Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1422 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Atlanta Newspapers , Inc. and Albert M . Horn, At-
torney . Case 10-CA-7082
July 31, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On May 14, 1968, Trial Examiner James F. Foley
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in
the alleged unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup-
porting brief;' and the Respondent filed an answer-
ing brief to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
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
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,2 and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
' The Respondent filed a motion to strike the General Counsel's excep-
tions in their entirety on the ground that they do not comply with Sec
102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended In view
of our disposition of this proceeding , we find it unnecessary to rule on the
Respondent 's motion
' We agree with the Trial Examiner 's finding that the General Counsel
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Coram's
discharge was discriminatorily motivated In this connection we deem it
significant that Coram was discharged not during the union campaign,
but 6 weeks after the Union had lost the second election and , at least as
revealed by the record , 5 months after his last overt union activity
However , in adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings we do not rely on the
Trial Examiner 's extensive comments about the heinous nature of Coram's
conduct In particular , we disavow his findings that "Coram violated
Revenue Commissioner Hawes' expressed policy of reserving to himself the
spokesmanship for the Department of Revenue" (only Hawes ' subor-
dinates could violate that policy), that Coram 's conduct caused or
threatened to cause "erosion in the efficacy of the Government of the State
of Georgia ," that Coram attempted to "portray a hidden nongovernment-
like motive behind the enforcement of the state statute ," and that
"Coram' s conduct is not acceptable as permissible conduct , and the
Journal had to discipline him " (See sec III, E of the TXD ) In rejecting
the last statement we do not suggest that we condone Coram's conduct
We mean only that here and elsewhere in his Decision the Trial Examiner
has indulged in rhetorical overkill In our opinion , such comments are at
best gratuitous and unnecessary to a determination of the issues involved
in this proceeding
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES F. FOLEY, Trial Examiner: This case, Case
10-CA-7082, was brought before the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called Board) under
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (herein called the Act), 61 Stat. 136,
73 Stat. 519, against Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.
(herein called Respondent), on a complaint issued
November 1, 1967, and an answer filed November
13, 1967. The complaint is premised on a charge
filed August 8, 1967, by Albert M. Horn, Esquire,
attorney for the employee of Respondent alleged to
have been discriminatorily discharged.
It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
discharged employee Robert Bryan Coram on or
about August 11, 1967, and refused to reinstate
him thereafter, because of his membership in and
his concerted activities on behalf of Atlanta News
Associates, herein called the Union, and because he
engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection. Respondent de-
nies these allegations in its answer filed November
13, 1967.
A hearing on the complaint and answer was held
before me on January 17 and 18, 1968, in Atlanta,
Georgia. The parties were afforded an opportunity
to present evidence, make oral argument, and file
briefs. Briefs were filed by General Counsel and
Respondent after the close of the hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Georgia corporation, with its prin-
cipal office and place of business in Atlanta, Geor-
gia, is engaged in the publication, sale, and distribu-
tion of newspapers. It publishes the Atlanta Con-
stitution a daily morning newspaper, the Atlanta
Journal, a daily evening or afternoon newspaper,
and the Atlanta Constitution and Journal, a Sunday
newspaper. During the calendar year 1965, Re-
spondent's gross volume of business was in ex-
cess of $200,000. Respondent subscribes to a na-
tional wire service, publishes nationally syndicated
features, and advertises national brand products.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
172 NLRB No. 152
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1423
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. Assumption of jurisdiction will effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
It is undisputed, and I so find, that on August 11,
1967, Respondent, in the person of William H.
Fields, then Respondent 's managing editor of the
Atlanta Journal, discharged Robert Lee Coram, a
reporter on the staff of the Journal.' General Coun-
sel contends the evidence shows that he was
discharged for his activity in connection with the
Union's effort beginning in the fall of 1966, and
continuing through June 1967, to organize a unit of
approximately 85 news and editorial employees of
the Atlanta Journal and to represent these em-
ployees as collective-bargaining, representative.
Respondent contends that delis discharged Coram
for his false representation on Sunday, August 6,
1967, to Jerome Clay, Alcoholic Division Director
in the Department of Revenue of the State of Geor-
gia, and to Ronnie Clark, a revenue agent in that
department, that Peyton S. Hawes, state revenue
commissioner of the State of Georgia, had
authorized Coram to tell them to furnish him infor-
mation about the raids the Department of Revenue
conducted in Atlanta, Georgia, at or about mid-
night August 6, 1967, to enforce a Georgia statute
requiring nightclubs to close at Saturday midnight.
Hawes is head of the Georgia Department of
Revenue and the superior of Clay and Clark. It is
undisputed that Coram made the false representa-
tion to Clay and Clark, and that on the representa-
tion, Clay answered Coram's questions about the
raids, and Clark furnished Coram with names of
persons who had knowledge of the raids. An article
by Coram about the raids which appeared on the
first page of the Monday, August 7, 1967, edition
of the Atlanta Journal incorporated Coram's
questions to Clay and Clay's answers to the
questions.
B. Background Evidence
As stated above, Coram's conduct giving rise to
the discharge involved his reporting of the enforce-
ment by the Georgia Department of Revenue of the
Georgia statute requiring nightclubs to close at
Saturday midnight. This law had been on the
statute books for many years. After Governor
Lester Maddox took office pressure was placed on
him to enforce the state statute. He was asked by
the Atlanta Journal and Constitution if he intended
to enforce it. The Governor decided to enforce the
statute. In the week prior to the "raids" of August 6
or 7, 1967, he instructed Commissioner Hawes to
enforce it. The enforcement was statewide, and not
limited to any area of the State.
There is an ordinance of the city of Atlanta
providing that the closing time for nightclubs on
weekends in Atlanta is Sunday at 2 a.m., and the
Superior Court for Fulton County, which includes
Atlanta, issued a decree requiring certain local offi-
cials and the police force to comply with the city
ordinance. This court order specifically named the
Fulton County solicitor and sheriff and the local
chief of police and criminal court prosecutor.
Governor Maddox met with William Short, his
administrative assistant and press chief, Revenue
Commissioner Hawes, and other revenue depart-
ment officials on the afternoon of Saturday, August
5, 1967, at the state capitol regarding the enforce-
ment of the statute. They were handicapped in any
attempt at enforcement by the inaccessability of
local assistance. Coram, the dischargee, was as-
signed to cover the story for the Journal. He was
present at Governor Maddox's office before he ar-
rived there. He talked to Hawes and Short while
they were awaiting his arrival. Coram arranged a
telephone conversation between Hawes and Lewis
Slayton, Fulton County solicitor, regarding the en-
forcement of the statute in view of the decree of
the Fulton County Superior Court. When Governor
Maddox arrived he inquired who Coram was and
on learning he was a reporter instructed Short to
see that he be required to leave. Coram remained
and succeeded in overhearing some of the discus-
sion in the Governor's office from the pressroom in
the rear of the Governor's office. Commissioner
Hawes issued a press release after the meeting and
declined to supplement what was in the release. An
article by Coram appeared on the front page of the
bull dog edition of the Journal which reached the
streets on Saturday afternoon. The article referred
to the impending enforcement of the statute, the
conflict between it and the Atlanta ordinance, and
the court decree which, in effect, ordered local offi-
cials and police not to assist in the enforcement of
the statute. It contained a warning by Hawes
to the nightclubs to comply with the statute or
suffer the consequences. It also contained a
statement by an attorney for the nightclubs that he
had advised them to stay open as they were per-
mitted to do so under the Atlanta ordinance.
Agents of the state department of revenue
"raided" about 12 nightclubs in Atlanta about mid-
night, August 5. The clubs were asked to close. The
Nitery and the San Souci did not close. Apparently
' At the time of the hearing , Fields was executive editor of both the Jour-
nal and the Constitution John Crown was city editor of the Journal at the
time the alleged illegal conduct occurred He was still city editor at the time
of the hearing . Reporters are directly under the city editor
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Nitery was visited about midnight and asked to
close at midnight but remained open and was not
revisited by the state revenue representatives. The
San Souci was visited about midnight . The San
Souci management informed its patrons to keep
their seats and its band to continue playing after an
agent of the state department of revenue instructed
them to cease drinking and the band to cease play-
ing. The patrons continued drinking and the band
continued playing . Some patrons became abusive
toward the revenue agents , even to the extent of
throwing glasses at them, and members of the
Georgia State highway patrol and of the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation responded to a call for
assistance ," and assisted the revenue agents in hold-
ing the patrons in custody at the nightclub for an
hour or more . Whiskey of the club was confiscated.
The Domino , another prominent nightclub , closed
in accordance with the request of the revenue
agents.
Coram had a front page article on the raids on
the first page of the Journal of Monday afternoon,
August 7, 1968 . Coram 's article raised the queston
whether the raid on the San Souci was punitive
since it was the only nightclub which did not close
against which positive action was taken . Hawes was
quoted in Coram 's article that his department "hit"
only top clubs as it was restricted in what it could
do because it had only a limited number of agents,
but that the "week had still to run," and it would
get around to the rest . Jerome Clay , Hawes' deputy,
and who conducted the raid on the San Souci, was
quoted that the Domino would have been treated
the same as the San Souci if it had not closed, and
that the latter would not have been closed down
had it cooperated . The San Souci and Domino were
openly resisting enforcement of the statute. They
stated that the Atlanta ordinance and the decree of
the Fulton County Superior Court applied. Coram
quoted statements of attorneys for the nightclubs
that the statute should not have been enforced in
the face of the decree of the Fulton County Superi-
or Court. C-)ram prepared the story on Sunday, Au-
gust 6 , 1968. As part of his preparation he
telephoned Jerome Clay , who was alcoholic divi-
sion director in the department of revenue under
Hawes, and, as stated , the one who conducted the
raid on the San Souci , and Ronnie Clark, and agent
of the department of revenue , and told them he had
talked to Hawes at his home in Elberton , Georgia,
and falsely told them Hawes had authorized him to
tell them they could furnish details of the raids
held that morning.
Clark did not give any information to Coram, but
gave him names of persons who could furnish infor-
2 Officers of the highway patrol and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation
reportedly were in Atlanta in connection with reports of a peace demon-
stration supposed to take place there
' Short also stated to Fields and Crown that on Saturday afternoon Au-
gust 5, Coram had badgered Short and his secretary, questioned Short's
motives, eavesdropped on conversations, unsuccessfully attempted to ob-
mation . Clay answered leading questions asked by
Coram . The questions elicited Clay 's opinion as to
the reasons why the action against the San Souci
was taken when it was not taken against the Nitery,
the other club that continued operating . Questions
and answers , as disclosed above , were incorporated
in Coram 's article . Clay's answers appear to answer
the questions without leaving any implications of
punitive action , but the questions and answers in
the context of Coram's article contributed to the
suggestion of punitive action or reprisal left by the
article . Hawes testified that , in his opinion, he was
misquoted in Coram 's article.
C. The Discharge
Hawes reached his office at the state capitol in
Atlanta about 7:30 a.m., Monday, April 7, 1968.
Both Clay and Clark apprised him of Coram's
telephone calls to them , and that Coram
represented to them that he authorized him to tell
them they could give him the details of the raids.
Coram telephoned Hawes about 8 a.m. the same
day and apprised him of the false representation he
had made to Clay and Clark on Sunday. He said to
Hawes that he should be held responsible for Clay's
statements and not Clay . Coram also told him that
Clay stated the raids were more or less punitive and
he intended to so state in the article . Hawes made
no comment to Coram about the latter 's intention
to point up a conflict between his statements and
Clay's statements , but objected strongly to Coram's
false representation to Clay and Clark , and said
that it could not be tolerated . Hawes informed
Governor Maddox of what Coram had done, and
about 11 a.m. Short, Maddox's administrative
assistant and press chief, telephoned Jack Spauld-
ing, the editor of the Journal , and told him Coram
was no longer welcome at the Governor 's office.
Spaulding relayed this information to Managing
Editor Fields . Fields arranged a luncheon meeting
with Short on Wednesday, August 9. City Editor
Crown and Fields had this meeting with Short.
Short told Fields and Crown about Coram's in-
cident with Clay and Clark.3 After the meeting,
Fields arranged to meet with Hawes on Thursday,
August 10.
The meeting with Hawes was held in Hawes' of-
fice about 11 a.m. on Thursday. Short, Clay, and
Clark were present . So were Fields and Crown.
Clay and Clark informed those present of what
Coram had done . Fields testified that Hawes said he
was shocked and astounded at what Coram did and
that although he had been in public life many years
he had never known a reporter to act in such a
manner .4 Fields and Crown apologized to Hawes
taco the telephone number for the Governor 's automobile , and badgered
the Governor Fields testified that this conduct of August 5 was not the
basis for the discharge
I Hawes testified that he said to Coram or Spaulding that he who would
tell a lie would write a lie
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC.
and said they would investigate the matter. Coram
was called to a meeting in Fields' office about 1 1
a.m. on Friday, August 11. Fields, Crown, and Dur-
wood McAlister, assistant managing editor, as well
as Fields and Coram, were present. Fields testified
that he, Crown, and McAlister discussed the matter
on Thursday but no decision was reached until late
Thursday or early Friday.
Fields reviewed the notes of the interviews
Coram made to develop his story of August 7 about
the raids and asked Coram questions about them.
He told Coram of his conversation with Hawes,
Clay, and Clark, and what the latter said to him
about his representations to them on Sunday, Au-
gust 6, that Hawes had authorized him to tell them
to furnish all information about the raids. He said
to him that Hawes was shocked and astounded at
the representations he made to Clay and Clark that
caused them to talk about the raids.' Fields asked
Coram if he did not know better than to lie "to get
a news story." Coram replied that you learn in
journalism course that you do not lie to get a news
story, but that some of the reporters knew better.
Coram said he had done nothing wrong and had
done nothing that he and other reporters had not
done in the past. Fields replied that he knew of no
one on the Journal, or on any other paper, doing
what he had done, and it could not be tolerated. He
said to Coram that he "had no recourse other than
to fire him." He then discharged him.
Coram testified at the hearing that he did not be-
lieve he did anything wrong in getting Clay to
answer his questions regarding the raids on August
6 or 7, and would engage in the same conduct if he
resumed reporting unless he was instructed not to
engage in it.
Hawes testified at the hearing that his policy was
that any information about the department and its
work or programs came from him, and not from
those under him. Hawes told Coram on the after-
noon of Saturday, August 5, 1967, that the enforce-
ment of the state statute would be indiscriminate
and "across the board," and not aimed at any par-
ticular nightclub. It is clear from the evidence that
Coram, in talking to Clay and Clark, was searching
to see if there was material that would disclose,
contrary to what Hawes told him, that the action
taken on midnight of Saturday, August 6, by
Hawes' department was aimed principally at the
prominent night spots in Atlanta opposing the en-
forcement of the statute. When he testified at the
hearing, Hawes was asked whether or not Coram
would be welcome in his office in the future as
the representative of the Journal or any other
newspaper, and Hawes answered he believed he
told Coram that if confidence is lost in a reporter
' Hawes testified that he had a policy that any disclosures of the policy or
operations of his department were to be made by him , and not by anyone
else in his department
' The Georgia Department of Revenue , at the time of the hearing, had
1,152 employees It collects 95 percent of all taxes , and will collect an esti-
1425
he had lost a lot of his effectiveness because one
who has been in public life knows to whom to talk
and not to talk.
Fields testified that he discharged Coram because
he lied to get a news story, and that the lie embar-
rassed the Journal and Constitution and cast them
in a bad light and served notice to news sources
that their reporters could not be trusted and would
lie to get a story. He testified that the relationship
between the reporter and his news sources is built
on mutual trust, and if news sources do not trust a
reporter he does not get any news stories. Fields
testified that Coram's outright lie to Hawes' depart-
ment could not only dry it up as a news source, but
the other departments of the state government as
well. He testified that Hawes was the only prime
source for the department of revenue, one of the
most important departments in the government of
Georgia, and was one of the most respected men in
the government of Georgia.6
D. Evidence of Motive for the Discharge
General Counsel introduced evidence intended
to show that Coram and other reporters employed
by Respondent resorted to telling an untruth and
bending the truth to get a story, and that Respon-
dent condoned this technique of Coram and the
other reporters working for Respondent at the time
Coram worked for it, and that Respondent upon
learning , in December 1966 or early January 1967,
that Coram was an employee leader in the Union's
effort to organize the news and editorial employees
of the Journal embarked upon a practice of criticiz-
ing with written memoranda Coram's work which
had been "impeccable and praiseworthy" over a
period of 4 years and, following the defeat of the
Union in a second election conducted by the
Board, seized upon Coram 's telling of an untruth to
get a story about the raids by the state department
of revenue as a pretext to discharge him for his
union activity. Respondent introduced evidence to
rebut General Counsel's evidence. The evidence of
General Counsel and Respondent is set out in the
following paragraphs.
1. Coram's and other reporter conduct to obtain
material for a story'
The Half-Way House incident : In May or June
1967, the Journal received a letter that the director
of the Half-Way House was not doing his job
properly in dealing with mental patients just
released from the state hospital , in that he refused
to talk to them on the telephone or to refer them
mated 800 million dollars in revenue during 1968 It administers and en-
forces laws pertaining to revenue matters
r It is undisputed that news gathering may not involve conduct that vio-
lates the law
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for job interviews or to offer the facilities of the
Half-Way to them. City Editor Crown gave the
letter to Coram, who called the director, pretending
to be a mental patient just released from Mil-
ledgeville and in need of help. The director was
most cooperative, and Coram found the story a
waste of time. Coram so informed Crown and told
him of his deception at the same time. Crown
laughed at Coram's successful posing as a mental
patient. This was the end of the incident. Fields
heard of this incident for the first time at Coram's
unemployment compensation hearing . Crown re-
called vaguely that something came up about the
Half-Way House.
The medical examiner's report: Coram in late
spring or early summer of 1967 pretended he was
Bill Wynn, another reporter, when he telephoned
the medical examiner to obtain his report in con-
nection with a murder for which he was writing a
story . Dr. Dillon , the medical examiner , had told
Coram he would never give him any more informa-
tion and to stay away from his office. This decep-
tion occurred with the knowledge of Harry
Murphy, the associate city editor. Fields had not
heard of this incident . He testified he did not con-
done it , but would not have discharged Coram for
it. He was of the opinion that Wynn could have ob-
tained the report for him.
Six Flags Over Georgia: This 12-million dollar
amusement park built in Cobb County, Georgia, by
a Texas company was originally planned for Fulton
County, Georgia. When Coram was on the Cobb
County beat, he followed behind a Mr. Hunt and
the other planners of this project as they walked
along the street . He listened to their conversation in
which they discussed what had been said at a
luncheon meeting they had just had with the Cobb
County commissioner. Coram then told the Cobb
County commissioner some of what he overheard
and falsely told the commissioner that Hunt
released this information to him . The commissioner
then told Coram all about the planned move from
Fulton to Cobb County. Coram wrote a story about
it, which was published . When questioned about
the eavesdropping portion of this incident , Fields
said he did not think that this alone was improper
so long as it was not done in a surreptitious way. He
was not asked what he thought of the false repre-
sentation Coram made to the commissioner. Coram
did not disclose whether he brought his eavesdrop-
ping or his false representation to the commis-
sioner to the attention of Respondent's editors.
The Grady Hospital deception: Coram testified
that when covering Grady Hospital and he had a
deadline he would pretend to be a police officer
when he called the emergency room in order to get
information regarding automobile accidents,
shootings , and other emergency matters. Although
Coram informed City Editor John Crown that he
had to be subtle to get this news material , he never
revealed what he actually did. John Crown testified
he had never heard of this practice and thought
that a reporter could get more information as a re-
porter than he could by pretending to be a po-
liceman . Tom McRay , managing editor of the Con-
stitution , testified he had no knowledge that repor-
ters had a practice of obtaining news by pretending
to be policemen.
The Fulton County voter profile: Coram asked
James Stevens , data processing chief for Fulton
County , for a voter profile study prepared by him
which disclosed information about voters . Stevens
said that Registrar Leon Hay should first approve
its release . Hay, who was not friendly to Coram,
refused to release it . He gave Coram no explanation
for the refusal . Coram then went back to Stevens
and told him that Hay had approved the release of
the study . Coram made a front page story out of
this material . Editor Crown liked the story. Coram
told him that he had to "force " the story out, but
did not tell him he used any deception . Fields knew
nothing of this incident . He testified that it was "an
out and out falsehood ," and he quite possibly might
have let Coram go if he had known about it.
Respondent received no complaints about the way
Coram secured the profile study.
The John Pennington stories : When Pennington,
a columnist , for the Journal , was an investigative
reporter, he grew a beard to disguise himself,
rented a car with Illinois license plate and took his
wife and children along , and did a series of stories
about clip joints and gambling operations in certain
south Georgia counties along the coast . Pennington
testified that he had discussed his intended conduct
with his editors , and they intended that his
technique would be subsequently disclosed in the
newspaper . He testified he used the out -of-state
tags because the clip joints would only deal with
out-of-state people, and grew the beard because his
picture was often in the paper.
The Hebert penal system story : Richard Hebert, a
reporter on the staff of the Constitution , wrote a
seven -part series of articles concerning brutality,
poor food , drug traffic , and generally bad condi-
tions in the Atlanta penal system . To obtain the in-
formation for his stories , Hebert let his hair grow
long, refrained from shaving , drank beer , poured
whiskey over his clothing , and insulted a police of-
ficer , all for the purpose of being arrested and con-
fined. He was booked into the prison farm as
Richard Leo Herbert due to a mistake the arresting
officer made in copying his name from his social
security card. Hebert testified that before undertak-
ing this project he discussed it with his editors, and
they planned to reveal Hebert 's method of entry
into the prison farm when the story was written and
published . He also testified that there had been no
discussion of the use of any name other than his
own name.
The Hebert gambling stamp story : Hebert ob-
tained a written statement from Governor Maddox
giving the Governor 's views on gambling stamps.
Hebert then telephoned Judge Duke of the Fulton
County Civil Court and obtained his interpretation
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1427
of the law. Hebert then wrote a story comparing the
two views. Judge Duke telephoned Hebert later and
complained that Hebert had cast him in the role of
attacking the Governor. Hebert told Judge Duke
that he did not interpret his story in that manner.
Hebert testified he made no misrepresentations to
Judge Duke, and that it was standard reporting
technique not to reveal to news sources, prior to
questioning them, the information that the reporter
received from other news sources.
Reuben Smith's investigative conduct: Reuben
Smith, a former reporter for the Constitution, did
the following to obtain material for stories:
He used a tape recorder in some interviews on
the telephone, and concealed it in his clothing in
some personal interviews, without the knowledge of
the persons being interviewed. He did this primari-
ly with public officials. He testified he acted with
the tacit consent of his supervisor, Tom McRay,
and McRay's supervisor, Calvin Cox, the city editor
of the Constitution. McRay testified that he was
aware of Smith's recorder, and that he an Cox
listened to one tape. He said he felt that the use of
the tape was illegal without a "beep" going on, and
so informed Smith. He also testified he felt that
nothing on the tape would be acceptable in a libel
case, and that it was not the practice of the Con-
stitution's reporters to record telephone conversa-
tions in such a manner.
Smith testified that he overheard Kelley Man-
sfield, a Journal reporter, arranging with some at-
torneys to pick up from them the papers in a
lawsuit involving the Atlanta Braves , and that in
order to get the material first for the Constitution,
he pretended he was Mansfield and obtained the
papers intended for him. Smith was not certain that
he had told any of his supervisors about this trick,
but he " imagined that he told it to the City Editor,
Cox."
Smith testified he obtained a record of a charge
of usury against Governor Maddox's purchasing
agent by pretending to be a lawyer. None of his edi-
tors knew he had engaged in this deception.
Governor Maddox and the "King Lyndon" in-
cident: From September or October 1967, until
shortly before the hearing, Governor Maddox had
barred all of Respondent's reporters from his office.
This was triggered by a United Press story in which
Governor Maddox was quoted as referring to Pre-
sident Johnson as "King Lyndon." The Journal car-
ried the story. Maddox also barred the United Press
and Radio Station WSB and Television Station
WBS-TV outlets connected with Respondent.
Fields testified that the Governor's action had
nothing to do with the conduct of any reporter.
Governor Maddox's taking of the oath: On the
night that Governor Maddox was elected by the
legislature and took the oath of office, he barred
the press from his office. Sam H. Hopkins, then a
political editor with the Constitution, persistently
tried to get into the office, and Captain Porter
Weaver of the state police persistently tried to put
him out. Upon his last ouster, Hopkins remained at
the closed door and overheard part of what was
happening . Weaver knew that Hopkins was there,
and later disclosed he knew he was there.
Coram and Forest Park city council and Clayton
board of education: Coram testified on cross-ex-
amination to two incidents which led to his being
barred from other officers due to his personal con-
duct. One involved the Forest Pack city council,
and Coram could not recall if he "lied" or not, but
he had "pushed some people pretty hard." The
other incident involved the Clayton County board
of education, where Coram obtained public records
by falsely telling a secretary that the superintendent
had given approval to him to see the records.
Coram did not disclose these two incidents to his
supervisors.
2. Coram's union Activity
It is undisputed that on December 26, 1966, the
Union, which has represented Respondent's
newsroom employees of the Constitution for ap-
proximately 20 years, filed a petition for certifica-
tion as bargaining representative of approximately
85 newsroom and editorial employees of the Jour-
nal. A hearing was held on the Union's petition on
January 19 and 20, 1967, and a direction of elec-
tion was issued on February 16, 1967. The first
election was held on March 8, 1967. The Union,
which did not receive a majority, filed objections to
the election on March 15, 1967, in which the ob-
jections were held in abeyance until disposition was
made of an unfair labor practice case against
Respondent involving alleged illegal conduct by
Respondent in connection with the organizational
activity. The latter case was disposed of by a settle-
ment agreement with no finding of illegal conduct
by Respondent. In a second supplemental decision
dated June 7, 1967, the Regional Director ruled
that certain objections had merit and set aside the
election of March 8, 1967. A second election was
held on June 30, 1967, as scheduled. The Union
did not receive a majority of votes, and shortly
thereafter the case was closed.
Coram played a very active part in the organiza-
tional attempt and circulated the petition among
the employees. After the petition was filed he tried
to drum up support among the staff members for
the election. He called several meetings, one of
them at the courthouse and another at a restaurant,
where the pros and cons of the Union and the elec-
tion were discussed. Coram was also the observer at
the first election for the Union. In January 1967, he
notified City Editor Crown that he had filed the
petition, and Crown then notified the rest of
Respondent's management . Coram's last union ac-
tivity was the furnishing of an affidavit in connec-
tion with an unfair labor practice charge, but he did
not tell any editors about this affidavit nor could he
recall the names of anyone in particular that he did
tell.
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coram testified that prior to the union campaign
his relations with Fields were pleasant,8 but with the
advent of the union campaign his relationship with
him began to change. Fields and Crown began
sending him "critical and belittling" memos. Two
memos from Fields dated January 17 and March
16, 1967, and one from Crown dated January 28,
1967, were introduced in evidence by General
Counsel. He also introduced Coram's reply to
Crown's and one of Fields'. Coram testified that the
number of his "re-writes" increased. He did not
deny, however, that he received oral criticism prior
to the organizational activity. Sometime in March
or April 1967, Coram was transferred from the Ful-
ton County courthouse beat to general assignments.
He considered this transfer punitive in nature and
caused by his union activity. Coram also felt that
Respondent's failure in March or April 1967 to in-
clude his name in a list of reporters for individual
treatment in promotion ads revealed discrimination
against him by Respondent. Letters or memoranda
sent by the president of Respondent to newsroom
and editorial employees up to a short time before
the second election disclose that Respondent did
not favor the representation sought by the Union.9
Coram testified that Crown issued a "memo,"
when he was on the Fulton County courthouse
beat, in which he stated that a coffeebreak in the
morning should be no longer than 15 minutes, and
the lunch period should be no longer than an hour.
The reporters had been taking a half hour or more
from the 9:30 a.m. deadline for the coffeebreak,
and often took from the 12:30 p.m. deadline to 2
p.m. for lunch. According to Coram, shortly after
the memo was issued, he had lunch with Crown,
John Pennington, then a columnist or investigative
reporter, and Tom Green, another reporter. They
stayed at lunch until 2 p.m. Pennington joked about
Crown's memo, and nothing was said about the
long lunch period. But on August 10, 1967, the day
before he was discharged, Coram and Tom Green,
who was also active in the Union, took an hour and
a half for lunch at the Press Club, and when they
returned each found on his desk Crown's memo
with the time for lunch underlined. Coram testified
that Billy Williams, another reporter who was at the
Press Club when he and Green were, did not have a
copy of the memo on his desk.
Respondent admitted it was aware of Coram's
union activities. Coram informed Respondent of his
participation in early January 1967. It is undisputed
that the Respondent has been dealing with many
labor organizations for a long time . It presently has
collective-bargaining agreements with 10 labor or-
ganizations representing employees of the Journal,
" Coram began his employment with the Journal in 1963 He was first as-
signed to writing obituaries , then to the Metro beat covering news in Cobb
and Clay Counties, Georgia, next to the Fulton County courthouse, and
finally to general assignments He was on the courthouse assignment for
about a year until March or April 1967 Coram testified that prior to the or-
ganizational activity , Fields inquired about mutual acquaintances they had
in Coram 's hometown whenever he returned from a visit there He also
and 1 1 unions representing employees of the Con-
stitution. As stated above, the Union, for which
Coram was campaigning to represent the Journal
newsroom, has been recognized by Respondent for
some 20 years as the bargaining representative of
its news and editorial employees at the Constitu-
tion. The Charging Party himself, on the basis of his
representation of many of these unions, charac-
terized Respondent's position toward unionism in
the following terms : "I would say that they had had
generally a good labor relations history." It is also
undisputed that when Coram went back to the city
room immediately after the election, Fields waved
him into his office, and also called in City Editor
Crown. He said , "Robert, I want to let you know in
front of John Crown that there will be no reprisals
toward you because of union acitvity." They
discussed the election. Coram told Fields and
Crown that he still felt the Union was needed to
correct a number of inequities there on the job.
Fields said that it was over and to forget about it
and put out a good newspaper. Coram told him that
as far as he was concerned the employees had lost,
the Union was behind, and he would have no
further part in it.
Durwood McAlister, the assistant managing edi-
tor, informed Coram in March or April 1967 that
he was being transferred to general assignments.
Coram testified that when McAlister told him he
was being transferred he told McAlister that he felt
his being reassigned was punitive and was because
of the Union and was a demotion, and McAlister
assured him that it was not, that the Journal was
branching out into a regional concept of coverage
and needed an experienced reporter to do in-depth
and interpretative types of stories and was going to
rely on his long experience, and that the change
was a promotion. McAlister's testimony cor-
roborates this testimony of Coram.
Coram also testified that he said to McAlister
that he felt his future at the Journal was dim
because of his activities for the Union, and that
Fields had evidenced some antagonism toward him
because of his work for the Union, and McAlister
replied that the wounds caused by the Union were
deep but time would heal them, and for him to
work long and hard, and show Fields that he had
put the Union behind him. McAlister denied he
made such a reply to this statement of Coram. He
testified that he told Coram there would be absolu-
tely no recrimination for the organizational at-
tempt, and suggested he get back on his job, and do
the best job he could as a reporter, and that
everything would be fine.
City Editor Crown described the memos Coram
testified that, while he was on the Fulton County courthouse beat , Fields
praised him for stones he wrote about Congressman Weltner and his
proposal on fighting water pollution and Governor Stanford's use of an air-
plane to reach more of the people and more quickly and one other well-
written story
Y These documents do not disclose any illegal conduct on their face and
are not represented by General Counsel or Charging Party as being illegal
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS , INC. 1429
received after the organizational activity began as
"pretty normal ." They are similar to the memos
other reporters received from Fields , Crown, and
McAlister during this period which were introduced
into evidence by the Charging Party . 1° Fields
testified that remonstrating with any staff member
over a story is not an unusual thing . He testified
that after the filing of the petition , he felt that he
had to be more careful in his dealings with the staff,
and he preferred generally to have a copy of all
transmittals in writing or before witnesses. Coram
testified that writing is a subjective thing and there
were bound to be disagreements , not only be-
tween himself and the desk , but between the city
desk and all other reporters . As stated above, he
did not deny that he was reprimanded orally before
the organizational activity.
In reply to Coram 's testimony about the critical
memos and the increase in the number of rewrites
after his union activity began , Crown testified that
Coram frequently had articles on page 1 or 2 of the
Journal in the first 2 weeks of January, the first 2
weeks of February , and the last 2 weeks of March
1967, and that if Coram wrote a story that was
worthy of page 1 or 2, it was put there as Respon-
dent is interested in putting out news . It is to be
noted that Coram 's discharge was triggered by his
conduct in connection with his front-page story in
the August 7, 1967, edition of the Journal . He also
had a front-page story in the Sunday edition
published on Saturday afternoon , August 5, 1967.
In answer to Coram 's testimony that he was dis-
criminated against in May 1967 when his name was
not included on the list of reporters to receive in-
dividual promotion treatment , Respondent in-
troduced in evidence a promotion ad dated January
1, 1967, in which Coram along with seven other re-
porters were prominently presented by their pic-
tures and individual praiseworthy comment.
Respondent introduced in evidence a list dated
May 24 , 1967, of reporters who were to receive in-
dividual promotion treatment . This is the list which
did not include Coram 's name . McAlister testified
that in making up the list he tried to include repor-
ters who had not been previously covered, that he
assumed that Coram had already been covered, as
he had been , and that several of the Journal's most
distinguished reporters were not included on the
list.
E. Analysis and Findings and Conclustions
Management can discharge for good cause, bad
cause , or no cause at all provided that a motivating
purpose behind the discharge is not to do what the
Act forbids." However , when the impact of a
discharge is even only "comparatively slight" with
respect to encouragement or discouragement of
membership in a union , the employer must still
come forward with evidence of legitimate and sub-
stantial business justifications for the discharge to
avoid a finding of discrimination to encourage or
discourage membership in the union , violative of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Proof of motivation is
most accessible to him . However , when he has ad-
vanced these justifications , General Counsel must
then show antinunion motivation by the preponder-
ance of the evidence on the record considered as a
whole. 12
Coram 's discharge had an adverse impact on the
Union's efforts to organize the Journal 's newsroom
and editorial employees in view of his concerted ac-
tivity from late December 1966 to March 8, 1967,
on behalf of the Union 's organizational effort which
began in December 1966 and remained active until
June 30, 1967, and his position before and after the
organizational effort that he was being dis-
criminated against and ultimately discharged
because of it. However , Coram's discharge was on
August 11, 1967, and he had ceased his concerted
activity 5 months before on March 8, 1967, and he
triggered his discharge on August 6, 1967, just a
few days before it happened , by conduct which ap-
pears to warrant it.
The evidence shows that Coram violated
Revenue Commissioner Hawes ' expressed policy of
reserving to himself the spokesmanship for the de-
partment of revenue and his instructions to those
under him in the department not to speak to the
press or other news media regarding department
matters . Coram did this by falsely representing to
Deputy Clay and Revenue Agent Clark on Sunday,
August 6, 1967, that their superior had authorized
them through Coram to furnish information about
the prior Saturday night raids in Atlanta in connec-
tion with the enforcement of the weekend curfew
statute for nightclubs , and by quoting questions he
asked Deputy Clay and the latter's answers to the
questions in an article he had on the front page of
the Monday, August 7, edition of the Journal that
carried the inference that , contrary to Hawes' pre-
raid statement that the statute would be enforced
indiscriminately against all nightclubs, the raids
were punitive action against the San Souci and the
Domino nightclubs . They were openly opposing the
enforcement of the statute by reliance on the local
ordinance and the decree of the Fulton County Su-
perior Court.
Hawes complaied to Governor Maddox of
Coram 's conduct on the morning of August 7,
10 The Charging Party obtained from Respondent nine memoranda con-
taining critical comment that were issued by Journal editors during the
period from January I to June 30, 1967 Fields sent three to Crown dated
January 6, March 11, and May 1, two to Reporter Sher dated January 10
and 31, and one to Reporter Huff dated March 14 Crown sent one to Re-
porter Hamilton dated June 21, and McAlister sent one to Reporter Sher
dated April 19 and one to Reporter Kay dated June 7 The Journal had ap-
proximately 25 reporters dung this period. Fields testified that he nor-
mally directed criticism to reporters through City Editor Crown
"NLRB v McGahey, 233 F 2d 406, 412-413 (C A 5), enfg in part
I I I NLRB 1162
" See N L R B v Great Dane Trailers, Inc, 388 U S. 26, 34
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1967, and, a short time later that morning, William
Short, the Governor's press agent and administra-
tive assistant, informed Editor Spaulding of the
Journal that the Governor had barred Coram from
his office. Executive Editor Fields and City Editor
Crown met with Short on Wednesday, August 9, by
prearrangement on Monday, August 7, and then
met with Revenue Commissioner Hawes on
Thursday, August 11. Hawes informed Fields and
Crown that he was astounded and shocked at what
Coram had done, and that in the many years he had
been in public life he had never known a reporter
to act in such a manner.
Fields testified that he discharged Coram because
he lied to Clay and Clark and thereby breached the
confidence and trust between a prime news source
and the newspaper, which threatened not only to
dry up this source for Respondent's newspapers but
to dry up the whole executive department as well.
Hawes testified he believed that one who would lie
would write a lie, and that when confidence in a re-
porter was lost his effectiveness as a reporter was
lost. It is to be noted that Governor Maddox barred
Coram from his office.
It appears to the Examiner, at least prima facie,
that Respondent has furnished substantial and
legitimate justifications for the discharge.
Newspapers and other news media are vested with
a great trust by Government and the public as con-
duits of communication. When a news medium
breaches this trust it is no longer relied on by the
Government news source or by the public. It fails
not only in its trusteeship, but also as a business en-
terprise. Respondent felt it had to discharge Coram
to retain its position as a medium of communica-
tion between the Government of Georgia and the
public.
There remains for consideration the evidence
dealing with prior conduct of Coram and other re-
porters in gathering news, for which no disciplinary
action was taken, and the evidence of animus
against Coram for his union activity, and a deter-
mination whether this evidence shows that the real
motive behind the discharge was not that advanced
by Respondent but reprisal against Coram for his
union activity.
There is no evidence that complaints were re-
gistered with Respondent for any of the incidents of
prior reporter conduct introduced into evidence
with the possible exception of Reuben Smith's con-
duct in obtaining legal interpretations of the
Federal statute governing gambling stamps from a
county judge. The evidence shows that Respon-
dent's editors were aware of some of the prior re-
porter conduct before the reporters began it or
while they engaged in it.
In the case of Coram's August 6, 1967, conduct,
vigorous protest was made to the Journal. Governor
Maddox barred Coram from his office and so
notified the Journal. Revenue Commissioner Hawes
said the false representation of Coram to Clay and
-Clark could not be tolerated, and he said to Fields
that he was astounded and shocked at what he did.
Moreover, Coram's conduct in issue is conduct that
had the potential of causing the state government
of Georgia, as a news source, of feeling that the
trust vested in Respondent as a news medium was
breached, and it could no longer deal with Respon-
dent with confidence, unless it did something to
show that the conduct would not happen again.
While the same type of false representation or
fraud is present in Coram's conduct by which he
obtained the voter profile study from Fulton Coun-
ty, the news that Cobb County and not Fulton
County was to get the amusement park, and the
records from the board of education of Clayton
County, as well as in Reuben Smith's conduct by
which he obtained the information on the charge of
usury against Governor Maddox's purchasing agent,
and his obtaining the lawsuit papers intended for
Reporter Kelley Mansfield by representing that he
was Mansfield, the consequences did not cause ero-
sion in the efficacy of the government of the State
of Georgia as Coram's August 6 conduct did or
threatened to do. In Coram's case, he invaded by
fraud the area of secrecy and confidential informa-
tion that must of necessity exist in the administra-
tion of a government's program, including the en-
forcement of laws and regulations, and interfered
with the functioning of a government department.
He attempted to portray a hidden nongovernment-
like motive behind the enforcement of the state
statute providing a weekend curfew for nightclubs,
by pitting against Hawes' statements of objective
enforcement of the law, the setup statements of his
deputy of a punitive motive. There is a substantial
difference between this conduct and the other re-
porters conduct introduced in evidence.
The evidence shows that certain deception is ac-
cepted as a means of getting a story. It also shows
that certain reporters will attempt to enlarge the
area of permissible conduct and move closer and
closer to the line between what will be accepted as
permissible conduct and what will not be so ac-
cepted. The aggressive reporter like Coram takes
the risk that his conduct will not be accepted, and
that his news medium will have to discipline him to
retain the trust vested in it. I find that this hap-
pened here. Coram's conduct is not acceptable as
permissible conduct, and the Journal had to
discipline him. Respondent had the right to exercise
its judgment as to what disciplinary measures it
should take. Discharge in this case is not un-
reasonable in view of the conduct.
I do not find any substantial connection between
the time of the discharge and the time of Coram's
union activity or the last date of the Union's effort
to organize. Coram's efforts on behalf of the Union
ceased on March 8, 1967, and the discharge was on
August 11, 1967. There was an interim of 5
months. In this interim Coram was actively engaged
in important reporting assignments for Respondent.
Moreover, he received assurances from Fields and
McAlister in March and April 1967 that he would
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1431
not be discriminated against because of his union
activity and there is no evidence that he was.
General Counsel's evidence shows that Respon-
dent distributed memoranda to Journal newsroom
and editorial employees until the defeat of the
Union in the second Board-conducted election in
June 1967. However, the contents of the memoran-
da were fair and legal comment under the Act, and
in support of Respondent's right to voice legally its
opposition to the organizational effort. 13 Respon-
dent has collectively bargained with the Union for
20 years for the newsroom and editorial employees
of the Constitution, and, according to the Charg-
ing Party, it has had good bargaining relations with
it during this period. Moreover, it has 1 1 collective-
bargaining contracts with unions for other em-
ployees of the Journal and 10 collective-bargaining
contracts with unions for employees of the Con-
stitution. There is no evidence that Respondent's
collective-bargaining relations have been un-
satisfactory.
There appears to have been a flavor of hostility
by Respondent toward Coram after the Union's
petition was filed on December 29, 1966, until the
Union lost the first election on March 8, 1967. This
is reflected in the testy memoranda Coram received
from Fields and Crown. It can also be argued that it
is reflected by the small number of critical
memoranda that the other 24 reporters received.
There were nine. However, there is no dispute that
oral criticism was given to Coram and other repor-
ters before the Union's organizational activity.
Coram himself testified that criticism is a part of
getting out the paper as writing is a subjective ef-
fort. The basis for criticism continued after the or-
ganizational activity began. Fields and Crown obvi-
ously reduced to writing criticism of Coram to have
evidence against the charge that they picked on
Coram because of his union activity. It is safe to say
that in the hub-bub of getting a paper out the oral
criticism to other reporters continued where there
was lack of time to reduce it to writing, and where
it was not necessary to take the time to reduce it to
writing as a precautionary measure.
I find from Fields' demeanor and substantive
testimony sincerity in his assurance to Coram on
March 8, 1967, that there would be no reprisals for
his efforts on behalf of the Union in the organiza-
tional campaign . I also find from McAlister's
demeanor and substantive testimony, corroborated
by Coram's testimony, sincerity, and conviction in
the McAlister statement to Coram in March or
April 1967, when he notified him of his transfer to
the general assignment beat , that the transfer was
to provide in-aepth ana experlencea reporting for
that "beat," and that it was not discriminatory, but,
on the other hand, was a promotion. Coram had his
share of the front-page stories during the period
from January to March 30, 1967, and thereafter.
He had two front-page stories on August 6 and 7,
1967, just preceding his discharge on August 11,
1968. The August 7 story triggered the discharge.
The Journal has 25 reporters on its staff. Some of
them are prominent reporters. There is no evidence
that shows that Coram's byline should have a front-
page preference.
I do not give any weight to Coram's testimony of
alleged discriminatory treatment by Crown on Au-
gust 10, 1967, in regard to the 1-hour-for-lunch
rule. There is only Coram's conclusionary
testimony that Reporter Billy Williams did not have
on his desk, like he and Green did, a copy of
Crown's memo regarding the rule, for his taking
longer than an hour for lunch as Coram and Green
did. Williams may have received one unknown to
Coram or may have been warned orally. Moreover,
Williams may have taken only an hour for lunch as
Coram only testified that Williams was there when
he was. There is no evidence of record he was there
the whole time Coram was there. Coram's evidence
that shortly after Crown issued the 1-hour rule, he,
Pennington , and Green took an hour and a half
when they had lunch with Crown, and Pennington
joked about the rule and nothing was done about
enforcing it, does not show intention to disregard
the rule except to apply it discriminatorily. There is
no evidence that the rule applied to City Editor
Crown or even to Pennington, then a prominent
columnist, or that the rule should or would be ap-
plied when Coram and Green, rank-and-file repor-
ters, had lunch with the city editor. The activity of
the Union had ceased in June 1967, and the record
is devoid of any evidence showing any animosity
toward the Union by Respondent after this date. It
is significant that Coram and Green, two active sup-
porters of the Union, had lunch with City Editor
Crown during the period of the union activity.
From an analysis of the evidence, I do not find
animus against Coram for his union activity, or
animus against the Union, that would place
Coram's position in jeopardy. General Counsel and
Charging Party have failed to show by a preponde-
rance of the evidence of record an antiunion mo-
tive behind Coram's discharge. I, therefore, con-
clude and find that Respondent did not discharge
Coram in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Atlanta News As-
" Rubin Bros Footwear Inc, et al v N L R B, 203 F 2d 486, 488 (C A
5), Lozano Interprises v N L R B , 357 F 2d 500, 503 (C A 9), and
NLRB v Threads, Inc, 308 F 2d I (C A 4)
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sociates is a labor organization within the meaning RECOMMENDED ORDER
of the Act.
2. Respondent did not discharge reporter em- It is recommended that the Board issue an order
ployee Robert Bryan Coram in violation of Section dismissing the complaint against Respondent Atlan-
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. to Newspaper, Inc.
3. The complaint should be dismissed in its en-
tirety.