Atlanta Daily World

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 999
C. A. Scott , Individually and as Administrator d/b/a
Atlanta Daily World and Atlanta Typographical
Union No. 48. Cases 10-CA-7405, 10-CA-7437,
and 10-CA-7540
December 9, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On April 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Leo F.
Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. He further found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner,2 as modified herein.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner,
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by failing and refusing to bargain with the
Union 'as the majority representative of its
employees in the appropriate unit,' unilaterally
transferring unit work to nonunit employees,
increasing the subcontracting of work formerly
performed by unit employees without bargaining
'Pursuant to the Respondent 's request for a continuance , the Trial
Examiner recessed the hearing for 2 weeks to afford the Respondent
further opportunity to prepare its defense . Respondent excepts to the Trial
Examiner ' s denial of its motion for further continuance . After careful
consideration of the entire record , we find no merit in the Respondent's
contention that it was denied a fair and impartial hearing and due process
by the Trial Examiner 's refusal to grant further continuance See
Restonaire Bedding Company , 164 NLRB No. 102
'The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions
and charges the Trial Examiner with prejudice and impertinence . It is the
Board 's established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial Examiner's
resolutions as to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We find no support in the record for the charge of
prejudice and impertinence.
with the Union," and engaging in a consistent
pattern of unlawful conduct in its effort to thwart
the Union. Such conduct included coercive
interrogation of employees concerning their union
activities; threats of loss of jobs, less desirable
working conditions, economic reprisals,
discontinuance of work performed by employees and
an increase of subcontracting if employees persisted
in their union activities; promises of continued
employment and improved working conditions if
they would abandon, or refrain from, their efforts to
obtain union representation; solicitation of
employees to persuade their fellow employees to
cease or refrain from union activity, to bargain
directly with the Respondent, and to remove their
names from a petition designating the union as their
bargaining representative, and advising of the futility
of employees' efforts to obtain union representation
because the Respondent, by reason of his position as
administrator, was not obligated to bargain with the
Union. We find that such conduct would reasonably
be expected to have the effect of undermining the
Union's majority, and that it destroyed the
conditions necessary to the holding of a free and fair
election. We conclude that, in order to protect the
statutory rights and interests of employees and to
remedy the violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
committed, it is essential that the Respondent be
ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the statutory representative of its employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent , C. A. Scott, Individually and as
Administrator d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, Atlanta,
Georgia, his agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified.6
'In agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the so-called press helpers
should be excluded from the unit, we do not rely on the fact that they do
not work full-time Contrary to the Trial Examiner , we also exclude from
the bargaining unit Daniel M. Scott, Jr., and Robert H Scott, as they are
children of a principal of a family enterprise of which their father, Daniel
Scott, Sr, is part owner See Foam Rubber City 2 of Florida , Inc., d/b/a
Scandia. 167 NLRB No . 81, in which the Board modified its policy so as
to exclude from bargaining units the children of individuals who have
substantial stock interests in closely held corporations This exclusion does
not however affect the Union's majority status
'We deem inappropriate, however, in the circumstances of this case, the
affirmative order recommended by the Trial Examiner to remedy the
Respondent 's unlawful unilateral action We find that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to order the Respondent to bargain collectively with the
Union as to the transfer or subcontracting of any work performed by unit
employees , including unit work unilaterally transferred or subcontracted by
the Respondent on or after May 23, 1968 , and shall so modify the
Recommended Order.
'N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575.
'In the event this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States
179 NLRB No. 166
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Recommended
Order, substitute the following and reletter the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Bargain collectively with the above-named
Union as to the transfer or subcontracting of any
work normally performed by unit employees,
including unit work unilaterally transferred or
subcontracted on or after May 23, 1968."
2. Delete paragraph 4, page l of the notice and
substitute the following:
I WILL bargain collectively with the
above-named Union as to the transfer or
subcontracting of any work normally performed
by unit employees, including unit work
unilaterally transferred or subcontracted on or
after May 23, 1968.
Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was
heard before me in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 19
and 20, and December 2 and 3, 1968, on a consolidated
complaint, in the first two numbered cases, and a separate
complaint of General Counsel, as amended , and the
answers, as amended , of C. A. Scott, individually and as
administrator d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, herein referred
to as Respondent.' The complaints allege violations of
Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended , 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. The parties waived oral
argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and
Respondent have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of
the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
It is undisputed that Respondent is a proprietorship'
d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, with the principal office and
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, where
Respondent is engaged in the publication , sale and
distribution of newspapers. During the calendar year
preceding the issuance of each complaint, representative
periods, Respondent had a gross volume of business in
excess of $200,000. Respondent subscribes to a national
wire service, and publishes nationally syndicated features,
and advertises national b:'snd products. The complaint
alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is
'Amended at the outset of the hearing to correctly and adequately
identify Respondent , and set forth the caption of the case
The charge in Case 10-CA-7405 was filed on July 2. The charge in Case
l0-CA-7437 was filed on August 1, amended on September 4. A
consolidated complaint , in the first two numbered cases, was issued on
September 20. A charge in Case 10-CA-7540 was filed on October 24. A
complaint , in the latter numbered case , was issued on October 29. Each
charge and complaint was amended at the opening of the hearing herein
All dates herein are 1968, except where otherwise indicated.
'Errors in the record have been noted and corrected.
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48, herein referred to
as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Issues
The issues raised by the pleadings and litigated at the
hearing, in the consolidated complaint, are whether
Respondent: (1), engaged in conduct constituting
interference, restraint, and coercion, in derogation of the
provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by Editor and
General Manager C. A. Scott, on various specified dates,
between April 29 and July 28 engaging in (a) unlawful
interrogation, (b) soliciting employees to persuade fellow
employees to abandon, or refrain from activities on behalf
of, the Union, (c) soliciting employees to bargain directly
with Respondent, (d) soliciting employees to withdraw
from the Union, (e) soliciting employees to sign
statements declaring charges pending before the Board
were false, and that the employees were supervisors, (f)
making promises conditioned upon employees abandoning
their efforts to obtain representation, (g) threatening
employees with economic reprisals, (h) threatening
employees as to the futility of the employees' efforts to
organize, because Respondent did not have to bargain, (i)
threatening employees that they could not be represented
by a union for collective-bargaining purposes, (1)
threatening discontinuance of work and the subcontracting
of said work if employees continued activities on behalf of
the Union, or (k) threatening loss of employment by
demanding the resignation of employees because they gave
statements to the Board; or by interrogation by Foreman
E. J. Scott; or (2), whether rufusal of the Respondent to
bargain with the Union, relative to wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, on behalf of employees in an appropriate
unit, on and after May 20, June 3, and June 5 constituted
conduct in contravention of the provisions of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The issues raised by the
pleadings and litigated at the hearing, relative to the
second complaint, are whether Respondent failed and
refused to bargain in good faith, upon request by the
Union, relative to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, for employees in an appropriate unit: (a), on
and after May 20 and June 3; or more particularly (b), on
October 4, relative to unilaterally and without notice or
consultation with the Union transferring work from
employees in the unit and assigning it to nonunit
employees; (c), on or about October 21 suspending Elijah
H. Holsey; or (d), on or about October 21, unilaterally
and without notice to or consultation with the Union,
increasing its subcontracting of bargaining unit work.
Respondent, by answer, denies the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Subsidiary questions, in the nature
'I have taken official notice of Case 10-C-1095, also identified as
X-C-1095, in which Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued a decision on
November 12, 1942, involving the same Respondent , et a!, on which no
appeal was filed , and on which no subsequent Board action ensued.
The capacity of C. A. Scott, as administrator , is further explicated under
Background , infra. The term usufruct more aptly describes the business
operation of Respondent.
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1001
of matters of defense , are set forth and considered infra.
Supervisory Personnel
It appears undisputed that Editor and General Manager
C A. Scott and Foreman E . J. Scott, also referred to
herein as Emel Scott , are and were , at all times material,
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.'
Background
The facts set forth under this subsection are undisputed.
After the demise of his brother, W. A. Scott, II, in
1934, C. A. Scott, on May 29, 1934, was appointed
administrator cum testamento annexo , with authority to
continue the business theretofore conducted under the
name of The Atlanta Daily World, by the probate court
of Fulton County. It appears undisputed that C. A. Scott,
since 1934, has been the editor, general manager and
operating bead of the business enterprise.'
According to C. A. Scott, the Atlanta Daily World is a
daily paper, of local circulation, averaging approximately
19,000 copies, as compared to 9,000 in 1942. There is also
a weekly of national circulation approximating between
7,000 and 8,000 copies, as compared to 5,500 in 1942. The
daily paper printed six times each week, averages six to
eight pages. In addition, a food section, of an additional 6
to 10 pages, is published each Thursday. As part of its
service, Respondent also prints other newspapers. On each
Monday the Birmingham World, a semiweekly newspaper
is produced. On each Tuesday they print the national
edition and a small paper known as the Columbus edition
of the Atlanta Daily World national . On each Wednesday
Respondent prints the Memphis World and Florida Spur.
On each Thursday the Birmingham World is again
printed. On each Friday the Southwest Georgia paper is
printed. On Saturday the Atlanta Daily World and
Sunday edition are printed.'
The earlier case involved a refusal , by the Respondent
herein, and other legatees, to negotiate with a union
representing the mechanical department employees.
Charges were filed, on August 25, 1942, by Atlanta Allied
Newspaper Workers Union, No. 470, an affiliate of the
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America. As outlined by the Trial Examiner,
numerous efforts by the Union, and its predecessor, to
obtain meaningful bargaining were fruitless. Among the
issues raised by Respondent herein, at that time, was an
asserted "doubt" on his part that he had authority, as
administrator , to sign a collective-bargaining agreement.'
Trial Examiner Hunt found, inter alia , that there had been
a refusal to negotiate in good faith. He also found the
'While Respondent contends that employees Anderson, Cooper and
Jenkins are also supervisors , the evidence relative to , and resolution of,
these issues is set forth Infra.
'See the earlier decision . I find it unnecessary to treat with the identity
of the legatees under the will, or the contingent interest of each No
modification of the facts found by Trial Examiner Hunt has been urged
herein . Likewise, there has been no assertion of any modification of those
Sections of the Georgia and Federal statutory law which he found germane
or irrelevant.
Accordingly , I adopt , by reference , the portions of that decision which
may be applicable herein as background , finding no purpose in setting
those findings forth at greater length than follows.
Respondent , aqd his counsel , as well as the Charging Party were
provided copies of the earlier decision during the hearing herein.
'The precise order of the printing of these other papers was related by
employees Anderson and Cooper , and appears undisputed.
asserted justification for a refusal to enter into a contract
in excess of a period of 6 months was assertedly by reason
of the administrator's desire to "settle his fiduciary
account."
In the instant case a not insignificant portion of
Respondent's defense is his asserted inability "legally," as
administrator, to enter into collective-bargaining
negotiations. In other words, I find, it is a replay of an
old record.' The reasons for this finding are explicated
infra.
It appears, for reasons explicated infra, that there were
19 employees in what is described as the mechanical
department of Respondent's plant, as of May and June,
when the Union made its requests for bargaining.
Commencing April 22 and prior to May 23, when the first
bargaining request was made, the Union had ostensibly
obtained authorization cards from 17 of these employees,
an additional card having been obtained on May 25.'
INTERFERENCE , RESTRAINT, AND COERCION
As noted under Issues, supra, the great bulk of the
allegations of conduct violative of the Act is attributed to
C. A. Scott. While distinguishable categories are alleged,
under different dates, the evidence indicates a
commingling of the events. To avoid needless repetition,
requisite to separation by categories, an effort is made to
set the events forth chronologically, by dates.
Joe L. Anderson, Jr., a ludlo machine operator, has
been employed by Respondent since November 1959.
Anderson and 11 other mechanical department employees
signed union authorization cards on April 22 or 23.
Respondent's office is located at 143 Auburn Avenue,
N.E. while the printing plant is located at 210 Auburn
Avenue, N.E., in a separate building. Anderson credibly
related that he had a conversation with C. A. Scott, on
April 29, in Scott's office, about 10:30 a.m., with no one
else present. Scott inquired if Anderson knew anything
about a rumor that was going around that there were
some of the employees who were trying to form a union.
Anderson denied knowledge. Scott also asserted,
according to Anderson, "We" didn't need any third party
to come into the operation because the problems we had
there we could settle them ourselves. Scott then inquired if
Anderson would talk to the other employees and
discourage the forming of a union at that time. Scott, in
relating a conversation with Gnann, local president, and
William Locket, a former employee, on May 1, set forth
infra, asserted he had never heard of the union movement
prior to that date. Scott described Anderson's testimony,
'This "doubt" was also expressed in terms of having other legatees join
the administrator, who was and is also a legatee, in executing a
collective-bargaining agreement . Disagreement on substance, among
legatees, is also outlined
'An index to the tenuous and implausible assertions of C. A. Scott is
revealed by his purported memory, or absence of it, relative to the earlier
decision. He remembered it "vaguely ." He could not "recall" that at that
time he asserted that he was desirous of concluding his function as
administrator . Asked by me what ensued after the issuance of the Hunt
decision , Scott responded, "Well, it seems like the people who were
interested in it just got other jobs and we just abandoned the proposition
Nobody to negotiate with " Acknowledging he had not appealed the earlier
decision , Scott could not "recall" its content , or whether it concerned some
of the same issues raised herein
'However, Respondent's assertion that three of these employees,
Anderson, Cooper and Jenkins are supervisors , the fact that two of the
employees are the sons of a legatee of decedent 's estate, and the adequacy
of signatures on the cards of Wingfield and Young, are matters considered
infra
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relative to April 29, as "absolutely untrue." On this
conflict I credit Anderson.
Anderson credibly related that he had another
conversation with C. A. Scott, in Scott's office, around
May 10, at which no one else was present. Scott adivsed
Anderson that Scott had received a letter from the Union
which stated in part that "we" had more or less given
them permission to represent us, that they wanted to talk
to him [Scott] about bargaining. Scott advised Anderson
that Scott was only the administrator and he could not
assume this type of responsibility because being an
administrator he was only part-owner and there were
other legatees involved. Scott asserted that it was his
desire that he be given time to notify the other legatees,
because Scott's attorney advised him not to go into this
matter because there could be too much liability on his
part. Scott also advised Anderson that it would not be
necessary to use a third party because they were a
republican paper and most local unions were democratic
"and they would be trying to tell us more or less how to
write our editorials." Scott also advised Anderson that if
the employees would cooperate with him that he would try
to protect everybody's job, that Scott didn't see any
reason for "this" [the Union] because we were going
off-set. Scott also advised Anderson that if the employees
would cooperate with Scott, Scott would do his best to
protect everybody's job during the changeover period.
Anderson explained that "for some time" Scott had been
suggesting that The Atlanta Daily World would go off-set,
that they would have to go off-set because cost of
operation was forcing him to and he was going to make
preparations that they would do the paper in off-set,
[explicated in more detail infra) Scott also advised
Anderson that he had talked to a Mr. Crane of the
Dekalb New Era Newspaper about printing the Atlanta
Daily World, that it would be a very easy matter because
they could purchase headliners and paste-up the paper
across the hall in the advertising department, which is
adjacent to the executive office. Scott advised Anderson
that if the employees pushed the idea of trying to form a
union for bargaining that Scott would be forced to farm
the paper out [subcontract] to get it printed.10 According
to Anderson, Scott asserted that if the employees did not
"cooperate" Scott would farm the paper out [subcontract
under an off-set method] and this would cause a lot of
people to lose their jobs. Scott advised Anderson that he
should talk to Curtis Cooper and George Jenkins,
employees, and the three of them should talk to the other
employees and try to discourage the Union movement."
"The distinction between the hot-type method of producing a newspaper
in the mechanical department and the cold type method referred to as
off-set printing, presently being performed in the executive or advertising
office, is explicated at length under Subcontracting, infra
"Scott entered general denials, relative to this conversation with
Anderson and other conversations with others set forth in the following
paragraphs . His denials were that he talked to any employee , other than at
employee meetings , except Cooper, and specifically on the dates set forth.
He denied suggesting to any employee that they withdraw from the Union
He denied questioning any employee about Union activities or desires. He
denied soliciting any employee to persuade other employees to abandon or
refrain from engaging in activities on behalf of the Union. He denied
suggesting to any employee that the employees bargain directly with
Respondent , on May 13, except as qualified infra. All of these denials are
not credited.
In making my credibility findings I have considered : The demeanor of
the witnesses ; the interest , or lack thereof, each may have in the outcome
of the litigation , the cumulative and corroborative evidence , asserted by a
variety of witnesses , of the efforts of C. A. Scott to "scotch the lawful
measures of the employees before they had progressed too far toward
George A. Jenkins has been employed by Respondent
since August 1960. Jenkins is a linotype operator and
relief press operator on the night shift, and reports at
about 5 p.m. Jenkins, who had signed a union
authorization card on April 29, credibly related a
conversation he had with C. A. Scott on Friday, May 3,
about 1:30 p.m., in Scott's office, with no one else
present. Jenkins related that Scott inquired if Jenkins had
any knowledge of any union activity in the plant. Jenkins
acknowledged having such knowledge. Scott then
requested Jenkins "not to push the idea of the Union"
because the plant was operating without a Union and the
Union would take the operation of the plant out of the
owner's hands and "we" would lose everything we had
gained. Jenkins asserted that Scott advised him that Scott
did not want Jenkins to become a member, or to
encourage anyone else to become a member, of the
Union. The following Friday, May 10, at about 1:30 p.m.,
Jenkins went to Respondents' offices, to pick up his
paycheck, and Scott requested him to come into Scott's
office. At that time, Scott asked him if he had signed a
petition to become a member of the Union and Jenkins
responded that he had done so Scott then asked why he
wanted to become a member of the Union. Jenkins
asserted he responded that he had a wife and seven
children, was behind in his obligations, and that he was
tired of coming to Scott every time his rent was due and
wanted to better his conditions. Jenkins asserted that
Scott responded that it was not necessary to have a labor
union , the business had been in operation for about 40
years and that proved that he knew how to run a business.
Scott also advised Jenkins that if "we" kept on pushing
for the Union that he would have to take steps to protect
the owners of the paper, that he would try to save as
many of "our" jobs as he could, that if "we" would not
push the idea of the Union he would improve conditions
at the plant and protect our jobs. The alternative stated by
Scott was that they would try to get some of the work
done otherwise, subcontracting, and in such event they
would try to save as many jobs as they could. Scott also
stated that a third party could not do any more for the
employees than they could do for themselves.
Several employees provided varying descriptions of a
meeting , held in the plant, of the mechanical department
employees, called and addressed by C. A. Scott, on May
13, at approximately 5:30 or 6 o'clock p.m. According to
Anderson, Scott stated that he had received a letter from
the Union advising they were representing the employees.
Scott asserted that at that time he could not see where the
employees needed a third party because his door always
remained open and any problems the employees had they
could discuss with either Scott or Foreman Emel Scott
who "could straighten it out." Scott also stated that he
was only the administrator, not the owner, that he would
have to confer with the other legatees before he could
enter into any type of movement of that sort. Scott also
stated that he did not see the need for a union because
they were going to change over, because of economic
conditions, to off-set, that if the employees would
cooperate he would protect most of the jobs and
"probably" no one would lose his job. At this time Scott
advised the group that Scott had talked to Crane, owner
fruition," as stated by the court in N. L.R.B. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp.,
211 F.2d 725 (C A 2), the self-contradictions in the testimony of C. A.
Scott; candor or lack thereof, particularly with reference to Respondent's
advancement of issues obviously frivolous and without merit in the light of
the earlier decision
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1003
of the Dekalb News Era, where the food section of the
Atlanta Daily World, was being produced" and Crane had
agreed to train certain people . While Scott did not
designate those to be trained, he did emphasize that if the
employees pushed the Union he would have to farm the
paper out. Anderson estimated that approximately 13 of
the mechanical department employees were present.
Jesse R. Ector, a make-up man, corroborated
substantial portions of the recitation of Anderson, relative
to the May 13 meeting, including C. A. Scott's statement
that the employees did not need a union, that what the
employees wanted was more money and no union could
get them more money, that no one could tell him how to
run his business, and that he could not sign for a union
unless the rest of the family signed for it. Ector related
that Scott also stated that Scott wished they would drop
the union movement, and that if they continued to push it
that he would farm the paper out and employees would
lose their jobs. Ector also related that there were meetings
later in the month during which Scott repeated what he
had said at the first meeting.
Sadie R. Cash, who has been employed since 1942, and
is a proofreader, also corroborated Anderson relative to
the statements of Scott on May 13. Cash also
corroborated the assertions of Ector relative to the threats
made by Scott if the employees continued their efforts to
organize.
Curtis M. Cooper, head linotype operator, corroborated
the other witnesses relative to some of the assertions of
Scott, at this particular meeting.
Cooper credibly related that, on May 20, he was called
to Scott's Office, where a conversation ensued, with no one
else present. Scott advised Cooper that Scott had had a
meeting [the same day] with union representatives, who
had presented him with a petition, purportedly signed by
the employees. Scott asserted that he had the union
representatives seal the envelope containing the petition,
because Scott was not interested in whose names appeared
on the petition. Scott stated, to Cooper, that he was not
able to deal with the Union, that he had informed union
representatives that he could not deal with them because
he was only an administrator. Scott then advised Cooper
that a person in Cooper' s position should be able to talk
to some of the people at the plant and try to get them to
change their minds about the Union. Scott asserted that
under no conditions would Scott be able to deal with the
Union, and that he did not think that a third party could
help the employees in any event. Scott requested, and
obtained, a promise from Cooper, that Cooper talk to the
employees "about getting them to change their minds
about the Union." Scott also advised Cooper that he was
considering going to off-set printing, and that Cooper
would be among the people they would consider for this
work.
Cooper had a further conversation with Scott, in
Scott's office, on June 3 at about 6:30 p.m. Cooper
asserted the conversation was basically "the same thing."
Scott advised that Scott couldn't recognize the Union,
that everyone knew that he was working as the
administrator and could not make decisions like that, as it
would take all members of the family to decide. Scott also
stated he didn't see why the employees were so interested
in the Union. Cooper credibly related that Scott again
asked if Cooper would talk to some of the people in the
mechanical department about the Union, and was assured
that Cooper would do so. By way of further explanation,
Cooper asserted that Scott asked him to try to get some
of the people to change their minds, asserting that he
(Scott) still had not looked at the petition Scott also
advised Cooper that if his name was on the petition
Cooper should take it off. Scott also advised Cooper that
Scott would write to the Union, in a couple of weeks, and
advise the Union that the employees did not desire the
Union, and if the employees kept on pushing the Union
Scott would have no alternative but to go off-set "because
he would not recognize the Union."
Anderson credibly related that, on June 5, he was called
to Scott's office, by Scott, at about 5 p.m. Scott advised
Anderson that the Union representatives had visited him,
had left a petition, which he did not observe because he
advised the union representatives they should place it in
an envelope and seal it. About this time Foreman E. J.
Scott entered the office. C. A. Scott asked Anderson if he
had signed the petition, and Anderson acknowledged that
he had done so. E. J. Scott asked Anderson if he knew
anyone else that was on the petition and Anderson
responded that he did not. C. A. Scott then asked
Anderson why he had signed the petition, and Anderson
responded that he could not work with his fellow
employees and not be part of it. C. A. Scott then advised
Anderson that, if the employees continued pushing the
Union, C. A. Scott was going to be forced to protect the
interests of the Company, and Scott would certainly have
to farm the paper out. Scott also mentioned to Anderson
that Crane had agreed to train some employees in the
operation of off-set, and Scott indicated that Anderson,
Cooper and Jenkins were being so considered. Scott
requested Anderson to advise Cooper and Jenkins that the
three of them should talk to the other employees and
discourage further union activities by the employees.
Anderson related that it was during this conversation that
Scott advised him that Scott could paste-up the entire
paper and have it farmed out, by purchasing vara-typers,
also identified herein as justowriters, and headliners, and
obtaining normal typists to operate these machines, in the
executive office, and subcontracting the work to Dekalb
New Era.
Jenkins credibly related that when he arrived at work,
inferentially about 5 p.m., during the first week in June,
apparently on June 5, Scott was addressing a meeting of
the mechanical department employees, which Scott had
called. Scott advised the employees that Scott had been in
contact with labor union officials, that he did not want the
employees to push the union idea, explaining that he was
only the administrator of a dead man's estate and there
was nothing he could do to have the Union come into the
plant, because the Atlanta Daily World was not a business
in the usual sense of the word. Scott also advised the
employees to withdraw the petition they had signed,
authorizing the Union to represent them in bargaining.
Sadie R. Cash credibly related there was another
meeting, of the employees in the mechanical department,
called by C. A. Scott, about the middle of June, in which
Scott repeated some of his former statements, including
that it would be wise for the employees to drop the
Union, as the Union could not do anything for them, that
Scott could help them and could not see why they would
not drop it. Scott also stated that the other members of
the family would have to sign and agree to the Union,
that Scott could not do anything. Scott also stated that he
would have to farm out the paper if the employees did
"The printing , by off-set, of the food section , is explicated and have a union , that the employees really could not have a
considered at length infra. union. Cash then described another meeting, in July, in
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which Scott made the same points and the same threats, if
the employees persisted in their efforts to obtain a union.
Cash, apparently inaccurately, asserted that at the July
meeting Scott asserted that he had obtained some
machines, which were in the executive office, which would
be used to help get out the Sunday paper, that he would
use as many of the employees as he could, in this effort,
but did not know how many would be used. I find this
statement inaccurate as to the time , in that the entire
record would indicate that the justowriters, apparently
were obtained in September.
Jenkins related the events at a meeting addressed by
Scott, in the second or third week of June, which may or
may not relate to the meeting referred to by Cash. This
meeting of the mechanical department employees was held
at approximately 5:30 or 6 p.m. Jenkins credibly related
that Scott repeated his request that the employees stop
their union activity and drop the idea, that there was
nothing a third party could do for the employees, and that
Scott would improve conditions. Jenkins related that Scott
asked the employees if they had anything to say.
Thereupon, Jenkins inquired of Scott, "Do you mean that
if the employees at the Atlanta Daily World want the
Union that the Union cannot come into the plant?" Scott
responded that under the present arrangements the Union
could not come into the plant.
Anderson related a conversation he had with Scott, on
Saturday, July 6, about 5 p.m. Others present were
mechanical department employees Hargrove, Searcy, Sr.,
Ector, and Foreman E. J. Scott. Anderson, relating that
he was chairman of the negotiating committee , asserted
that Scott inquired if he was a member of the committee,
and Anderson responded in the affirmative. Anderson
advised Scott that Hargrove and Cash were the other
members of the committee. Scott asserted that he had
received a letter from the Board containing the charges in
the within case and inquired if the employees were
familiar with the charges. Anderson responded in the
negative, but acknowledged that they were familiar with
the fact that the charges were being filed. Scott related
that he had been charged with numerous instances of
unfair labor practices, all of which Scott asserted were
incorrect . Scott labelled the charges as "false," and
absurd. Scott asserted that he had always been fair to the
employees and if there was anything wrong they could
always come in and talk to him. Anderson asserted there
was then a discussion of existing rates and working
conditions, with which we are not herein concerned. Scott
then related that in the earlier case , in 1942, Respondent
had won "because the judge had thrown it out." Scott
also asserted that no one could make him enter into
bargaining if he did not want to, that no one could make
him bargain with the employees, that he was only the
administrator , that other people owned the business, and
that he was thinking about turning it over to them. Ector
corroborated Anderson, in part, although he incorrectly
set the time of the meeting as June 6, rather than July 6.
Ector's version was, that after Scott characterized the
charges herein as "false ," Scott asserted that similar
charges had been filed in the 1940's, that Scott "beat
those charges and he would beat these," that if the
employees pressed the matter Scott would do everything
to preserve the rights of the Company.
Cooper credibly related that, about 6 or 7 o'clock, on
Sunday, July 28, Scott requested that he and Jenkins,
both of whom were working, come to Scott's office. Scott
advised these two employees that he had a meeting
scheduled with a representative of the Board for the
following morning. Scott inquired if Cooper and Jenkins
would give Scott a statement asserting that they were
supervisors , also that they were not interested in the
Union. Cooper related that he advised Scott that he could
not give him a statement asserting that Cooper was not
interested in the Union, but would give him a statement
that he was a supervisor in charge of the linotype
department. Scott requested that Cooper provide this
statement by the following morning . At 11 a.m., on
Monday, Scott called Cooper advising he had not received
the statement. Cooper responded that he had not prepared
it, but would do so. Cooper, a little later, called Scott and
advised that he didn't see any need in signing a statement
because he had already made a statement to the same
Board representative and didn't see any purpose in
making another statement . Jenkins corroborated Cooper
on the events of Sunday." According to Jenkins, Scott
requested that Jenkins give him a statement that the
charges were false , and Scott asserted that he had not
refused to meet with labor union representatives. Jenkins
requested that Scott give him the copy of the charges,
which Scott asserted were false, and was advised by Scott
that Scott had left them at home. Jenkins advised he did
not wish to be a party to anything that was false. Scott
then requested Jenkins to provide Scott with a statement
that Jenkins was a supervisor. Jenkins responded that
under some definitions he could be a supervisor and under
other definitions he might not be. Scott advised Jenkins
that if Jenkins stated he was not a supervisor this
indicated that he was not qualified to be a supervisor.
Jenkins acknowledged typing a statement that he was a
supervisor and giving it to Scott's daughter. Jenkins
acknowledged that he had previously outlined his specific
duties to a Board agent.
Anderson related that he was called to Scott's office on
the Saturday prior to Scott' s giving a statement to a
Board investigator , which the record establishes was given
on July 31. Anderson described his conversation with
Scott as being on the Saturday afternoon, in July,
immediately prior to Scott's interview with the Board
agent. I thus find the conversation occurred on July 27.
Scott requested that Anderson sign a statement that
Anderson was a supervisor. Anderson responded that he
did not believe he was a supervisor, because he did not
have the right to hire , to arrange schedules, was on an
hourly basis, and did not have the privileges of a foreman.
However, Anderson advised Scott he would discuss it with
his wife and let him know on Monday morning. On
Monday morning, Anderson advised Scott that he would
not sign such a statement. Scott, in the same conversation
had advised Anderson that Scott intended to ask Cooper
and Jenkins to sign similar statements , relative to their
being supervisors.
I turn next to the assertions of Scott relative to the
statements of the employees, as set forth.
I have noted supra , footnote 11, the general denials of
Scott relative to the interrogation of any employee, at any
time, although he acknowledged talking to Cooper "on
some occasions ." Scott also acknowledged having general
meetings of all mechanical department employees. Scott
asserted he did not request anyone to withdraw from the
Union, because he knew this would be a violation.
However, he acknowledged making remarks that the
charges, as filed, were false. He also acknowledged
"While Jenkins was obviously confused as to the dates, and asserted that
the meeting took place in the plant , I do not deem either error to be of
consequence
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1005
advising that he thought tba employees should withdraw
the charges. Scott denied suggesting direct bargaining to
any employee, but acknowledged the question of a
co nmittee talking with . him came up and, said Scott,
while he didn't invite them ".because I knew the difference
in them coming and me inviting them" someone suggested
that a committee of Ector and Anderson should talk with
him, and he replied that he'd be glad to talk with anybody
at any time, "if they want to come to my office, about
any issue." Scott asserted that during the first visit by
union representatives, inferentially May 23, he advised
that Anderson and Cooper (he apparently did not mention
Jenkins) were, supervisors and ineligible to be in the
Union, but denied requesting anyone, including those
named, to withdraw. Scott denied that on July 28 he
solicited employees to sign statements to the effect that
the charges were untrue, however he acknowledged asking
Anderson, Cooper and Jenkins "to state in their own
words their position with the paper." Scott asserted his
conversation with these three occurred on Sunday night.
The foregoing denials of Scott, on direct examination,
stand in sharp contrast to his admissions on
cross-examination , which follow. Asked if, on May 10, he
called Jenkins to his office and advised Jenkins that he
hoped that the employees wouldn't push the Union,
because he doubted his authority to deal with it, as
administrator, and told Jenkins that if the employees
wanted to pursue the Union to let him know and he would
proceed to close the estate, Scott asserted he did not invite
Jenkins to his office, but acknowledged such a
conversation was "possible." Scott was then asked, by the
Trial Examiner, if the conversation did or did not occur,
and responded "I say we did, if he said it." Scott
acknowledged that he "probably did" advise that he could
not deal with the Union because he would incur personal
liability, explaining "I said that on several occasions." He
acknowledged making a similar statement to the
employees in the mechanical department on June 3. Scott
did not remember asking Jenkins if he had signed a
petition to bring in the Union, but said he did not deny
making such an inquiry, then asserted that he saw
Jenkins' name on the petition and had not made such an
inquiry. Shown his pretrial statement, Scott then
acknowledged that he "may have" made such an inquiry,
of Jenkins. Scott acknowledged advising Jenkins, in May,
that in changing over to off-set printing he would do all he
could to protect the jobs of the employees. He
acknowledged that he "may have" advised Jenkins, and
that he told other employees in the , mechanical
department, that they should defer the union thing
because of the contemplated changeover to off-set
printing, but if they wanted to pursue it, to let Scott know
so that he could take steps to close the estate. He then
acknowledged that such a statement appeared in his
pretrial statement. Scott asserted that he "may have"
advised Anderson, on about-June 5, that if they went to
off-set printing they would not need the operating plant
they now have. However, Scott then asserted "I won't
deny it, and I won't confirm it." He affirmed that the
statement appeared in his pretrial statement. Scott then
asserted " I guess that ' s correct." Scott acknowledged
telling Cooper, on May 20, that he operated the business
as an administrator , that the union question was one
which could only be dealt with by rightful owners, but he
did not recall telling Cooper to talk to other employees to
ascertain if they were going to press the union issue. Scott
then acknowledged that he "may have" said that to
Cooper. Scott acknowledged telling employees that if
he assumed responsibility of recognizing the Union it
would be a personal liability and that he doubted he had
legal authority to do so. Scott acknowledged that at the
meeting of mechanical department employees, on May 13,
he advised the employees he had received a letter from the
Union stating the employees wanted the Union to
represent them, that he felt the Union could not help them
because it was up to Respondent to improve conditions.
He also stated, during this meeting, that having been
appointed by the court as administrator he had no
authority to enter into any agreement with the labor
union. He acknowledged advising the employees, at the
meeting, that working conditions could be improved if the
foremen and the employees would get together and discuss
these matters, and that he would do everything in his
power to cooperate. He acknowledged that, at the
meeting, on May 13, he advised the employees that he
could not sign anything to bring in a union because the
rest of the family would have to give their consent. He
acknowledged that at a meeting, in the middle of June, he
advised the employees that they should not press the union
issue on him as an administrator, that he had no authority
to deal with the Union, that the Atlanta Daily World was
not a business in the sense that it was not a corporation.
Asked if on Saturday, July 6, he advised Anderson, Ector,
Hargrove, and Searcy that he had received charges from
the Board, that similar charges had been filed in 1941,
and that the Trial Examiner dismissed the case, Scott
responded that he told them that "we had a hearing." He
could not remember telling them the balance. Again
examining his pretrial statement, Scott acknowledged
having so advised the named employees. Scott denied
knowledge that Cooper, Jenkins, and Anderson had given
the Board statements, prior to the time Scott gave his
statement.
Where the testimony of Scott is in conflict with that of
General Counsel's witnesses, to the extent set forth, I
credit the latter.
E. J. Scott
It is alleged that Foreman E. J. Scott engaged in
unlawful interrogation on June 5 and 12.
I have found, supra, that during a conversation between
Anderson and C. A. Scott on June 5, E. J. Scott asked
Anderson if he knew anyone else whose name was on the
union petition.
Jenkins, who acknowledged he had signed a union
authorization card on April 29, related that he had a
conversation with E. J. Scott, in the mechanical
department, near the middle of May. Scott asked Jenkins
if he had heard of any union activity at the plant. Jenkins
responded that he had, that he did not know about it at
first, but after he found out about it that he had joined up
to go along with the other employees. Scott advised
Jenkins that he just wanted to find it out from Jenkins.
E. J. Scott acknowledged that he asked Jenkins if
Jenkins had heard of any employees joining the Union,
but was uncertain of the date of the inquiry. He denied
asking any other employee that question. On
cross-examination, E. J. Scott denied asking employees
Reed, Ector, and Robert H. Scott if they knew anything
about the Union trying to organize the employees. After
examining his pretrial sworn statement, E. J. Scott
acknowledged that a statement indicating he had made
such inquiries did appear in his pretrial statement. To the
extent the testimony of E. J. Scott is at variance with that
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees, who appeared on behalf of General
Counsel, I will credit the employees, except where
specifically otherwise indicated.
Concluding Findings
General Counsel, in his brief, has treated principally
with the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5), and the
derivative violations of Section 8(a)(1). No reference
appears to the independent violations of Section 8(a)(1).
Respondent, in his brief, asserts, inaccurately, that
interrogation of employees by Respondent in the instant
case was a natural and expected course of action and, as
testified to by Emel J. Scott and C. A. Scott, did not
exceed the boundaries of simple inquiry in the interest of
concern for the stability, productivity and operation of the
business, and was in no way intended to intimidate or
discourage union activity. Respondent then correctly
asserts the requisite safeguards essential to avoid a finding
that the interrogation was unlawfully conducted. I find no
evidence of these safeguards having been taken by the
Respondent.
Respondent asserts that in the matter of soliciting
employees not to join the Union Respondent's efforts
"largely occurred with the employees enjoying supervisory
status, at least in the mind of Respondent." I find
Respondent' s assertion is factually inaccurate and his
premise is erroneous, for reasons explicated infra, on the
determination of the absence of supervisory capacity of
Anderson, Jenkins, and Cooper.
In the Blue Flash case" the Board held that
interrogation of an employee, as to union membership,
activities and desires is not per se unlawful. The Board, in
that case, found legitimate reason for inquiry, which was
conducted with appropriate safeguards. The Board held
that the test is whether, under all the circumstances, the
interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with
the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Act.
In the Johnnie's Poultry case" the Board set forth the
purposes which permit legitimate interrogation, i.e.,
verification of a union's claimed majority status, or
interrogation essential in preparing an employer's defense
for the trial of a case. In the same case the Board outlined
the safeguards which must surround such interrogation,
none of these safeguards appear in the instant case.
The Board and courts uniformly have held, and Section
8(c) provides, that an employer may express a view,
argument , or opinion, indicating his opposition to unions,
or union organization, or the employees' need for a union,
however such expression is violative when it contains a
threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.
I have found, from credible evidence, set forth supra,
that both the Respondent and Foreman E. J. Scott
engaged in interrogation, without requisite safeguards or
purpose, which was coercive. I have found that
Respondent sought the assistance of employees, by
soliciting their aid in persuading other employees to
abandon, or refrain from, efforts to obtain union
representation. I have found that Respondent sought to
bargain directly with the employees, assuring them of his
willingness to satisfy their needs, and of the futility of
their efforts to obtain union representation, partially by
reason of his position as administrator. I have found that
Respondent solicited employees to remove their names
"Blue Flash Express. Inc.. 109 NLRB 591
"Johnnie 's Poultry Company, 146 NLRB 770, 775
from, and to withdraw, a petition designating the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative. I have found
that Respondent promised employees continued
employment and improved conditions if they would
abandon the Union and refrain from activities on its
behalf, alternatively threatening employees with economic
reprisals and loss of jobs if they persisted in seeking union
representation. I have found that Respondent threatened
employees with an assertion of the futility of the
employees' efforts to obtain union representation, because
Respondent did not have to bargain with the Union. I
have found that Respondent threatened employees that
they could not be represented by a union for the purposes
of collective bargaining, as set forth in Section 7 of the
Act, and that Respondent would discontinue the work
performed by his employees, in an appropriate unit, and
subcontract said work, if the employees continued to
support the Union and engaged in activities on its behalf.
I find the conduct of Respondent, and Foreman E. J.
Scott, was coercive, in each specified instance, as set forth
in the preceding paragraph, and constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion, violative of the proscriptions of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.16
I do not find, as alleged, that Respondent, on or about
July 20, threatened employees with loss of employment by
demanding their resignation because they gave statements
to the Board. No evidence in support of this allegation
appears in the record. I will accordingly recommend
dismissal of paragraph 22 of the consolidated complaint.
The Alleged Refusal to Bargain
The Appropriate Unit the Union's Majority Status
It is alleged, in the consolidated complaint, and I find,
for reasons explicated infra, the following employees of
Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act
All mechanical department employees at Respondent's
Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including composing room
employees, stereotyping employees and press room
employees, but excluding office clerical employees, mail
room department employees, news department
employees, editorial department employees, advertising
and circulation department employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
It is undisputed that there are 19 journeymen
employees in the mechanical department, who were
employed on the key dates of May 23 and June 3. The
identity and classification, and shift, of these employees
follows: Joe L. Anderson, day shift, ludlo operator; John
W. Henderson, night shift, ludlo operator, printer and
makeup man; John W. Drake, night shift, ludlo operator
and makeup man; Sadie R. Cash, day shift, proofreader;
A. D. Wingfield, Sr., night shift, proofreader; Curtis M.
Cooper, day shift, head linotype operator; Anno
Hargrove, Jr., and Orleana Little, split shift, part day and
part night, linotype operators; Roy Young and Daniel M.
Scott, Jr., night shift," linotype operators; George E.
"In view of these findings, I find it unnecessary to make a finding of
additional violations on the allegations , of paragraph 16 of the
consolidated complaint , that solicitation of statements (1) that the charges
filed herein were untrue, and (2 ) that the employees so solicited were
supervisors , since such findings would be cumulative . However, I have
found that such solicitation did occur.
"The record indicates that the night shift normally commences at
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1007
Jenkins, night shift, linotype operator, except 1 hour as
relief press operator; Earnest L. Arnold, day shift,
linotype operator and bank operator; Henry Elliott and
Calvin C. Keith, shift unspecified, bankman; Milton L.
Searcy, Sr., day shift, stereotype operator; Robert H
Scott, night shift, stereotype operator; Elijah J. Holsey,
night shift, makeup man and stereotype operator; Jesse R.
Ector, day shift, makeup man and press man; and Lewis
Reed, day shift, cylinder press operator and makeup man. Is
It is undisputed that all of those named in the preceding
paragraph, except Orleana Little, signed a union
authorization card on or after April 22 and on or before
May 15, except Roy Young whose card bears the date of
May 25.
I next examine the appropriateness of the inclusion in
or exclusion from the unit of the following, named as
journeymen: Robert H. Scott, also identified as R. Haile
Scott, and Daniel M. Scott, Jr., as members of the Scott
family; Anderson, Cooper and Jenkins, in the light of
Respondent's assertion that they are supervisors; and A.
D. Wingfield, Sr.,:-and Roy Young, in the matter of the
adequacy of their execution of the authorization cards.
These matters are considered seriatim.
Family Relationship
C. A. Scott identified Daniel M. Scott, Jr. and Robert
H. Scott as his nephews, the children of Daniel Scott, Sr.,
a brother of C. A. Scott, a legatee under the will of the
decedent, but not an employee. Section 2(3), which defines
the term "employee," requires the exclusion of "any
individual employed by his parent or spouse." This
provision is thus not applicable to these two employees.
The Board has seen fit to revise its former policy of
automatic exclusion on the sole basis of family
relationship finding this "coincidence" does not negate the
mutuality of employment interest which an individual
shares with fellow employees, "absent evidence that
because of such relationship he enjoys a special status
which allies his interests, with those of management."
International Metal Products Company, 107 NLRB 65,
67." No evidence appears herein that either of these
employees enjoys a special status, or that either lacks a
community of interest with the other mechanical
department employees. Accordingly, for the reasons
stated, I find they should be included in the unit.
Supervisory question
Anderson is primarily a ludlo machine operator, who
punches a timeclock, receives $1.90 an hour, with time
and one half for all hours over 40 hours a week. His hours
are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with overtime extending to 6 and 7
p.m. The record indicates that other employees, whom
Respondent would- assert are under the direction of
Anderson, such as linotype operators, appear to earn in
excess of the hourly rate -of Anderson. As an illustration,
Anno Hargrove, Jr., a linotype operator, related that he is
paid by the galley, at $1.95 per galley and produces
between one and one-half and one and three-quarters
galleys per hour. Anderson related that he runs the ludlo
machine approximately 3 1/2 hours on specified days and
from 1 to 5 hours on other days. The rest of his time is
spent helping the bankmen assemble type by physically
taking type and placing it in appropriate places in
connection with ads. Anderson estimated that 90 to 95
percent of his time is spent in manual labor.
Anderson asserted that, after an unspecified period of
service, he was advised that he would be assistant foreman
to E. J. Scott, to replace Thomas Martin. This was
changed when Respondent rehired Thomas Martin, and
Anderson was advised that Martin would be the assistant
foreman. When Martin again left, Anderson asserted, "It
was assumed that I would perform his duties, but it was
never mentioned from the day I entered the Daily World,
and it has never been stated to the unit that I was an
assistant foreman to Mr. E. J. Scott.
Anderson related that on two occasions, time
unspecified, he tried to send employees home for
misconduct. In each instance the employee was returned
to work, inferentially by C. A. Scott or E. J. Scott,
without reprimand. One morning, time unspecified,
Anderson punched out an employee, Bowie, who awaited
the arrival of E. J. Scott, and the latter put him back to
work.20 Anderson credibly related that C. A. Scott or E.
J. Scott would issue instructions, from home, directly to
employees, and, on occasion, would repeat these
instructions to Anderson. 21 Anderson accurately
summarized his authority as he would "ask an employee
to do something," as he lacked authority that he could
enforce
C. A. Scott acknowledged that nothing was ever posted
in the plant to indicate that Anderson, Cooper or Jenkins
were supervisors. C. A. Scott then qualified his statement
by saying "All the employees understand they are
supervisors." C. A. Scott stated his premise as "they"
[Anderson, Cooper and Jenkins] give them [the
employees] instructions from day to day. Scott described
Anderson's duties as, "He determines which paper is
printed first." Scott was both inconsistent and evasive
relative to Anderson's authority. He asserted Anderson
"has the authority to punch out, suspend, actually fire if
he wanted, just like the other supervisors. But, I don't
recall him ever using that authority, but he has used the
authority, I think, to punch people out, of course,
discipline." Scott then acknowledged that Anderson had
never disciplined anyone, without clearing it with Scott.
Asked if it was not a fact that Anderson cannot hire and
fire, Scott responded "I have not told him he could not do
it." Scott then admitted he never told Anderson he could
do it. Scott acknowledged Anderson never recommended
anyone for promotion or transfer, and, if Anderson
recommended a layoff, Scott would interview the
employee before taking action. Asked if Anderson had, in
fact, ever recommended a layoff for severe misconduct,
Scott responded "I think he has done it." Scott admitted
Anderson had not made such a recommendation
"recently." I do not credit the inconclusive and
inconsistent ramblings of C. A. Scott, relative to
Anderson's supervisory authority.
The recitation of E J. Scott, relative to either
Anderson, or the employees, being advised of Anderson's
capacity as a supervisor is, if possible, more confusing
than the recitation of C. A. Scott. Foreman Scott asserted
approximately 5.30 or 6 p . m., while Daniel M. Scott apparently
commences his shift at 10 p.m.
"Assuming one bankman is on each shift , there are eight employees on '•E. J Scott related that Anderson arrives at 8 30 or 9 am , while Scott
each shift , two on split shift , one on third shift. Fred Wilson, Sr., is may arrive at 10 or 11.
night-shift foreman and pressman . "The studied effort of E. J Scott to avoid admitting giving such
"Accord: Cherrin Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 349 F.2d 1001 (C A. 6) instructions to employees, by telephone, I find unimpressive
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Anderson was advised "when he was employed" that
he was assistant foreman. He then stated that when
Anderson "first came there he wasn't no assistant
foreman." Scott, then, asserting that he had
misunderstood, asserted that both Anderson and he knew
that Anderson was not advised that he was assistant
foreman when Anderson was first employed. Scott then
stated that Anderson has acted "as far as I'm concerned
in the capacity of assistant foreman when I wasn't there"
since 1962 or 1963. Scott then asserted that Anderson was
appointed assistant foreman 4 years ago. Scott
acknowledged that no notice to this effect has been placed
on the bulletin board. 22
Foreman Scott was as evasive as C. A. Scott. After
asserting Anderson had the "privilege and opportunity, if
he saw fit to discipline an employee," he could not "recite
a specific instance," when asked if, in fact, Anderson had
exercised such authority.
Cooper has been employed, by Respondent, since
February 15, 1958. He is head linotype operator. He
operates a Model 31 linotype machine. His first duty,
when he reports, is to clean his machine for operation. He
spends 7 1/2 hours a day operating the machine, punches
a timeclock, has an hourly rate of $2.20, and is paid for
overtime. His principal duties are setting lead heads, for
advertising, of different sizes, and repairing linotype
machines when necessary. Cooper asserted that there was
one full-time linotype operator and one part-time linotype
operator on his shift, however it appears that Arnold, who
is both a linotype operator and bank operator works on
the day shift, that Hargrove and Orleana Little work on
both shifts. The other linotype operators set straight, or
solid, matter and are paid by the galley. I have found,
supra, that Hargrove related that he receives $1.95 per
galley and produces between one and a half and one and
three quarters galleys per hour. A galley consists of 20
inches of type, when solid. Cooper's work is the same
week after week, except for minor repairs. Cooper
explained the reason that he was not paid by the galley is
that the ads are both single and double column and
subject to fluctuation in terms of size of type, including
the preparation of editorial leads. Cooper denied that he
had any control over the work of the other employees who
were linotype operators, and specifically denied that he
assigned copy. Cooper related that when C. A. Scott
"The following colloquy , which I find meaningless , then ensued:
TRIAL EXAMINER : Did you call the employees together and advise them
that he [Anderson ] was the assistant foreman?
FOREMAN SCOTT : Well, we have inferred that in the meetings that we
have down there.
TRIAL EXAMINER : You've inferred it but you haven ' t told the
employees?
FOREMAN SCOTT : We have told the employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER : You - what?
FOREMAN scorn : We have told the employees.
TRIAL EXAMINER : When did you tell the employees?
FOREMAN scorn : At different meetings we had down there.
TRIAL EXAMINER : You mean you have to keep repeating the fact that
he's a foreman?
FOREMAN scoTT : No, not necessarily not necessarily , no sir . We don't
repeat that.
TRIAL EXAMINER : When [did] you tell the employees , give me an
approximate year and month.
FOREMAN SCOTT : Oh, I say about '62 or '63.
TRIAL EXAMINER : Now, what did you tell the employees?
FOREMAN ScoTT : Well, your honor, now, let me put it this way We
usually have meetings down there , sometimes once a month or twice a
month , or 6 weeks . And if any problems may come up that you may
have , if I'm not there, they can take it up with the foreman or assistant
foreman . And the assistant foreman would be Mr . Anderson.
advised him to assign a job of setting classified ads to
someone else , the employees , who considered classified
ads more skilled work, would not do it and Cooper did
the work himself. Cooper denied that in the day-to-day
routine it was necessary to issue any instructions . Cooper
explained there is a round barrel in the middle of the floor
where copy is placed by the editors and each operator
obtains copy of the material to be prepared from the
barrel , as needed . It is the editors who decide which copy
is to be linotyped.
Jenkins has been employed , by Respondent, since
August 1960 and is on the night shift , reporting at
approximately 5 p.m. Jenkins punches a timeclock, has an
hourly rate of $1.90, and receives premium pay for
overtime . Jenkins ' primary duties are those of a linotype
operator , which consumes 90 per cent of his worktime.
The other 10 percent of his worktime he is relief
pressman , when the pressman takes a dinner break, for I
hour . There are four linotype machines . I have found,
supra , that Young is a linotype operator on the night shift
and that Hargrove and Little work a portion of the night
shift as linotype operators . Jenkins acknowledged that, on
occasion , he had made certain that the linotype operators
had copy which needed to be set, but denied he issued any
instructions relative to the setting of the copy . Jenkins
explained that on these occasions, the editors placed copy
on the desk and he had picked it up from there and
distributed it, on other occasions the operators picked the
copy up themselves . Jenkins also asserted that when the
linotype operators finish the copy, which they themselves
had obtained , for the Atlanta Daily World, Jenkins would
give them what other copy was left for out-of-town
papers. However , Jenkins asserted as they needed this
latter category they would help themselves to it.
Jenkins acknowledged that on one occasion, in the
latter part of 1967 he had punched out employee Arnold.
Jenkins' explanation was that Arnold was supposed to be
working and Jenkins couldn 't locate him , so Jenkins took
it for granted that Arnold had gone off and punched him
out. About a half hour later , Arnold returned , saw that
his card had been punched out, and told Jenkins not to
put his hand on Arnold 's card. Jenkins asserted he
reported this event to C. A. Scott , who advised him that
he had done the right thing. Jenkins asserted that he had
been given instructions by Night Foreman Wilson to
punch Arnold out, when he advised Wilson that Arnold
was not there . He had not been given instructions
previously relative to punching anyone out . Jenkins
asserted that he had an incident with an employee named
Lockett, in 1965 . Jenkins' version was that there was copy
to be set and Lockett was not setting it. When Jenkins
requested him to set it Lockett advised that he was not
going to do so. Jenkins thereupon called C. A. Scott,
advised Scott the work had to be done and that Lockett
was not doing it . Scott talked to Lockett on the telephone,
after which Lockett did the work , then proceeded to
knock Jenkins down . Jenkins advised Scott of the
occurrence . Scott proceeded to the plant , called Jenkins
and Lockett together and reprimanded Lockett for hitting
Jenkins. When Scott threatened to suspend Lockett,
Lockett responded that Scott would have to fire him,
because he would not accept a suspension . Jenkins advised
Scott that he had no objection to working with Lockett,
provided he was safe from bodily harm . There was no
further incident.
C. A. Scott asserted that Cooper is the head day
operator in the linotype department , with two operators
working under him, while Jenkins is the night head
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1009
operator, in charge of two or three people. Scott
acknowledged that Wilson is the night foreman on the
makeup floor, but denied that he was foreman insofar as
the linotype machines were concerned. Respondent would
assert one indicia of the supervisory capacity was that
supervisors received 2 week's vacation, while the other
employees received only I week's vacation. It is
undisputed that Jenkins receives only 1 week's vacation. It
is undisputed that the editors place copy on a barrel, from
which the linotype operators obtain it. C. A. Scott
asserted that Jenkins, if he had more than he could handle
in the area of classified ads, could assign that work to one
of the other operators. He asserted that Jenkins, if they
run out of copy, has the responsibility of obtaining
additional copy from the editors. He asserted that Jenkins
has authority to suspend people, or punch them out, for
violation of rules, such as sleeping on the job, or going
down the street on the clock. Scott asserted that Jenkins
"can even hire and fire, he hasn't used it, but he can do it,
certainly, he could do it until I overruled him." Scott's
explanation as to why Cooper received 2 week's vacation,
while Jenkins received only 1, was that Jenkins doesn't
have quite as much responsibility as Cooper. In support of
his contention that Cooper and Jenkins are supervisors,
Scott asserted that they could order mats and parts for
the machines, for repair.
Foreman Scott was asked to outline Cooper's duties as
assistant foreman. He responded that Cooper "handles the
operators on his shift. Now his duties would be if any
problem came up over there, he usually handles it. If he
can't handle it himself, he'll take it up with me." Asked to
specify the type of problems he was talking about,
Foreman Scott responded "Well, for instance, if your,
when it comes to getting copy for the machines, or if the
machines break down, or something of that sort." He then
stated that ordering parts for the machines was a part of
Cooper's job. He then explained that if a machine broke
down Cooper would go over and fix it or if he couldn't fix
it call a machinist . Asked specifically what authority he
had in exercising supervisory authority, Scott responded
that Cooper "has the authority to give them copy." Scott
then acknowledged that on many occasions he had seen
the employees help themselves to copy on the box next to
Cooper's machine. Scott acknowledged that the operation
of the linotype machine was Cooper's "primary job."
The court in the Beaver Meadow case" said : We quite
agree that Section 2(11) must be read disjunctively, that
the possession of any one of the Section 2(11) powers will
make one a supervisor, and that it is the fact of possession
of the power regardless of its nonexercise that is
determinative. See also Capital Transit Company, 114
NLRB 617, 618.
I am unable to find, from the credible evidence in this
record, that Anderson, Cooper or Jenkins, were vested
with or possessed any of the indicia of supervisory
authority specified in Section 2(11), including the ability
to effectively recommend . Assuming that Anderson may
have transmitted instructions from either C. A. Scott or
E. J. Scott to employees, there is no evidence from which
it could be concluded that it involved the use of
independent judgment. There is not a scintilla of evidence
of the nature or specifics of such instructions. Assuming
that Cooper and Jenkins may have obtained copy for the
linotypists, from the editors, there is no evidence that its
distribution required the use of independent judgment. The
fact is that Cooper and Jenkins did work requiring varied
sizes of type, including ads, and were paid on an hourly
basis for that reason, while the other linotype operators
prepared solid material and were paid by the galley.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find no evidence
which would sustain or support a finding that Anderson,
Cooper or Jenkins were or are supervisors.24 Accordingly
they are prrperly part of the unit.
The Authorization Cards of Wingfield and Young
John W. Henderson, an employee of Respondent since
August 1961, is a ludlo operator, printer and make-up
man. Henderson related that, on April 25, he handed a
union authorization card to A. D. Wingfield, Sr., having
first inquired if Wingfield wanted to sign it . Wingfield
responded in the affirmative, took the card and started to
fill it in. Henderson credibly related that the writing, as
distinguished from the printing, appearing on the card,
was placed thereon by Wingfield. The card reads:
I, A. D. Wingfield, Sr., hereby authorize Atlanta
Typographical Union No. 48, its agent or
representatives, to act for me as representative,
bargaining agent on all matters pertaining to rates of
pay, hours, or any and all condition or conditions of
employment.
Given under my hand and seal this 25th day of April
1967.
Rate of Pay $1.60
Date of Employment Address l Chestnut N W.
August 1967 Atlanta, Georgia
Employed By
Atlanta Daily World
The name, date, rate of pay, date of employment, and
address are all written in, the balance is printed. Since the
date of employment was August 1967, and since all other
cards were filled out in April, 1968, and in the light of the
testimony of Henderson, I find that the April 25, 1967,
date is erroneous and that it was in fact filled in on that
date in 1968.
General Counsel asserted that Wingfield is no longer
employed, that efforts to serve him with a subpoena were
unsuccessful and that he could not be located.
Arthur M. Gnann was president of the local from June
1967 to June 1968. Gnann identified the authorization
card of Roy Young as having been filled out, by Young,
at a group meeting at the Labor Temple, on May 25. The
card of Young, as the card of Wingfield, contains his
name and purported signature immediately after the word
1. After the words rate of pay there appears $1.95 per 20
inches, with the words 20 inches written on what is
intended to be a signature line. Gnann credibly related
that all of the writing on the card was placed thereon by
Young, except Gnann's signature as a witness. Gnann
asserted he did not notice that Young had not placed his
name on the signature line.
General Counsel asserted that Young was no longer
employed by Respondent, that efforts to obtain service of
a subpoena were unsuccessful, and that he had been
unable to locate Young for the purpose of having him
"N L.R.B. v. Beaver Meadow Creamery . 215 F.2d 247, 251 (C.A. 3). "See Hesston Corporation , inc., 175 NLRB No. 15.
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testify herein.
Respondent objects to the receipt or consideration of
these two cards on the grounds that they were not
properly executed.
General Counsel, in his brief, urges that the cards are
valid and should be counted toward establishing the
Union's majority 25
It is alleged, in the consolidated complaint, that the
Union requested and that Respondent failed and refused
to bargain on and after May 20. It appears undisputed
that the card of Roy Young was not obtained until May
25. Accordingly it cannot be counted toward the Union's
majority, on the key date of May 23, established by the
evidence. 26
In the McEwen case the Board held that an
authorization card can be validated by testimony of the
individual soliciting and obtaining the card. It is not fatal,
or a basis for rejection, that the employee, whose card it
is purported to be, fails to appear and validate, where
such a witness is unavailable.
In the Indiana Rayon case, supra, the Board found that
employees Holder and Masters inserted their name on a
line marked "Name" but did not supply the names on the
line marked "Signed " Both employees testified. The
Board found that both employees effectively designated
the Union as their representative "by filling out the
authorization cards."
In the Tattel case, supra, the Board noted that
Respondent had an ample opportunity to check the
authenticity of the signatures on the cards, by comparing
them with the payroll, and that Respondent made no
contention that the cards were not genuine.
In the Bird Machine case27 the Board rejected eight
unsigned cards as the record did not establish that the
employees named in the unsigned cards intended by such
cards to authorize the union to represent them.
In the Colton case, supra, the Board found that
employees had filled in their names, addresses,
occupations and wage rates. The Board held that although
the signatures appeared on the reverse or blank side of the
card the record conclusively establishes that the employees
thus signified their desire to join and be represented by the
Union.
Respondent relies on the finding of the court in
Engineers and Fabricators, Inc., v. N L.R B., 376 F.2d
482 (C.A. 5). This case is inapposite and treats with the
matter of misrepresentation in the obtaining of
authorization cards. With due deference to the Court, the
Board has declined to adopt this decision for reasons
stated in the McEwen case, supra, at footnote 37.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, I find that the
card of A. D. Wingfield, Sr., should be counted I find
that the Union, on May 23, had authorization cards from
17 of the 19 mechanical department employees.
Additional Unit Employees Urged by Respondent
Early in the hearing Respondent urged that an
additional 14 employees should be included in the unit.
Later in the hearing Respondent increased this number to
15 However, in his brief, Respondent urges only 4
additional employees belong in the unit.
Included in Respondent's first list, and thereafter
dropped were- Thomas Martin, assistant foreman, who
last worked on May 15; Emel Scott, Jr., son of Foreman
Scott
Included on both lists, submitted during the hearing,
and obviously ineligible for inclusion in the unit, for the
reasons stated, are: Emel Scott, Sr., whom Respondent
described as a ludlo machine operator, and whom C. A
Scott acknowledged was the superintendent and foreman;
Fred Wilson, Sr , night foreman, and Portia Scott, the
daughter of C. A. Scott, excludable by reason of being in
the employment of her father, as provided in Section 2(3),
as well as being only a part-time proofreader, who works
principally in editorial reporting. Respondent also, during
the hearing, withdrew the name of Sherri Floyd, an
editorial department employee, who fills in part time as a
proofreader. Others whom Respondent appears to no
longer contend should be included in the unit are Alfred
M. Hill, whom Anderson credibly described as a janitor,
who worked l night a week; William Turner, a 16-year
old schoolboy, whom Foreman Scott acknowledged
worked mainly in the circulation department, who worked
1 or 2 days a week, at the most, and whose work of
inserting [placing sections of the paper together], which
Respondent asserted was performed in the mechanical
department, is actually mailroom work.2B Respondent,
during the hearing, asserted 9 employees were press
helpers." In Respondent's brief this number is reduced to
the last 4 named.
The principal duties of these employees includes
catching the papers as they come off the press, having set
an automatic counter to obtain them in bundles of 30, 40,
50, or any other given number. There is only one
pressman on the day shift and one pressman on the night
shift, it is reasonable to conclude there was only one press
operating. Thus there is only one catcher working at a
time It would appear that each of these employees spends
one-half of his working time catching and the other half in
the following varied duties- Inserting , wrapping, tying,
preparing for mailing.
The principal contention of C. A. Scott and Foreman
Scott is that each of these individuals, whom they seek to
classify as press helper, aid the pressman to lift three to
five forms, carry them to the press and lock them in, the
helper locks one side while the pressman locks the other
side. This operation requires, at most, 15 minutes. If the
press runs out of paper, these employees also help the
pressman replace a roll of paper. From the schedule of the
printing, for the various papers produced, it is reasonable
to infer that insertion of the press plates would not occur
more than twice on each shift, thus requiring not more
than a total of 30 minutes; assistance from one or more
so-called helpers.3° According to Foreman Scott, Armour
and Lonnie Jones, the latter an 18-year old schoolboy,
split the night shift, alternating one-half at catching papers
and the other half preparing papers for mailing and doing
clean-up work. Goggins is described as a sweeper, who
also spent some time as a catcher. Grizzle, age 20 or 21, a
schoolboy, is a laborer who also did inserting. Foreman
"Citing McEwen Manufacturing and Washington Industries , Inc., 172
NLRB No 99, Indiana Rayon Corporation , 151 NLRB 1294 , 1295, Irving
Taitel , et al., 1 1 9 NLRB 910, 9 1 1 , fn 3; C A Froedge Delivery and
Trucking Services , Inc, 172 NLRB No . 8, Arthur L Colton and H A
Coleman and Company, 6 NLRB 355, 367, Verlon L Pulley and Carola
Pulley, 163 NLRB No. 145
"McEwen Manufacturing Company , supra , and fn 9
"Bird Machine Company. 65 NLRB 308, 312
"It is undisputed that Respondent did not have a separate mailroom, as
such , and the work of mailroom employees was performed adjacent to the
work of the mechanical department employees.
"Willie Armour, Wesley Goggins , Lewis Grizzle, Cecil Ramsey, Wendell
Scott, Gregory Ramsey, Lonnie Jones, Larry Searcy, Jr , and Namon
Julian.
"E J. Scott's tendency toward exaggeration is demonstrated by his
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1011
Scott described Namon Juhan, age 18, as having worked
until he returned to school, doing the same work as
Armour and Jones. Cecil Ramsey, age 15 or 17, is a
part-time mailroom employee. Foreman Scott described
Gregory Ramsey as a part-time shipping department
employee, who runs errands, as well as part-time helping
the pressman "put on forms," catching papers, melting
metal, wrapping for mailing and driving a truck. Wendell
Scott, son of Foreman Scott, according to C. A. Scott,
works in the circulation department at least half time, and
aids the bankman and pressman. No detail as to the
nature of the latter "aid" appears. Larry Searcy, Jr., age
17, who entered military service in early June, when his
school year ended did the work of press helper and
inserter.
It is obvious, and I find, that the work described, aiding
the pressman to lift forms and lock them on the press,
changing rolls of paper, setting an automatic counter,
lifting or catching stacks of 50 papers, inserting separate
sections to assemble the total daily edition [apparently
only on Thursday when the food section was added],
wrapping for mailing, etc., requires no skill, within the
normal use of that term in a newspaper plant. No claim
of a prerequisite of apprenticeship training is advanced.
No progression from mailroom duties to apprenticeship in
the mechanical department is asserted. Accordingly, I find
these employees do not have a community of interest with
the journeymen in the mechanical department.
Respondent's contention to the contrary is without merit.
The Board has consistently held that mailroom
employees in the newspaper industry do not possess the
essential attributes of craftsmen, no prior experience is
required to work in the mailroom, and there is no
apprenticeship program for training new employees. The
Republican Company, 169 NLRB No. 167; Knoxville
News-Sentinel Company. 138 NLRB 782, 783.
The Board has found that mailroom employees in the
newspaper industry are a well-defined functionally distinct
group who have been traditionally represented on a
separate departmental basis by the ITU or the
International Mailers Union. The Board stated that it has
consistently recognized that such mailroom employees
have a special community of interest and may constitute a
separate appropriate unit . The Bakersfield Californian,
152 NLRB 1683, 1684.
In establishing mailroom employees as a separate unit
the Board has distinguished between regular full-time and
regular part-time employees. Near the end of the hearing,
and to avoid unduly and unnecessarily extending it, the
parties were instructed to submit to the court reporter, by
stipulation, the timecards, for the weeks ending May 23
and June 6, covering both mechanical department
employees and those employees whom Respondent
contended should be included in the unit. These exhibits
were to be marked in a series commencing with
Respondent's 3-A and 4-A. The parties were also directed
to stipulate as to the payroll records of Respondent,
covering the same employees, for the same two periods, to
be marked Respondent's Exhibits 5-A and 6-A, in a
series. General Counsel, on January 10, has filed an
"objection" to the receipt of Respondent's exhibits
asserting that Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4 are not
identical to the original exhibits proffered at the hearing,
but are covered over with the Employer's adding machine
assertion that Armour spent at least half his time helping on the press It
appears that he was including the time the helper was catching papers.
computations, thus obliterating pencil computations which
had appeared on each timecard, also that only inaccurate
photocopies were proffered, and that Respondent failed to
file duplicates as required under Section 102.38 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. No
response to this objection has been filed. I find General
Counsel's objection well taken and Respondent's Exhibits
3 and 4 are rejected." However, General Counsel's
objection to the receipt of Respondent's payroll records
which are Respondent's 5-A, 5-B, 6-A, and 6-B is
overruled.
The payroll records for May 23 indicate the total
number of hours worked, by mailroom employees, were
less than 20 as to Grizzle, Juhan, Cecil Ramsey and
Wendell Scott. In the same period the following mailroom
employees worked more than 20 hours: Armour, Jones,
Gregory Ramsey and Larry Searcy. Goggins does not
appear on this payroll. On the payroll ending June 6 those
working less than 20 hours were Goggins, Grizzle and
Searcy. The others named worked in excess of 20 hours.
However, while the payroll records indicate substantial
overtime by the employees in the mechanical unit, the
only mailroom employee who worked in excess of 35
hours, in either of these two payroll periods, was Gregory
Ramsey, in the latter period. I am thus unable to find that
any of these mailroom employees could be characterized
as regular full-time employees.
The Requests for Bargaining
It is alleged, in the consolidated complaint, that on
May 20 and June 3 the Union requested Respondent to
bargain, that on those dates and on June 5 Respondent
refused, and has continued to refuse to bargain. The basic
facts relative to these events appear undisputed.
On May 6, by letter from Gnann, president of the local,
to C. A. Scott, the Union advised, inter alia, that it had
been authorized, in writing, by a substantial majority of
the employees "who performed composing room
operations" to represent them for the purposes of
collective bargaining. The letter then recited, "The
employees involved include all journeymen and
apprentices performing composing room operations such
as machine composition, machinist work, hand
composition, lockup and lineup work, proofreading, and
markup and layout work." The letter requested a meeting
for the purpose of negotiation. On May 10, C. A. Scott
responded, asserting, inter alia, that he did not know of
any dissatisfaction on the part of any employee in "our
mechanical department," that none of them had indicated
a desire for union representation. Scott then recited that
he was operating under the will of his late brother, and
under the Ordinary's Court of Fulton County, and that 11
legatees owned the business. Scott also advised that they
had been considering a changeover to off-set printing, for
several months. The letter concludes, "I shall talk with the
employees to determine what grievances they have. After
having talked with them I shall let you hear from me."
Robert S. McMichen, international representative of
the International, credibly related that on May 23,
accompanied by Gnann, former president of the local, and
Cross, current president of the local, he met with Scott, in
Scott's office.32 McMichen related that they requested
"An additional consideration in rejecting is the fact that the purported
dates in the payroll period, do not correspond to those imprinted by the
timeclock , which in turn reflect that the dates as compared to the day of
the week do not correspond to the calendar for the year 1968.
"I find of no consequence the fact that a Mr Fleming , purportedly a
representative of management, was present.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition and bargaining, and that Scott's reply was
that he was a legatee and had no authority to deal with
the Union. No question of majority status was raised."
McMichen credibly related that there was a followup
meeting, on June 3, with Scott, with the same individuals
representing the Union, at which time McMichen
presented a letter, of even date, signed by Gnann,
addressed to Scott, carrying a caption "Request for
Recognition." The letter advises that since the prior letter,
of May 6, additional mechanical department employees
had authorized the Union to represent them. The letter
asserted that the Union represented a majority of the
mechanical employees "performing type composition,
stereotyping and pressroom work" and requested
recognition and bargaining. The unit was described as:
All employees performing type composition, stereotyping
and pressroom functions, including such operations as
markup of copy, linotype operation, floor work and
makeup; advertising composition, lockup and lineup,
proof press operation, proofreading, stereotyping and
press operation; but excluding mailroom employees,
supervisors as defined in the Act and employees of all
other departments.
The letter concludes with a request that no changes me
made in wages, hours, or other conditions of employment,
and that no employee be laid off without first discussing
such matters with the Union. McMichen credibly related
that Scott laid the letter on his desk without reading it.
When McMichen requested that he read it, Scott became
abusive. McMichen then opened the letter and read the
last portion of it. McMichen then assured Scott that if
they could sit down they could agree on a contract. At
this point Scott requested that they leave."
On June 4, Gnann, by letter, advised Scott that since
Scott's request for time, to permit Scott to determine who
"Scott's version was that on Wednesday prior to May 6 , which the
calendar indicates would be May 1, although he was uncertain of the exact
date , he met Gnann and Lockett , a former employee, on the sidewalk in
front of his office building , and Gnann inquired as to the identity of Editor
Scott. They then proceeded to Scott 's office and Scott invited Fleming, an
associate , to join them. Gnann advised Scott that Gnann had a petition
"from some employees ." According to Scott, he advised Gnann that this
was quite a surprise as he had not heard of any complaints or
dissatisfaction . Gnann gave Scott the petition . Scott advised Gnann that
they were contemplating a changeover to off-set. Scott asserted he did not
look at the petition because he did not want the fact that he saw certain
names on the petition to influence what he was contemplating doing,
relative to a change to off-set . Scott asserted he did not make the changes
he had in mind because he did not want to appear to be showing any
reaction to the union situation On direct examination, Scott set the time
of his meeting with McMichen , Cross, and Gnann as being in June The
details of that meeting follow. On cross -examination , in response to a
question as to whether he met with Gnann , Cross, and McMichen on May
23, and was requested by them to recognize the Union, and in response,
advised them that he was administrator and could not deal with them, C
A Scott responded that he did not put it that way, that he said he was
administrator "and I couldn 't enter into any agreement with the Union .
because it would be a liability , personal liability to me ." Scott
acknowledged that the question of whether the Union represented a
majority did not come up
"Scott corroborated these assertions of McMichen . Scott also stated
that he "repeated to them " that he was operating as administrator, was
under bond , would be liable if anything happened , that he did not have
authority to go into a contract with them, but "we would discuss it from
time to time " Scott asserted that he had suggested that probably some
adjustments could be made to improve things , in the interest and welfare
of the employees , but that McMichen advised him not to do this . I do not
credit C. A. Scott' s assertion that McMichen advised that if he did grant
wage raises "that they wouldn 't need the Union."
should speak for the Atlanta Daily World in contract
negotiations, weeks had passed without answer. The
Union indicated its availability for a meeting.
On June 5, Scott, by letter, responded to the letter the
union representatives had left, at the time of their visit on
June 3. Scott advised, inter alia , that Scott thought it was
fairly clear "that because of the peculiar setup of our
paper it was impractical for me to go into the union issue
as administrator of my late brother's Estate which is
owned only by 11 members of the Scott family." Scott
asserted that he was "operating" as administrator under
authority of the Court of Ordinary of Fulton County; that
the employees were getting the bulk of the income from
the business; that the main motivation for the operation of
the newspapers was to provide a free independent daily
newspaper. Scott also asserted, "I have not seen the
original communication purported to show the number of
employees in the Mechanical Department who are
supposed to have asked you to represent them. Since the
Union issue, as I stated to you, some of the employees
stated they were withdrawing their request to you after
being told by me the inability and liability to me if I dealt
with this issue . I told them and I told you, if the Union
issue is pressed, I saw no alternative except for me to
close this Estate as soon as possible so the actual owners
could deal with the question." Scott then mentioned plans
he had had for the past year of changing to off-set. Scott
took exception to the portion of the union letter, of June
3, which indicated that he should not make any change in
wages, hours or conditions of employment, or lay off
employees, without first discussing those matters with the
Union, terming this direction "arbitrary and highhanded."
Scott again asserted that he did not have authority to deal
with the Union, that he intended to talk to his attorney
and then would be in touch with the Union.
After the filing of the initial charge, on July 2, and in
response to a communication from the Regional Director,
Scott, by way of response, on July 9, denied that his
conduct could be construed as refusing to recognize the
Union , denied engaging in conduct constituting restraint
or coercion, then set forth his operating function as
administrator, and his contemplated change to off-set,
including an assertion that he had sought to obtain
approval of the legatees to permit him to close the Estate
unsuccessfully. Scott asserted that he was seeking to avoid
personal liability. He acknowledged assuring the
employees that in the event of a changeover (to off-set) he
would do everything possible to protect their jobs. Scott
asserted that, since Scott's explanation of the situation to
the employees, that the employees do not desire to press
the union question. However, Scott acknowledged he did
not know how many employees were still interested in the
Union. Scott asserted that the proofreaders should not be
included in the unit. Scott asserted that the Union's
injunction, contained in the union letter of June 3, relative
to modification of wages, hours and other conditions of
employment, seriously handicapped Respondent's
operations. Scott suggested that the charges should be
dismissed.
On August 2, Scott, by letter to Gnann, in an asserted
effort to make his position clear to the Union, advised
that he was operating a family business and had requested
the Union and the employees "not to press the issue on
me as administrator ." Scott repeated that he lacked
authority and would assume personal liability if he
handled the issue, and requested delay until he could close
the Estate. Scott again called attention to the fact that,
during the first union visit, he had mentioned his plans for
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 1013
a changeover to off-set, that he was being "hamstrung" by
the Union's request that he make no changes. Scott
suggested that the Union should withdraw the charge
which had been filed with the Regional Director. Scott
inquired if the question of recognition was still sufficiently
urgent for him to close the Estate so that the owners
could deal with the issue.
On September 30, Cross, president of the local, issued a
progress report, (news release) inferentially to the
employees, advising of the issuance of the consolidated
complaint, noting , inter alia , that the composing room
employees were receiving a "sub-standard wage." On
October 7, Scott, by letter to Cross, took exception to the
news release, asserting that it contained untrue and
damaging information and requesting its recall.
There is no other evidence, in this record, relative to
the efforts of the Union to obtain recognition and
negotiation. Neither is there a scintilla of evidence that
Scott recognized or made any effort to meet with the
union representatives for the purpose of bargaining.
Transfer of Unit Work and Subcontracting
It is alleged, in the complaint in Case 10-CA-7540, that
on or about October 4, Respondent, unilaterally and
without notice to or consultation with the Union,
transferred work from its employees in the aforesaid unit
and assigned said work to nonunit employees. It is also
alleged that, on or about October 21, Respondent,
unilaterally and without notice to or consultation with the
Union, increased its subcontracting of bargaining unit
work. The evidence relative to these allegations is
interwoven and they are considered together.
C. A. Scott related that commencing in January 1966 a
supplement, otherwise identified herein as a food section,
printed only on Thursday, was produced by the off-set
method. It is obscure whether this food section had been
previously produced in the mechanical department, or
whether it was a new undertaking . While Scott asserted
that he had been telling the employees ever since 1965
that Respondent was going to change over to off-set, it is
obscure as to whether he was talking about the total paper
or only the food section ." In any event , no change in the
production of the daily paper ensued.
Anderson credibly related the difference between the
production of a newspaper by what is termed the "hot
type method" and the off-set production of a paper by
what is termed a "cold process." Under the hot type
method, by which the daily news section of the Atlanta
Daily World is produced a linotype operator types directly
from a piece of copy which is typed out in individual lines,
gathered into a form , proofread and assembled on the
bank, to later be placed in the chase. The work of a
linotype operator is done with hot metal which produces
letters, words and lines of type, similar to the end product
of a typewriter. Single and double column cuts and ads,
with varied sizes of type are prepared, on some occasions,
in the form of engraved plates, which are also proofread,
transferred to a chase, and submitted to the makeup
"Scott's precise language was : "They have been hearing me talk about it
[changeover to off-set] since '65, and we have started, out of necessity,
printing the food section in January of '66, because we couldn't handle it,
our production and so forth. And we were forced to print this supplement,
beginning in January of 1966, and I told them in the changeover we would
- I'd - because I was interested in our welfare, like I have been all these
years. That I would do all I could to protect their jobs in the changeover
And I told them positively and definitely that there would be a
changeover."
department and locked into a form, placed on the press,
from which the newspaper is printed. The ludlo produces
certain type heads, similar to a linotype, but with varied
sized characters or mats. A ludlo stick has a width of 22
picas. Once the ludlo stick is assembled into a mat hot
lead is forced into the back of the mat and produces what
is known as a slug. These lines are used for heads for
large type ad compositions ranging from 12 points to 84
points. Some ads are made from slicks which were cast in
the stereotype section which created plates which were
placed on wood blocks and prepared for printing.
Anderson identified the food section of the Atlanta
Daily World issue of Thursday, October 31, as a sample
of off-set production, which was prepared in the
advertising department, as distinguished from the
mechanical department. Anderson described a varatyper,
which produces print which is the equivalent of linotype
print, except it does not make an impression , but produces
a tape which can then be pasted on a piece of paper, or
layout, for photographing, from which off-set is produced.
The varatyper is also known as a junto-writer. These
machines replace the need for the hot type produced by
the linotype, as well as the larger size type produced on
the ludlo. Anderson's assertion, which appears undisputed,
is that the justo-writer work was done in the advertising
department, next to the executive office. It appears
undisputed that the Atlanta Daily World does not perform
the reproduction of off-set, rather it is subcontracted to
Dekalb New Era, which prints the food section for the
Atlanta Daily World. The food section is then returned to
Respondent, to be included with the daily paper as an
insert, on Thursdays. The normal daily paper, including
news and advertising, is from 6 to 8 pages. Anderson
credibly related that prior to the union campaign the food
section insert was similarly from 6 to 8 pages. Since that
time the food section has been enlarged, by the transfer of
ads which formerly appeared in the news section, and has
run from 10 to 12 pages. Anderson's assertion that prior
to the union campaign a portion of the food section was
made in the stereotype department, which is part of the
mechanical department, stands undisputed.
Anderson asserted that the justo-writer machines were
acquired and appeared in Respondent's executive offices,
for the first time, during the month of September, and
were placed into use in October. Anderson asserted that
the food section, produced for the issue of Thursday,
October 17, was entirely off-set production. This
particular issue is 10 pages. The food section for
Thursday, October 24, was similarly 10 pages in length. I
find it unnecessary to detail, at length, Anderson's
testimony relative to the elimination of the process of
making a lead plate in the stereotype department and
substituting pasteups for that and for what had formerly
been linotype and ludlo department work, and the
substitution of a photo-off-set process. Anderson's
assertion that no one in the mechanical department had
been assigned to operate the justo-writer stands
undisputed and is credited.31
Anderson related that a result of the enlargement of the
food section was the transfer of work formerly done in the
mechanical department to off-set copy production,
produced outside the mechanical department. Anderson
related that, in a conversation with C. A. Scott, on May
"I find of iso consequence the effort of Respondent to establish that
off-set results in more readable print. I also find of no consequence the
effort of Respondent to establish that advertisers were requesting that their
ads be placed in the off-set section.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10, Scott advised that Crane, of the Dekalb New Era,
agreed to train employees in the operation of off-set, and,
Anderson credibly related that Scott asserted that if the
employees would cooperate and go along with him [by
abandoning the Union] he was certain they could do the
off-set work. The alternative was that Scott would farm
the paper out." Anderson acknowledged that, inferentially
prior to the advent of the Union herein, the use of off-set
as a method of cheaper production was under
consideration, by Scott. However, no definite resolution
ensued, prior to the acquiring of the justo-writers in
September.
President John W. Cross credibly related that, while the
Union had previously requested Administrator Scott not
to make any changes in working conditions of the
employees in the unit, Respondent had not notified the
Union relative to the increase in sub-contracting work, or
bargained with the Union in regard thereto.
C. A. Scott asserted they have been printing the food
section since 1966, starting with 6 pages and 8 pages, and
sometimes 10 pages. Scott asserted they had never done
any work "in our plant," inferentially the mechanical
department, oil the food section. This statement may be
partially accurate. However, as a minimum , some of the
ads which were formerly placed in the news portion of the
paper, on occasion, now appear in the food section, and
this work, formerly done in the mechanical department, is
now produced under the new process. Thus, Scott's denial
that the use of off-set has affected the work of the
mechanical unit, is inaccurate. Scott's denial that he
threatened to "farm out" work is not credited. While
Scott denied that the food section had been enlarged, since
the advent of the Union, he adknowledged "If we get a
new ad and have to make it a little larger, but that's all, a
pasteup, there's no composition, no work to it" is at best
an evasion, and an indirect admission, as asserted by
Anderson, that ads which formerly appeared in the news
section now appear in the food section.38 Scott then
acknowledged that, prior to the advent of the Union, part
of the food section had been produced by the "hot type
method "" In the light of the entire record, I do not credit
the assertion of Scott that the production of additional
ads in the food section, by the off-set process, was a result
of requests from advertisers.
Scott acknowledged that the justo-writer machines were
not leased until after the Union made its bargaining
demand. Scott acknowledged that the justo-writers were
placed at the location of his office, as distinguished from
the plant, which is in a separate building. His explanation
was that there was no room to put anything else in the
plant. Scott acknowledged that he did not assign linotype
operators to the operation of the justo-writer machines.
Scott acknowledged the work done on the junto-writers
could also be done on a linotype machine, and the end
product is basically the same.
To the extent the testimony of Anderson is at variance
with that of C. A. Scott, relative to the use of the off-set
"I am not impressed with Respondent 's effort to discredit Anderson, on
the ground that on two occasions he worked as an election official, on days
when he reported to the plant that he was ill.
"Similarly I find unimpressive Scott 's denial that they had "purchased"
two Iusto-writers, asserting that they had been "leased " Similarly
unimpressive was Scott 's explanation as to the reason for the leasing of the
,gusto-writers, "because our present manpower , linotypers , we can ' t do our
work "
"However this response was obtained only after an unsuccessful effort
by Scott to evade a direct answer by asserting that "practically" the entire
food section was produced by the cold process.
process, before and after the advent of the Union, I credit
Anderson.
The Suspension of Holsey
It is alleged that, on October 21, Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union concerning the "termination" of
Holsey.
Holsey acknowledged that he had had a dispute with
the night foreman, Fred L. Wilson, followed by a
conversation with C. A. Scott. The episode with the
foreman occurred on Thursday, September 19, and his
conversation with Scott was on Monday, September 23.
Scott advised Holsey that he was suspended if he did not
apologize to the foreman for having used profanity.
Subsequently, 4 or 5 weeks later, Holsey went to the plant
and Foreman Scott inquired if he was ready to go back to
work. Holsey responded that if Scott wanted him to work
he would work. Holsey has worked ever since.
President John W. Cross related that he was advised,
inferentially by Holsey, that Holsey had been suspended,
on September 19, because of a disagreement with one of
the supervisors. Cross related that he advised the Union's
attorney, who, in turn, wrote to the attorney for the
Respondent requesting a meeting to discuss the grievance.
This letter was forwarded under the date of October 21
and remains unanswered.
Since this incident is at most cumulative to the primary
question of Respondent's duty to recognize and bargain,
in good faith, I find it unnecessary to resolve the question
of whether the Respondent's failure to enter into a
grievance procedure, where no contract was in existence,
constitutes an independent violation of Section 8(a)(5).
Concluding Findings
Respondent, in his brief, asserts that he "relies heavily
on the failure of the Union to give proper demand letter
for recognition of its majority status." C. A. Scott
asserted that he did not think that he refused to recognize
the Union, "because we had been talking - had two or
three talks about this situation." Asked if he had ever sat
down with the Union and discussed wages, hours and
working conditions, C. A. Scott responded "We never got
up to that point " Asked if during the first visit of the
union representatives, to his office, Scott asked them to
talk to the employees about dropping the Union and
expressed a hope that the issue would not be pressed on
him as administrator, Scott responded "I may have done
that with ya'll, I probably did."
I have found that, on May 23, the Union represented a
majority of the employees, 17 of a total of 19, in an
appropriate unit, as described supra, and made an
appropriate request for recognition and bargaining. On
that date, and other dates thereafter, Respondent, without
expressing doubt as to the existence of the Union's
majority, or advancing any other reason constituting a
basis for a good-faith doubt, has engaged in dilatory
tactics, including conduct violative of the provisions of
Section 8(a)(l), in an effort to gain time to undermine the
Union, and has utterly failed and refused to meet its
statutory obligation. There can be little doubt that
Respondent hopes that lightning will strike twice and, as
noted in footnote 8, supra, it may be inferred hopes
perhaps the people who were interested in the Union will
get other jobs and Respondent will have nobody to
negotiate with, as he asserted occurred in 1942, after the
Hunt decision.
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD
General Counsel correctly urges that Respondent's
consistent pattern of unlawful conduct clearly indicates
that Respondent rejected the collective-bargaining
principle and sought only to undermine the Union and
dissipate its majority. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB
1263, enfd. 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341
U.S. 914.
General Counsel also urges that the unilateral changes
to the cold process, the leasing of justo-writer machines to
perform functions formerly performed by linotype
operators, the assignment of this cold process work to
non-unit employees, and the unilateral increase in
subcontracting work are likewise violative of the
provisions of Section 8(a)(5), under the circumstances
which this record reveals.40
Respondent's asserted defense that he was an
administrator, I find, to be nothing more than a facade,
without substance, for reasons explicated at length in the
1942 decision of Trial Examiner Hunt. In this connection
I call particular attention to the provision of Georgia
Code 113-1523,01 which provides:
An administrator may exercise his discretion in
continuing the business of his intestate until the
expiration of the current year. Up to the time of sale or
distribution the administrator shall manage and dispose
of the property of the estate for the best interests of the
estate.
The decedent's demise occurred in 1934. C. A. Scott's
desire for time to close the estate, to permit the legatees
to become successors to the business, must be considered
a wornout record, since the same premise was advanced in
1942. Respondent's assertions, in this area, must be found
to be without substance.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find that
Respondent's failure and refusal to recognize and bargain
with the Union, on and after May 23 and June 3, 1968,
was not occasioned by any doubt, in good faith or
otherwise, concerning the Union's majority status, and
constituted conduct violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. I also find Respondent's transfer of unit work to
nonunit employees, thereafter, and the enlargement of
subcontracting, relative to the food section, of work
formerly done by unit employees, without bargaining with
the Union relative thereto, likewise constituted conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and such of them as
have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend
to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
"Citing. Philadelphia Typographical Union , Local No. 2, 142 NLRB 36,
42, 43; Phototype, Inc., 145 NLRB 1268; Town & Country Manufacturing
Co., Inc.. 136 NLRB 1022, enfd 316 F.2d 846 (C.A. 5); Fibreboard Paper
Products Corp v N.L R.R. 379 U.S. 203, Dixie Ohio Express Company,
167 NLRB No. 72.
"Appearing in the earlier Decision.
V. THE REMEDY
1015
Having found that Respondent has engaged, and is
engaging, in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with Atlanta Typographical Union
No. 48 as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the unit herein found to be appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from in any like or related manner
infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All mechanical department employees at
Respondent's Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including
composing room employees, stereotyping employees and
pressroom employees, but excluding office clerical
employees, mailroom department employees, news
department employees, editorial department employees,
advertising and circulation department employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since May 23, 1968, Atlanta
Typographical Union No. 48 has been the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
5. By failing and refusing, on and after May 23, 1968,
to bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor
oganization, by transferring, unilaterally and without
notice to or consultation with the Union, work performed
by unit employees to nonunit employees, commencing in
October, 1968, and by increasing its subcontracting by the
addition of bargaining unit work, on and after October 17,
1968, unilaterally and without notice to or consultation
with the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the Section
entitled Interference, Restraint and Coercion, to the extent
therein found, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record of the case,
I recommend that the Respondent , C. A. Scott,
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individually and as administrator d/b/a Atlanta Daily
World, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All mechanical department employees at Respondent's
Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including composing room
employees, stereotyping employees and pressroom
employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
mailroom department employees, news department
employees, editorial department employees, advertising
and circulation department employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Transferring, unilaterally and without notice to or
consultation with the Union, work performed by unit
employees to non-unit employees, or increasing its
sub-contracting by the addition of bargaining unit work.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their
organizational activities in a manner violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(d) Threatening employees with the elimination of jobs,
less desirable working conditions, or economic reprisals,
or asserting the futility of employees exercising Section 7
rights by organizing, or threatening a discontinuance of
the work performed by the employees and an increase of
subcontracting, or advising the employees of the futility of
the exercise of such rights because Respondent did not
have to bargain with the Union.
(e) Soliciting employees: to persuade fellow employees
to abandon, or refrain from engaging in activities on
behalf of the Union; or to bargain directly with
Respondent, rather than designate and select a union as
their representative; or to remove their names from and
withdraw a petition designating the Union as
collective-bargaining representative
(f) Promising employees continued employment and
improved working conditions if they would abandon, or
refrain from, engaging in activities on behalf of the
Union.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing, its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Atlanta Typographical
Union No. 48, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Restore as work for unit employees all work done
in the mechanical department prior to the advent of the
Union, and discontinue such sub-contracting as may
exceed the use of off-set in excess of that used prior to
May 23, 1968.
(c) Post at its plant, and at its executive office, in
Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed
by Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including each of Respondent's
bulletin boards. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Recommended Order, what steps he has taken to comply
therewith. It is further recommended that unless the
Respondent shall, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Recommended Order, notify the said Regional Director,
in writing, that he will comply with the foregoing
Recommended Order" the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of
paragraph 22 of the consolidated complaint be dismissed.
"In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps he has
taken to comply therewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended we hereby notify our employees
that:
I WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, I will embody such understanding in a signed
contract. The bargaining unit is:
All mechanical department employees, at our Atlanta,
Georgia, operation, including composing room
employees, stereotyping employees and pressroom
employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
mailroom department employees, news department
employees, editorial department employees, advertising
and circulation department employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
I WILL NOT transfer, unilaterally and without notice
to or consultation with the Union, work performed by
unit employees to nonunit employees, or increase
subcontracting by the addition of bargaining unit work.
I WILL restore as work for unit employees all work
done in the mechanical department prior to the advent
of the Union, and discontinue such subcontracting as
may exceed the use of off-set in excess of that used
prior to May 23, 1968.
I WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their organizational activities in a manner violative of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
I WILL NOT threaten employees with the elimination
of jobs, less desirable working conditions, economic
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD
reprisals, or the futility of employees exercising Section
7 rights by organizing, or a discontinuance of the work
performed by the employees by an increase of
subcontracting, or advise the employees of the futility
of exercising such rights because I do not have to
bargain with the Union.
I WILL NOT solicit employees: To persuade fellow
employees to abandon , or refrain from engaging in
activities on behalf of the Union; or to bargain directly
with me, rather than designate and select a union as
their representative; or to remove their names from and
withdraw a petition designating the Union as
collective- bargaining representative.
I WILL NOT promise employees continued
employment and improved working conditions if they
would abandon, or refrain from, engaging in activities
on behalf of the Union.
I WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce, my employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Atlanta Typographical
Union No. 48, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
1017
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees have the right to join, or not to join,
Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48, or any other union
Dated By
C. A. SCOTT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
ADMINISTRATOR D/B/A
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone
404-526-5741.