American Newspapers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1940

22 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS , INC., ILLINOIS PUBLISHING
AND PRINTING COMPANY, EVENING AMERICAN PUBLISHING COMPANY
and CHICAGO NEwSPAPEI GUILD, LOCAL 71 or THE AMERICAN NEWS-
PAPER GUILD
In the Matter of AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC., ILLINOIS PUBLISHING
AND PRINTING COMPANY, EVENING AMERICAN PUBLISHING COMPANY
and CHICAGO NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 71 OF THE AMERICAN NEWS-
PAPER GUILD
In the Matter of AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC., ILLINOIS PUBLISHING
AND PRINTING COMPANY and CHICAGO NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 71
OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD
In the Matter Of ILLINOIS PUBLISHING AND PRINTING COMPANY and
CHICAGO EDITORIAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 21690, AFFILIATED WITH
THE A. F. or L.
In the Matter of EVENING AMERICAN PUBLISHING COMPANY and CHI-
CAGO EDITORIAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 21690, AFFILIATED WITH
THE A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. R-839, C-1118, C-1119, R-1544 and R-1545, respec-
tively.-Decided April 12, 1940
Newspaper Publishing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion: pay
ment of dues by supervisory officials to enable union members to vote against
strike ; vilifying union members ; surveillance of union meeting ; attempt
to discern which of employees were members of union and sufficiently sym-
pathetic with union and its objectives to strike ; company-favored union: super-
visory promotion of rival affiliated union ; successor to employee committees
set up with supervisory encouragement ; charges of , dismissed as to company
assistance to another rival affiliated union ; ordered to withhold recognition
from assisted rival affiliated union unless similar recognition accorded charge-
ing union or unless and until it is certified by the Board-Employee Status:
supervisory : employee considered by others as their superior, as-Employer:
responsibility of, for activities of minor supervisory employees-Discrimination:
discharges for union membership and activity ; charges of , sustained as to two
employees ; charges of , and for testifying under Act, dismissed as to one-
Reinstatement Ordered: employees discriminated against upon application ;
grounds for refusal of : offer of reinstatement after Intermediate Report and
refusal to accept while strike current-Back Pay: as to one employee from
date of discrimination to offer of reinstatement and thereafter upon refusal
to reinstate upon application ; as to second employee from date of discrimina-
tion to date of Intermediate Report and thereafter from date of refusal to rein-
state upon application-Remedial Order: to run against holding company as
11
22 N. L R B, No. 66
899
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
well as against the other respondents-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ; dispute
as to unit and majority ; contracts for members only executed while proceed-
ings were pending, no bar to-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining:
desires of employees Qf editorial and commercial departments to determine
whether they desire to ' be' combined within a single unit or to ' constitute sepa=
rate units-Representatives : eligibility to participate in choice : strikers; per-
sons taking places of striking employees during currency of strike not eligible
to vote-Elections Ordered: at such time as the Board shall in the future direct.
Mr. Hyman Schulson, Mr. Herbert Shenkin, and Mr. Stephen M.
Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. Edward G. Woods and Mr. E. D. Salinger, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the respondents.
Meyers and Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., and
Isserm an, Isserman & Kapelsohn, by Mr. Morris Isserman and
Mr. Abraham J. Isserman, of Newark, N. J., for the Guild.
Mr. Joseph J. Berzin, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenors, Chicago
Allied Printing Trades Council, Chicago Web Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 7, and Chicago Paper Handlers Union No. 2.
Mr. Francis D. O'Mara, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenors,
Chicago Mailers Union No. 2, and Newspaper Delivery Drivers
Union, Local No. 706.
Mr. Irwin Bloom, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenor, Chicago
Photo Engravers Union No. 5.
Mr. Joseph A. Ricker, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenor, Chicago
Window Washers Union Local No. 34.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Daniel D.
Carmell, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenors, American Federation
of Labor, Illinois Federation of Labor, Chicago Federation of Labor
and their affiliated organizations , including Newspaper Commercial
Associates, Local No. 21662, and Chicago Editorial Association, Local
No. 21690.
Mr. Irving Braveman, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenor, com-
mittee representing employees of the advertising department, Illinois
Publishing and Printing Company and Evening American Publish-
ing Company.
Mr. Charles W. Fisher, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenor, com-
mittee representing employees of the circulation department, Illinois
Publishing and Printing Company and Evening American Publish-
ing Company.
Mr. Andre Ferdiniand, of Chicago, Ill., for the intervenor, com-
mittee representing employees of the business administration depart-
ment, Illinois Publishing and Printing Company and Evening
American Publishing Company.
Miss Carol Agger, of counsel to the Board-
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC.
DECISION*
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
901
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 30, 1938, a petition was filed by the Chicago Newspaper
Guild, Local 71, American Newspaper Guild, herein called the Guild,
with the Regional Director for the ,Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illi-
nois ), alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Illinois Publishing
and Printing Company and Evening American Publishing Company,
herein called the respondents, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. On April 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered
an investigation and hearing and authorized the Regional Direc-
tor to conduct the investigation and to provide for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice. Thereafter, notice of the hear-
ing and notices of the continuance and postponement of the hear-
ing were duly served upon the respondents, the Guild, and upon
Local 706, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. On May 13,
1938, the Guild filed an amended petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives. On May 14, 1938, an amended notice of
hearing was issued and on May 19, 1938, a continuance of hearing was
ordered upon the motion of the Illinois Federation of Labor, Chicago
Federation of Labor, and 23 labor organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. On May 20, 1938, a second 'amended
petition was filed by the Guild and a second amended notice of hear-
ing was issued by the Regional Director. American Newspapers,
Inc., was made a party by the second amended petition, as well as
the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company and the Evening
American Publishing Company. The second amended petition and
notice of hearing were duly served upon the Chicago Federation of
Labor, Illinois Federation of Labor, American Federation of Labor,
23 labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of La-
bor, the Guild, and the respondents. Thereafter, the Chicago Feder-
ation of Labor, Illinois Federation of Labor, American Federation of
*This Decision , Order and Direction of Elections was vacated May 8 , 1940, by an Order
Vacating Order and Substituting Modified Order and Amendment to Di rection of Elections,
23 N L R B, No 57
283033-41-vol 22-58
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor, and all their affiliated organizations involved petitioned to
intervene in the proceedings. The petition was granted.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from May 26 to June 15,
1938, at Chicago, Illinois, before George Bokat, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. A third amended petition for in-
vestigation and certification of representatives was filed by the Guild
during the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, Irving Brave-
man, Charles Fisher, and Andre Ferdinand, respectively, represent-
ing three committees which had been designated as collective
bargaining representatives by certain employees of the respondents'
advertising, circulation, and business-administration departments,
petitioned to and were allowed to intervene in the proceedings.
Their petitions were later withdrawn and the three committees with-
drew from the proceedings. The Board, the Guild, the respondents,
and the intervenors were represented by counsel or by union officials
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing, as
has been stated, the Guild moved to amend its petition, and the
motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner made various other rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Oral argument with respect to the petition and issues raised
thereby was subsequently scheduled and then indefinitely postponed
because of the consolidation order discussed below.
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed by the Guild,
the Board, on July 29, 1938, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered Case No. R-839, in which the
hearing had been held, consolidated with Case No. XIII-C-703
(herein numbered C-1118) in which the charges had been filed. The
respondents objected to the consolidation of the cases on various
grounds. On August 12, 1938, the Board overruled the objections
and exceptions to the order of consolidation. On September 10, 1938,
the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint; on Sep-
tember 16, 1938, it issued its amended complaint; and on September
23, 1938, it issued its second amended complaint 1 against American
Newspapers, Inc., Illinois Printing and Publishing Company, and
Evening American Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois, alleging
that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
'A third amended and consolidated complaint was issued during the hearing and is
discussed below.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 903
(3) of the Act. Copies of the second amended complaint, accom-
panied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents
and the Guild. Newspaper Commercial Associates, Local No. 21662,
herein called the Commercial Associates, and Chicago Editorial
Association, Local No. 21690, herein called the Editorial Association,
petitioned to intervene in the proceedings. The petitions of the two
organizations were granted by the Regional Director.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the second amended com-
plaint alleged in substance that on or about certain specified dates
the respondent Evening American Publishing Company discharged
Harold Sullivan, lone Cross, and Howard Mayhew because they had
joined and assisted the Guild; that the respondents, from on or about
May 25, 1938, suggested, advised, urged, and warned their employees
to join Commercial Associates and/or its predecessor committees;
that the respondents, from on or about June 15, 1938, suggested,
advised, urged, and warned their employees to join the Editorial
Association; and that from on or about January 1, 1937, the respond-
ents urged, advised, and warned their employees to refrain from
joining the Guild, warned their employees that they would cease
publishing newspapers in Chicago if the Guild continued in existence
at the plant, spied on Guild meetings, and in other ways discouraged
membership in the Guild.
On September 17, 1938, the respondents filed an answer admitting
certain allegations in the second amended complaint concerning the
corporate structure of the respondents and denying that they had
committed the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notices of postponement duly served upon the parties,
the hearing on the consolidated cases opened in Chicago, Illinois,
on September 29, 1938, before Henry W. Schmidt, the Trial Exami-
ner duly designated by the Board. The hearing was closed on
November 18, 1938. During the hearing the Guild filed further
charges alleging that the respondents American Newspapers, Inc.,
and Illinois Publishing and Printing Company had engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (4)
of the Act, in that they had discharged Harry Read on October 3,
1938, because he gave testimony in- the consolidated cases and be-
cause he ,was active in behalf of the Guild. The case based upon
these charges is referred to herein as Case No. C-1119. On October
15, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c)
(2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, ordered Cases Nos. R-839, C-1118, and C-1119
consolidated. On October 17, 1938, the Board by its Regional Direc-
tor issued its third amended and consolidated complaint,- including
therein, in addition to substantially the same matters alleged in the
second amended complaint, the allegations that the respondents, Illi-
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nois Publishing and Printing Company and American Newspapers,
Inc., discharged Harry C. Read, an employee, because he had joined
and assisted the Guild and because he gave testimony on September
30 and October 3, 1938, in Cases Nos. R-839 and C-1118. Attached
to the third amended and consolidated complaint was a notice of
hearing to commence in 5 days from the date of the complaint and
giving the respondents 5 days in which to answer. Copies of the
third amended and consolidated complaint were duly served upon
the parties. The respondents thereafter amended their answer to
meet the new allegations.
The respondents thereafter filed objections, dated October 17, 1938,
to the Board's order of consolidation of October 15, 1938. On Octo-
ber 18, 1938, the Board overruled the respondents' objections.
The Board, the respondents, the Guild, Commercial Associates, and
the Editorial Association were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and objections to
the admission and exclusion of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 7, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondents, the
Guild, Commercial Associates, and the Editorial Association. The
Trial Examiner found that the respondents had engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended
that the respondents cease and desist therefrom and offer to Howard
Mayhew immediate and full reinstatement with back pay. He also
found that the evidence failed to sustain the allegations that Harry
Read and Harold Sullivan were discharged because of their affilia-
tion with and activity in behalf of the Guild and recommended that
the complaint, so far as it dealt with them, be dismissed.2 The Trial
Examiner further found that the evidence failed to sustain the
charge concerning unfair labor practices of the respondents with
respect to the Editorial Association and recommended that the alle-
gations in the complaint relating thereto, be dismissed.
Thereafter, the respondent, American Newspapers, Inc., and the
Guild filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to
notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held on March
2, 1939, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondents,
2 The allegation in the complaint that lone Cross was discharged because of her Guild
activity was dismissed at the hearing upon motion of counsel for the Board.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 905
the Guild, and the intervenors were represented by counsel or by
union officials and participated in the argument. The Board has
considered the exceptions of the Guild and American Newspapers,.
Inc., and, save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
At the oral argument the Guild filed a motion 3 requesting, inter
alia, that the proceedings in Case No. R-839 be reopened for the taking
of further testimony; that any decision or alternatively, any election
ordered, in such proceedings, be deferred until all charges of unfair
labor practices should be disposed of and until effectual remedial
measures should have been fully consummated ; and that remedial
measures, other than those based upon the Intermediate Report and
the Guild's exceptions thereto, deemed necessary by the Board, be
deferred until additional charges of unfair labor practices then pend-
ing should be disposed of and until the Board should have considered
the effect of a strike then being conducted against the respondents
by the Guild. In support of its motion, the Guild urged, inter alia,
that conditions in the respondents' plant had changed since the Guild
had filed its petition for investigation and certification of representa-
tives, in that its contract with the respondents as exclusive representa-
tive of the' employees in the editorial departments of the two
newspapers published by two of th'e respondents had expired, that
therefore a unit other than that originally alleged was appropriate;
that a petition for investigation and certification of representatives
had been filed on December 7, 1938, by the Editorial Association and
was then pending; that by reason of the respondents' unfair labor
practices, the Guild had called a strike on December 5, 1938, which
strike was still in effect; and that the respondents had executed a
collective bargaining contract with the Editorial Association.
On May 17, 1939,4 the Board issued and served upon the parties
an order granting in part the Guild's motion of March 2, 1939, reopen-
ing the record to allow the taking of further testimony in Case No.
R-839, directing an investigation of and hearing upon the petition filed
by the Editorial Association on December 7, 1938,5 and ordering that the
proceedings upon the Editorial Association's petition be consolidated
with the pending cases.
3 This motion was in effect a renewal of a motion theretofore filed by the Guild with
the Board, which was opposed by,tbe respondents and by certain of the intervenors, upon
which the Board had made no ruling we consider that the objections made to the orig-
inal motion, go to the Guild's renewed or supplemental motion of March 2, 1939, in so far
as they are applicable. to-the renewed or supplemental motion.
4 There was some indication at the hearing on March 2, 1939, that the new matters
which the Guild desired to have included in the record of Case No. R-839 might be inserted
into the record by means of a stipulation between the parties By about April 26, 1939,
however, it became apparent that the parties were unable to agree upon such a stipula-
tion
Case No. R-1544 The petition relates to the employees in the editorial department'
of the Chicago Herald and Examiner.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 25, 1939, the Editorial Association filed another petition
for investigation and certification of representatives, relating to the
employees in the editorial department of the Chicago Evening Amer-
ican and on July 6, 1939, the Board ordered an investigation and
hearing upon the petition 6 and its consolidation with 'the pending
cases.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from September 1, 1939,
to September 20, 1939, in Chicago, Illinois, before Henry W. Schmidt,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, at which further
testimony was taken in the representation cases. The Board, the
respondents, the Editorial Association, and certain of the intervenors
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings upon motions and objections to the admission and exclusion
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Trial Examiner reserved decision upon the respondents' mo-
tion that American Newspapers, Inc., be dismissed as a party respond-
ent in these proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion is denied.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held on November 14, 1939, before the Board in Washington,
D. C. The respondents, the Guild, the Editorial Association, and
Commercial Associates were represented by counsel and participated
in the argument. At this hearing, the Guild urged that disposition
of the representation proceedings be delayed on the ground, inter
alia, that new charges had been filed by the Guild with the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, alleging that the respondents had
engaged in new unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Any further delay was opposed by
the other parties represented at the hearing. Under the circum-
stances, the Board feels that there should be no further delay in
disposing of the cases.
Upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the following:-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The business of the respondents will first be described as it was at
the time of the first-and. second .hearings held -in,-the consolidated
Case No. R-1545.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 907
cases. Changes made since that time are discussed separately below.
Illinois Publishing and Printing Company was incorporated under
the laws of the State of Illinois in 1904 and published the Chicago
Herald and Examiner, a daily and Sunday newspaper, herein called
the Examiner. Evening American Publishing Company was in-
corporated under the laws of the State of Illinois in 1900 and pub-
lished the Chicago Evening American, a daily newspaper, herein
called the American.
Both the respondents, Illinois Publishing and Printing Company
and the Evening American Publishing Company were owned directly
or indirectly by the respondent, American Newspapers, Inc., in the
manner described below :
All the stock of the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company,
the owner and publisher of the Chicago Herald and Examiner, was
owned by the respondent, American Newspapers, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, which itself or through corporate subsidiaries wholly
owned or controlled by it, publishes other newspapers in Albany,
New York, Boston, Massachusetts, and Syracuse, New York. Amer-
ican Newspapers, Inc., is a part of the Hearst organization of publi-
cations and press, radio, and film services, and was a respondent in
the matter of William Randolph Hearst, et al. Case No. C-136, 2
N. L. R. B. 530. The beneficial interest of all of the common stock
and 85 per cent of the preferred stock of American Newspapers, Inc.,
was owned by William Randolph Hearst.
All the stock of Evening American Publishing Company, the
owner and publisher of the Chicago Evening American, was owned
by Hearst Publications, Inc., a California corporation, which pub-
lishes papers in cities in California and Washington. Hearst Pub-
lications, Inc., is a part of the Hearst organization of publications
and press, radio, and film services, and was a respondent in the case
mentioned above. All the stock of Hearst Publications, Inc., is owned
by Hearst Consolidated Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
All the common stock of Hearst Consolidated Corporation, Inc., is
owned by the Hearst Corporation, a California corporation. All
the stock of the Hearst Corporation is owned by the respondent,
American Newspapers, Inc.
The operations connected with the printing and publishing of the
two newspapers were conducted principally in one building located
at 326 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois. A portion of the color
printing is performed at the Color Plant located at 27th and LaSalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois. All of the newsprint used in the two pub-
lications was shipped to the companies' Chicago plant from points
outside- the State of Illinois,, principally from Canada. The two
newspapers used approximately 95,000 tons of newsprint during the
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year 1937. The respondents have purchased only a negligible quan-
tity of equipment and machinery from without the State of Illinois
during the past 5 years, such purchases consisting mainly of replace-
ments. Roughly 50 per cent of all other supplies used by the
companies in their operations are purchased outside the State of
Illinois.
The Chicago Evening American had an average daily circulation
of approximately 400,000 copies, of which approximately 61/4 per cent
were circulated and distributed outside the State of Illinois, prin-
cipally in the middle-western States. The Chicago Herald and
Examiner had an average Sunday circulation of approximately
925,000 copies and an average daily circulation of approximately
325,000 copies, of which approximately 151/2 per cent were circulated
and distributed outside the State of Illinois, principally in the
middle-western States.
Both papers subscribed to and received material from news, fea-
tures, and photographic services which collect news, features, and
photographs in all parts of the United States and the world, and
transmit their products to the two papers. Both papers were mem-
bers of the Associated Press and subscribed to the International
News Service. The two papers received advertising which originated
outside the State of Illinois.'
Between the second and third hearing on the consolidated cases,
changes took place in the respondents' corporate structure and in its
method of doing business. On August 26, 1939, the directors of
the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company and of the Evening
American Publishing Company voted to merge the two corporations.
The Illinois Publishing and Printing Company, the survivor cor-
poration, acquired all the stock of the Evening American Publishing
Company. It further appears that the relationship between the
various corporations and holding companies was somewhat altered
during this period. In September 1939 the Illinois Publishing and
Printing Company, which had become the owner of the stock of
the American Evening Publishing Company, became in turn the
wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Publications, Incorporated, which
is the wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Consolidated Publications,
4 The information upon the business of the respondents is taken from a stipulation
entered into between the attorneys for the Board and for the respondents, which con-
tains the following statement , "American Newspapers, Inc, Illinois Publishing and
Printing Company, solely for the purpose of this proceeding, do hereby concede that the
above described operations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, and agree not to contest the
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in said respect, at this time or at
any subsequent stage of this proceeding or in any court , but in all other respects do not
waive the right to contest the legality and validity of any order or finding which may
be made by the National Labor Relations Board on this matter ." The respondents fur-
ther agreed in the September 1938 hearing on the consolidated cases that the stipulation
could be made a part of the consolidated proceedings.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 909
Inc. All the common stock of Hearst Consolidated Publications,
Inc., is held by the Hearst Corporation which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of American Newspapers, Inc. All the common stock and
85 per cent of the preferred stock of American Newspapers, Inc.,
is held by Clarence J. Shearn, in trust for William Randolph Hearst.
The remaining 15 per cent of the preferred stock is similarly held
in trust for other persons.
The directors of the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company
then determined to discontinue publishing the daily Examiner and
to continue to publish only the Sunday morning paper. They also
decided to continue to publish a daily afternoon paper. The paper
now published daily in the afternoon and on Sunday morning is
called the Herald-American. M. C. Meigs, formerly the publisher
of the American, has become publisher of the new newspaper, and
H. A. Hoehler, formerly the publisher of the Examiner, has become
the assistant publisher of the Herald-American. The record does
not disclose that the respondents' business has changed in other
respects here material.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local 71 of the American Newspaper
Guild, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations through the American Newspaper Guild. It
admits to membership any person devoting the major part of his
time to an editorial, business, circulation, promotion, or advertising
department of a news publication in Chicago, except persons whose
interests are deemed to lie with the employer as opposed to those
of the employees.
Newspaper Commercial Associates, Local No. 21662, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as a
federal labor union. While the record is not entirely clear as to the
eligibility rules of the Commercial Associates, it appears that it ad-
mits to membership the respondents' employees employed in the cir-
culation, advertising, and business-management departments, except
employees with the authority to hire and discharge.
Chicago Editorial Association, Local No. 21690, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as a federal
labor union. It admits to membership all employees of the editorial
departments of Chicago newspapers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The employees of both papers, as we have said, worked in the same
building. The two papers adopted uniform labor policies; the
boards of directors of the Illinois Publishing and Printing Com-
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.piny and of the Evening American Publishing Company met
jointly to determine such policies . Some departments performed
work for both papers and for some months all departments of both
.papers except the editorial departments were consolidated . There-
fore, for the purposes of discussing the alleged unfair labor practices,
the two papers will be considered jointly.
A. 1936-January 20, 1938
The Guild began organizing the editorial employees of the Exam-
iner and of ' the American in 1936. In the late spring of 1937 the
Guild commenced work on proposed contracts to present to the
,managements of the papers . In July 1937 , before any proposals
were made , the respondents dismissed a large number of employees,
and the Guild postponed the submission of the proposed contracts.
At that time there was , considerable discussion among the employees
As to whether or not the Guild would call a strike . A number of
Guild meetings were held on the subject and a conditional strike
vote was taken at one of them on or about July 7, 1937 . At about
this time, in the course of a conversation with Lee Auld, a pho-
tographer and the treasurer of the Hearst unit of the Guild, Maut-
ner, the head of the photographic department , said that the em-
ployees had been discharged because the papers were in the red and
that if a strike vote were taken, it might induce the management to
`cease publishing one or both papers. Prior to the meeting when the
strike vote was taken , Mautner, knowing Auld was the Guild treas-
urer, asked him if there were any members whose dues were not paid
'up and who would, therefore be ineligible to vote at the meeting.
Mautner , not a Guild member, also inquired as to the rule upon
eligibility to vote and Auld gave him a list of those who were in-
eligible. The names of 15 or 20 persons were on the list. Mautner
left the room with the list and returned about 30 minutes later.
During the 30 minutes while Mautner was away, 8 or 10 Guild mem-
bers came in and paid their dues to Auld and restored themselves to
'voting status . A few more came in shortly after Mautner's return
and paid their dues.
It is a reasonable inference from this evidence, and we find, that
Mautner induced at least some of those who came in and paid dues,
to do so. The correctness of the inference is further demonstrated by
a similar incident which occurred on September 28,1937 , when rumors
that the Guild would take a strike vote were again circulating. On
the evening of September 28,1937, when Auld came in to work shortly
before 6 o 'clock, Mautner asked if a conditional strike vote would be
taken at the meeting that night. Auld replied that it probably would
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 911
be taken. Mautner repeated his observation that thei papers' financial
condition was so bad that a conditional strike vote might have the
effect of wrecking the papers and throwing the entire staff out of
work. Auld told him not to worry, that the Guild would probably
not vote to strike. Mautner said that it was up to the members to
see that a strike was not voted and inquired whether all the Guild
members in the photographic department were paid up and eligible
to vote. Auld informed Mautner that five individuals were in arrears
in their dues. These were on the day shift and had already left the
office. Mautner then volunteered to pay the dues of those who were
more than 60 days in arrears, so that the men could vote. He paid
$16 to Auld, remarking that he would get it back from the men on pay
day. The receipts for the dues were made out to Mautner and given
to him in order that he might collect from the men. Later at the
meeting, Auld informed one Barclay that Mautner had paid,his
(Barclay's) dues. Barclay did not know until then of Mautner's
.action and was angry, since he had deliberately stopped paying dues.
Whether or not Mautner was repaid does not appear in the record.8
We find, therefore, that in July 1937 Mautner induced some Guild
members to pay their dues in order that they might vote in the
conditional strike vote, and that in September 1937 Mautner paid
dues of certain Guild members with the same purpose in view. This
constituted interference with the concerted activities of employees
render his supervision. Mautner's statements that it was up to the
members to see that the strike vote did not carry and that a strike
vote would induce the management to cease publishing the papers,
indicate clearly that he hoped to influence Guild action in a way
which he conceived to be favorable to the respondents.
Mautner, as we have said, was the head of the Examiner photo-
graphic staff, and was sometimes referred to as the manager of the
photographic department. Mautner assigned work to the photog-
raphers, supervised the work in the studio, and but rarely covered
an assignment himself. Mautner had authority to make recommenda-
tions upon salary increases and to hire and discharge the photog-
raphers under his supervision.9 We find that Mautner was the repre-
sentative of the management in the photographic department and
8 A strike vote was apparently not taken at the meeting. The Guild voted to turn
down a counterproposal made by the respondents
9 The finding that Mautner had authority to hire and discharge is based upon testimony
at the third hearing to this effect. Mautner at this time bore the same title as at the time
of the second hearing. The record at the second hearing discloses that Mautner had at
least authority to make recommendations concerning the hire and discharge of em-
ployees but is not completely clear as to whether' he could hire and discharge. The
record in the third hearing clarifies the matter. Mautner is not-included in the unit herein
found appropriate by reason of his supervisory position.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the respondents stand responsible for his activities, in the above-
described incidents.10
In September 1937 the Guild undertook the organization of the
employees in the commercial departments (advertising, circulation,
and business management) of the papers and on or about October
1, 1937, presented proposed contracts to the publishers in behalf of
the editorial employees. A series of meetings between representa-
tives of the papers and of the Guild started at that time and lasted
for several months.
While these negotiations were going on, the Guild continued its
organizational activities among the employees in the commercial
departments. On about November 10, 1937, it sent out its first cir-
cular in the classified-advertising department. At that time Gold-
enberg was manager of the classified-advertising department of the
American, and as such he had authority to hire and discharge the
employees in the department. Immediately under Goldenberg were
lesser supervisory officials called division managers, who were in
charge of the four divisions of the ch,ssified-advertising department.
After the Guild circular was distributed, Goldenberg called in
Clarke, one of the division managers and, referring to the circular,
inquired whether Clarke had received the "comic valentine." Miss
LaRue, Goldenberg's secretary, was also present. Clarke testified that
Goldenberg then asked Clarke whether he would be busy the next
night and if not whether he, Clarke, could attend a Guild meeting
and find out for Goldenberg if anyone in the department, other than
Harold Sullivan,ll was active in the Guild. Clarke further testified
that Miss LaRue then stated that she thought Clarke was a more
logical person to send to the meeting than some person Goldenberg
had previously mentioned.
Goldenberg's version of the incident is as follows :
When the first Guild communications were sent to the employees
of the classified-advertising department, the four division managers
came in to see Goldenberg about them and suggested that they attend
the meeting. Goldenberg said that it would be a good idea to find out,
what the Guild had to offer. Clarke said that he would go and then
Goldenberg made a notation as to the time of the meeting.
That night Sullivan, who was on night duty, in looking for a
piece of paper on which to write a telephone message for Goldenberg,
discovered a memorandum on Goldenberg's desk in Goldenberg's
handwriting. The memorandum read in part, "Have someone go to
10 Our conclusion is not modified by the fact that Mautner might have been eligible to
Guild membership . He was not a Guild member and was clearly acting in his capacity
as a representative of the respondents.
11 One of the employees alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily dis-
charged.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 913
Ashland Block [the place where the Guild meeting was held] Mon-
day November 15, 7:30 p. m. . . ."
The wording of the memorandum throws doubt upon the accuracy
of Goldenberg's testimony. The words "have someone go" are not
harmonious with the statement that the original suggestion came
from the division managers nor do they bear out Goldenberg's state-
ment that Clarke volunteered to go before Goldenberg made the nota-
tion. Goldenberg, at a later point in the record, testified that he
had told the division managers that he did not know anything about
the Guild and that it might be a good idea for them to attend the
meeting and see what it was all about. Goldenberg's second state-
ment of the incident indicates that the original suggestion came
from him. We find that Clarke's version of the incident is substan-
tially correct and that Goldenberg induced Clarke to attend the
Guild meeting. Goldenberg had authority to hire and discharge. We
find that Goldenberg was acting in behalf of the respondents, and
that they are responsible for his activities.
Clarke testified that between 2 and 4 weeks after the above con-
versation, Goldenberg, at the regular meeting with the division man-
agers, asked each of them if he knew of any members of his staff
who were Guild members, said that it was imperative that he know
because a strike vote was pending, and requested the division man-
agers to circulate among the men and without arousing fears and
suspicions, to try to find out. Clarke testified that Goldenberg fur-
ther stated that he felt sure that no one in the classified-advertising
department, other than Harold Sullivan, whom he termed "a little
rat," would go on a sympathetic strike with the editorial department,
but that he wanted to verify that conclusion.
Goldenberg's only testimony ,on this incident was that he had
called the division managers into his office, told them that he felt
that a strike was imminent, and asked them which of the employees
would work if a strike was called, regardless of whether or not they
belonged to the Guild. He averred that he was not interested in
which employees were Guild members.
We find that Goldenberg instructed the division managers to
discover which of the employees were members of the Guild and
sufficiently sympathetic with the Guild and its objectives to go on
strike.
On the evening of the day when the above meeting with the divi-
sion managers was held, Goldenberg rode home with Clarke. Clarke
testified that during the ride Goldenberg stated that Shlay, Lackey,
and Reynolds were the only employees of the department, other than
Harold Sullivan, whom Goldenberg knew to be members of the
Guild; that Goldenberg called Reynolds "a little bastard" who
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
showed his gratitude for a promotion by joining the Guild; and that
Goldenberg further said that he was sending a Miss Sabath to a.
Guild meeting to report the proceedings to him on the following
morning.1a Clarke further testified that on the following morning
he passed Goldenberg's office and looked through the glass partition
and saw Miss Sabath in the office, with the door closed. It was un-
usual for the door to be closed.
Goldenberg's only testimony bearing upon this matter was that he
had not sent Miss Sabath to a Guild meeting but that on one occa-
sion she came into his office and told him that she had attended a.
Guild meeting the night before and that a strike vote had been de-
feated. We find that Goldenberg induced Miss Sabath to attend the
Guild meeting and report the proceedings to him.
Goldenberg testified that he had repeatedly told employees of the
department, including the division managers, that they were free
to join the Guild if they liked, and that they would not thereby jeop-
ardize their jobs. Such general statements do not carry much re-
assurance to employees when they are accompanied by overt acts of
hostility toward the Guild such as we have found above. As Golden-
berg himself testified, he told Clarke that he was disappointed to hear
that so many employees of the department had joined the Guild, he
felt that it was "sort of a lack of loyalty or confidence in me that
they had done that," that it meant that the men thought that he,
Goldenberg, was "not in there trying to champion for them." We find
that the respondents, through Goldenberg, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
As we have stated above, negotiations for contracts governing the
wages, hours, and working conditions of editorial employees contin-
ued throughout the fall of 1937 but no agreement was reached. On
about the first of January 1938, all departments of the two papers
except the editorial departments 13 were consolidated. As a result of
the consolidation a number of employees were discharged. On Janu-
ary 16, 1938, the Guild membership, disturbed by the discharges and
by the slow progress of negotiations, voted to strike unless specified
conditions were met.
A few days after the strike vote, a notice appeared upon the bul-
letin board in the editorial department, signed by about 18 persons.
The signers pledged themselves to work even if a strike became ef-
fective. The notice was signed, among others, by a number of the
respondents' executives, including Geldhof, night editor of the Ex-
12 Clarke was not at this time a Guild member although he later became one.
13 Although the photographers are a part of the editorial departments, the photographic
staffs of both papers were also consolidated.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 915
aminer; Mautner, manager of the photographic division; Blakesby,
head of the day copy desk; Barner, news editor; Rachlin, day ed-
itor; Williams, Sunday editor; Romanoff, night city editor; and Dav-
enport, head of the night copy desk. None of the signers were Guild
members. At the same time another notice appeared upon the bul-
letin board, signed by about 40 persons, of whom 3 or 4 were Guild
members, urging the Guild to reconsider its strike vote.
No strike was actually called, however, and on January 20, 1938,
contracts governing the editorial departments were entered into
between the respondents and the Guild. At the same time the re-
spondents posted a statement of the policy referred to in the record
as the "90 day freeze." This policy affected the consolidated com-
mercial departments and guaranteed that there would be no dis-
missals or wage cuts for a period of 90 days.
B. January 00, 1938, to the hearing beginning on September 7, 1939
On March 25, 1938, the Guild held its first organizational meet-
ing for the branch managers in the circulation department. On
the following day another meeting was held for the branch managers
by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stable-
men, and Helpers of North America, herein called the Teamsters
Union. The meeting held by the Teamsters Union was first an-
nounced by Sabin, then promotion manager in the circulation
department, to the district managers at a routine daily meeting in
the Hearst Building. The district managers are the immediate
supervisors of the branch managers. The city is divided into districts
which are headed by district managers; each district contains a
number of branches cared for by branch managers who sell papers
to the boys who deliver them to the homes of subscribers; the branch
managers also collect money from the boys, assist in circulation
promotion, and generally supervise the boys. The district man-
agers were at that time under the general supervision of one Clay
Smith, who was manager of home delivery, and also received orders
from Sabin on the production aspects of their work. Sabin was
regarded as Smith's "right hand man" and was "in and out" of
Smith's office. The district managers considered Sabin their supe-
rior and themselves bound to carry out the orders he gave them. We
find, therefore, that Sabin was a supervisory official and that the
respondents were responsible for his activities. 14
1; District Manager Fisher testified that vOien Sabin instructed him not to allow the
branch managers under him to attend Guild meetings, he understood that it was an order
by Sabin Sabin also gave orders on circulation promotion to branch managers.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was customary for the district managers , whose headquarters
were scattered around the city, to have daily meetings in the Hearst
Building with Clay Smith and Sabin . At one of these meetings,
as we have said , Sabin told the district managers that the Team-
sters Union was holding a meeting to organize the branch man-
agers. Sabin told Joseph Cole, a district manager , to "be sure and
have your men down there, because if the C. I. O. ever goes over,
you will be out of a job and all your branch managers and me too."
Sabin instructed the district managers to be sure that all branch
managers attended the Teamsters Union meeting and suggested that
the district managers arrange to meet the branch managers at dis-
trict headquarters and all go to the meeting together in order to
-insure the branch managers' attendance. This plan was carried out
by some of the district managers. One told the men under him
to go if they wanted to continue working, and another told his
branch managers that "the office" wanted him to have the men attend.
Sabin was at the entrance to the meeting hall when some of the
branch managers arrived and explained to at least one group of
them that representatives of the branch managers were to be elected
at the meeting and named Charles Fisher, Ray Kimberlin, and Paul
Anderson as the men who were to be elected as representatives of
the Examiner branch managers. John Weisbecker, the office man-
ager in the circulation department, was also present at the meeting.
The meeting was addressed by officials of the Teamsters Union,; the
branch managers discussed some of their problems; Fisher, Kimber-
lin, and Anderson were nominated and elected as representatives;
and membership application cards were passed out and signed. After
the meeting held by the Teamsters Union, Sabin asked the district
managers which men had signed Teamsters Union applications. Cole,
a district manager, informed, Sabin that all his men had signed up
with the Teamsters Union except Collins and Pierce. • Thereafter,
Sabin told Cole several times that Collins would make a lot of
trouble and advised Cole to make a note of everything Collins did,
so that when the time came to "dump" him, Cole would have "the
goods on him." No further meetings were held and the Teamsters
Union engaged in no further activity with respect to the branch
managers.
At about this time Sabin told one district manager, A. K. Fisher,
that if he were a loyal employee, he would see that his branch mana:
gers did not attend Guild meetings and that he could prevent them
from attending by holding poker and beer parties which could
be financed out of the district manager's expense account. That the
suggested method was employed is shown by the experiences of
Richard Lee, a branch manager. District Manager Fisher advised
Lee not to attend Guild meetings and said, "Lee, you should know
i
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 917
better than to go to the Guild meeting, because don't you know they
are a bunch of Reds, and if this Guild goes in the paper will close
their doors." Lee made no reply. Someone suggested a poker game
and Fisher bought the branch managers some beer and called an
informal meeting of the branch managers under his supervision in
the back of a saloon. Fisher asked at the meeting why some branch
managers were so insistent on going to Guild meetings. He stated
that he was not a "bad fellow" and would try to play along with the
branch managers but that he was on the spot because he was the
only district manager almost all of whose branch managers had
attended the last Guild meeting and everyone was laughing at him.
He further stated that he would not fire men for attending the
meeting but they could "bet their necks" that he would find some
other reason to fire them. Fisher then asked Branch Manager Rus-
sell whether he was going to the Guild meeting and Russell replied
that if Fisher put the matter to him in that way, he would like to
keep his job and would not go. Fisher then told Lee that all the
branch managers except Lee and Cain had promised not to go to the
Guild meeting. Lee then promised not to attend.
Sabin instructed another district manager to attend Guild meet-
ings and find out how many of his branch managers were present
and to report the information to Sabin. The district manager
attended meetings and reported to Sabin on several occasions between
March and May 1938.
We find that by the above-described activities of Sabin and Fisher,
the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
During April and May 1938, the Guild had frequent conferences
with the management of the papers, primarily directed to the ex-
tension of the "90 day freeze" for another 120 days. The respondents
insisted that they could not deal with the Guild in behalf of em-
ployees other than those engaged in editorial work since they did not
know whether the Guild represented a majority of the employees in
an appropriate unit, and took the position that they could not nego-
tiate with the Guild in behalf of its members under the provisions
of the Act.
The respondents were also unwilling to extend the "90 day freeze"
by a declaration of policy. The petitions for investigation and cer-
tification above referred to were, therefore, filed by the Guild. After
the expiration of the "90 day freeze" a number of employees were
discharged. Thereafter the Guild distributed numerous circulars to
the respondents' employees, both with reference to the respondents'
refusal to extend the "90 day freeze" and to the discharges. Appar-
283033-41-vol. 22-59
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ently at that time there was also some discussion of a,strike among
some Guild members. About May 19, 1938, shortly before the first
hearing opened, the Guild distributed a circular announcing a pro-
posed policy of economic. pressure against the management to en-
force its demands. The Guild proposed to urge subscribers to can-
cel their subscriptions and to bring pressure upon advertisers .not to
advertise in the papers. The record is not clear as to how exten-
sively this policy was carried out but it is apparent that some at-
tempts were made in that direction. This policy of economic pres-
sure disturbed some of the employees in the commercial departments.
A group of such employees held a meeting and discussed the Guild's
policy. This group did not like the Guild's tactics and thought that
they should have some other organization to bargain for them. Pe-
titions were prepared to be passed in the circulation, advertising,
and business-administration departments. The group of employees
asked certain persons to allow their names to be used on the petitions
as representatives designated by the signers of the petitions.15 The
record does not disclose who prepared the petitions, nor, in most
cases, how their circulation was initiated. However, in the case of
the circulation of the petition among the branch managers of the
circulation department, there is some relevant testimony by Joseph
Cole, a district manager on the Examiner. One Thursday near
May 20, 1938, Cole received a telephone call from Sabin, who told
Cole to have all of his men meet at Cole's headquarters the follow-
ing day, Friday. Sabin did not tell Cole what the purpose of the
meeting was. On Friday morning when Cole made his routine call
at the office, Sabin told him to wait, that he had something for him
which would be ready shortly. All the other district managers were
also waiting in Sabin's office, he having instructed them to do so.
About noon a boy brought in a pile of the petitions about a foot
high. Sabin passed out the petitions to the district managers and
told them to have the branch managers read and sign them and to
return them to his office not later than that evening. Sabin said that
"we" wanted to get them in and down to the Board hearing which
was to begin within a few days. This testimony was not rebutted,
and we find that the events occurred as related above.
Sometime in May, apparently prior to this time, Sabin had been
made office manager. The change appears to have been 'a promo-
advertising
15 The petitions read : "We the undersigned members of the circulation
i business administration
department of the Chicago Evening American and The Chicago Herald. and Examiner do
hereby delegate the following four individuals [different names appear in the petition
of each apartment], to act as a committee to represent us in all labor negotiations with
the management of these properties."
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 919
tion. As office manager his duties were more directly concerned
with the inside circulation division than with the outside circulation
division. However, in spite of the change in his position, Sabin
continued to go around to the branches and give orders, criticize the
way the branches were run, and make suggestions for improvement.
It therefore appears, and we find, that Sabin was a supervisory of-
ficial after the change in his duties as well as before, and that for his
actions in requiring the district managers to wait for the petitions
and in telling them to have the petitions signed by the branch man-
agers, the respondents were responsible.
Cole, the district manager, told his branch managers that he had
gotten the petitions "from the office" and that they could use their
own judgment about signing them. All the branch managers but
one signed and Cole returned the petitions to Sabin who put them
in his desk drawer. Other district managers returned their petitions
to Sabin the next morning. Another district manager, Ross, pre-
sented the petition at his regular meeting with the branch managers
and said that "we" wanted it signed 100 per cent. No one signed
the petition at first and Ross urged the branch managers to sign
saying, "We are going to beat the C. I. 0." Another district man-
ager, Kemp, told the branch managers that if they were satisfied with
their jobs they would sign the petition and if they were not satisfied
they should go elsewhere. Some district managers put no pressure
upon the branch managers to sign the petition but allowed them to
do so if they liked.
The respondents objected to some of the testimony concerning the
activities of the district managers on the ground that they were such
minor supervisory employees that their actions could not be imputed
to the management. We find no merit in this contention. The dis-
trict managers were, as to the branch managers under them, manage-
ment representatives. Their effective power to exercise a coercive
influence over the branch managers is plainly illustrated by the inci-
dent discussed above, in which District Manager Fisher, by threat-
ening to discharge the branch managers under him, succeeded in
inducing them not to attend a Guild meeting. In addition, the
district managers were acting on Sabin's instructions. Both Sabin
and the district managers were using their positions of authority in
the instances we have described, and the respondents must bear the
responsibility. We find that through the actions of Sabin and the
district managers in connection with the petitions, the respondents
interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
There is also evidence of management assistance in the circulation
of the petitions in other departments. The insurance, mail-subscrip-
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, and Pollard-Alling departments, subdepartments -of the circula-
tion department of the American, were located on one floor, and were
under the supervision of one Larson. On about May 20, 1938, Rose
Boghasen, an employee in the mail-subscription department, saw a
man whom she had seen around the plant but whose name she did
not know, in Larson's office talking to him. The man came out of
Larson's office shortly thereafter and approached various groups of
employees accompanied by Strauch, the head of the insurance sub-
department. Strauch called Boghasen over to him and the unidenti-
fied man told her that if the plant "went C. I. 0." the employees
would have to fight through picket lines, the plant would shut down,
the papers would fold up, and there would be no jobs. Strauch was
present during the conversation. The man then asked Boghasen to
sign the petition and urged that she sign even though she wanted no
organization to represent her, because if she did not sign the Guild
would represent her anyway. Boghasen signed the petition and the
man went on to the other persons. Larson was in his office during
part of the time this man was passing the petition. This office was
partitioned off from the rest of the room by glass and he could easily
see what was going on on the outside.
We find that Larson knew what this man was doing and the evi-
dence clearly shows that Strauch not only knew of the man's activi-
ties but that he gave his assistance and support to them. It further
appears that Larson has authority to hire employees since Alice
Leoni, an employee in the insurance subdepartment of the circulation
department, was hired by Larson. Leoni received general instruc-
tions and orders about her work from Strauch. We therefore find
that the petition was circulated in these subdepartments with the
assistance of supervisory employees.
The petition was passed in the business-administration depaitinent
by La Favre, the assistant to the manager of the pay-roll department.
Beach and Abraham, division managers in the classified-advertising
department, who had authority to recommend that employees be
hired and discharged, passed the petition in that department.
These petitions were made the basis of petitions to intervene in the
proceedings at the hearing in May 1938, filed by the committee desig-
nated to represent the employees of the several departments by means
of the petitions. The intervention of these committees in the pro-
ceedings was allowed by the Trial Examiner but they subsequently
withdrew in favor of the Commercial Associates. The committees
as such are no longer in existence.
In the latter part of May 1938, shortly after the petitions discussed
above were circulated, Drey, Morrison, and Braveman,16 employees
ie Morrison and Braveman were named as representatives of the signers of the petitions
passed in the advertising department.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 921
in the, advertising department, met together and discussed the Guild
campaign of economic pressure. Morrison and Braveman were two
of the individuals who were active in having the above-discussed
petitions circulated. On the day following this discussion, the three
men held a luncheon which was attended by Cook and Ferdinand,
among others, from the commercial departments, both of whom had
taken part in the petition circulation. At the luncheon, the Guild
campaign was again discussed. Someone present suggested that a
similar problem had been met in New York. Drey, then a retail
advertising salesman serving certain department-store accounts and
later the retail advertising manager for the American, volunteered
that he was planning to go to New York in about 3 weeks and that
he would investigate what action had been taken in New York. The
conferees requested Drey to go immediately. Drey returned to his
office late that afternoon and received a message from Beck, a sales-
man in the national-advertising department. Beck asked Drey if
he could catch the 6 o'clock plane to New York, and Drey went to his
superior and told him that he felt sick and would not be in the next
day. Drey then went home where he found that a telephone message
had been left with the maid advising him that if he would call at
the airplane office before 8 o'clock, there would be a pass to New
York there for him. Drey did not know who had arranged for the
pass, nor did he later make any attempt to find out.
When Drey arrived in New York on the following morning,
May 31, 1938,.he telephoned. one Finneran, the classified-advertising
manager of the New York Journal-American, a Hearst paper in New
York. Morrison had told Drey at the luncheon to get in touch with
Finneran, who could perhaps give him some information. Drey saw
Finneran in his office and told him that he represented several
hundred employees (those who had signed the petitions), that they
were faced with a difficult labor situation, and that he understood
that a similar situation had been met in New York. Finneran at
first would not say anything but after considerable urging by Drey,
Finneran said that there was 'one person whom Drey could go and
see, and that that person was Harvey Kelley. Harvey Kelley was
labor relations counsellor for all the Hearst papers 17 and he repre-
sented the management in the negotiations leading up to the Guild
contracts in the editorial departments of the two Chicago papers.
Drey attempted to see Kelley but he was out of town. Drey tele-
phoned Finneran twice thereafter but Finneran "would not talk."
Drey telephoned a third time and told Finneran that he felt that he
17 Kelley is subject to call by any of the papers and all contribute to his remuneration.
His salary is paid by Hearst Enterprises, Inc, whose stock is directly or indirectly con-
trolled ' by the.- respondent , American, Newspapers , Inc. Reimbursement is then made to
this corporation.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was on a merry-go-round and that he did not like it. Finneran
replied, "have you ever tried a ferris wheel?" Drey asked what that
meant and Finneran said to think it out for himself. Drey then
• called the American Federation of Labor offices, asked for Mr. Ferris
and was referred to Vincent Ferris, head of the Allied Printing
Trades Council in New York. Drey told Ferris of the situation in
Chicago and Ferris said that the person Drey should see was one
Marsh, organizer for the American Federation of Labor.
Just before Drey saw Ferris he received the following telegram :
See Molley Bickel and Tommy King. Also contact Rock at-
torney with Broadway office. If all else fails, go Gen man and
snoop.
BUTCH.
Drey testified that he knew no one called "Butch" nor could he ex-
plain the "Rock attorney with Broadway office." However, Drey
met with Bickel and King, employees in the commercial departments
of the Journal-American, and they explained to him that they were
working with Marsh in organizing a federal labor union affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, called the American Ad-
vertising Associates. He then returned to Chicago.
Beck, the man who called Drey and told him about the airplane
pass, testified that he had been requested to make the arrangements
for the pass by one Hecht. Prior to the consolidation of the papers,
Hecht was advertising promotion manager on the Examiner, and
after the consolidation of the departments he was assistant to Gould
who was the manager of the combined departments 18 The record
does not disclose how Hecht became interested in the matter or how
he knew that Drey contemplated the trip to New York. Acting
upon Hecht's request, Beck told Caesar, the travel editor of the
combined papers, that the request had been made and asked him to
procure the pass.19 Beck testified that his work was primarily con-
cerned with travel advertising and that if a pass were to be obtained
he was the best person to get it. Beck further stated at the hearing
that he had never been told to get passes for anyone before and
that although he had at other times requested Caesar to procure
passes for him, the requests had not been honored.
"The respondents' counsel described Hecht's duties as follows. he handled promotion
matters and copy and had responsibilities approximately equal to Gould's He plans,
writes, and executes promotion campaigns and promotes contests, chiefly for advertising
purposes. He does not hire or fire. At the heaiing in September 1939 it was stipulated
that the promotion manager should be excluded because he was an executive. It appears
that Hecht was an executive and a part of the management
19 The travel editor, Caesar, at that time edited the travel pages of both papers, wrote
stories on vacation places and saw that this page was properly laid out. He had two
assistants.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 923
From the above we find that Drey was assisted in making his
trip to New York by the respondents through the activity of Hecht,
who was then assistant advertising promotion manager and an execu-
tive, of Beck, who solicited advertising for the travel page, and of
Caesar, who edited the news which went into the travel page. It is
extremely unlikely that the airplane company would have honored
Caesar's request except for his official connection with the respondents
and it is noted that Caesar had not in the past honored Beck's re-
quests when they had come from non-official sources.2°
On June 1, 1938, bulletins were passed out to the respondents' em-
ployees announcing a mass meeting for all unorganized workers on
the following day. The bulletin did not disclose who had called the
meeting but it appears from the record that the same employees re-
sponsible for the passage of the petitions and for Drey's trip to New
York were generally the organizers of the meeting. On the same
day, Sabin told Cole, a district manager, and other district managers
in Cole's presence, that such a meeting was being held and that the dis-
trict managers should get all branch managers to attend the meeting.
Sabin asked Cole how many men he could induce to attend and told
him that he would have trouble with two individuals.-1 Sabin then
gave out tickets to the district managers to pass on to the branch
managers. Cole then told the branch managers that he had received
information on the meeting from "the office" and that it would be
a good idea to go and listen to both sides of the story. Another
district manager, Ross, told several branch managers that he wanted
them to be sure and attend the meeting and that the purpose of the
meeting was to beat the C. I. O. He arranged to have the branch
managers meet him at headquarters and go down to the meeting
together. Miss Boghasen was told about the meeting by her imme-
diate superior, Gildea,22 who asked Boghasen to go, saying it was im-
portant and that Larson (Gildea's immediate superior) would like
the employees to go.
We find that the respondents, through Sabin, certain of the dis-
trict managers, and Gildea, attempted to induce their employees to
attend the meeting of June 2, 1938.
Morrison acted as chairman of the meeting, Cook as secretary.
Morrison addressed the meeting and discussed the economic pressure
policy of the Guild, saying that if it were allowed to continue it
20 Drey was reimbursed for the other expenses of his trip ' by Newspaper Commercial
Associates , a labor organization discussed below.
21 The two men were Collins and Pierce who had been reported to Sabin as persons who
attended Guild meetings
22 Gildea has authority to make recommendations concerning the hire and discharge of
empldyees under his supervision
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
might jeopardize the employees' jobs. Other speeches were made
and Drey recounted the story of his trip to New York. Representa-
tives from the various departments were elected to a committee which
would investigate the various types of labor organizations and make
recommendations thereon. When it was time for the branch man-
agers to select their representatives, Sabin took the chair and con-
ducted the election. The name, "Emergency Committee for a Uni-
fied Front," was adopted for the organization.
The next morning, June 3, 1938, Sabin asked the district managers
which branch managers had attended the meeting and which had
not. Cole reported that Branch Manager Collins had not attended
the meeting. Shortly thereafter Clay Smith, manager of home cir-
culation, who has authority to hire and discharge the employees work-
ing under him, inquired from Cole whether Collins was doing a good
job. Cole replied that Collins was not doing so well he "guessed." Cole
testified that he made the reply he did because he felt that it was the
desired reply in view of Sabin's past conversations with him concern-
ing Collins.23
Also on the morning following the June 2 meeting one district
manager , Kemp, acting on instructions from Sabin, told three of his
branch managers to go to the Hearst Building and meet Sabin.
They met Sabin at the door and he instructed them to pass out cir-
culars to the people entering the building. The circulars were
signed by the Emergency Committee for a Unified Front and re-
ported on the meeting of June 2, 1938.
The representatives elected at the June 2 meeting thereafter held
meetings to decide whether the organization should, remain inde-
pendent or whether it should affiliate with a national organization.
They consulted with a university professor who advised against an
independent union. Certain of the representatives also had discus-
sions with officials of the American Federation of Labor and on
June 8, 1938, Victor Olander, an official of the Illinois Federation of
Labor, addressed the representatives concerning the advantages of
affiliation with the A. F. of L. The representatives then determined
to recommend to the group that they affiliate with the A. F. of L.
Accordingly a second mass meeting was held on June 13, 1938. Ad-
mittance to the meeting was again by ticket only, the names of each
individual being written on the ticket. The tickets, in some in-
23 As noted above , Sabin had advised Cole on several occasions to watch everything
Collins did in order to have "the goods on him" after the Teamsters Union meeting He
was also one of the employees who was reported to Sabin as having attended Guild
meetings.
Collins was discharged immediately after Cole 's interview with Smith. He is not one
of the employees whom the complaint alleges to have been discriminated against by
reason of his union activities , and we therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether
or not Collins was in fact discharged because of his failure to attend the meeting.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 925
stances, were given to the branch managers by the district managers.
Tickets were also given out to employees by Strauch, head of the
insurance department, and by Gildea, head of the mail-circulation
department. Gildea told one employee, who said she could not go
to the meeting, that she should go if she wanted to keep her job.
Strauch told one employee that she ought to go to the meeting since
Larson wanted the whole department to go. It was explained at the
meeting that the petitions to intervene which had been filed in the
Board hearing then in progress would be withdrawn in the event
that those who had designated a committee to represent them merged
into one group and affiliated with the A. F. of L. The group pres-
ent at the meeting voted to affiliate with the A. F. of L. and the name
Newspaper Commercial Associates was adopted. Membership ap-
plication cards in the A. F. of L. were distributed. Strauch, head
of the insurance department, handed one of the application cards to
Alice Leoni, an employee under his supervision, and when asked by
Leoni what benefits she would receive from the A. F. of L., stated
that it was important to join because the Guild was working against
the papers and attempting to wreck them and since they were not
making money they would have to close their doors. He further
told 'her that the Guild was ruthless and radical and the employees
would eventually be without jobs because of the Guild.
Within a day or two after the June 13 meeting the three inter-
vening petitions were withdrawn from Case No. R-839 and the re-
quest was made that the Commercial Associates be considered as
intervenors under the intervention of the A. F. of L. The Com-
mercial Associates are intervenors in the consolidated cases.
At about the time the organization of the Commercial Associates
was completed in June 1938, organizational activity which resulted
in the organization of the Editorial Association was initiated by a
number of editorial-department employees of the Examiner. The
factors which influenced the employees to take this action appear to
have been a dissatisfaction with the Guild's abandonment of the
craft form of organization and its policy of economic pressure. A
charter was granted to the Editorial Association on July 11, 1938,
by the A. F. of L. As noted above, a hearing was held commencing
on September 29, 1938, upon charges filed by the Guild alleging inter
alia, that the respondents had encouraged and urged their employees
to join the Commercial Associates and the Editorial Association.
On December 5, 1938, the Guild called a strike against the respond-
ents and the Guild contracts expired about January 21, 1939.
Shortly after the expiration of the Guild contracts, the respondents
entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Edi-
torial Association in behalf of their members employed in the edi-
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
torial departments of the two papers, such contracts being made
expressly subject to the "terms and conditions" of the Act and to
"proceedings taken in accordance therewith." On May 25, 1939,
the respondents also entered into separate contracts with the Com-
mercial Associates in behalf of its members employed in the, com-
mercial departments of the two papers, which contracts were also
made expressly subject to the Act and proceedings taken thereunder.
On August 28, 1939, articles of merger were filed completing the
above-mentioned merger between the respondents, Evening American
Publishing Company and Illinois Publishing and Printing Company,
in which the latter was the surviving corporation. As we have also
stated above, the directors of the surviving corporation decided to
publish only one newspaper, the Herald-American, daily in the
afternoon and on Sunday morning.
C. Conclusions in respect to the Commercial Associates
The complaint alleged that from on or about May 26, 1938, the
respondents suggested, advised, urged, and warned their employees
to join the Commercial Associates and its predecessor committees,
permitted representatives of Commercial Associates and its prede-
cessor committees to solicit membership during working hours, and
in other ways encouraged and urged their employees to join the
Commercial Associates and its predecessor committees ; and that such
activities constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion of
their employees within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
It is clear that the three committees designated by the petitions
passed around in the three commercial departments, and the organi-
zation which bore, for a period of 11 days, the name of Emergency
Committee for a Unified Front were, in fact, predecessors of the
Commercial Associates. The representatives designated at the
June 2, 1938, meeting of the Emergency Committee for a Unified
Front investigated possible forms of labor organizations and reported
their recommendations at the mass meeting of June 13, 1938, at which
those present voted to adopt the name of Newspaper Commercial
Associates and to affiliate with the A. F. of L. At the meeting of
June 13, 1938, it was stated that if those present voted to affiliate
with the A. F. of L. the three employee committees would withdraw
their intervention in the proceedings then pending. The three com-
mittees thereafter did withdraw from the proceedings. We consider
the three employee committees and the Emergency Committee for a
Unified Front as successive stages in the organization of the Com-
mercial Associates and any evidence relating to the formation and
administration of these committees relates, in fact, to the organization-
of the Commercial Associates.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 927 ,
The respondents and the Commercial Associates contended that
any evidence that the respondents had interfered with the formation
or administration of the Commercial Associates by urging and en-
couraging the employees to join it was inadmissible under the alle-
gations of the complaint and that such evidence would have been
admissible only if the complaint had alleged that the respondent
had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Commercial Associates and had contributed support thereto
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. We find no merit
in this contention.
We have summarized above the history of the Guild's attempt
to organize the commercial departments of the two papers. From
the beginning of this attempt, the Guild was met with the respond-
ents' resistance to the extension of Guild membership into those
departments. The activities of Goldenberg, the manager of the classi-
fied-advertising department, made the respondents' attitude abun-
dantly clear. He not only referred to persons who joined the Guild
as "little rats" and "bastards" within the hearing of other employees,
but he also attempted to send one employee to a Guild meeting to
find out who attended it, did send another employee to report to
him who attended a Guild meeting, and requested the division man-
agers to find out which of the employees were sufficiently interested
in the Guild to go out on strike. That employees other than the
division managers were aware of Goldenberg's activities is shown
by Sullivan's conversation with him in December 1937, when Sullivan
told Goldenberg he should not inquire of persons whether or not
they were Guild members and Goldenberg's reply that he had not
"directly" done so. Sullivan was the person who discovered Golden-
berg's notation to send some one to a Guild meeting.
In the circulation department, as soon as the Guild attempted to
organize the branch managers, the respondents, through the activi-
ties of Sabin, gave vigorous assistance to the attempt of a rival
organization, the Teamsters Union, to organize the branch managers.
As stated above, pressure was put upon the branch managers to
attend the Teamsters Union meeting and Sabin subsequently checked
with their supervisors to see which branch managers did not sign
application cards.24 Sabin also sent an employee to Guild meetings
to report to him upon which employees attended them and advised
one of the district managers to use the respondents' funds to finance
parties in order to prevent the branch managers from attending
Guild meetings.
24 For reasons which do not appear in the record , the Teamsters Union did nothing more
than hold the one meeting
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These activities of the respondents' agents were carried on in an
atmosphere of great insecurity. The respondents had found it nec-
essary, from time to time during the preceding months, to discharge
a substantial number of employees, and it was feared by the em-
ployees that there would be further discharges in the future. Vari-
ous supervisory officials warned that the papers were not making
money and knowledge of this fact appears to have been rather wide-
spread among the employees. Under these circumstances the em-
ployees, dependent upon the respondents for their livelihood, were
peculiarly sensitive to any wish that the respondents or their super-
visory agents might express or convey to them.
In May 1938, when petitions were passed in the commercial depart-
ments designating the employee committees as representatives, this
atmosphere of insecurity had increased rather than abated because
of the termination of the "90 day freeze" arrangement. Under these
circumstances, when branch managers were told by district man-
agers that the petitions had come from "the office" and were thereby
in effect informed that the respondents desired that the petitions
be signed, they were quick to accede to the respondents' desire. One.
district manager made the threat to their economic security, if they
failed to sign, more explicit by telling the branch managers that
they would sign the petitions if they were satisfied with their jobs.
In the circulation department Strauch warned at least one employee
that if the employees designated the Guild to represent them the
papers would "fold up." Strauch, a supervisor, was at that time
assisting a person to circulate the petition, under circumstances
which indicated that his own superior, Larson, was aware of what
was going on. Similarly, in the advertising department, the petitions
were circulated by division managers who had authority to make
recommendations concerning the hire and discharge of employees.
From the foregoing, we find that from the very beginning the
organization of the Commercial Associates was assisted in a sub-
stantial manner by the activities of supervisory agents of the
respondents .15
We have found that the respondents contributed assistance to the
organization of the Commercial Associates by procuring an airplane
pass for Drey to New York. The whole incident of Drey's trip
to New York, his conversation with Finneran concerning "ferris
wheels," his subsequent telephone call to the A. F. of L., and the
telegram from an unknown "Butch," is so incredible that we are
¢a There is some evidence that notices were posted by the management stating that the
employees were free to Join any organization they desired , although the notices them-
selves are not in evidence . We have considered this evidence and find it insufficient to
affect our findings that the employees ' free exercise of their rights under the Act was
interefered with in a substantial manner.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 929
convinced that the record does not contain a full account of what
actually transpired. However, the record does establish that the
respondents assisted Drey to go to New York, and that this trip
was one of the steps leading to the final organization of the Com-
mercial Associates.
The interest of the respondents in and their interference with
the organization of, the Commercial Associates is further disclosed
by the activities of Sabin and other supervisors in inducing em-
ployees to attend the mass meeting of June 2, 1938, by Sabin's use
of his official position to have branch managers sent to the Hearst
Building by their district managers to pass out a circular to em-
ployees; and by Sabin's questioning of district managers as to which
branch managers had not attended the June 2, 1938, meeting.
While the Guild campaign of economic pressure upon the re-
spondents was probably a factor contributing to the organization
of the Commercial Associates, we find that it was not the principal
one. The Guild's campaign provided supervisory employees, who
were interested in keeping the Guild out of the commercial depart-
ments, with a convenient argument in favor of the organization of
the Commercial Associates and a means of frightening the em-
ployees into taking action to defeat the Guild.
We find, therefore, that the respondents encouraged and urged
-their employees to join the Commercial Associates and thereby in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Conclusions in respect to the Editorial Association
The complaint alleged inter alia that the respondents suggested,
advised, urged, and warned their employees to join the Editorial
Association, solicited membership in the Editorial Association, and
in other ways encouraged and urged their employees to join the Edi-
torial Association. The Trial Examiner found that the evidence
was insufficient to support these allegations in the complaint. We
have reviewed the evidence and agree with the Trial Examiner.
We shall dismiss the complaint in this regard.
E. The discharges
The third amended and consolidated complaint alleged that the
respondent, Evening American Publishing Company, on or about
January 15, 1938, discharged Harold Sullivan and on or about
May 6, 1938, discharged Howard L. Mayhew, both of whom worked
on the American, for the reason that they joined and assisted the
Guild. The complaint also alleged that the respondents, Illinois
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Publishing and Printing Company and 'American Newspapers, Inc.,
discharged Harry C. Read on October 3, 1938, because he joined and
assisted the Guild and because he gave testimony on September 30
and October 3, 1938, at the Board hearings in this case. In his
Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the allegations
of the complaint as to Mayhew were sustained by the evidence, but
that those as to Sullivan and Read were not. The Guild has filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report as to Sullivan and Read. We
shall discuss each individual case separately.
Harold Sullivan, started working in the classified-advertising de-
partment of the American in 1929 when he was about 15 years old.
During the last year and one-half of his employment , Sullivan occu-
pied the position of night man on the classified - advertising copy
desk. On about November 10, 1937, Sullivan came to work and found
letters from the Guild on the desks of all the employees in the de-
partment . Goldenberg , the manager of the department, whose
activities have been discussed above, called Sullivan in and asked
him whether he had joined the Guild. Sullivan replied that he had
not joined and Goldenberg remarked that he could if he liked and
then inquired whether Sullivan had furnished the Guild with the
names of the employees in the department . Sullivan denied that he
had furnished the Guild with such a list. Sullivan signed a Guild
application on that day or the next. A few weeks later Goldenberg
inquired from his division managers whether any of the employees
had joined the Guild and one of the division managers remarked that
Sullivan had been "snooping " around one member of the staff and
might have been soliciting him to join . Goldenberg said that he
thought no one in the department would go on strike with the edi-
torial department except Sullivan , to whom he referred as a "little
rat." Goldenberg did not deny that he had so referred to Sullivan.
We find that Goldenberg at this time knew that Sullivan was inter-
ested in the Guild and active in its behalf.
Sullivan, together with Mayhew, became very active in organiza-
tional work immediately after he joined the Guild, soliciting
membership among the employees of the commercial department.
Sullivan succeeded in signing up a substantial number of Guild
members. He was appointed to the organization committee and rep-
resented the commercial -department workers in the Guild 's represent-
ative assembly.
On December 24, 1937, at a Christmas party held at the office,
Sullivan told Goldenberg that he was a Guild member, said that he
had heard that Goldenberg was asking persons whether they were
Guild members , and stated that Goldenberg should cease making such
inquiries . Goldenberg told Sullivan that he could join anything he
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 931
liked and averred that he had not "directly" asked anyone whether
lie was a Guild member.
As we have stated above, many of the operations of the two papers
were consolidated beginning in January 1938. The classified-adver-
tising departments were consolidated on January 14, 1938. Sulli-
van was discharged at that time along with 45 other persons, about
22 being from one paper and 23 from the other. A larger percentage
of American than Examiner employees were discharged. The de-
cision as to who was to go was made in discussions between Golden-
berg and Robert Shless, the classified-advertising manager of the Ex-
aminer. Shless, who became the manager of the consolidated
departments, testified that he and Goldenberg chose the most effi-
cient and best trained men for positions in the consolidated depart-
ments and that they did not consider the question of Guild affiliation.
Goldenberg testified that seniority had some weight with them and
that they sometimes kept an older employee who was less efficient than
some who were dismissed, although there was no fixed seniority rule.
Shless testified that they took seniority into consideration only when
persons were of equal ability. As a result of the discussions it was
determined that one Bianci, who had been at the copy desk on the
Examiner 26 since October 1937, would have the same position in the
consolidated departments and that Sullivan should be discharged.
It is the respondents' position that the work at the copy desk on the
Examiner was considerably heavier than that on the American be-
cause the Examiner carried more classified advertising; that the work
on the Examiner had included several operations which had not been
performed on the American; that the work on the Examiner had re-
quired more training and experience than that on the American ; that
the consolidated operation, which would run the same advertisements
in both papers, would be run according to the methods previously
used on the Examiner; and that it would probably have taken Sulli-
van several months to have learned the new routine. There is con-
vincing evidence in the record to support the respondents' contention
concerning the difficulty of the copy-desk job and their contention
that Sullivan could not have run it as well as Bianci without some
preliminary training, and we so find. There is some disputed evi-
dence in the record concerning Sullivan's alleged tendency to be late
for work. However, since the respondents do not suggest that this
was in any way responsible for the discharge, we do not consider it
as having any bearing on the issue.
Because of the larger amount of work involved in the consolidated
operation of the department, a number of employees did the various
types of work formerly done by Sullivan on the American. One of
26 Bianci was not a Guild member.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these was the assistant to Bianci on the copy desk of the consolidated
departments, one Scott. She had been hired as a mail clerk in De-
cember 1936, and on November 23, 1937, she was made assistant on
the copy desk of the Examiner. Sullivan had been employed for
about 7 years longer than Scott. Shless testified that seniority would
not have governed as between Scott and Sullivan, because Scott was
more experienced. However, Scott had been the assistant on the
copy desk for less than two months at the time of Sullivan's dis-
charge, as compared with Sullivan's year and a half of service as
nightmare on the American copy desk. She therefore had very little
more experience than Sullivan with the larger volume of advertising
formerly carried by the Examiner and thereafter by the consolidated
operation. We are not persuaded that Goldenberg and Shless pre-
ferred Scott to Sullivan because of her allegedly greater experience.
Scott was not a Guild member. Shless denied that he knew Sul-
livan was active in the Guild before the consolidation was completed.
However, the fact that Sullivan was very active in the Guild appears
to have been generally known about the plant and Goldenberg knew
that Sullivan was an active Guild member. Sullivan testified that
he made no attempt to conceal his activities. We do not, therefore,
find Shless' statement persuasive, and in any event Goldenberg, who
jointly with Shless determined which employees were to remain, knew
of Sullivan's Guild membership. It is also apparent from the record
that Goldenberg, in spite of his general statements that employees
were free to join the Guild if they liked, was extremely hostile to the
Guild. His hostility extended to the point of sending employees to
spy upon meetings.
In view of Goldenberg's knowledge of Sullivan's Guild affiliation
and his hostility to the Guild, we find that Goldenberg took advan-
tage of the opportunity offered by the consolidation to get rid of an
active Guild member, and that Scott was retained rather than Sulli-
van as assistant on the copy desk because of Sullivan's membership
in and activity in behalf of the Guild.2T
Prior to his discharge, Sullivan was earning $18 'a week. He
worked on W. P. A. projects from March 14, 1938, until the time
of the hearing. He earned $65 a month from March 14, 1938, until
August 1, 1938, and $85 a month from that date until the time of
the hearing. He desires to return to his job with the respondents.
Howard Mayhew worked in the merchandising department, which
is part of the Hearst International Advertising Service, sometimes
I
n The Trial Examiner, in recommending dismissal of the complaint as to Sullivan , did not
make any findings regarding the retention of Scott rather than Sullivan as assistant on
the copy desk. His findings were restricted to the validity of the respondents ' preference
of Bianci over Sullivan.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 933
referred to as the "Rodney Boone Organization." The respond-
ent Evening American Publishing Company finances the merchan-
dising department of Hearst International Advertising Service in
Chicago. There is some question on the `record-as to whether May-
hew should be considered an employee of the respondent American
Newspapers, Inc., or the respondent Evening American Publishing
Company. Mayhew deemed himself an employee of the latter, and
the respondents make no particular issue of the matter. We have
considered the evidence on the point and find that Mayhew was an
employee of the respondent Evening American Publishing Company.
Mayhew started work in the merchandising department in 1928.
His work consisted of the preparation of plans, charts, graphs,
summaries of field work, and advertising solicitation material, and
making calls with solicitors of national advertising. No one else
in the department did the same type of work until one William
Hoote was employed in October or November 1937. Brink, who was
then the manager of the department, told Mayhew that he wanted
him to teach Hoote, Mayhew's duties as quickly as possible. Brink
testified that he had employed Hoote at that time because Mayhew
had been trying to find a job as a salesman for some time and since
the department was undertaking a rather lengthy study, he did not
want to be left in the middle of it without the assistance of someone
who understood the work. Hoote had done rather similar work be-
fore, but never in connection with a newspaper, and Mayhew "broke
him in" to the work. Mayhew and Hoote worked together until
Mayhew was discharged on May 7, 1938.
Mayhew joined the Guild on November 2, 1937, and was the first
member in his department. As soon as he had joined, Mayhew, with
Harold Sullivan and two others, formed themselves into an organiz-
ing committee to procure members. The committee's efforts were
directed primarily to the commercial departments where they all
worked. The committee was successful in getting a substantial
number of members. Mayhew was made acting controller of the
Guild in the advertising department in November 1937, and elected
to that office in January 1938. He was the chairman of the emer-
gency committee set up in January 1938 to deal with the many
discharges which occurred at that time. As such his name frequently
appeared on Guild bulletins distributed at the plant. Mayhew also
attended, as an observer, some of the meetings which were being held
between the Guild and the respondents to negotiate a contract. Some
time prior to January 20, 1938, Guild circulars were distributed in
the department and Brink called Mayhew and another employee
aside and asked them if they knew of any Guild members in the
department. Mayhew replied that he, himself, was a Guild member.
283033-41-vol 22-60
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brink replied that it was "nothing" to him and asked Mayhewtdwhat
he expected to get out of the organization. Brink then expressed
the opinion that the Guild would not amount to anything.
In March- 1938 the merchandising departments of the American
and the Examiner were consolidated. Brink testified that when the
consolidation took place it was necessary to increase the field work
since more calls had to be made, but that the planning work, which
was Mayhew's, was not increased since one plan would do for both
papers. He also testified that operating costs then went up but that
the budget was not increased, and that it became necessary to cut
costs by $100 a week, which represented the cost of the extra field
work. On May 7, 1938, Brink discharged Mayhew,_ who was earn-
ing $45 a week, and Mueller, former head of the Examiner mer-
chandising department, who was earning $50 a week, making a sav-
ing of $95 a week. Brink explained' at the hearing that he had
discharged Mayhew, who had been employed by the respondents for
10 years, instead of Hoote, who had been employed for a few months,
because Hoote's salary was $30 a week and that if he had discharged
Hoote and Mueller the saving would have been only $80 a week. To
bring the savings up to the desired $100 a week, a field man would
have also had to go; field men's salaries were $20 to $25 a week.
Brink testified that he could not have done that since he needed man
power in the field work. However, as appears below, Brink later
retained an extra field man who was not needed.
The consolidation of the merchandising departments of the two
papers did not last very long and they were again separated into
two departments in August or September 1938. After the decon-
solidation, the department no longer did work for the Examiner and
no longer needed so large a field staff. Brink testified that at this
time the revenues of the department were lower than in May 1938,
prior to the consolidation. In spite of the lower revenue, the de-
partment kept on an extra field man. Brink admitted that there
was no present need for this extra field man, although he might be
needed if sufficient work came in.
The Trial Examiner found that "to discharge a capable employee
with 10 years of admittedly outstanding service in preference to one
with less than 1 year's service, and less actual experience, on grounds
of economy and then subsequently when income is less, retain an-
other employee for whom the need is problematical is not only incon-
sistent but contrary to normal business acumen: The defense is not
convincing."
We agree with the Trial Examiner in this regard. We are satis-
fied that the normal course for the respondent to have followed in
May 1938 would have been to dismiss Hoote rather than Mayhew.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 935
Brink did not claim that Hoote was more capable than Mayhew.
The assertion that the $15 weekly difference in their salaries was the
motivating factor in Hoote's favor seems implausible in view of the
subsequent retention of the unnecessary field man at a time when
revenues were even lower. We find that the respondent, Evening
American Publishing Company, availed itself of the opportunity
offered by the consolidation and the necessity therein entailed of
cutting down the force, to rid itself of a very active Guild member.
We find that in choosing Mayhew as the person to be discharged, the
respondent was motivated by considerations of Mayhew's Guild mem-
bership and activity.
Mayhew was unemployed from the time of his discharge until June
8, 1938, and earned nothing during that period. From June 8, 1938,
he was employed by Advertising Distributors of America, earning $35
a week .211
Harry C. Read had worked for the respondents in various capaci-
ties since 1921, except for a brief period in 1935. At the time of his
discharge, he was a reporter on the Examiner. His discharge fol-
lowed immediately after his testimony at the Board hearing on
October 3, 1938. The respondents' position is that Read was dis-
charged because he had taken certain pictures from the Examiner's
reference room and supplied them to the "True Detective" magazine
to illustrate a story he had written for that publication. It appears
that the respondents had received from the magazine the prints sup-
plied to it by Read, and had ascertained that the prints bore the file
numbers of envelopes in the Examiner's reference room containing
pictures relating to the same subject matter. Read was discharged
promptly after this information was uncovered.
Read was an active Guild member and this fact was known to the
management.
The Trial Examiner found that the evidence failed to sustain the
allegations of the complaint in regard to Read's discharge. We do
not deem it necessary to detail all the evidence relating to the
allegedly stolen pictures. We have reviewed it, and are satisfied that
the respondents discharged Read because they believed he had stolen
the pictures from the Examiner files, and not because of his Guild
activity or his testimony at the Board hearing. The 'allegations
of the complaint regarding Read's discharge will be dismissed.
We find that the respondent, Evening American Publishing Com-
pany, by discharging Harold Sullivan and Howard Mayhew, has
discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
28 It appears from the record that the respondent , Evening American Publishing Com-
pany, has offered Mayhew reinstatement and back pay pursuant to the Intermediate Report.
This is discussed below under "The remedy."
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby discouraging membership in the Guild and interfering ' with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We also find that the respondent,
Evening American Publishing Company, has not discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Harry C. Read.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices. We shall, therefore, follow our usual practice
and order the respondents to cease and desist their unfair labor prac-
tices and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act and to restore, as nearly as possible, the situation
which existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent, Evening American Publishing
Company, by discharging Harold Sullivan and Howard Mayhew,
engaged in unfair labor practices. As indicated above, counsel for
the Guild and for the respondents stated at both oral arguments that
the respondent, Evening American Publishing Company, had offered
reinstatement to Mayhew following issuance of the Intermediate
Report. Counsel for the Guild attacked the adequacy of such an
offer since the Guild strike was current at the time and Mayhew
could not have accepted the offer without repudiating the strike.'
We agree that Mayhew's right to reinstatement should not be
prejudiced by his inability to accept the respondents' offer without
repudiating the strike. So far as the record shows, the strike may
still be in progress. As to both Mayhew and Sullivan, we will order
the respondents to offer them reinstatement upon application by them.
However, the respondents should not be required to reimburse them
with back pay for any period during which they are unwilling to
accept reinstatement because of the strike. As to Mayhew, his back
pay shall stop as of the date of the respondents' prior offer of rein-
statement, following the Intermediate Report, and will only start
again upon any refusal to reinstate him' upon his application. As to
Sullivan, since the Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 937
complaint as to him, we shall follow our usual practice and stop his
back pay as of the date of the Intermediate Report. As in Mayhew's
case, back pay for Sullivan will start again upon any refusal to
reinstate him upon his application. In each case, the back pay shall
be equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages
during the period in question, less his net earnings 20 during that
period, and also less the separation indemnity paid to him by the
respondent Evening American Publishing Company.
We have found that the respondents urged and warned the employ-
ees to join the Commercial Associates and assisted in its formation.
The difference in the respondents' treatment of the two organizations
and the resulting effect upon the employees' freedom of choice of
representatives will not be remedied merely by an order to cease and
desist from such practices in the future. The effect of acts of the
respondents will continue without future acts unless affirmative action
is taken to put the parties in status quo. Under these circumstances,
we shall order the respondents to withhold recognition from the Com-
mercial Associates unless similar recognition is granted to the Guild
as the representative of its members, or unless and until the Com-
mercial Associates is certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative in an appropriate unit 30
After the issuance of the Intermediate Report, the respondents
posted cease and desist notices in the plant, as recommended in the
Intermediate Report. The Guild has urged that such posting was
ineffective, since it did not reach the strikers outside the plant.
Under all the circumstances of the case, we will order the respondents
to supply the Guild with four copies of the notice described in our
Order below, for posting by the Guild in places accessible to the
strikers.
The respondents have moved that American Newspapers, Inc., be
dismissed as a party respondent since it was not directly concerned
with the alleged unfair labor practices. We find no merit in this
29 By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work -relief projects
are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order , shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects
30 Matter of Eagle-Picker Mining & Smelting Company , a corporation, and International
Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers , Locals Nos 15, 17, 107, 108 , and 111, 16 N. L R. B.
727.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request. Our order will run against American Newspapers. Inc., as
well as against. the other respondents.31
VI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
As indicated below, there is dispute concerning the ' appropriate
unit or units and also concerning representation within such unit or
units.
Since the contracts entered into by the respondents with the Edi-
torial Association and the Commercial Associates in behalf of their
members, were executed while these proceedings were pending and
were, in recognition of this fact, made expressly subject to proceed-
ings taken pursuant to the provisions of the Act, they constitute no
bar to these proceedings. We find that a question has arisen con-
cerning the representation of the respondents' employees.32
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
31 In National Labor Relations Board v. William Randolph Hearst et at., 102 F. (2d) 658
(C. C A. 9), where the contention was made that American Newspapers, Inc, and certain
other holding companies should not be parties to the proceedings, the court stated :
In so far as the order commands all respondents to cease and desist the coercion of
employees, we think the order should be enforced Because of the unified control, the
only way of effective prevention of the unfair labor practices, is to compel all respond-
ents to cease and desist the unfair labor practices. All act "directly or indirectly"
for Hearst Publications, Inc, the nominal employer here, which brings them within
the definition of "employer" which is included in the term "person" [as found in the
Act ].
As stated above, both the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company and Evening Ameri-
can Publishing Company were and are directly or indirectly controlled by American
Newspapers, Inc The situation here presented is like that presented in the above-quoted
Hearst case and American Newspapers, Inc., is a proper party
32 It appears from the record that the respondent has a number of contracts with various
American Federation of Labor craft unions in the mechanical departments and elsewhere
but these contracts are In no way affected by the present proceedings None of these
unions, all of which intervened in the proceedings, and some of which subsequently with-
drew, claim that any of the employees included in the units sought by the Guild, Commer-
cial Associates, or the Editorial Association, were covered by their contracts with the
respondents or that their jurisdiction was invaded.
We find that the employees included in the units urged are not presently covered by
contract other than those of the Editorial Association and the Commercial Associates.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC.
,rv VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
939
These proceedings have necessarily continued over a long period of
time. During this period the several parties have from time to time
changed. their contentions as,to the unit or units claimed to be appro-
priate, largely because of changes which have taken place in the
respondents' operations and corporate structure during this period,
the organization of new labor organizations, and the expiration of
contracts. It serves no good purpose to set out the contentions of the
parties as to the appropriate unit or units at the various stages of
these proceedings. We shall, therefore, merely state what we under-
stand to be the present contentions of the parties.
The Guild's contention
The Guild contends that the appropriate unit consists of all the
employees, including regularly employed part-time employees and
road-men supervisors, employed in the editorial, business and admin-
istration,33 circulation, and advertising 34 departments of the sur-
viving newspaper, the Herald-American, except :
major executives transportation clerks
building-maintenance employees circulation department division
bill posters supervisors and division men
mail-room clerks district managers
return clerks at Sangamon Street truck drivers
suburban and county mailers magazine-agency employees
Canadian roadmen boy builders
watchmen and guards Canadian point supervisors
job-press employees employees under personal-serv-
Sangamon Street employees ice contracts 35
color-plant employees temporary employees 36
manager and clerks in the
Pollard-Alling Department
It is not entirely clear from the record whether the Guild contends
that space writers in the editorial department should be included in
the unit. In general, the unit claimed to be appropriate by the Guild
may be described as an industrial unit including almost all the
a3 This includes the clerks and stenographers who work in the mechanical departments
and in connection with the management of the Hearst Building
14 This includes the merchandising department.
85 Provided that they were under such contracts on September 11, 1939, and are still
under such contracts at the time of any election ordered by the Board.
86 Temporary employees hired to do work in connection with entertainments , contests,
and similar enterprises , to collect or tabulate election returns, and for similar transient
and oEcasionanpurgoses.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerical and semi-clerical, or so-called "white collar" employees, who
are not bargained for by some craft organization.
The Commercial Aissociates' contention
While the record is not entirely clear, we believe that the following
is a substantially correct statement of the position of the Commercial
Associates with respect to the appropriate unit: all employees in the
business and administration, circulation, and advertising depart-
ments, with certain exceptions. In general, the Commercial As-
sociates would exclude from the unit, in addition to editorial
employees, those employees in the commercial departments excluded
by the Guild, except district managers, whom the Commercial As-
sociates would include.37 The Commercial Associates also contended
that return clerks, whether working full time at the main plant or
part time at the Sangamon Street plant, should all be either included
in the unit of commercial-department employees or should all be
bargained for by Chicago Mailers Union No. 2. The Guild, ap-
parently by agreement with the Chicago Mailers Union No. 2, seeks
to include in the general industrial unit the full-time return clerks
in the main plant, whom the Mailers Union does not claim to repre-
sent, and to exclude the Sangamon Street return clerks, since they
were bargained for by the Mailers Union. It further appears that
the Commercial Associates desires the inclusion of suburban roadmen
in the unit. Its counsel stated on the record that the Guild desired
them excluded, although this does not appear from the Guild's state-
ment of its contention.
The Editorial Association's contention
The Editorial Association contends that the employees in the
editorial department are a separate craft and should be in a separate
unit. This unit would include all employees in the editorial depart-
ment except major executives.
The respondents' contention
The respondent contends that there should be two units, one con-
sisting generally of the employees in the editorial department, and
one of the employees in the commercial departments. The respond-
ents also contend that there should be excluded the confidential secre-
taries of T. J. White, president of the Illinois Publishing and Print-
97 Counsel for the Commercial Associates , in stating its contention , stated that he would
have to advise ' the Trial Examiner later about the exclusion of persons holding personal
service contracts and magazine agency employees , that he was not sure. He did not subse-
quently clarify the record on the point.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 941
ing Company; John Malloy, managing editor of the Herald-Ameri-
can and vice president of the corporation; Earl Fulton, business
manager of the Herald-American and secretary and treasurer of the
corporation; H. A. Koehler, assistant to the president of the corpora-
tion; W. J. Parker, circulation director of the Herald-American; and
W. N. McNamee, advertising director of the Herald-American.
General considerations
We shall first consider generally whether one or two units are
appropriate for the employees here involved. The respondents'
operations correspond generally to those of other newspaper publica-
tions which we have considered. In other representation cases which
have arisen in the newspaper-publishing industry, the question of
combining the editorial and commercial departments into one unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining has been presented. In
support of the broad unit we have pointed to the functional co-
herence and interdependence of the editorial and commercial de-
partments, considerations which are equally present here. Where
no rival claimant has sought separate representation for commercial-
department employees, and where there has been no substantial
showing of opposition by the employees in the commercial depart-
ment to inclusion within the broader unit, we have found a unit,
substantially similar to that here proposed by the Guild, to be
appropriate.38 On the other hand, where another labor organization
has claimed to represent the commercial-department employees in a
separate unit, we have concluded that the inclusion of commercial-
department employees in the broad unit should depend upon the
desires of the employees involved.3°
As indicated above, the Guild in this case had exclusive bargain-
ing contracts with the respondents from January 1938 to January
1939, covering employees in the editorial departments of the two
papers then being published, and the Guild's efforts to bargain for
the commercial-department employees were consistently unsuccessful.
38 Matter of Daily Mirror, Inc. and Newspaper Guild of New York, 5 N. L. R. B. 362;
Matter of Seattle Post -Intelligencer Department of Hearst Publications, Inc and Seattle
Newspaper Guild, Local No 82 , 9 N L. R B. 1263; Matter of New York Evening Journal,
Inc. and Newspaper Guild of New York, 10 N L. R. B. 197; Matter of Brooklyn Daily
Eagle and Newspaper Guild of New York, 13 N. L R B 974 ; Matter of New York
Post, Inc., and Publishers Service, Inc and Newspaper Guild of New York, 14 N L R. B
1008; Matter of Globe Newspaper Company and Newspaper Guild of Boston, 15 N. L_ R. B.
953.
'Matter of Milwaukee Publishing Company and Milwaukee Newspaper Guild (CIO), 10
N. L. R. B. 389; cf . Matter of Boston Daily Record ( New England Newspaper Publishing
Co.) and Newspaper Guild of Boston ( American Newspaper Guild ), 8 N. L. R . B. 694.
And see Matter of Indianapolis Times Publishing Company and The Indianapolis News-
paper Guild, 8 N. L. R . B. 1256; Matter of News Syndicate Co., Inc. and Newspaper Guild
of New York, 4 N. L. R . B. 1071.
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We do not consider the subsequent contracts between the respondents
and the Editorial Association and Commercial Associates as having
much weight in the determination of the unit or units, since they
were for members only and were executed during and expressly
subject to these proceedings. In addition, in the case of the Com-
mercial Associates, the contract was made with an employer-assisted
organization.
The history of collective bargaining in the newspaper industry
for editorial- and commercial-department employees, as shown by the
record, is inconclusive on the question before us.
To grant the Guild's request for a single unit comprising both
editorial- and commercial-department employees, would be to reject
the contention of the Editorial Association for a separate unit of
editorial-department employees, which unit has in the past been
covered by Guild contracts in this plant. The Editorial Association,
unlike the Commercial Associates, has not been the recipient of the
respondents' illegal favoritism and support. Under these circum-
stances, we think that application of the principles heretofore
adopted by us in newspaper cases requires giving the editorial-de-
partment employees the choice of constituting a separate unit or
being combined with the commercial departments in a single unit.
We find that the purposes of the Act can best be effectuated by
allowing the employees in the editorial and commercial departments,
with the exceptions set forth below, to determine for themselves
whether they desire to be combined within a single unit or to con-
stitute separate units. As set forth below, elections by secret ballot
are necessary to determine the desires of the employees. We shall
direct separate elections in the editorial and commercial departments,
with the Guild appearing on each ballot, the Editorial Association on
the ballot in the editorial department, and Commercial Associates
on the ballot in the commercial departments.40 If a majority of the
employees in each election choose the Guild, the editorial and com-
mercial departments will be combined in a single unit; -if the Edi-
torial Association and the Commercial Associates are selected, there
will be separate units.
There remain certain questions concerning exclusions from either
the single unit or the two units, whichever shall be finally designated.
The Guild, the Commercial Associates, and the Editorial Associa-
tion agreed that the employees who occupied certain positions of
authority and responsibility should be excluded from any unit.
4° As set forth below , we will hold up the elections pending a report by the Regional
Director that the circumstances permit a free choice of representatives unaffected by the
respondents ' unfair labor practices.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 943
These positions and their present occupants are listed below and we
find that they or others who may occupy these positions in the future
should be excluded from the unit or units by reason of their being
executives 41 In addition, there are a number of employees whom the
Guild contends should be excluded from the unit or units as execu-
tives and whom the Editorial Association and the Commercial Asso-
ciates would include in the unit or units. Nine of these employees 42
have authority to hire and discharge the employees working under
their supervision and we find they should be excluded from the unit
or units as executives.
W. W. Brown, sports columnist, and W. N. Newman, solicitor and
manager of the American Home Journal are in effect one-man depart-
ments. Brown has no employees working under him and Newman
has only his personal secretary. We find that they should be included
in the unit or units.
J. C. Fogarty is the assistant manager of the merchandising de-
partment, where there are six men under the direction of the man-
ager. Fogarty does not assign work to the men except when the
manager is away. Although the record is not entirely clear, he does
not appear to have sufficient supervisory authority to warrant his
exclusion from the unit. We therefore find that he should be in-
cluded in the unit or units.
John Dienhart is one of the two assistant executive editors of the
Herald-American. Assistant executive editors assist the managing
editor. The other assistant executive editor, Shainmark, is excluded
41 J. J Karpf, editorial executive
E Shainmark , assistant editorial execu-
tive
R. N. Williams , Sunday editor
J. G. Robert, night editor
E W Cochians, sports editor
R P Vanderpoel, financial editor
H. N Bundesen , health writer.
H R Brink , advertising manager.
W N McNamee, advertising director
Wm Bloom, advertising service man-
ager
C. A. L. Moore, chief accountant.
M. C. Meigs, publisher.
H A. Koehler, assistant publisher.
42 Edstorial department:
H F Reutlinger, city editor.
E D Fulton, business manager.
F, C Hudson, mechanical superintend-
ent
J J Riley, assistant superintendent
W J Parker and C N . Guelzo, circula-
tion directors
J. J. Stoffels, city circulator.
E J Parent , home delivery manager.
D Maisure, suburban and country circu-
lation manager
R L Shless , classified advertising man-
ager.
C H Holmes, assistant classified adver-
tising manager
Patricia Dougherty, women's page editor
Paul Cupan, chief reference room clerk.
J J Shenoha, art manager.
S. Mautner, manager of photographic department.
Brenton, manager of photographic department.
Commercial departments:
E. J. Meyer, purchasing agent.
Mary McLane, chief telephone operator
Nathan,Klaskin, manager of dispatch department
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the unit by agreement. Dienhart will be excluded from the
unit or units.
The other employees whom the Guild would exclude from and the
Commercial associates would include in the unit or units are super-
visory employees in the commercial departments who do not' have
authority to hire and discharge but have power to direct the work of
others, assign work to them, and see that they do the work 43 Where, as
here, there is intense rivalry between the labor organizations claiming
to represent the employees, and particularly when there is evidence
that the employer has favored and assisted one of the organizations,
it is important that employees identified with the management be
excluded from the unit or units in order that the employer's position
of neutrality between the two may not be impaired. We shall there-
fore follow our usual practice and exclude these supervisory em-
ployees, or other employees who may in the future occupy these
positions, from the unit or units 44
In addition to those employees whom the Guild desires to exclude,
there are three roadmen supervisors '45 whom the Guild would include
and concerning whom the other parties make no contention, who have
some degree of supervisory authority over country roadmen. While
they had no authority to hire or discharge or to make recommenda-
tions concerning the hire and discharge of the employees under their
supervision, they reported on the work of the roadmen to the country
circulation manager. They also transmitted orders to the roadmen
from the circulation manager and the country circulation manager
and criticized their work when necessary. Their authority over em-
ployees is generally comparable to that of some of the employees,
such as Daisy Reed, whom the Guild would exclude. We find that
the roadmen supervisors are supervisory employees who should be
43 These employees are :
Adolph Drey, local advertising manager.
J. W Cardall, office manager , circulation department.
A A. Black, assistant to country and suburban circulation manager.
Daisy Reed , supervisor of telephone solicitors , classified advertising.
Klein, head of rental and real estate section, classified advertising.
R B. Coply, head of automobile section , classified advertising.
Leo Hardy , head of general staff , classified advertising.
O. E. Shenk, amusement manager.
Other employees who in the future may hold the above positions are excluded by the
Guild.
Shenk was originally upon the list of executives agreed to be excluded . Commercial
Associates withdrew from the stipulation as to him . It is not clear whether or
not he has the power to hire and discharge but it is clear that he is a supervisory
employee with approximately the same authority as others In the list. He is
therefore excluded from the unit or units.
P. A. Plaschke, cartoonist , whom the Guild listed as an employee to be excluded is
under a personal -service contract and is excluded by reason of this fact.
See Matter of The Connor Lumber f Land Co and International Woodworkers of
America, Local No. 125 (C. I. 0.), 11 N. L. R. B. 776, and cases cited therein.
15 Also known as State circulation managers.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 945
excluded from the unit or units, under the circumstances here
presented.
Building maintenance employees
Building maintenance employees include janitors, stationary engi-
neers, scrubwomen, elevatormen, electricians, machinists, carpenters,
plumbers, window washers, and steam fitters. The work of such
employees is obviously considerably different from those included
in the units urged since they are not clerical or semi-clerical em-
ployees. Both the Guild and Commercial Associates desire their
exclusion. We shall exclude them from the unit or units.
Employees who are members of and bargained for by various craft
unions
Bill posters, mail-room clerks, suburban and county mailers, job-
press employees, manager and clerks in the Pollard-Alling depart-
ment, transportation clerks, circulation-department division super-
visors and division men, and truck drivers are members of and are
bargained for by various craft unions. Both the Guild and Com-
mercial Associates desire their exclusion. We shall exclude them
from the unit or units.
Return clerks at Sangamon Street and other Sangamon Street
employees
Commercial Associates contends that the return clerks who work
at the Sangamon Street plant should either be included in the general
unit of the employees of the commercial departments, as are the
return clerks in the main plant, or all return clerks should be bar-
gained for by the Chicago Mailers Union No. 2. While the exclusion
by the Guild of the Sangamon Street return clerks appears to be
the result of an agreement between the Guild and the Mailers Union,
this is not the only basis for their exclusion. It is noted that all
employees at Sangamon Street are sought to be excluded by the
Guild from the unit, and the Commercial Associates makes no objec-
tion to the exclusion of any except the return clerks. Since the
parties-agree that employees other than return clerks at Sangamon
Street should be excluded, and since Chicago Mailers Union No. 2,
which has the primary interest in the return clerks, ,has made no
objection to the division sought by the Guild in this respect, we
will exclude all employees at Sangamon Street from the unit or units.
Canadian and country roadmen
These employees are in the circulation department and their
function is generally to increase and maintain circulation out-
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lets in Canada and outside of Chicago, as their titles indicate. )They
very seldom go to the plant or have any contact with fellow em-
ployees, and do not appear to have problems in common with them.
We shall exclude them from the unit or units. Such exclusion does
not extend to suburban roadmen who have much more frequent
contact at the plant with their fellow employees and who are included
in the unit or units.
Watchmen and guards, color-plant employees, boy builders, Canadian
point supervisors, and temporary employees
The parties are agreed that these employees should be excluded
from the unit or units. We see no reason to reject the wishes of the
parties in this regard. We find that watchmen and guards, color-
plant employees, boy builders, Canadian point supervisors, and tem-
porary employees should be excluded from the unit or units.
Magazine agency employees
As stated above, the Commercial Associates did not clarify its con-
tention with respect to these employees. The Guild would exclude
them. The record does not disclose the nature of their duties except
as indicated by their titles. In this state of the record, since one labor
organization desires their exclusion, we shall exclude them from the
unit or units.
Employees under personal-service contracts
These employees are few in number and since their tenure and con-
ditions of employment are fixed by existing contract, we shall exclude
them from the unit or units.
District managers
The status of these circulation-department employees gives rise to
the most important point of difference between the Guild and the
Commercial Associates, the former desiring to exclude them and the
latter desiring to include them. The basis of the Guild's contention
is, apparently, that they are supervisory employees. While there is
some contradiction in the evidence, it does not appear that they have
authority to hire or discharge the branch managers who work under
them. However, it does appear that they give orders to the branch
managers, supervise their work, and are the immediate superiors of
the branch managers. We are therefore of the opinion that under the
circumstances of this case, the considerations set forth above with re-
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 947
spect to other supervisory employees are equally applicable to district
managers and we shall exclude them from the unit or units.46
Space writers -
While neither labor organization made specific reference to space
writers, we shall exclude them from the unit or units. They do their
work in various cities near Chicago and are paid for what they write.
Some are guaranteed a small monthly minimum payment ranging
from $5 to $15 a month. They seldom go to the plant and would ap-
pear to have little in common with the other employees.
Con ful' ential secretaries
The respondents urge that the confidential secretaries of certain
officials and executives be excluded from whatever unit may be found
appropriate on the ground that these officials deal with the respond-
ents' confidential business and conduct negotiations with various labor
organizations. White, Malloy, Meigs, Fulton, and Koehler are offi-
cials of the Illinois Publishing and Printing Company. Parker and
McNamee are not. Parker, however, is a member of the committee
which negotiates with the Teamsters Union and the Commercial As-
sociates. McNamee attends meetings with the other officers of the
corporation involving financial matters, advertising campaigns, and
labor matters. All these officials, who are the corporation officers and
the top officials of the various departments into which the plant is
divided, dictate to their secretaries concerning important corporate
affairs including labor relations. We take notice of the fact that in
negotiating and in other dealings concerning grievances, the interests
of the labor organizations and the management may be adverse. We
shall therefore, exclude the confidential secretary of each of the above
officials from the unit or units.44
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Guild, the Editorial Association, and the Commercial Asso-
ciates all claim to represent a majority of the employees in the unit
claimed- by them to be appropriate. No membership cards were
submitted at the hearing. Under all the circumstances, the question
concerning representation which has arisen can best be resolved by
elections by secret ballot. Since the respondents have, by engaging
in various unfair labor practices, interfered with the exercise by their
employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall not
'8 See Matter of Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Newspaper Guild of New York, supra
47 See Matter of Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Newspaper Guild of New York, supra.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
now set the date for the elections. We shall hold the elections,
however, upon receipt of information from the Regional Director
that the circumstances permit a free choice of representatives unaf-
fected by the respondents' unlawful acts.
There remains the question as to which employees shall be eligible
to vote in the elections. The question is complicated in this case by
the fact that the consolidation of the papers, which took place on
August 26, 1939, while a number of the employees were on strike,
resulted in it contraction in the number of jobs available and the
discharge of a large number of employees. While it appears that
most of the employees discharged were attached to the Herald-
Examiner, not all the employees of the Herald-Examiner were dis-
charged, and some employees of the American were discharged. It
is impossible to determine which of the striking employees would
have appeared upon the pay roll of the combined paper, the Herald-
American, had they not been out on strike, except as to the branch
managers formerly employed by the Herald-Examiner. The latter
clearly would not have been employed as of the date of the consolida-
tion, since their jobs were abolished and the work formerly done by
them was turned over completely to another corporation in January
1939. Accordingly, the Herald-Examiner branch managers are not
entitled to vote in the elections.48
As to the rest of the strikers, they remain employees under the
terms of the Act, since the record shows, and we find, that the strike
is a current labor dispute, and since it is impossible to determine
which of them would have lost their jobs upon the consolidation
if they were at work at that time. Under these circumstances we
shall permit all the strikers, except the Herald-Examiner branch
managers, to vote.49 Those employees hired after December 5, 1938,
to take the place of strikers, will not be eligible to vote, under our
usual practice in such cases.50 Except for these replacements, all
employees in the appropriate unit or units whose names appear on
19 These branch managers are :
W. W. Albin Louis Ferraganeo A. H. Fischer
E. W. Graviss S T. Sandell A B. Fisher
L. D Kallin W F. Wilson J. J. Sohn
J. J. Roman P. G. Anderson W. R. Vaugh
N. E. Scott Norman Weiner C. E . Elliot
Sol Warmser N. A Belilees W. B. Robbins
J. J. Chinn R. F. Berg E A Brender
C. L. Traugott A. C. Daniel Albert Du Caine
M. W. Weaver Samuel Dykstra LeRoy Marconi
H. F Barritt Abe Goldfarb J. C. Pierce
H. M. Butz W McNichall
D. C. Evans L. S Veenstra
99 The list of persons who went out on strike on December 5, 1938, and who are eligible
to vote, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
Matter of A. Sartorius & Co., Inc. and United Mine Workers of America , 10 N. L. R. B.
493.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 949
the pay roll immediately preceding our subsequent Direction setting
the date for, the election , will be eligible to vote.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , the Board makes the following:
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local No. 71 of the American News-
paper Guild, Chicago Editorial Association, Local No. 21690, and
Newspaper Commercial Association, Local No. 21662, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The respondent, Evening American Publishing Company, by
discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Harold Sullivan and Howard Mayhew and thereby discouraging
membership in Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local No. 71 of the Ameri-
can Newspaper Guild, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The strike of certain of the respondents' employees, which began
on December 5, 1938, is a current labor dispute, within the meaning
of Section 2 (3) and (9) of the Act.
6. The respondent, Illinois Publishing and Printing Company, has
not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (3) and (4) of the Act by discharging Harry Read.
7. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondents, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, American Newspapers Inc., Illinois Publishing and
Printing Company, and Evening American Publishing Company,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with the activities of Chicago Newspaper Guild,
Local 71 of the American Newspaper Guild, by discouraging their
283033-41-vol. 22-61
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees from attending meetings of the Guild, by paying delin-
quent dues of Guild members to render them eligible to vote on Guild
matters, or. by seeking to ascertain the names of Guild members or
the action :taken at Guild meetings, through the use of spies or.
otherwise ;
(b) Discouraging membership in Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local
No. 71 of the American Newspaper Guild, or any other labor organiza-
tion of their employees, by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating in. regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment because of membership
in or activity in connection with any such labor organization;
(c) Encouraging membership in and activities in behalf of the
Newspaper Commercial Associates, or any other labor organization;
(d) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with the Newspaper
Commercial Associates as representative of any of their employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, unless similar recognition is granted
to Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local No. 71 of the American Newspaper
Guild, or unless and until said Commercial Associates is certified
by the Board as exclusive representative of their employees in an
appropriate unit;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withhold recognition from the Newspaper Commercial Asso-
ciates as exclusive representative of their employees in an appropriate
unit, unless and until such labor organization is certified by the
Board as such exclusive representative;
(b) Unless and until said Newspaper Commercial Associates is
certified by the Board as such exclusive representative, withhold
recognition from said Newspaper Commercial Associates as repre-
sentative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with
them concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless
similar recognition is granted to Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local
No. 71 of the American Newspaper Guild;
(c) Upon application, offer to Howard Mayhew and Harold Sul-
livan, full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC . 951•
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges ;
(d) Make whole Howard Mayhew and Harold Sullivan for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective dis-
charges, by payment to Mayhew of a sum equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of the offer of reinstatement made to him following the
issuance of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of any refusal
by the respondents to reinstate him upon application after the issu-
ance of this Order to the date of reinstatement; and by payment to
Sullivan of a sum equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the Inter-
mediate Report, and from the date of any refusal to reinstate him
upon application after the issuance of this Order to the date of
reinstatement; less, in each case, net earnings during such periods
and less the discharge indemnity paid to them by the respondents
at the time of their discharge; deducting, further, from the amount
otherwise due to each of them, monies received by him during said
period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other work-relief projects, and paying over the amount so deducted
to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, munici-
pal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds
for said work-relief projects;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their plant and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices
to their employees stating that the respondents will cease and desist
as provided in Section 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Order,
and that the respondents will take the affirmative action described in
Section 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; and further stating
that the respondents' employees are free to become or remain mem-
bers of Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local No. 71 of the American News-
paper Guild, and that the respondents will not discriminate against
any employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(f) If the strike of the Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local No. 71 of
the American Newspaper Guild, is still in progress, furnish four (4)
copies of the above notice to the said Chicago Newspaper Guild, for
posting by the Guild in places accessible to the strikers;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing-within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps,
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that'the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent, Illinois Pub-
lishing and Printing Company, :discharged Harry Read by reason
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Chicago News-
paper Guild and because of his testimony in a hearing before a Trial
Examiner designated by the Board; and in so far as it alleges that
the respondents suggested, advised, urged, and warned their em-
ployees to become members of the Chicago Editorial Association.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with the respondents, American Newspapers Inc., Evening
American Publishing Company, and Illinois Publishing and Print-
ing Company, Chicago, Illinois, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted, at such time as the Board shall hereafter direct, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Board, and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, within
the groups described below who are on the pay roll immediately
preceding the date of the Board's Direction setting the date for
the election, excluding employees employed after December 5, 1938,
to take the place of strikers, including the strikers appearing in
Appendix A hereof, and including employees who did not work
during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and
employees who were then or have at the time of the elections been
temporarily laid off, but excluding those who have at the time of the
elections quit or been discharged for cause:
(a) Employees in the editorial department, excluding space
writers, executives and supervisory employees as defined above, John
Dienhart, employees under personal-service contracts, and the per-
sonal secretaries of corporate officials White, Meigs, Koehler, and
Malloy, to determine whether they desire to be represented for pur-
poses of collective bargaining by Chicago Newspaper Guild, Chicago
Editorial Association, or by neither;
(b) Employees in the commercial departments, excluding execu-
tives and supervisory employees as defined above, roadmen supervisors
Hunt, Jardine, and Karper, building-maintenance employees, em-
ployees who are members of and are bargained for by craft unions,
all Sangamon Street employees, Canadian and country roadmen,
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 953
watchmen, guards, color-plant employees, boy builders, Canadian
point supervisors, temporary employees, magazine agency employees,
employees under personal-service contracts, district managers, and the
confidential secretaries of Business Manager Fulton, Circulation Di-
rector Parker, and Advertising Director McNamee, to determine
whether they desire to be represented for-purposes of collective bar-
gaining by Chicago Newspaper Guild, Newspaper Commercial Asso-
ciates or by neither.
APPENDIX A
LIST OF STRIKERS
EDITORIAL DIVISION EMPLOYEES,
D. B. Nelson
R: S. Terrell
R. A. Vingi
Martin Welden
Joseph Basco
R. D. Bradley
W. A. Davies
A. C. Hainke
D. A. Hay
Don Chilcote
C. A. Biorn
Paul Caster
A. W. Czech
H. M. Knight
B. C. Kopriva
J. B. Korn
Fred Lee
W. L. MacArthur
R. A. Schultz
R. B. Sharp
Emil Zlatos
J. J. Adams
W. A. Knefel
J. G. Neve
F. T. Hollingsworth
Burke Meade
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE 1
Herald-Examiner and American :
Anthony Beradi
V. M. Knitter
William Sturm
Otto J. Judt
J. L. Zajicek
J. P. Bara
G. C. Spencer
Tom Wilhelm
Robert Greenock
H. H. Hartung
Hazel MacDonald
W. J. Maslowe
Maribelle Samen
A. R. Smith
W. H. Stromberg
Esther Shultz
O. D. Burge
H. D. Wohl
Harry Hertz
M. E. H. Pyle
Milton Woodard
D. L. Sparr
R. H. Kipp
W. G. Margolis
Harry Kanehl
E. H. Partridge
IL. K. Fink and Quayle Mumford are not included since they are either temporary
employees or space writers , both of which are excluded from the unit or units. J. J. Has-
sett is not included because his pay-roll status does not appear in the record.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A-2
E. M. J. Randoef
J. E. Wolfsohn
Bernard Fegart
E. J. Auld
Ralph Frost
Clyde Hodges
David Mann
J. B. Quinn
A. P. Risser
E. J. Tanker
Katherine Franklin
W. R. Franklin
J. J. McPhaul
G. M. Sessions
T. P. Mescall
J. G. Morris
R. T. Sanford
Kirk Earnshaw
C. H. Frady
E. W. Lysen
Nathan Aleskovsky
W. C. Forman
H. F. Rissler
Henry Simmons
R. J. Stack
J. A. Moeper
L. M. Johnson
F. T. Dowling
J. J. Ingrassia
G. H. James
Evans Jones
P. J. Moceri
D. M. O'Niel
Jack Sapoznik
J. C. Kordick
Nazareth D'Agostino
J. J. Morris
Geo. Staube
W. H. Becker
Leo Fried
Martin Resser
H. J. Wineberg
R. A. McGrath
D. H. Keniston
R. A. Lennon
C. B. Carey
APPENDIX A-3
COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, Herald-Examiner and
American:' ,
Rose E. Boghasen
Alice Leoni
C. T. Frecker
M. V. Fusello
T. E. Geniesse
G. T. Shaw
T. D. Smith
Lester Tholl
George Erickson
H. S. Peel
E. J. Coughlin
R. L. Marchfield
Alex Meisinger
Jerry Allegretti
Wm. Axelson
Albert Feltman
Emanuel Price
J. J. Stein
Ben Feldman
H. C. Gottfried
K. E. Hartman
S. A. Raia
Guido Alfonsi
Cornelius Galvin
i R. K. Hunt, W. H. Jardine, and H. A. Karpen are not included since they are excluded
from the unit as supervisory employees.
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. 955
Frank Meneghine
J. A. Quinn
S. M. Waxman
H. J. Eisner
H. A. Harmon
C. R. Miehle
Marcel Davidson
Lucille Jennings
E. W. Wendland
H. McGinnis
G. F. Heine
G. A. Suess
W. S. Markiewicz
P. J. Benedetti
E. E. DeLaby
L. V Gottrich
F. P. Krezel
C. L. Lavezzi
G. B. Meyers
Leo Wingert
I. N. DeYong
D. E. Day
O. A. Stark
J. T. Van Huele
B. S. Goldman
APPENDIX A-4
G. C. Gunderson
D. F. Gustafson
V. H. Johnson
M. E. Milewski
Philip Orloff
F. C. Rotecki
Ann Tonchick
Grace L. Boos
Ida S. Fishman
Dorothy Lambert
Edna M. Steen
Wilma E. Wehe
J. W. Lynn
J. E. McCabe
Henry Vandermolen
H. J. Coedesman
Joseph Cooke
Harry Garduk
E. E. Clarke
B. A. Sanders
Jack Romanoff
B. D. Hartnett
R. E. Johnstone
J. E. Schact
E. M. Silverton
Howard Mayhew 2
Harold Sullivan 2
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON.took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
" Howard Mayhew and Harold Sullivan are included among those eligible to vote since
we have ordered their reinstatement herein.