remaining (driveway, north side of building) entrance also continued
to be picketed
18 Olson testified that Engraving's collective agreement with the Photogravers Union
contains a provision "which permits them to respect picket lines" ; and that on Septem-
ber 8 the Engraving photoengravers told him they were attempting to ascertain from their
International "how to cope with the situation. Until they did, they would not cross the
picket lines" On these 3 days (September 8, 9, and 10) none of Engraving 's nonunion
employees (i.e., employees other than photoengravers) experienced any difficulty in getting
past the picket lines. However, in the absence of the photoengravers, no photoengraving
could be done by Engraving unless Engraving were to have hired other photoengravers,
which it did not do.
20 This followed on the heels of a stipulation between the Board's Regional Director and
Respondents, dated September 9, approved and so ordered on September 10 (following a
hearing on that date) by United States District Judge Prank J. Battisti in Civil Case No.
C64-583 in tl- United States District Court for the Eastern Division of the Northern
District of Ohio, wherein, pending final disposition of the instant proceeding, Respondents
agreed, inter alga, to cease and desist from secondary activity or pressures against per-
so met of Engraving, to permit Engraving personnel to cross picket lines and do work
for Vindicator and to so inform them, and to reword their picket signs so as to specify
clearly that their labor dispute was with Vindicator The stipulation contained the proviso
that it did not for purposes of any proceeding constitute an admission by Respondents of
having engaged in any violation of the Act.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 755
Day) or September 8, Respondents "instructed [their] picket captains not to make
an agreement with anyone from Arc Engraving" because "we had reached an agree-
ment with representatives of the National Labor Relations Board relative to our
picket signs, the wording of our picket signs, and also making it quite clear to all
employees of Arc Engraving that our strike was in no way pointed toward their
employer, that is, Arc Engraving, but toward the Youngstown Vindicator." He
therefore, according to his testimony, on Wednesday, September 9, tormally notified
the International representative of the Photoengravers Union of this agreement with
the Board. Further, according to Bruner, the changed instructions to the pickets
on September 7 or 8 were "that they were not to make any agreement with the
representatives of Arc Engraving nor walk away from the door." Also, according
to Bruner, he had meanwhile informed the Photoengravers Union local officials that
the wording on the pickets' signs had been changed pursuant to agreement with the
Board and "That we could no longer make an agreement with management of Are
Engraving relative to their not doing work which would appear in the Youngstown
Vindicator nor as a continuation of that agreement remove our picket line, but they,
as Union people, still had to make their decision as to whether they stayed out or
went in ." Bruner testified that, although because of this failure of Respondents to,
withdraw their pickets and the refusal of Respondents to continue to enter into the
agreement with Engraving, Engraving photoengravers ceased going to work, this
was a result which was "not intended" since Respondents had told the photoengravers
to go through the picket lines. After the foregoing testimony, however, and after tes-
tifying that he believed the aforedescribed agreement with the Board was reached in
the Federal judge's chambers in Cleveland on or before Labor Day (September 7),21
he then testified that his changed instructions to the pickets (i.e., not to continue
entering into the usual agreement with Engraving) may not have been until
Friday, September 11,21 so that the photoengravers' failure to work on Tuesday
through Thursday, September 8 through 10, would in that case not have been the
result of any changed instructions to the pickets but for some other reason. He
then concluded by testifying that he could not recall when he changed the instruc-
tions to the pickets and that he was uncertain as to whether the changed instructions
to the pickets were in consequence of the agreement reached in court or upon advice
of counsel.
Although, as stated by Respondents' counsel in his opening statement at the
hearing, Respondents "have little quarrel with the [General Counsel's] statement of
the facts," nevertheless there were some potentially significant contradictions or
inconsistencies between the testimony of General Counsel's prime witness (Olson)
and Respondents' only witness (Bruner). Some of these have already been described
and resolved. To the extent that these versions are discrepant, I generally preferred
that of General Counsel's witness, not merely because of demeanor observations but
also because of what appear to be internal inconsistencies in, and alterations or
revisions of, testimony by Respondents' witness, as well as the latter's inability to
recall certain particulars, and Respondents' unexplained failure to produce witnesses
presumably available and subject to their control (e.g., other union officials and
pickets) to controvert Olson's testimony. An example of Bruner's comparatively
less than satisfactory testimonial performance involved his initial denial that-as
Olson had testified-he (Bruner) had been told by Olson on August 19 or 20 that
Engraving did photoengraving work for others than Vindicator. After first testifying
that there was neither discussion nor even mention of this, Bruner seemed rapidly to
equivocate upon or to modify this answer by admitting that although there was a
"mentioning" of this subject "there was no discussion " When he was thereupon
asked what his "reaction" was to this "mentioning," he then admitted that "this was
discussed" and that, indeed, it was the very purpose of the no-photoengravings-for-
Vindicator pledge. Bruner's seemingly changeable testimony on the subject of the
"touching" or "bodily contact" requirement issued by Respondents to its pickets as
a condition to their "yielding" to persons seeking entrance to the building has already
been described; as well as his uncertainty or possible confusion as to the date and
circumstances of Respondents' instructions to its personnel after Labor Day to
refrain from entering into the usual agreement with Engraving or its employees,
which resulted in the failure of Engraving employees to report to work on Septem-
ber 8, 9, and 10 and the total work stoppages on any and all photoengraving work for
any customers of Engraving on those days, until resolution of the situation by court
order on September 10. Considering factors such as these, as well as reactions to
testimony as observed, I regarded General Counsel's witness as the more accurate,
It will be recalled that the stipulation, dated September 9, was "so ordered" on Sep-
tember 10 See footnote 20, supra.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and therefore to that extent and for purposes of this case upon the record presented
as the comparatively more reliable, observer and reporter of the facts as above
detailed and found.
III. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES; RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS; CONCLUDING FINDINGS
As is apparent from the foregoing, this case involves a situation where two employ-
ers, one struck by a union and the other not struck by any union, share a building,
all entrances to which are picketed by the striking union with signs not identifying
the struck employer; and all entrances to which are, at any rate initially, mass picketed
in such a manner as for practical purposes to interdict hazard-free access thereto by
at least some of the nonstruck employer's employees. The right of Respondents to
strike against and picket Vindicator is not in issue in this case. What is in issue
is the legality of Respondents' actions, as above described, in relation to Engraving
and the employees of Engraving.
Fashioning the lodestar for basic guidance in cases of this nature, tl e Supreme
Court has declared that the Act reflects the "dual congressional objectives of pre-
serving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending
employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and
others from pressures in controversies not their own." N L R.B. v. Denver Building
and Construction Trades Council (Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675, 692. Extensive
Board experience with cases of this variety, involving the indicated necessity for
arriving at a reasonable and practicable accommodation of the seemingly conflicting
right of the union to picket at the location of its dispute and the right of the non-
struck employer who happens to be located at that site to be free from becoming
enmeshed in a dispute to which it is not a party, resulted in enunciation by the
Board of its so-called Moore Dry Dock rule or set of guiding principles or criteria.
Under the Moore Dry Dock principles, which have repeatedly met with judicial
approbation, one of the criteria of permissible picketing at a location or situs shared
in common by a primary (struck) employer and a secondary (nonstruck) employer
is that "the picketing disclose[s] clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer "
Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549.22
It is apparent that this criterion was not met herein. Until the picket signs (and
also the picket activity) were modified following the court order of September 10,
those signs failed to disclose that Respondents' dispute was with Vindicator. Indeed,
the signs and picket activity demonstrated that Respondents intended to, as they did
in fact, extend their dispute beyond Vindicator, the primary employer, to Engraving
and its employees so as to introduce them into the active arena of Respondents' dis-
pute with Vindicator. The object and result were to force and require Engraving
to cease doing business with Vindicator; to force and require Engraving and its
employees to cease handling, transporting, and otherwise dealing in work of or for,
or destined to be used by, Vindicator; and to force or require Engraving's employees
to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services,
with an object of forcing or requiring Engraving to cease doing business with
Vindicator. Respondents' acts in pursuance of these objectives in the fashion
described were in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.23
While expressing, as already indicated, "little quarrel with the [General Counsel's]
statement of the facts," Respondents' views on the law applicable to those facts
appear to collide head-on with those of General Counsel. Thus, Respondents insist
that their activities vis-a-vis Engraving and its employees were allowable "primary"
action because the work of Engraving was "intimately connected with the day-to-day
operation of the Vindicator" and an "integral part of the newspaper"-as Respondent
finally characterizes it in its brief, "the photoengraving department of the Youngs-
22A1though Moore Dry Dock Involved picketing at the common situs of a secondary em-
ployer, its rule has been extended by the Board to picketing at the situs of a primary
,employer where a secondary or neutral employer is engaged Retail Fruit cf Vegetable
.Clerks Union, Local 1017 , et at ( Crystal Palace Market ), 116 NLRB 856, enfd . 249 F. 2d
591 (CA 9 ) ; Local Union No. 55 , and Carpenters ' District Council of Denver and
-Vicinity (Professional and Business Men's Life Insurance Co ), 108 NLRB 363, enfd 218
r 2d 226 (C.A 10)
23 Cf. Superior Derrick Corp v N L.R B. , 273 F 2d 891 ( C A 5), cert denied 364 U S
`816; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 728 of International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO ( Campbell Coal Co.)
v. N L R B., 249 F. 2d 512 (C.A.D C.), cert denied 355 U S. 958.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 757
town Vindicator ." For this reason , in Respondents ' view, their actions were per-
missible under the General Electric ='`t and Carrier sa decisions of the Supreme Court.
I do not, however, derive that lesson from those cases. General Electric dealt with
problem of picketing at a separate gate reserved for employees of nonstruck employ-
ers at a common work situs. In that case, the Supreme Court held that picketing
of a separate gate reserved for neutral contractors employed by the stiuck employer
(General Electric), who was engaged in a totally different type of business from
the contractors , was impermissible under Section 8(b)(4) so long as the employees
of the neutral contractors were engaged in work unrelated to and not necessitating
curtailment of the normal operations of the struck employer. In a context of
peaceful picketing lacking an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4), the picket signs
clearly specified that the strike was against the primary employer (General Electric).
Canner, decided 3 years after General Electric, involved delivery by a railroad com-
mon carrier, via one of its trackage sidings through its entrance to the struck employ-
er's premises, of empty boxcars for the sole use of the struck employer (Carrier),
and pickup of other loaded boxcars from that struck employer's premises, which
were not the premises of the railroad. These delivery and pickup activities of the
railroad at the struck employer's premises were exclusively for the struck employer
in the usual, regular course of the struck employer's normal business operations upon
its own premises . Picketing of the siding entrance utilized by the railroad for
access to the struck employer's premises for the purpose of making these boxcar
deliveries and pickups at the struck employer's premises in the course of the usual
operations of the struck employer, and thereby permitting the latter's normal business
operations to continue, was under the circumstances held by the Court not to be
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4). Relying and commenting on its earlier General
Electric decision, the Court stated that "The location of the picketing, though impor-
tant, was not deemed of decisive significance; picketing was not to be protected simply
because it occurred at the site of the pnnnary employer's plant" 26 (376 U.S. at 497),
[Emphasis supplied.] There is no indication that in General Electric or Carrie,
the picketing, as herein, was carried on with misleading signs failing to identify the
struck employer. (Indeed, in Geneial Electric the opposite appears.) In neither of
those cases was the neutral employer, as herein, attempting to gain access to its
own and only premises, from which it conducted the greater part (here two-thirds)
of its business with customers wholly unconnected with the struck primary employer.''?
24Local 761, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIQ,
v. N.L R B (General Electric Company), 366 U S 667.
zs United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO v N .L R B and Carrier Corp , 376 U S. 492.
21 As noted , General Electric, as well as Carrier, involved "reserved gate" picketing situa-
tions , where the gate or entrance "reserved " for the secondary or neutral employer was
picketed by striking employees of the primary employer The circumstances under which
striking primary employees may lawfully picket an entrance reserved for neutral second-
ary employees are not necessarily the same as those under which such picketing , restricted
or unrestricted , may permissibly take place at a common entrance utilized by both primary
and secondary employees Although the instant case involves no "reserved gate" situa-
tion , and under certain circumstances the consequences upon secondary employers of picket-
ing at entrances to premises shared by the secondary employer with a primary employer,
where no other place to picket exists, are regarded as "incidental" and unavoidable, Re-
spondents failed-although able to do so-to minimize the effects of their picketing upon
the secondary employer Although knowing that Engraving had substantial other custom-
ers than Vindicator, Respondents not only failed to identify Vindicator as the struck em-
ployer on the picket signs, but prevented Engraving from doing business with other
customers whose advertisements might appear in the Vindicator and even prevented En-
graving from doing business with still other customers ( comprising two-thirds of Engrav-
ing's business ) having no connection whatsoever with Vindicator Thus , Respondents'
picketing and other actions were not limited, through lawful exercise of the arts of peace-
ful persuasion or otherwise, to hampering Engraving's performance of work orders received
only from Vindicator , but extended to preventing other if not all of Engraving's business
operations
27Although the duties of Engraving's employees were in a sense to a degree "connected
with the normal operations of the [primary] employer," so that to that extent, in the
absence of the misleading picket signs and other described activity, the picketing directed
at them might be considered as "protected primary activity ," upon the record here presented
including the proscription of employees ' access to performance of the two - thirds of "their
work [which ] was unrelated to the day-to-day operation of the [primary] employer's
plant, the picketing was an unfair labor practice ." Carrier, supra, 376 U.S. at 497-498.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In both of those cases, unlike the instant case, the picketing was purposed to hinder
only the usual operations of the struck employer, and did not have as an object the
burdening of the commerce of the secondary employer with its customers other
than the primary employer.
To define as "primary" picketing activity, as broadly as is here suggested by
Respondents, picketing of all other business enterprises which supply goods or
services contributing toward production of the end-product of the struck employer-
even regardless of the fact that such other enterprises sell substantial goods and
provide substantial sei vices to buyers and consumers other than the struck employer-
would in large part break down the ordinarily understood aistinction between "pri-
mary" and "secondary" employers. "Simple," question-begging linguistic talismans,
here invoked by Respondents, such as "primary activity," "work that is intimately
connected with," "related to the normal operation of," or "an integral part of the
work" of the primary employer, which have been utilized in varying specific factual
contexts , are not in themselves problem-solving nor even necessarily any more
assistive than old keys to the opening of new doors. To begin with, assuming that
photoengraving is an important and even peihaps "integral" or more or less
"essential" step in the production of a finished modern newspaper, it does not follow
that the photoengraving company which has produced and sold the photoengravings
to the newspaper is part of the newspaper company. Apart from the fact that
Engraving has at all times had a real juridical and operational identity independent
of Vindicator-a life of its own-only one-third, or less, of Engraving's business has
been with, or ultimately destined for, Vindicator. Undoubtedly, the two firms were
"operated independently of each other, as sepaiate autonomous ... enterprises," 28
Respondents' labor dispute was with Vindicator and it was Vindicator employees who
were striking against Vindicator; Respondents were not attempting to organize the
employees of Engraving and neither they nor any other labor organization had any
labor dispute with Engraving. The primary employer was Vindicator, and the
primary strike and picketing were against Vindicator alone. Respondents' argu-
ment that close identification of the work product of a nonstruck employer with the
final sales product of another struck employer, who is the nonstruck employer's
customer, makes the former per se vulnerable to "primary" picketing activity by
employees of the latter, could be said to apply to Vindicator's suppliers of news-
print, ink, type, reporters' cameras and flashbulbs, and the numerous other supplies,
services, and ingredients which go into newspaper production, including electricity
and syndicated news services and columnists Respondents' contention that its
picketing against Engraving is "primary" because the work product of Engraving is
an important part of the newspaper could also be applied to Walter Lippmann or
Drew Pearson, since they, too, are important features of the newspaper. Indeed, if
activities designed to inhibit or burden the flow in interstate commerce of the sup-
plies and services going into newspaper production were to be deemed "primary"
activity on the part of the striking employees of the newspaper, it is difficult to
perceive what would remain as "secondary" within the purview of Section 8(b)(4).
The principles here relied on to support the conclusions here made do no violence
to the well-understood rule, invoked by Respondents, that where picketing is directed
28Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen Local No. 46 (Knight Newspapers, Inc), 138
NLRB 1346, 1348, enfd 322 F 2d 405 (C.A D.C.). See also N.L.R B. v Denver Building
and Construction Trades Council, et at. (Gould & Preisner), 341 U S. 675 ; Retail Fruit &
Vegetable Clerks Union (Crystal Palace Market), 116 NLRB 856, enfd. 249 F 2d 591
(C.A. 9) ; Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, etc. (Old Dutch Farms, Inc.), 146 NLRB 509, enfd. 341 F. 2d 29 (C A.
2). In Old Dutch Farms, supra, Old Dutch, a distributor and retailer of milk and related
products , was a tenant of and shared premises with Balsam , a milk processor and retailer.
Under contract with Old Dutch, Balsam processed and bottled all the milk of Old Dutch,
as well as of other tenants -customers , at Balsam's premises . In the course of a labor
dispute between Old Dutch and its employees, the latter informed Balsam not to process
Old Dutch milk. Notwithstanding the shared premises and the fact that "Balsam's proc-
essing operations are functionally integrated into Old Dutch 's milk - distributing business"
(decision of Trial Examiner Vose, supra, 146 NLRB at 516, affirmed by the Board as in-
dicated), the Board held that picketing (with signs failing to identify the struck employer)
and accompanying activity by Old Dutch employees at the shared premises of Balsam was
unlawful under Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), since Balsam was a neutral to the dispute
between Old Dutch and its employees.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 759
against and confined to premises of the employer involved in the labor dispute it is
primary and not a boycott, even though employees of other employers refuse to cross
the picket line.29 In enunciating this rule (International Rice Milling Co., Inc. v.
N L R.B., supra), however, the Court concurrently held that the mere fact that picket-
ing is conducted at the premises of the primary employer, where an object thereof is
to induce certain action on the part of neutral employees, does not immunize the
picketing. N.L R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S.
675; International Brotherhood of Electiical Workers, Local 501, et al. v. N.L.R B.,
341 U S. 694. These two rules are not conflicting, since the first (Rice Milling)
involves picketing effects upon secondary employees which are incidental to permis-
sible picketing, whereas the second (Denver) involves picketing aimed at neutral or
secondary employees for a proscribed objective. The "situs" of the dispute is not in
itself controlling in determining whether the picketing activity is "primary" or
"secondary" or protected vis-a-vis a particular employer.30 In the instant case, the
described circumstances indicate that, through its actions toward Engraving and its
employees, Respondents engaged in the described acts for objects proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b) (4), rendering the picketing to that extent unlawful 31
2B Nor would even threats or violence per se convert such picketing activity into conduct
violative of Section 8(b) (4), although it might be otherwise violative of the Act (e g.,
Section 8(b) (1) (A) ; cf. International Rice Milling Go, Inc. v. N.L.R B., 341 US. 665,
672), unless the picketing involved illegal secondary activity-i,e, activity which "inter-
feres with business intercourse not connected with the ordinary operations of the [pri-
mary] employer " Carrier Corp , supra, 376 U.S at 501 It was established herein-
indeed, it is conceded in Respondents' brief (p 1)-that "no one was being allowed to
enter the building" by Respondents (August 20) and that "Attempts to enter the building
were met with picket resistance" (ibid., p. 2; August 21) , that at no time during the
picketing were Engraving and its employees permitted access to work on any photoengrav-
ings which might or could appear in the struck newspaper even though not ordered from
Engraving by the newspaper, but by other customers of Engraving (e g., department
stores or advertising agencies) ; and that on September 8, 9, and 10 no photoengraving
work whatsoever was done, even for customers of Engraving in no way connected with
the newspaper or its operations Nor is Respondents' failure on its picket signs, prior to
the temporary consent injunction of September 10, to identify the struck employer, here
in question.
10 "The location of the picketing, though important, was not deemed of decisive sig-
nificance [in General Electric] ; picketing was not to be protected simply because it
occurred at the site of the primary employer's plant" Carrier Corp, supra, 376 U.S.
at 497. Nor is title to the premises constituting the "situs" of the dispute determina-
tive of whether picketing thereof is "primary" or "secondary " Retail Fruit & Vegetable
Clerks Union (Crystal Palace Market), 116 NLRB 856, 859, and cases cited, enfd. 249
F. 2d 591 (CA. 9)
ai In General Electric, relied on heavily by Respondents herein, the Supreme Court quoted
with approval the following language from Seafarers International Union, of North Amer-
ica, Atlantic and Gulf District, Harbor and Inland Waterways Division, AFL-CIO (Salt
Dome Production Go) v. N L.R B , 265 F. 2d 585, 591 (C A.D C.). " `It is clear that, when
a union pickets an employer with whom it has a dispute, it hopes, even if it does not
intend, that all persons will honor the picket line, and that hope encompasses the em-
ployees of neutral employers who may in the course of their employment (deliverymen and
the like) have to enter the premises ' " However, the Supreme Court then stated: "But
picketing which induces secondary employees to respect a picket line is not the equivalent
of picketing which has an object of inducing those employees to engage in concerted con-
duct against their employer in order to force him to refuse to deal with the struck em-
ployer" Local 761, IUE, supra, 366 U.S. at 673-674. (Subsequent to this decision,
the 1959 amendments to the Act eliminated the word "concerted," referred to in the
quoted portion of the Court's decision, from Section 8(b) (4) (i) of the Act.) It is clear
that picketing, which has as an object the bringing of pressure upon secondary employees
not to work for their employer in order to prevent the employer from doing business with
a primary struck employer, is unlawful
Nothing in the instant Decision is intended to imply that oral inducement and encourage-
ment of employees of secondary employers will per se transform otherwise lawful primary
picketing under Moore Dry Dock criteria into unlawful secondary activity. Cf. Local 25,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica (J. C. Driscoll Transportation, Inc.), 148 NLRB 845.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents seek further to justify their conduct under the mantle of the so-called
ally doctrine.32 The photoengraving work here was not "struck" work which the
primary employer (Vindicator) itself normally (or. indeed, ever) performed. Engrav-
ing's photoengraving work for Vindicator was a normal, established, arm's-length
method of doing business between these two companies, and not something under-
taken in consequence of Respondents' strike activity as a substitute for an operating
methodology usually done by the struck employer (Vindicator), in order thereby to
frustrate legitimate strike activity through voluntarily elected alliance (by Engraving)
with the struck employer's side of the cause. Under these circumstances, it is clear
that the ally doctrine does not apply.33
In short, since Respondents' labor dispute was with Vindicator and the situs of that
dispute was the Vindicator building, Respondents had the right lawfully to picket
Vindicator at those premises, but not in such a way as to attempt deliberately to
embroil Engraving therein, as by its picket signs not identifying the struck employer
and by interdicting or interfering with passage by Engraving into the building because
it happened to be a tenant there. There is an obvious difference between, on the one
hand, picketing clearly aimed at a struck employer, and, on the other hand, picketing
involving the use of misleading picket signs Sr and the throwing of a virtual cordon
sanitaire around the entire building which the struck employer occupies, in such a
way as to give the impression that all occupants of the building are being struck. Nor
is Respondents' argument that individual employees of Engraving were free to exer-
cise their own independent judgments as to whether to "cross" a picket line persuasive
in the context of what took place here, including shoulder-to-shoulder picketing,
blocking of entrances, scuffling, manhandling of employees, issuance of requirements
that "bodily contact" be exchanged as a condition to the "opening" of picket lines to
permit access to the building, and discussion of issuance of "safe conduct" passes
under terms which Respondents imposed The necessity for permitting "safe conduct"
passage through a picket line would seem to cone close to implying that attempted
passage without a "safe conduct" pass would be "unsafe" or fraught with hazard.
It is accordingly found and concluded that Respondents through their described
conduct violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (n) (B) of the Act. It is believed that this
result will effectuate the Act's purpose of "shielding unoffending employees and
others from pressures in controversies not their own," while leaving Respondent
Unions free under Moore Dry Dock criteria "to bring pressure to bear on [the]
offending employer[s]" with whom they are in dispute. (N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building
and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692.)
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Employer and other persons set forth 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.
32 Cf. N.L R.B v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board,
Local 459, I UE.W (Royal Typewriter Co ), 228 F 2d 553 (C.A. 2), cert denied 351 U S.
962: United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Tennessee Coal & Iron Division of United
States Steel Corporation), 127 NLRB 823, 824-825, enfd as modified 294 F 2d 256
(C A.D C.).
33 Cf. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO ( Tennessee Coal & Iron Division),
supra, footnote 32; Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union,
AFL-CIO, et at (Climax Machinery Co ), 86 NLRB 1243. Nor did Engraving's action
in subcontracting out to its competitor, Adcraft Engraving, Vindicator's photoengraving
work, render it legally vulnerable to Respondents' actions herein. To begin with, there
is no evidence or claim that Respondents had any knowledge that this was taking place,
so that Respondents' actions may not be regarded as having been retaliatory. Further-
more, since Engraving had the legal right to continue to perform its regular photoengrav-
ing work for Vindicator, it cannot be said that Engraving's exercise of its lawful right to
do through another what it could itself lawfully have done, was unlawful Under the
circumstances. Engraving' s action in subcontracting its regular work out, presumably in
order not to risk losing a valued customer to a competitor, was no more than a parry to
the thrust of Respondents' unlawful secondary pressures and exactions upon it
34 Cf Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks Union (Crystal Palace Market), 116 NLRB 856,
858-859, and cases cited in footnote 5, enfd 249 F. 2d 591 (CA 9) ; Milk Drivers and
Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584, etc (Old Dutch Farms, Inc ), 146 NLRB 509, enfd.
341 F. 2d 29 (C.A 2).
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 761
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findmgs of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By their conduct, as set forth in section III, supra, Respondents and each of
them have ( a) induced or encouraged individuals employed by Engraving ( a person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce ) to engage in a strike or
a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture , process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on goods, articles , materials , or commodities or to perform
services ; ( b) threatened , coerced, or restrained Engraving ( a person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce); in each case with an object of forcing
or requiring Engraving and its employees to cease using, handling, transporting, or
otherwise dealing in the products of Vindicator or another producer, processor, or
manufacturer , or forcing or requiring Engraving to cease doing business with
Vindicator.
2. By the conduct set forth in paragraph 1, Respondents and each of them have
engaged in unfair laboi practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondents American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, and Youngstown Newspaper
Guild No. 11, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, and their respective officers,
agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Displaying or otherwise utilizing any sign at or in the vicinity of The Youngs-
town Vindicator building in Youngstown , Ohio, or in connection with any picketing
of or near said premises , which does not clearly state thereon in words or effect,
legibly in approximately the same size as the largest words on said sign , that Respond-
ents' labor dispute is with The Youngstown Vindicator and/or Vindicator Printing
Company.
(b) Refusing or failing to permit the employees of Youngstown Are Engraving Co.
at any and all times, in connection with their employment at Youngstown Arc Engrav-
ing Co., to have full, free, and unhindered access to and exit from The Youngstown
Vindicator building, and among other things for that purpose to open Respondents'
picket lines if any in order to permit such access and exit without condition , pledge,
agreement , or other requirement , hindrance , or interference.
(c) (i) Inducing or encouraging any employee of Youngstown Arc Engraving Co.
to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use , manufacture,
process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on copy or material to be photo-
engraved , or on other goods, articles , materials , or commodities , or to perform serv-
ices; or ( ii) threatening , coercing , or restraining Youngstown Arc Engraving Co.;
where, in either case, an object thereof is (A) to force or require Youngstown Arc
Engraving Co., any of its employees , or any other person to cease using , handling,
transporting , or otherwise dealing in copy or other material of Vindicator Printing
Company or any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, to be photoengraved
for Vindicator Printing Company or for use in The Youngstown Vindicator, or to
cease using , handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in any other products of
Vindicator Printing Company or any other producer , processor , or manufacturer; or
(B) to force or require Youngstown Arc Engaving Co., or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to cease doing business with
Vindicator Printing Company or any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Modify the design and wording on all picket signs utilized or to be utilized at
or in the vicinity of The Youngstown Vindicator building in Youngstown, Ohio, or in
connection with any picketing of or near said premises , so as clearly to state thereon
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in words or effect, legibly in approximately the same size as the largest words on said
signs, that Respondents' labor dispute is with The Youngstown Vindicator and/or
Vindicator Printing Company.
(b) Instruct all pickets and future pickets at or near said premises that any and all
employees of Youngstown Arc Engraving Co. shall at all times be permitted to have
full, free, and unhindered access to and from The Youngstown Vindicator building
in connection with their usual work at Youngstown Arc Engraving Co., and among
other things for that purpose to open their picket lines without imposing or requesting
any condition, pledge, agreement, or requirement on the part of Youngstown Arc
Engraving Co. or any of its employees.
(c) Post at the respective business offices and meeting places of each of said
Respondents copies of the notice hereto attached marked "Appendix A." 35 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 8, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondents or their authorized representatives, be posted by each of
said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by each of them
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to their members 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.
(d) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 8 sufficient signed copies of said
notice for posting at the premises of Youngstown Arc Engraving Co., it being willing,
at places where it customarily posts notices to its employees.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith36
as In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a 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."
80 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO; ALL MEM-
BERS OF YOUNGSTOWN NEWSPAPER GUILD No. 11, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD,
AFL-CIO; YOUNGSTOWN ARC ENGRAVING CO. AND ALL EMPLOYEES THEREOF
Pursuant to a 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, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT display or otherwise utilize any sign at or in the vicinity of The
Youngstown Vindicator building in Youngstown, Ohio, or in connection with
any picketing of or near said premises, which does not clearly specify thereon
that our labor dispute is the The Youngstown Vindicator and/or Vindicator
Printing Company.
WE WILL permit the employees of Youngstown Are Engraving Co. at any and
all times in connection with their employment to have full, free, and unhindered
access to and exit from The Youngstown Vindicator building, and, among other
things, for that purpose to open our picket lines, if any, without requiring or
requesting any pledge, agreement, or other condition; and we will clearly instruct
all pickets accordingly.
WE WILL NOT, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended:
(1) induce or encourage any employee of Youngstown Arc Engraving Co. to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on copy or material to be photo-
engraved, or on other goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform
services; or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain Youngstown Arc Engraving Co.
where, in either case, an object thereof is (a) to force or require Youngstown
Arc Engraving Co., any employee thereof, or any other person to cease using,
HAWAII NEWSPAPER OPERATORS 763
handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in any products , including material
to be photoengraved , of or for Vindicator Printing Company or any other
producer , processor, or manufacturer , or to appear in The Youngstown Vindi-
cator; or (b) to force or require Youngstown Arc Engraving Co., or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , to cease:
doing business with Vindicator Printing Company or any other person.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---- --------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
YOUNGSTOWN NEWSPAPER GUILD No. 11,
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
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, 720 Bulk-
ley Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland, Ohio, Telephone No. Main 1 -4465, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Honolulu Star Bulletin , Inc. and Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd.,
d/b/a Hawaii Newspaper Operators and Hawaii Newspaper
Guild , Local 117, AFL-CIO. Case No. 37-CA-327. June 29,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision together with a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
a brief in response to the General Counsel's 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 [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
153 NLRB No. 83.