Atlanta Daily World

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ATLANTA DAILY WORLD - 159
C. A: Scott; Individually and as Administrator d/b/a
Atlanta , Daily - World' -and Atlanta Typographical
TJninh` No. 48. Cases 10--(,',A-7875 and
10-CA-8136
July 21, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY' ME'MBERs FANNn. G, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
On April 1, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders
issued his Decision in the,above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in - certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached "Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed 'exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with 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 these cases to a, three-
memberpanel.
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 these cases,' and hereby.adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
The Trial - Examiner found -that Respondent's
employees went out on strike on April 1, 1969, in
protest over the discriminatory discharge of employee
Joe Anderson. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we
agree, that Anderson, was discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(3)",and (1);of the Act and, ,, therefore, the
strike is an unfair labor practice strike. He also found
that, by. letters -dated May 29and December 16, 1969,
the striking' employees through their -Union made
unconditional offers to return to work and that
Respondent violated the Act by refusing to reinstate
these employees on May 29,1969.
In reaching' this conclusion, the Trial Examiner
relied` solely upon the `two' betters and did not give
sufficient weight to the substantial evidence that the
offers were
"in,
fact, conditioned on the reinstatement
of Anderson. The record reveals that in spite of the
letters the Respondent understood the Union's
position to be that. everybody, including Anderson,
must be reinstated. - The testimony of the Union's
International representative with regard to the De-
cember 26,'1969, negotiating session tends to corrobo-
rate this position. It is well-settled that any request for
192 NLRB No. 30
reinstatement which is conditioned on removing the
cause of the strike is not an unconditional offer.2
Therefore,we find that as the Union's applications for
reinstatement were conditional, -they were not valid.
Respondent had no legal. obligation to honor the
requests and its refusal toreinstate the strikers was not
violative of the Act. Accordingly, we do not-adopt the
Trial Examiner's remedy with regard to the reinstate-
ment of the strikers and shall amend the Order in this
respect.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of, the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed 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, with the following
modifications: `
1. Delete, paragraph 2(b) and redesignate para-
graphs 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), and 2(f) as paragraphs 2(b),
2(c), 2(d), and 2(e), respectively.
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
entire record in this proceeding, including the exceptions and brief,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
2 Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 134 NLRB 338, 404; E. A.
Laboratories, Inc., 80 NLRB 625, 671.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER- OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE 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,
embody such agreement in a sign contract. The
bargaining unit is:
All mechanical department employees, at our
Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including com-
posing room employees, stereotyping em-
ployees and pressroom - employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, mailroom
department employees, news department
employees, editorial department employees,
advertising and circulation department em-
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR; RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally transfer or discontin-
ue work performed by unit employees without
notice to or consultation with the Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against , employees because they engage in
lawful strike =activity.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
above-named labor organization or in any other
labor organization of our employees , by discrimi-
nating against our employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment , except as permitted by Section
$(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Joe Anderson immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent
position and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of all discrimination against
him as provided in the Trial Examiner's Decision.
All our employees are free to 'becomeor remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining, members in
good standing of the , above-named Union or any
other labor organization.
C. A. SCOTT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
ADMINISTRATOR _D/B/A
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and mustnot be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree
Street, ' N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone
404-526-5760.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner: On July 24, 1969,
Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 'herein called the
2 All credibility resolutions - made herein based on a composite
evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the
evidence as a whole.
2 ,1 have taken official , notice of Case 10-CA-1095, also identified as
x-0,1095, in which Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued a decision on
November 12, 1942, involving the same Respondent, et. al., on which no
appeal was filed , and on which no subsequent Board action ensued. I have
Union, filed the original charge in Case 1 0--CA-7875
against , C, A. - Scott individually, and ' as administrator
d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, herein called the Company or
Respondent, and on January 23, 1970, the Union ' filed the
original charge in Case 10-CA-8136 against the
Company. Subsequent to, the above dates amended charges
were filed in both cases . On October 14, 1970, the two cases
were consolidated by the Regional , Director and the
complaint issued The General Counsel and the Respon-
dent filed briefs in this , matter and I have duly considered
the same.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a proprietorship d/b/a Atlanta Daily
World, with the_ principal office , and place of business
located in Atlanta,, Georgia, where Respondentis 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 national wire service, publishes nationally
syndicated features, and advertises national brand prod-
ucts. I find that Respondent is an employer .engaged in
commerce within the'meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.2
H. 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.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The basic issues raised in the instant , case are whether the
Respondent discharged employee Joe L. Anderson' on-
March 31, 1969, in violation of the Act; whether the strike
on or about April 1, 1969, was an 'unfair labor practice
strike-was it primarily -precipitated by the Respondent's
discharge of Joe 'Anderson , and whether or not during
October 1969 the Respondent violatediSection ' 8(aX5) and
(1) of the Act by its unilateral changes without prior notice,
to or consultation with the Union---specifically-did
Respondent discontinue its "hot type" printing process, and
utilize its "cold type" process for all its printing. operations
and thereby eliminate jobs of employees in the unit.
After the demise of his brother W. A. Scott, II, in 1934, C.
A. Scott 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 that' C. A.
also taken official notice of Cases 10-CA-7405, 10-CA-7437, and
10-CA-7540, in which Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued a decision'-in
April 30, 1969, involving the same parties as in the instant proceeding. On
December 9, 1969, the Board- with minor- modifications adopted the Trial
Examiner's findings. See , C.A. Scott, Individually and as Adnnnistraur d/b/a
Atlanta Daily World and Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48, ' 179'NLRB '
999, and this decision will be referred to herein as'the prior proceeding. -'
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 161
Scott since 1934 has been the editor, general manager, and
operating head of the business enterprise. C. A. Scott and
E: J. Scott, foreman of the mechanical department, also
referred to herein as Emel Scott, are and were at all times
material supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of
the Act. Again in the instant case Respondent contended
that Joe Anderson was a supervisor. However, this issue
was fully litigated and completely discussed in the prior
proceeding, and there was a finding therein of insufficient
evidence to support any conclusions that Anderson was a
supervisor, and subsequent to the dates of the prior
proceeding and up until Anderson was discharged on
March 31, 1931, there was no evidence indicating any
change from his old duties of job.3
Joe L. Anderson, an hourly paid ludlo machine operator,
had been employed by the Respondent since 1959.
Anderson and about- 11 other mechanical department
employees signed union authorization cards in April 1968.
Anderson stated he was chairman of the negotiating
committee and was later appointed as spokesman for unit
employees.
In the prior proceeding the Respondent was found to
have solicited the aid of employees in persuading other
employees to abandon their efforts to obtain union
representation, -sought to bargain directly with employees,
solicited-employees to withdraw their names from a petition
designating the Union as their - representative, promised
employees continued employment and improved condi-
tions if they would abandon union activities, threatened
employees with economic reprisals and loss of jobs if they
persisted m seeking union representation, threatened
employees with an assertion of futility in their efforts to
obtain union representation, threatened that employees
could not be represented by a union as set forth in Section 7
of the Act, and , threatened to discontinue the work
performed by his employees, in an appropriate unit, and
subcontract said work, if the employees continued to,
support the Union and engage in activities on its behalf.
In the prior proceeding it was also found that on May 23,
1968, the Union represented a majority of employees in an
appropriate unit, and the same unit with majority status is
alleged in the instant complaint:
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 employ-
ees,- editorial department employees, advertising and
circulation department employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
Joe Anderson was a key witness at the trial or hearings in
the prior proceeding in November and December 1968, and
his version as to what transpired was credited over that of
Respondent C. A. Scott and E. J. Scott, the latter being
3 Contentions of the Respondent made in its motion to dismiss involve
several matters previously decided by the Board adversely to the
Respondent and matters necessitating the establishment of factual issues
presented in `the instant hearing and considered later herein . In all other
respects I am in accord with the order of November 10, 1970, denying
Respondent's motion to dismiss, all duly reflected in the formal papers and
record in this case.
4 Operation Breadbasket is an arm of the Southern Christian Leadership
Anderson's immediate supervisor, and there can be no
question but that his testimony was highly instrumental in
successfully establishing this prior case against -the
Respondent.
The record in the instant case shows that in the middle of
February 1969 the employees in the mechanical depart-
ment or unit decided they should also approach an
organization known as Operation Breadbasket.4 Anderson
was designated by his fellow employees as their spokesman
and was to present their grievances with the hope that
outside help would "speed up" the acceptance of the Union
by the Company. At this first meeting with Operation
Breadbasket in February 1969, Anderson gave them a list
of their employee grievances-aestroom conditions, low
salaries, no insurance, lack of cleanliness, and possibly
various other items of this nature.
During the second week in March 1969, Anderson and
other mechanical employees of the Respondent again met
with the Atlanta chapter of Operation Breadbasket. On this
occasion Anderson restated their grievances, and Operation
Breadbasket then selected their own committee to meet
with - C. A. Scott and discuss these grievances with him.
Pastor F. H. Dorsey of the local Tabernacle Baptist Church
was one of the ministers selected, on, the .committee to
consult with C. A. Scott, and this, committee did so
immediately following this second meeting with Anderson
and other employees.
Reverend Dorsey testified that at this meeting with C. A.
Scott they were asked to identify the name of the-
spokesman from the employees who had contacted
Operation Breadbasket. Rev. Dorsey stated that after some
hesitation they finally divulged that Joe Anderson was the
spokesman.- C. A. Scott told Dorsey there would be no
reprisals against Anderson, but Scott then referred to him
as a "troublemaker." Shortly thereafter Rev. Dorsey
informed Anderson "to be careful" because his name was
given to Scott as spokesman of the employees who' had
contacted Operation Breadbasket. A. noted this incident
happened about 2 weeks prior to the discharge of
Anderson.
The Respondent assigns two main reasons for the
discharge of Anderson - (1) that he received pay from the
Company after reporting that he was sick on September 25,
1968, when in fact he was working at the election polls, and
(2) on February 22, 1969, a lock was broken on a rear door
in the mechanical department building and C. A. Scott felt
that Anderson should have informed management about
this incident as in their judgement he was a supervisor.5
Anderson admitted he worked at one of the country
runoff- election polls on September 25, 1968, but stated this
fact was brought out in November and December 1968
during the hearings in the prior proceeding and testified
that C. A. Scott was in the courtroom at the time and heard
all the details in relation thereto. Anderson stated he could
Conference with local branches, and is largely composed of ministers who
work within and throughout black communities attempting to improve
working conditions of employees and also trying to upgrade black
personneL
5 At this time no decision had been made in the prior proceeding
wherein the supervisory status of Anderson had been litigated, as
aforestated.
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not remember if he had called into the Respondent's plant
on the date in questionand reported sick; but the company
did pay him for 8 hours of work-on September 25, 1968,
while working at the polls. Anderson further related that a
few days afterwards he had been questioned by E. J. Scott
about his alleged sickness and had then offered to give E. J.
Scott a doctor's certificate if necessary.6
E. J. Scott testified that his brother C. A. Scott was
going to discharge Anderson at the time he found out
Anderson worked at the election'polls and had received 'pay
on the same day from the Company, but he disagreed with
his brother on the discharge of Anderson because there was
a shortage of printers in the Negro race and then stated his
position on this matter had not changed.
C. A. Scott related in his testimony - that Anderson
wrote the words "sick leave" and "V. A. hospital",on' his
timeclock card for September 25, 1968, and he considered
this written falsification since he worked at the polls on this
date-He also stated that during the 1968 hearings in the
prior proceeding he first learned that Anderson had worked
at the polls and testified that because of this he composed a
discharge letter to Joe Anderson which he originally dated
January 4, 1968 , but then did not mail or deliver this letter
due 'to "legal aspects" and shortage of help. This somewhat
mysterious letter also has a March 10 , 1969 , date on it.T
Respondent's `former truckdriver Kurtis Allen testified
that on February 22, 1969, employeeJesse Ector picked up
a hammer and brokea padlock on the rear door of the shop
buildi_ng.8 Allen stated that Joe Anderson was present at the
time' and had " observed Ector breakinE^ the -lock, but
Anderson told Allen he had not seen,anything and was only
hired to see that the work was done . Allen then testified that
a-few days later he himself "confessed" to breaking the lock
because he and his family were being continually
threatened by other employees , and, as a result of his taking
the blame for breaking the lock , he was the one'fired.
Jesse Ector stated flatly in his testimony -that he did not
break the lock in question, but on or about ' February 24,
1969, he was nevertheless suspended for doing so. However,
after Kurtis Allen -confessed ' that he was that one who broke
the lock , he (Ector) was reinstated to his job without loss of
pay.
Joe Anderson -revealed that his first knowledge of the
broken lock was sometime between -9, and 11 a.m., on
February 22,'1969 , when employee Gregg Ramsey showed
him the lock in - the shop dressing room . Anderson stated
that during the afternoon he admitted to E. J . Scott that-he
knew about the -broken lock, but he told E. J. Scott he did
not know who broke it. Anderson testified that later in the
afternoon C. A. Scott came down to the shop building and
talked to him and others about ,this matter, and Anderson
repeated- to C. ' A. Scott that he did not,know who had
broken the lock. In subsequent respects Anderson corrobo-
rated the testimony of Allen and Ector , as aforestated, but
also testified he had no idea that part'of his job was the
protection of the Company property.
6 Anderson also worked at'the election ,polls in early November 1968
and, although he was not paid by the Company on this date, C. A. Scott
considered it "falsification" since he informed them he was at the V. A.
Hospital. However, this incident does not appear to be a specific reason for
the discharge.
7 See Resp . Exh. 1.
According to E. J. Scott, Andersonwas in' the shop when
the lock was broken, stated that when he asked, about it
Anderson denied knowing anything, about, the lock
incident, testified that a few days, later Kurtis Allen told
management that Ector was the one who had,broken- the
lock, but that on or about February 25, 1969, Allen himself
took the blame because of threats by, other employees and
Ector was then- given his, job back.; E._ J. Scott stated that
after this incident he did not trust Anderson.
6." A. Scott reiterated the events as indicated above but
stated he felt that Anderson was in aposition to'know who
broke the lock, although upon his investigation he "got no
understanding out of `anyone. Nobody knew anything
about the lock being broke."
In late afternoon on March 31, 1"969, `C.' A. Scott
informed Anderson that he was ,being terminated, and at
this time also attempted to give him a discharge letter which
Anderson refused to take, and Anderson was then ordered
off the premises.. Scott then discussed his `,discharge ,of
Anderson with the day shift unit people and later" that
evening returned to discuss Anderson's discharge with the
unit employees on the night, shift. On or about April „'1,
1969, Anderson received the discharge letter; it set forth the.
fact that he' had-"okayed" 8 hour's pay for sick leave `oi
September 25, 1968, when in reality he had worked at the
polls, as aforestated. C. A. Scott also mentioned'in his letter
that Anderson 'was still owing "the Company'a past due
account for newspapers he had collected for but failed to
remit to the Company. Anderson admitted he had previous
discussions with management about this b_ ill, but testified
for several years the Company had been'_deducting"$5'to
$10 a week out of his paychecks for reimbursement,
purposes.
Anderson testified that'the first thing he did on' the
morning of April 1, 1969, was to talk to employed Jesse`'
Ector about his "discharge and told Ector he,had been fired
for taking `sick leave in September, 1968. 'Ector then went
into the shop or plant and told the mechanical employees
"to hit the clock" and, after so informing E. J'. Scott, they
left the shop building and went to union headquar ter_s,
On or about April 3, 1969, the, mechanical employees,
union - agents, and management people gathered at' the
union hall, and the employees' committee let it be known,
that they were "out" because -Anderson" had'been'fired.
Circulation' Manager ' William A. Scott ' then `-made a
proposaL' which, provided that all, parties^`and"individuals
return-to the "status quo" as of March 3i, 1969, that "the
Company 'would negotiate, "with the .:Union,' - and, also
proposed that Anderson's ` discharge would be made subject
to arbitration. After various ' discussions C. A. Scott
announced that he would not agree with this'proposal; and
as a result very little if anything was accomplished at `this
meeting and the-work stoppage or strike by the mechanical
employees contirtued.9
The General Counsel produced credited testimony
through Sadie Cash, Milton Searcy, Ernest Arnold, John
8 Respondent's office is located at 143„ Auburn Avenue, in Atlanta,-
while the printing plant and mechaniccal departmneqi,(shop) is located about
one block away atc210 Auburn Avenue, in a separate building.
e While the strike started on April- 1,' 1969, a vote on the same was not
taken according to Ector , until April 4 and 'a picket- line was then
established on April 5, 1969.
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD
Henderson,i Jesse Ector, Louis Reed, John Drake, and
Calvin Keither to the effect that the strike or work stoppage
in the mechanical department on April 1, 1969, was
precipitated by the discharge of Anderson, and all testified
this was the reason they were out. It appears that at least 75
percent of the mechanical-employees took part in the strike
on April 1.
By letter dated June 5, 1969, C. A. Scott notified
Anderson ^ that one of the reasons he had been discharged
was because of the broken lock incident on February 22,
1969, as previously, detailed. Anderson testified this was the
first indication he had received that the circumstances
surrounding the lock situation were being,used against him.
While this record is somewhat confusing as to specific
dates,- there is a showing that prior to the middle of June
1969 the Respondent had further meetings with representa-
tives of Operation Breadbasket and agents of the Union in
relation to the discharge of Anderson and - the - work
stoppage= One of the meetings in early June 1969 was
apparently, held at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta
with Rev. Martin Lutl>er King, Sr., in attendance. Rev. E.
H. Dorsey testified that at this meeting representatives of
Operation Breadbasket were interested in finding out why
Scott had fired Anderson on March 31, 1969, for, something
he,,.supposedly.did,on September 25, 1968, and especially so
after , Scott had given -Operation Breadbasket prior assur-
ances that there would be no reprisals against Anderson, as
aforestated.
-In its arguments the Respondent initially points out that
on September 25,-,1968, Anderson deliberately misrepre-
sented the true-facts. It argues again that Scott believed he
was firing a supervisory employee, that the lack of
unanimity of Athe heirs and the fact that Anderson still owed
moneyYon the newspaper bill caused C. A. Scott to defer a
final decision on the= discharge, and it also points out that
on, ,February- 22, _,1969i Anderson failed in his duty to
protect the employer's property, thereby -,provoking his
termination.10,. ,
The General, Counsel argues that the reasons givenby the
Respondent,for the discharge of Anderson are pretextual
and maintains - that, by, seeking Breadbasket's aid and
thereby bringing the black community into the controversy,
there resulted the "straw that broke-the camel's back."
As early as November 1968, the Respondent had
knowledge of -the facts for the reason initially,given as- the
cause for the discharge here in question but yet was willing
to, keep Anderson until March-31,4969.. In reviewing the
testimony of employee Ernest Arnold, it became clear that
Anderson was -not- the only individual who worked at the
polls on -September"25,, 1-968. Arnold testified that he also
worked at the polls-, on, this date along with Respondent's
employees Sherry Flott and Gregg Ramsey and stated he
10 William A. Scott testified<:that even, back in 1968 the mechanical
department started having production problems due to "personalities," and
there was a "complete breakdown" developing, between management and
the employees . He went on to state that during the election campaign in
1968 the Company had requested that employees in the mechanical
department not display'any canpaign or election materials, but this request
was completely'ignored as employees wore two or three campaign nbbofis.
11 There is some testimony m , this record that the lock was broken about
8:30 or 9 a.m., that when employees report to work they punch in on clocks
and then some -change from street to work clothes in-the washroom. When
in the washroom one cannot see the rear door. The General Counsel points
163
called in sick on this day but could not remember if the
Company paid him for September 25.°- Arnold- does not
consider such practices dishonest -because employees, are
given 1 or 2 weeks of paid sick leave each year, and once an
employee uses up his yearly sick leave time he receives no
additional sick leave until the following year.
It is apparent ' from the -record, that the- strange,
circumstances and results involving Allen and Ector during
the lock incident in February 1969 must have occurred
within the immediate time periods mentioned, and it is
obvious to me that Anderson was merely interjected into
this situation as - a complete afterthought. There was,
absolutely no, mention of the lock incident in the discharge
letter given or sent to Anderson on or about Aprilwi, 1969,
as previously noted, and, in fact, Anderson :had no
knowledge whatsoever of his possible involvement with the ;
broken lock incident until months later when C. A. Scott
suddenly advised him by letter in June 1969-that this was
also one of the reasons for his- termination on March 31,,
1969. It is impossible for me to accept this incident as, the
event which actually provoked or triggered the discharge,
as argued by Respondent, when this incident or reason was
not even.mentioned to Anderson until, June. Management
may well have been disappointed-in that Anderson did-not
or was unable to tell them who broke the lock; but it is.
readily apparent that this situation had very little, bearing, if
any, on the moving and controlling motivation=forr, the.-
discharge.11 By this time the Trial Examiner's decision"in
the prior proceeding had been issued; as aforestated, so in
June 1969 Respondent had also been advised that its,,
contention of Anderson's supervisory capacity lacked, merit
and was rejected.
By the middle of March 1969, C. A. Scott had been told
by. Operation Breadbasket that Anderson was, the leader of
the mechanical employees and, the Company - thereby)
received specific notification that Anderson and others '
were continuing in, their efforts for better working
conditions by requesting intervention and assistance from
Operation Breadbasket.12 It should be pointed out that
Anderson's activity in relation with Breadbasket was not
only, an individual, effort designed to induce action on, the
part of other employees, but it was also a group;,action
whose, objection was to induce- the Company to correct
grievances, there was - definite . consent among the mechani-
cal employees to the course, of action to be purse ed. as , a
group, and Anderson was the one selected to act as their
spokesman. This specific activity by Anderson in -the
employees' behalf falls- clearly within the realm-.of the,
protected concerted activity.13
I agree with the General Counsel that the only incident
within close proximity of Anderson's discharge was the,
ode involving Breadbasket. It is clear to me, however, that
out that Resp . Exh. 18 shows that Anderson , clocked in at 8 :56 a.m. on
February 22, 1969, and, therefore argues management must have known
that Anderson could not have seen' he padlock incident.
12 There are no indications in this record that by contacting Operation
Breadbasket the employees were in any way foresaking their support of the,
Union, , and Anderson gave testimony that there was nevevany intent to, do
so. .
13 Washington Aluminum - Company, 370 U.S. 9; Walls Manufacturing
Company, 137 NLRB 1317, enfd . 321 F.2d 753, (C.A.D.C.) cert, denied 375
U.S. 923 ; George E. Light Boat, Storage, Inc., 153 NLRB 1209;-and Bonded -
Armoured Carrier, Inc., 147 NLRB 100. -
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his.extensive participation in the prior proceeding, also a
key role, and -then his later activities in February and
March, -1969; with Breadbasket are _ the coupling factors
which caused Scott to refer to Anderson as "troublemaker,".
and motivated -his actual discharge. As pointed out, the
word "troublemaker" is not 'the proper nomenclature or
term for an`employee the ' Respondent alleges-it discharged
for-purported sickness-or for'not informing them as to the
lock incident.
In the final analysis here ; the poll incident happened
months prior to the discharge of Anderson, and even the
foreman , of the mechanical department, Emel Scott, the
supervisor most directly concerned or affected, admitted, in
his. testimony that he asked C. A. Scott "to holdup" firing
Anderson and then further stated that his position had not
changed. Circulation,Manager William A. Scott proposed a
return to.`the "status quo"' as 'aforestated, which also
included the 'immediate return of Anderson to his job while
his ultimate fate would later be decided by-arbitration -
another strong indication that an additional key member of
the management team actually thought very little of the poll
incidentaor"'the other reasons of production-and the broken
lock which were Call eventually and belatedly attributed in
some` -remote- ways to . Anderson. And finally, -C. A. Scott
himself did not 'even deem the poll incident sufficient for
immediate, termination as -he did not mail his mysterious
discharge letter to-nderson, as aforestated.
- This record in its entirety compels the ' conclusion that
Respondent devised reasons' in an attempt to remove a
known and- effective 'supporter of the Union who had
continued seeking ,help over grievances for himself and
fellow employees. In accordance therewith, I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and -(1) of the Act by
discharging="Anderson on,March 31,- 1969, because of his
member hip in'dnd activities on behalf of the Union, and,
because `he engaged in concerted' activity with -other
employees for ,the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
The evidence in this record is overwhelming in showing
that the walkout "and strike on 'April' 1,' 1969, was
precipitated by-Respondent's discharge and refusal-,to
reinstate ,Joe Anderson; as aforestated, the employees
immediately so informed-E. J.' Scott. By letters, dated May
29,-1969, - and again on December` 16, 1969, • the striking
employees,' through their union, unconditionally offered to
return to work.14 -The letter of May 29,1961, also asked the
Company to•name any employees who- were thought by
management not to be entitled to reinstatement because of
misconduct, but the Company continually took the position
that all of 'the" unit jobs were filled with the possible
exception of one or two temporary jobs, and it appears,
14 The Union's International Representative Robert McMichen stated
that he, also made a verbal unconditional offer -to return the strikers at a
negotiating session on rMatch 9, 1970.-
15 N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575.
1s The" records relate the 'ifference between the productionn ' of'a
newspaper --thy what 1s -termed the "hot type method" and the offset
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
was produced, it-Linotype, operator types directly from apiece-of'-copy
which is typed but 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
some of the strikers would not return to work unless all
were, reinstated. C. A. Scott maintained that the Union's
offer to return the strikers was conditional because of- the-
insistence that Anderson be returned ., However, it is well
established that applications for reinstatement by unfair
labor practice strikers are not made conditional merely by
insistence that all be given their jobs back or none would'
return. John H. Barr Marketing Co., 96 NLRB 875, 882.
The work stoppage or-strike on April 1, 1,969, must be
deemed an unfair labor practice strike caused and
prolonged by Respondent's discharge of Joe Anderson, and
I so find.
The 8(aX5) allegation in'the instant complaint is based on
Respondent's unilateral discontinuance, in October 1969,
of substantially all remaining unit work in the mechanical
department, by stopping the use of all hot processes (using
Linotype and Ludlo machines) type; and thereafter -using
cold type processes to supplant it.
In the prior proceeding the Board affirmed; `Trial
Examiner Lightner's findings that Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally assigning certain
work to nonunit employees - and unilaterally increasing its
subcontracting of unit work:- The Board then'deternyined
under the Gissel doctrinel5 that,a bargaining'orderwas
required because the Respondent's conduct would reason-
ably be expected to have the effect of undermining the
Union's majority, and it destroyed the conditions necessary
to the holding of a free and fair election.
In the instant case the Respondent 'concedes that on or
about October 16, 1969, it basically terminated its "hot
paper" but cites the following reasons: (a) lack of a'readily
available source of paper in useable quantities, (b) the
general- state' of dilapidation of- the press which had been
used, and (c) the poor quality of printing which the!press
and hot method, theretofore used , had produced. The
Respondent points out, however, that 'the paper still uses
the hot type ' equipment to "some extent" in the cold''or
offset process.16 The Company further argues that the only
alternative available to management as of October 16, 1969,
would have been to "cease operations altogether. it is again-
emphasized that the newspaper had no•press in operable
condition,- that if it was to continue to function as a daily
newspaper, as it had done since 1928, it had to use the cold
type or offset process and activate" the machinery it had
compatible with the offset method of printing, and that it'
was a reluctant step totally and completely out of the
control of the Respondent. C. A. Scott related' that
economics and cost, factor`s'are the mainreason why many
small newspapers have changed to offset printing. He
stated, for -instance, that an operator for a justo=writer
machine would be' paid much lower wages per hour than a
lines of type, similar to the end product of a typewriter. The ludlo produces-
certain type heads, similar to a linotype , but with varied sized characters or
mats. Some ads were made from slick cast in the stereotype section which '
created plates which were placed on wood blocks and prepared 'for
printing. A'varityper used in the cold process produces print which is"the
equivalent of Linotype print, except it does „tiot,make an =impression butav,
produces a ,tape which can, then be pasted on apiece of paper,,or layout,
for photographing and from which offset is produced. The varityper is also
known as alusto-writer. The machines replace the need for the-hot type
produced by the linotype as well as- the larger size type produced on the
ludlo.
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 165
linotype operator , and, considering the two processes from
the -standpoint of composition , the hot process costs about
2-1/2 times the cost of the cold process.
It appears that up until the strike on April 1, 1969, all six
issues of Respondent's newspapers were printed each week
in the mechanical department by -the hot type method
except for part of one issue, the food section , which- had
been printed by offset or by the cold process since early
1966 . Immediately after the start of the strike, the
Respondent reduced its -operations and printed only four
issues a week by the hot process in their shop or plant; C. A.
Scott testified that - after the strike , he also , continued
printing, with the hot process, one, weekly edition for both,
the Memphis and Birmingham papers but- stated, the
Respondent lost the printing jobs they had been doing for
two, other southern newspapers located in Albany , Georgia,
and Fort Lauderdale , Florida.
C. A. Scott and other witnesses for the Company
testified that on October46,1969 ,- the Respondent had used
up all the newsprint on hand , which they had been-buying
in carload-lots-for many years, and that management had
endeavored to order small quantities of paper, 10 to 15
rolls, but was informed by their ' supplier in a letter dated
August 1969 that the supplier was having various delivery
difficulties, and.-in order to continue to supply them it
would .be necessary . for delivery of ,a full carload to a- public
warehouse.'?
The Respondent also produced testimony through
several witnesses . relating to its old letter press and its
general deterioration over the years: E. J. Scott and others
stated that after the strike started they encountered several
breakdowns of, the press , thatmanagement spent consider-
able money for various gears and rollers, and that there was
only one elderly man who was ,,able to make repairs on it.
Beginning on'or about October 16, 1969, the Respondent
started producing all, four editions of the Atlanta World
and-each edition ,of the Memphis ' and Birmingham papers
by the cold process, using the offset printer who- had
previously printed the food section. In their offset or cold
type operation Respondent 's employees merely do the
"paste ups," but the plant does not do off set printing as such
(no offset press) and this , work is subcontracted out.
Moreover, the Company has continued to use -nonunit
employees in all ofits cold type processes.
C; A. Scott and other witnesses testified and contended
for the Respondent that management had also informed'
employees ever since the early 1960's of the fact that, the
newspaper was going to offset printing , and"witnesses for
the General Counsel - also agreed that :for many-'years
management - had frequently, mentioned to 'them , the
possibility -of "going offset." C. A. Scott and William A.
Scott then suggested in their testimony that at the meeting,
with employees and the Union during the first week in
April -1969,'as' aforementioned, they told those present that
the newspaper would have to go offset in order to survive,
and C. A. Scott testified this information had been
continually given to the Union at every-meeting with them
ever since they first sought recognition from the Company
back in May 1968 . The Respondent's cashier Ruth
17 See Resp . Exh. 15.
is Following the Board's decision on December 9, 1969 , in the prior' and on or about February 3 and March 9, 1970.
Simmons also stated that at meetings with the Union
subsequent -to- the strike management -indicated that
because they were unable to get newsprint the paper would
"be going totally to offset." - -
Arthur Gnann, president of the Union's Local No. 48,
testified he first learned of the newspaper going to. offset
during the negotiating session of'December 26, _1969,18 but
stated the Union received no notification about this matter
until the December bargaining session.
The Union International Representative Robert McMi-
chen stated the Respondent did not notify or negotiate'with
the Union on, the, October -1969 change to offset: printing
and testified that at the negotiating .meetings subsequent to
December 9, 1969, there were discussions on the number of
jobs available and at alater meeting heoffered to train and
retain the Respondent's employees for offset printing-;at,the
expense of,the Union.
According to C. A . Scott the justo-writer machines used
in -offset were ordered in,1967 but were not installed until
October 1968 , and he testifiedthey were not used until after
the work stoppage;, Scott stated these machines were leased
by the Respondent and not purchased, and, that 'later, they
also leased a "head line" machine :. In the prior proceeding
Joe Anderson gave testimony . credited . by ;the ,,,Trial
Examiner showing that the justo-writer -machines were
installed in the Respondent's executive offices in September
1968 and then were put to'. use,, in October -.1968 in
conjunction with the enlargement , of the, food Asection: It
was also -established , that no one- in the mechanical
department was ever assigned to operate the junto-writers.
- In addition to the contentions. and defense already
mentioned . herein, the Respondent- further , argues in his,
brief the following: - -
Additionally, Respondent respectfully calls-the Trial
Examiner's attention' to- the order of -the Board dated
December 9, 1969 ,- and specifically the amendments
made - by the Board to the Trial -Examiner's a Recom-
mendedw'Decision and'Order. Particularly,' Respondent
points out the, 2(b) Amendment to the Final -- Order
which - states that the Respondent has an obligation to
bargain for - all -changes on nor after-'May .23 , 196811(179
NLRB 999 , fn. 4). Inasmuch-- as its sole obligation= is
clearly spelled out in such Order, Respondent' is
complying with that when he testifies, without contra-
diction, that he has bargained with the 'Union after the
-date of that Order beginning on December' 26, 1969.
Under the provisions of that Order, Respondent takes
the position that' the issues ' has been decided and the
Order ' dated December 9, 1969 , is -res adjudicate as to
bargaining remedy and complaint in'Case No. 8136.
Respondent is also constrained-to pointout that by the
'Charging Party's own' admission , the Union -did not
have qualified employees, who were trained -in the
operation of cold-type process in composition makeup
or use of the equipment and, machines 'employed.
Indeed, Respondent does not even own or ` possess a
press on which the offset Plates maybe employed. The
Respondent is prohibited," by law' from {borrowing
money to purchase such a press . Charging Party` has
proceeding the parties held negotiating. meetings on December 26, 1969,
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted in---an effort to train,its members, it-has,sent
,z=them-,to schoofand,for special training and offers,-to
continue that training for them in order that they can
efficiently operate such equipment. Therefore, General
,Counsel, and Charging Party's- position as regards
negotiation at the time of the changeover, would have
been- a, futile gesture ^ at, that time from the sole
standpoint of training and qualifications. The employ-
ees could not have-operated the machinery had they
,-been-been at work. Certainly, 'within the period of 60 days,
then-,entire, question had become moot since the
employer, in - response to the' Board's Order of
December 9,,;-l 969, did in fact meet- and negotiate with
the Charging Party relativeto these matters. ' ` ' ,
As noted, 'one phase of--the Respondent's contention is
apparently based on the argument that it had no, duty to
consult or bargain with the Union on the- October, 1969
changes until there was-a, final order from the Board in the
prior proceeding establishing,such a duty. The General
Counsel correctly.. points out that in a refusal to bargain
case the facts. in each proceeding determine when the duty
to, bargain,is presenCand the violative conduct, if so found,
takes place at^the specific and particular time, and a
decision ,by atrial examiner and a subsequent-Board order
are --findings, and affirmances that a duty existed at the prior
instant'case. In- accordance with the above, I reject=the
Respondent's .contention that "nothing" was established
until the: Board Order issued in the prior proceeding on
December-9, 1969, and I deem any-further, consideration, or
discussion-on thiscontention completely -needless: , --
From the, Respondent's point of view the operational
changes - it,, effected in October. 1969 resulted in reduced
costs and made possible the continued publication, of the
newspaper;, but from the point of view of the employees
effected the change actually; resulted in the termination of
their jobs. Yet the Respondent, effected this discontinuance
of substantially all remaining unit work in, the.mechanical
department; unilaterally and without affording 'the Union
any opportunity to bargain about , the impact on, the
employees , It is, of course;,well recognized and established
Board-slaw, that matterswhich could destroy employment of
the 'members of a bargaining unit fall,within "other ,terms
and conditions, of employment" as, used by the statutory
phrase in the Actand is;a-mandatory =subject of bargaining
within the, meaning of Section ;-8(a)(5). It is likewise well
recognized -,that an,employer is under a.duty to bargain with
the chosen , representative - concerning matters affecting
terms and conditions of employment and, cannot unilateral-
ly change jestablished employment conditions without
bargaining, regardless -of ,the existence or nonexistence, of a
collective-bargaining agreement.
At is , further_noted that -in. the,instant case Respondent
endeavored -to ^ sever the regular, employment„status-of-the
mechanical employees as - a, permanent matter., The
Respondent _ repeatedly maintained and insisted that it
could only, ,take back ^ one, or : two- of the strikers on a
temporary basis as, the ,-former jobs in the mechanical
department had been shifted elsewhere and, given to other
nonunit employees. Indeed,..it -has long been held that an
employer is required to bargain about who is to be'affected
by., the severance of employment relationships or a
reduction tin force , of employees for economic reasons, and,
also ; about- the distribution of the work among ,employees,,
specifically so when there is a,direct, and adverse :effect
upon ,unit employees and-there is ; no showing of any,past
practices wherein-such-changes were historically made.
In its brief the, Respondent makes references , to certain
cases involving emergency :changes and subcontracting by
employers ,tomeet-their immediate operation-needs because
of a strike situation: The Board and the ,,coutts will-not, of
course , tell employers faced, with ,'serious difficulties
because- of :a' strike that before they ,can make `economic
business "decisions to continue their operations-they must
first consult with the Union, and'this is not-,the • situation in
the instant case. In't'he -immediate-penodaubsequentto the
strike on-April I, 1969, the,Respondent did make - various
business decisions and - `changes in', order to - continue
printing most of their publications as detailed earlier,,
herein;' and no unfair labor practice-charges resulted
because of such emergency changes., The`allegation in this'
complaint pertains to a unilateral discontinuance' of unit
work -' in the mechanical department some = 6 months -after
the start of the strike .,,Therefore, the factual circumstances
in the instant proceeding before me are clearlydistinguisha
ble from ,-the factual situation- in, those ,cases cited by the,
Respondent, and any contention by the Respondent that it
was' faced with _ a situation requiring --immediate or
emergency action must hinge on circumstances prevailing
in October , 1969 . In such respects;, the Respondent
maintains , they were out of newsprint, , that the, press was
old, and that .the "hot method" of,publicatiornproduceda
poor quality of .printing. ;However, in view offevidence_in-
this record that the press could be , made operative, that with
certain arrangements newsprint could still be purchased, ,
and that there were no immediate complaints as to the
papers' readability,. I i am unable to classify . any of,these
three factors as creating - an "out ' of . control", situation
requiring immediate action and bypassing of the Union: If -
successful in this contention ; the_, Respondent's, position
would virtually,mean ,that an -employer need never , bargain-
over changes in conditions of employment if such -changes
had any economic, justifications, regardless-of-the impact
on employees . Even accepting Respondent's argument that
changing to offset printing in October was out of necessit I
there were still many questions which might well have been
the subject of bargaining as-fully indicated by this record.
In , the final analysis,,; I am concluding that, under the
circumstances prevailing- here , an employer violates, Section
8(-x5) .if, after a strike begins, he does_;not give the
bargaining representative an, opportunity,to bargain, about
proposals to change- the existing terms and conditions of
employment among which are the jobswhich were held,by
employees of the mechanical department when the strike
started. , ,,
As ,aforementioned, the Respondent further ,contends,
that, the October changes were made in accordance-with
previously announced intentions., It, appears to me this
argument; can also be quickly , disposed of. Vague state-
ments or conversations by management, made at vanous-
times sincethe early ;1960s that the printing, operations
could, would, or might go offset can hardly be classified as
proper notice or consultation with the-'Union. - Even
ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 167
accepting testimony by Respondent in these respects the
closest date wherein offset possibilities were mentioned to
the Union would be during the first week in April ,1969,
again some ,6 months prior to actual changeover here in
question, and William A. Scott stated that in their talks on
April 3 with the Union management mentioned offset but
then admitted "there was no target date." Atanother stage
of his testimony William Scott was asked the following
question, "Did you, at any time-subsequent to the April
meeting back in 1969 consult with the Union and advised
them of,anyplans that you had in regard to the production
of the paper?" He replied, "We just-had conversation
relative to the offset prospects. There was no, consultation,
as such, but just a conversation. I wouldn't call it, a
consultation." It is clear that Respondent refused to give
the Union any proper notification.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) ofthe Act in October 1969 by unilaterally,
and without notice to or consultation with the Union,
discontinuing' its hot type printing process and utilizing its
cold type or- offset process for its -printing operations,
thereby eliminating the jobs of employees in the unit
described earlier herein.19
IV. THE EFFECT' OF, TH&UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations, of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to, trade, traffic, and,
commerce among the several' States, and tend to lead to,
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the "Respondent ^ has engaged in
certain unfair labor, -practices violative of-the Act, I shall
recommend that it " cease and'desist' therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
'It will be recommended that the Company offer Joe,
Anderson immediate and-full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent` positions, without' prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination'against him by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that whic`fr'he would have earned as
wages from the date of the. discrimination against him to
the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, in,
the manner set -forth in F ,W Woolworth Company, 90`
NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set
forth in isis Plumbing & Heating Cc,,138 NLRB 716.
I have found that the strike which took place on April 1,
19 There is some argument by the Company that the Board's 8(a)(5)
bargaining order of December 9, 1969, in the prior proceeding, affords full
relief. However, I have found here that the Respondent has engaged in
subsequent acts derogating from its duty to bargain, and also in the instant
case there are circumstances, events, and issues which were not present in
the prior proceeding and different in nature from those covered by the
existing Board order . See Quaker Tool & Die, Inc., 169 NLRB 1148.
20 Any claim by Respondent that these unit employees are not qualified
1969, was caused by unfair labor-practices of,Respondent.
As unfair labor 'practice strikers, -Respondent's striking
employees were, upon their unconditionsl,application for
reinstatement, on May 29, 1969, entitled to reinstatement,
and Respondent's, failure to reinstate them- to, equivalent
work was a violation of Section- 8(a)(3) -of, 4the Act, I shall
recommend that Respondent, offer immediate and- full,
reinstatement, according to seniority, to all unfair, labor
practice strikers employed in its mechanical department at
the,time of their strike on,April 1, 1969 to anyposons in
the appropriate unit, or substantially equivalent, relatedor
converted positions which became available after the
-unconditional offer of reinstatement, dismissing if^necessary
any persons employed J n:,- such positions , Flafter,2,, the
unconditional offer of reinstatement, and offer to all the,
remaining unfair labor,practice,strikers, if.any,on the, same
basis, reinstatement to any such positions which become
available, hereafter, before_,offering, employment in such
positions to any persons.
It will be further recommend that Respondent restore-to-
all such reinstated unfair labor practice strikers all seniority
and other privileges, and the same working conditions they
had prior to going on strike, except as such prestrike
working conditions mayl`.be-altered by' agreement with
Atlanta Typographical Union,No.48"m collective=bargain-
ing session ; and also make whole all unfair labor-practice
strikers for loss of wages, with interest at 6 percent per
annum, from, the time-of, their unconditional offer t&.,return
to work "until one of the'following occurs: (1):They area
reinstated, respectively, as provided above; (2) the Respon- -
dent reaches an agreement with the Union relating to its
decision, to discontinue, hot type press operations, or the
effects of such -discontinuance; ;or (3) Respondent,bargain
to a good faith impasse with the-Union concerning these
matterS.20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent' is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in comme ce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and,(7) of the Act.
2. Altanta Typographical ' Union- No.' 48 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. mechanical department employees at Respon-
dent's'"Atlanta, Georgia, operations,including_composing
room employees, stereotyping employees artd pressroom
employees, but excluding office clerical employees , mail-
room_departmeint 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 purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section9(b) of
the Act.
4. At all times since May 23, 1968, Atlanta, Typographi- -
cal Union No. 48 has been the exclusive representative'of
to fig present jobs should not be defense in view of Respondent 's rejection
of the Umon's offer to retrain the unit employees at its own expense for
such jobs ; and because this record establishes that the Union , at its own
expense, has now trained the unit employees to perform all cold type
process. C. A. Scott admitted that at the present time the Company has the
same number of employees it had prior to the October change. This record
also reflects the names of strikers and replacements hired.
168- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all -tile 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. n By`failingand refusing , on `and after-May 23, 1968, to
bargain collectively , with the aforesaid labor organization,
by unilateral-discontinuance in,October' 1969 of substan-
tially" all remaining unit work in themechanical ' depart-`
merit, -thereby eliminating jobs of employeesin the unit,,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: , ° 'Y'-- - _ " -
`6. 'The" Respondent discriminated against Joe Anderson
by-discharging him on March 31,196% , violating Section'
8(ai)(3)jan'd 8(aXl)-ofthe'Act.
7. The strike was ah unfair'labor practice strike, and,
failure'' to reiastate-strikesr upon their conditional offer to
return to work was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within'themeaning,'of Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct.
ORDER21
Respondent C. A_., Scott; individually and as administra-r
for n d/b/a' ,.Atlanta Daily ' "World, its officers, 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 ennployees 'in the following appropriate
unit:,, ;
All mechanical department employees at^Respondent's'
Atlanta Georgia, - operation ,, including composing room.
employees;' stereotyping employees ,, and,. pressroom,
supervisors 'as defined In the Act.
(b) Uni'lat'erally discontinuing 'or subcontracting unit
work, i.e., mechanical 'department operations,` `'without
notice to or `consultation with the Union, or otherwise
unilaterallymaking changes in the wages, hours,-andother
terms and conditions of 'employment for the employees, in
the appropriate unit without , prior bargaining with the'
aforesai&Union.
(c) In' any other manner interfering with, restraining,or
coercing iemployees in'the exercise of their rights to self-
21 In4he event ,nb'exceptions'are , filed to this recommended Order as]'
provided- by Section 102.46 ,of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, the, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and;
recommended Order herein, shall as provided in Section ' 10(c) of the Act
and in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become-its findings, conclusions , and orde% and all`objectiions
the to, shall bedecmed war ed for,alI purposes.
ra In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, dhe wordsin-the. notice reading{ "POSTED,
employees , but excluding office clerical employees,
mailroom department employees , news department
employees, editorial department employees , advertising
and circulation department employees , guards,, and
organization, to farm, join, or assist any labor organization,
to'bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing; and to engage 'in other concerted activities for the
purpose ofcollective bargaining , or' other mutual `aid or to
refrain from-all; such activities.
. Take the following '"affirmative {action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon, request, , bargain collectively with Atlanta
Typographical Union No., 48 with respect to , its- October
1969 decision to discontinue hottype press operations and,
if failinj to reach `an agreement thereof, 'then bargain
collectively as to the effects of such discontinuance.
(b) Offer the strikers who unconditionally applied for
reinstatement "'on ' May 29,. 1969, immediate and full'
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions,, 'without prejudice, 'to'-their seniority and other,,
rights and privileges,, and make each of them whole for any
loss, of earnings they- may;Lhaye,sufferedby f reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against them, all in accord
with and in the manlier^setforth above.
(c) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Joe- L..
Anderson to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without - prejudice 'to his seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him in themanner`set forth above.''
(d)L Preserve and; upon request, make available to the
National Labor ' Relations ' - Board ' ,'or' its agents, -;for
information and copying, all payroll °recdfds; social seeaity'
payment records, timecards; personnelrecords andreports,,
and all other-records necessary for the determination of the'
amount of backpay due under these circumstances. - '
(e) Post at its printing shop and office building in Atlanta,
Georgia, copies of the,', notice attached hereto as
"Appendix."22 Copies aof said notice, on forms provided by
the' Regional Director for- Region 10, shall; after -b'eing
signed by a representative ofxthe Respondent, be posted' by
it'immediately upon receiptthereof and be maintained for°a
period of 60 consecutive "days 'thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees'are
customarily posted. Reasonable' steps, shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that' said notices' are not altered',
defaced, or covered'by any other`material.,
(f) Notify the said 'Regional Director,; in writing, within ,
20 days from '''the _ date' of this Decision, what
, ithin
Respondent has taken to complyherewith.23 - '
BY, ORDER,OF, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD"
shall be changed to;read,7POSTED PURSUANT TO AJUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES. COURT OF APPEALS, ENFORCING, AN
ORDER-OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
23 In the 'eveni 'tbat this recommended Order is adopted by the Board-'
after exceptions have -been -filed,, this - provision shall' lre modified to ready
"Notify the, Regional Director for Region 10,,in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents has,,taken to
comply herewith,