Baltimore Lithographers, Local 2-P

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1204 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Reba Breeden and Julia Slye immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges and will make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against them together with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees by the grant-
ing of wage increases and other benefits or improvements in order to dis-
courage their selection of, or sympathies toward the Union; the prohibition
against distribution of union literature in nonworking areas of company prem-
ises during nonworking hours; the posting of threats, and the threatening and
interrogation of employees concerning union membership , adherence, and
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If the employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore , Maryland 21202, Telephone 752-2159
Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union , Local 2-P,
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-
CIO and Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO and Alco -Gravure, Division of Publication
Corporation . Cases 5-CC-503 and 306. September 22, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 13, 1.965, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding
that Respondent Local 2-P had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain 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. He also found that Respondent
International had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and rec-
ommended that the complaint be dismissed as to it. Thereafter,
Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party (herein
called Alco), filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs, and an answering brief was filed by Alco.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
160 NLRB No. 90.
• BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL, 2-P- 1205
considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and. briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Exam-
iner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following
modifications.
The controversy herein concerns one of the steps involved in color
rotogravure printing. The facts, as fully set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision, are not materially in dispute. Briefly, Alco-Gravure,
Division of Publication Corporation, is engaged at its suburban Balti-
more operation in producing rotogravure printed material, such as
newspaper supplements, catalogs, circulars, and mail flyers, for vari-
ous customer accounts. Its employees are represented in collective
bargaining by Respondent, Baltimore Lithographers and Photoen-
gravers Union, Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 2-P.
Printing Developments, Inc., herein called PDI, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of continuous tone separations,
negatives, positives, and related products for the printing, including
rotogravure, industry. In producing negatives and, more recently, in
making positives, PDI developed and utilizes an electronic process
called scanning. PDI's employees who produce both the negatives and
the positives on the scanning device are represented in collective bar-
gaining by various locals of Respondent Lithographers and Photoen-
gravers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called International,
including Local 1-P which is the bargaining agent of employees in
PDI's New York City plant.
Prior to January 1965, Alco's production of color rotogravure
material entailed the following steps. Copy was received by Alco from
its customers in so-called Kodachrome (transparency) art form, vir-
tually all of which was sent to PDI's plant in New York for the pro-
duction of electronically scanned negatives.' PDI enlarged the copy
and produced four color negatives, one each for red, yellow, blue, and
black. The scanned negatives were returned and used by Alco's photo-
engravers, members of Local 2-P, to produce four-colored positives.
The positives were checked for color balance, and a rotofilm or etch-
ing film was produced which was then etched directly on to copper
cylinders. The cylinders, in turn, were used to print colored proofs
and the final product. Thus, with the exception of the scanned nega-
tives, which were produced by and purchased from PDI, all the pro-
duction operations were performed by Local 2-P members in Alco's
employ. In emergency situations or when an overflow of work existed,
Alco would send the art copy to so-called supply houses or trade
shops where both the negatives and the positives were produced on
' Prior to PDI's development of the electronic scanner in the 1950's, negatives also were
produced manually in Alco's shop.
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cameras operated by union photographers. When the positives were
returned, Alco's employees completed production of the final product
by the steps outlined above. The cost to Alco of utilizing supply
houses was approximately double the cost of producing positives in
its own shop from PDI scanned negatives.
In 1960, PDI developed an electronic process for producing posi-
tives by scanning which bypassed the camera work theretofore done
by photographers, and in late 1964, Alco began experimenting with
the use of these positives. Alco found that PDI's scanned positives,
while not feasible for all of its color copy, could be produced at
approximately the same cost as that incurred in making its own posi-
tives by the camera method from PDI scanned negatives , but at con-
siderably less expense than having the work done by supply houses.
The dispute herein arose when, on or about December 6 or 7, 1964,
Local 2-P first learned about Alco' s plans to use scanned positives in
production which could result in the diminlit.ion or elimination of
certain unit work performed by Alco's photographers.
Charles Ochs, president of Local 2-P, on learning of Alco's deci-
sion, spoke to Alco's plant manager, George Meiser, protesting that
the use of PDI scanned positives threatened the elimination of unit
work. In their ensuing discussions , Ochs indicated that he considered
the proposed use of scanned positives to be a change in Alco's opera-
tions, amounting to subcontracting of unit work, in violation of the
parties' collective -bargaining agreement? Meiser, on the other hand,
took the position that the purchase of scanned positives from PDI
did not differ from Alco's past practice of purchasing finished posi-
tives from supply houses, to which practice Local 2-P did not object.
Thereafter, about December 7, 1964, Ochs called Frank McGowan,
L Respondents Local 2-P and International rely upon the following provisions of Article
II-Jurisdiction :
Section 2 . All material to be reproduced for printing purposes shall serve as copy
and be processed and/or completed under present or future operations by employees
covered by this agreement.
Section 3 The process of roto-gravure photo-engraving and Its attendant work
thereto and the jurisdiction thereof is defined as being , and is all parts of the process
pertaining to the production of rotogravure photo -engraving from copy , original
subjects , negatives , positives , rotofilm and/or carbon tissue up to the finished plates,
films or cylinders , including photography , making of masks for color separation . . .
operating devices for making color separations by electronic methods , .. . as well as
such kindred photo-engraving processes as may be developed or introduced ; .. .
The making from copy of negatives or positives of type , hand-lettering , illustrative
and decorative material by the method of photography as presently practiced by mem-
bers of the I P.E.U . of N.A ., is pait of the process of photo -engraving as defined ... .
Section 5 . The following are the recognized branches of work covered by the
agreement :
1. Photography
2 Retouching-Layout
3. Etching , Re-etching , Staging , Printing, and Laydown
4 Grinding and Plating
5. Finishing
Present practices are not to be changed as a result of the adoption of the five branches
of classification listed above.
I BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS , LOCAL 2-P - 1207
president of Local 1-P, which represents, in different units, both
PDI's' employees in New York and photoengravers employed at
Alco's principal plant in Hoboken, New Jersey.3 McGowan told Ochs
that PDI scanned positives were being used in Alco's Hoboken opera-
tion for overflow work only and that no one was harmed thereby.
About the same time, Ochs also talked to International Vice President
Risdon who initially shared Ochs' views concerning Alco's proposed
use of scanned positives. However, after speaking to International
President Brown, Risdon reported back to Ochs that Brown consid-
ered it inconsistent to refuse to handle PDI products inasmuch as
PDI has collective-bargaining agreements with locals of the Interna-
tional. Accordingly, on December 17, 1964, Ochs wrote to Meiser 4
advising Alco that Local 2-P would process PDI scanned positives,
but reserving the right to refuse to do so ". . . whenever it would be
evident that their use constitutes a serious threat to the employment
,or job security of our members." As a result of this letter, Alco began
using scanned positives in January 1965, and continued their use until
May 30, 1965,5 when it was informed by Local 2-P that its members
would no longer handle such positives except as copy for the camera.
In the interim, between January and May, Ochs continued to seek
a clarification of the International's position concerning the use of
scanned positives by rotogravure employers. Thus, in response to
Ochs' letter of February 19, International President Brown, on
March 3, stated that PDI was acting outside the scope of its
collective 'bargaining agreement in producing scanned positives, and,
that it "has been advised that such positives will not be accepted."
Thereafter, at Brown's request, International Executive Vice Presi-
dent Hall wrote to Ochs on March 5, in order "to clarify" the Inter-
national's position with respect to scanned positives "so that our Bal-
timore local union will take the same attitude and position with
respect to scanned rotogravure positives as the other local unions
having rotogravure shops in their jurisdiction." Hall's letter stated
that during "recent negotiations" between PDI and several locals of
the International in which Hall participated, PDI was informed that
"these local unions only accept scanned positives as copy for the cam-
-era," and that Ochs should "take the same position in Baltimore, with
the assurance that the International Union will support this posi-
tion." In his further discussions with Alco's plant manager, Meiser,
3 Alco's Hoboken operation , Local 1-P, and PDI are involved in a companion case de-
cided by us this day. New York Lvthographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithog-
raphers & Photo -Engravers International Union, AFL-CIO (Also-Gfravure ), 160 NLRB 1204.
4,See part III, C of the Trial Examiner 's Decision , but note that it inadvertently mis-
quotes Ochs ' letter of December 17, 1964, to Meiser in that the first sentence of the see-
and quoted paragraph should correctly read "While we do accept . ," rather than
"While we do not accept.. "
5 Unless otherwise expressly indicated , all dates are in 1965.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ochs learned that Alco's Hoboken plant was still processing PPI
scanned positives and, by letter of March 14, Ochs so advised Hall.
In that letter Ochs also suggested that, inasmuch as PDI's contract
-was coming up in May, "... it may be well to think along the lines
of control of the scanner and the type of work that we will accept
from it." In addition, Ochs stated that he would seek further discus-
sions with Local 1-P and that ". . . if we are to eliminate the prob-
lem here it will take a coordinated effort by both locals ...." On
April 12, Ochs called McGowan and was informed that Local 1-P
had ceased handling scanned positives. Thereafter, before the latter
part of May, as found by the Trial Examiner, the locals of the Inter-
national which represented the PDI employees demanded a collective-
bargaining contract provision forbidding PDI to manufacture
scanned positives, and a limiting provision on such production was
agreed upon. By letter of May 30,• Ochs advised Alco that, pursuant
to the International's policy and directive, ". . . the Union will no
longer accept the PDI scanned positives for any use other than as
copy for the camera." The letter, however, specifically assured Alco
that this policy "... does not affect the use of regular positives com-
ing from trade shops and other plants where the positives are com-
pletely manufactured under L.P.I.U. contracts and fully manned in
all branches by our members . . . ."
The Trial Examiner noted that between January 1 and May 30,
1965, approximately 35 percent of all positives used by Alco were pur-
chased from PDI, while, prior to January 1965, only about 3 percent
of the positives used by Alco were purchased from supply houses.
However, no jobs in the bargaining unit represented by Local 2-P at
Alco were lost as a result of the increased use of purchased positives.'
It should also be noted that the work remaining to Alco's employees
in finishing the final printed product by the steps outlined above con-
tinued unchanged whether scanned positives, supply house positives,
or positives made by Alco from PDI scanned negatives were used.
Respondents contend that Local 2-P was engaged in a contract dis-
pute with Alco concerning the latter's use of PDI scanned positives,
which Local 2-P viewed as subcontracting of unit work in breach of
the parties' collective-bargaining agreement . Respondents further
contend that Local 2-P, by refusing to process scanned positives,
acted to preserve the work of Alco's employees in the bargaining unit,
and that such conduct was protected by the proviso to Section
8(b) (4) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.. In
addition, Respondents deny that Local 2-P had any dispute with
8 As noted by the Trial Examiner , Alco ' s decision to utilize PDI scanned positives co-
incided with and, at least in part , was prompted by Alco's acquisition of additional work,
including a contract to produce the Sunday supplement of the ' Philadelphia Bulletin.
BALTIMORE. LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1209
PDI or that its refusal to handle scanned positives was directed
against PDI.
The Trial Examiner found that although one object of Local 2-P's
conduct was. primary and lawful, another object thereof was second-
ary and unlawful. Thus, the Trial Examiner found that Local 2-P's
refusal to process PDI scanned positives violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B), as it had an object of forcing Alco to cease purchasing
scanned positives from PDI in order to assist its sister locals in their
contract demands against PDI.7 With respect to Respondent Interna-
tional, however; the Trial Examiner found no evidence establishing
that it participated in the unlawful secondary objective of Local 2-P
and, therefore, recommended dismissal of the complaint to that
extent.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent
Local 2-P, by inducing and encouraging a partial strike among Alco's
employees, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. How-
ever, we so find only for the reasons set forth below. In addition, we
find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondent International
also violated that section of the Act by its participation in, and
encouragement of, the unlawful conduct of Local 2-P.
The Board has long held, with court approval, that a union's strike
to preserve the work of employees in the bargaining unit represented
by it is primary action which is, protected by the Act. However, a
similar strike, where an object thereof is to preserve work for union
members generally, exceeds the legitimate interests of the union in
the bargaining, unit and, therefore, constitutes unlawful secondary
conduct within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the
Act." In our view, the instant case. falls into the latter category. The
preponderance of all the evidence contradicts Respondents' conten-
tion that the strike herein was in support of a purely localized con-
tract dispute between Local 2-P and Alco' s Baltimore plant. Thus,
Local 2-P did not refuse to handle scanned positives from the outset,
but instead sought a policy -formulation by engaging in lengthy com-
munications with Local 1-P and Respondent International. These
communications admit that Respondent was concerned primarily
7 As pointed out in the Trial Examiner 's Decision ,, in April and May 1965 , various sister
locals of Local 2-P , including Local 1-P, were engaged in contract negotiations with PDI.
Among the demands made was one which would require PDI to cease producing scanned
positives . PDI finally agreed to refrain from making such positives for the rotogravure
industry without the specific approval of the particular local representing employees at
PDI's plant where the scanner is located. Thus, if Alco's Baltimore plant sought to pur-
chase scanned positives from PDI in New York, the latter could not produce the positives
without prior clearance from Local 1-P
8 Cf Meat and Highway Drivers , Dockmen, Helpers and Miscellaneous Truck Terminal
Employees, Local Union No 710, Teamsters ( Swift & Company ), 143 NLRB 1221, enfd.
in pertinent part 348 F . 2d 803 (C.A.D.C.) ; Local Union No. 28, Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, AFL-CIO ( Johnson Service Company ), 156 NLRB 804.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the overall impact of PDI's automated process of producing
positives for the rotogravure industry and the attendant loss of work
for union members who are employed in that industry if rotogravure,
employees were permitted to use such positives in their production
process. It is clear that Local 2-P, by coordinating its efforts with
Respondent International , sought to secure a uniform policy for all
locals having rotogravure employees in their jurisdiction against
handling PDI scanned positives except as initial copy for the camera.
The obvious intent of their efforts , resulting in the International's
policy mandate and Local 2-P's compliance therewith , was to assist
all union members generally in protecting their jobs from the
encroaching competition of the PDI scanner.
In that connection , it is significant that in its letter of May 30,
Respondent Local 2-P expressly approved Alco's continuation of its
past practice of using positives purchased from trade shops while, at
the same time , it advised Alco of its contrary position with regard to
any positives purchased from PDI . This disparity of treatment fur-
ther indicates that Local 2-P acted not to protect unit work at Alco,
but to enforce a general policy aimed at safeguarding the work of
union members generally . Similarly , Ochs' letter of March 14, to Hall,
suggesting that its dispute with Alco's Baltimore plant could be
resolved only with the cooperation of Local 1-P, reveals that Ochs
viewed the basic problem as extending beyond the bargaining unit at
Alco represented by Local 2-P.
It is clear , therefore , that Respondent Local 2-P, by refusing to,
process PDI scanned positives purchased by Alco, engaged in a lim-
ited strike in support of a policy mandate which sought to protect
the work of all union members in general . Accordingly, we find that
by striking Alco in support of such a general policy and such a broad
object, Local 2-P violated Section 8 ('b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the-
Act.9
With respect to Respondent International , the Trial Examiner
found that , although the International instructed and encouraged
Local 2-P's strike against Alco , it did not participate in Local 2-P's
unlawful objective . On the basis of the facts discussed above , we dis-'
agree with that conclusion . For the record clearly establishes that
Respondent International shared with its locals their concern that the
use of PDI scanned positives by rotogravure employers threatened
the job security of union members employed in that industry. It is
also clear, as noted above, that Respondent International engaged in
a coordinated effort with Local 2-P and other locals to formulate a
9 International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-
CIO (Speed-Line Manufacturing Company, Inc.), 139 NLRB 688, 689-690 ; ' Meat and
Highway Drivers (Swift & Company), supra.
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1211
general policy for all locals having rotogravure employers in their
jurisdiction with respect to PDI scanned positives. The obvious intent
and purpose of such a policy was to assist all union members gener-
ally. The record also establishes that Local 2-P, by taking the action
heretofore found unlawful, acted in complete reliance on, and compli-
ance with, the International's policy. The joint efforts of Respond-
ents, Local 2-P and International, both in announcing the Interna-
tional's policy and in the decision to strike Alco is clearly reflected in
the various communications between Respondents as set forth above.lo
Therefore, by directing Local 2-P to comply with its policy and to
engage in the conduct heretofore found unlawful, Respondent Inter-
national also violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act"
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondents, Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union,
Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO, and Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication Corporation,
Glen Burnie, Maryland, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to
force or require the above-named Employer to cease doing business
with Printing Developments, Inc.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Alco-Gravure, Division
of Publication Corporation, Glen Burnie, Maryland, or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named
Employer to cease doing business with Printing Developments, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls, and at all
places where Respondents Local 2-P and the International custom-
arily post notices to their members, and at each of the two Glen
Burnie, Maryland, plants of Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication
10 Thus, pursuant to its initial understanding of the Iuteinational's position, Local 2-P
agreed to process PDI scanned positives, as set forth in Ochs' letter to Alco of December 17,
1964. After receiving Hall's letter clarifying the International 's policy, Local 2-P reversed
its position on May 30, 1963, to comply with the International's policy.
'International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators ( Speed-Lane Manufacturing
Company, Inc.), supra.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Corporation, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondents' authorized repre-
sentatives, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
MEMBERS BROWN and JENKINS, dissenting:
Unlike our colleagues, we find that Respondent's strike against
Alco was for a lawful primary object, and dismiss the complaint in
its entirety. In our view, the facts, as found by the Trial Examiner,
clearly establish that Respondent Local 2-P was concerned solely
with preserving unit jobs and protecting the employment security of
employees within the bargaining unit represented by that local at
Alco's Baltimore plants.
As found, by the Trail Examiner, Respondent was engaged in a con-
tract dispute with Alco concerning the latter's decision to use PDI
scanned positives in its production and Respondent's subsequent
strike against Alco was called in an effort to resolve such dispute. In
our view, and the Trial Examiner apparently agreed, the evidence
also establishes that Respondent's entire course of conduct was lim-
ited to, and directed at, Alco's Baltimore operation, the sole object of
Respondent's strike being the lawful one of preserving unit work and
safeguarding unit employees at Alco's Baltimore plants. Any cessa-
tion of business between Alco and PDI would be the result of achiev-
ing that lawful object.
The facts are not disputed. Local, 2-P's President Ochs was first
alerted to Alco's decision to use PDI scanned positives by a telephone
complaint on December 6, 1964, from Ross Beine, one of Alco's color
photographers and vice president of Local 2-P. Both Beine and Ochs
were of the opinion, which the latter communicated to Alco on
December 8, 1964, that the use of PDI scanned positives was a change
in Alco's method of operation tantamount to subcontracting of unit
work in violation of its collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent. In his subsequent discussions with Alco's Baltimore Plant
Manager Meiser, Ochs also protested that the use of scanned positives
threatened job opportunities for, and the employment security of,
Alco's employees in the bargaining unit. By- using scanned positives
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order."
' ' BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1 1213
purchased from PDI, Alco was bypassing certain camera work, to
wit, the making of positives from negatives, traditionally performed
by photographers in the bargaining unit. Local 2-P's position, as
initially advanced to Alco, remained constant during Ochs' explora-
tory discussions with officers of Local 1-P and the International
between January and May, 1965.
These discussions and communications, in our view, do not establish
that Respondent deviated from its initial concern for unit employees
and unit jobs, or that it thereby pursued a broad, altruistic concern
for all union members in general . Similarly, the fact that Local 2-P
was assured that its strike against Alco would have the support of
Respondent International did not, in our opinion, change the object
of Local 2-P's strike. In this connection, we find no inconsistency in
Ochs' letters to Alco of December 17, 1964, and May 30, 1965. Both
letters support Respondent's original position and reflect its fear that
the use of scanned positives was a threat to unit jobs. Nor is it mate-
rial that, due to a fortuitous increase in Alco's business, no unit jobs
were actually lost 13 at Alco's Baltimore plants during the period
between January 1 and May 30, 1965, when Respondent' s members
were processing scanned positives, and this fact cannot convert its
lawful object into an unlawful one.
In view of the above, and in the absence of any evidence indicating
that Respondent Local 2-P had a dispute with PDI, we would find
that the said Respondent, by inducing Alco's employees to refuse to
process PDI scanned positives, acted solely in support of its contract
dispute with Alco and for the legitimate primary object of safeguard-
ing unit work for unit employees.'- In these circumstances, it is of
no legal consequence that an incidental effect, or inevitable result, as
contrasted with an object, of Respondent's conduct was to force Alco
partially to cease doing business with PDI.15 Nor is it le-ally-signifi-
cant that Respondent's primary conduct, if successful, might inci-
dentally aid union members outside its own bargaining unit. It is well
settled that legitimate primary conduct does not become unlawful
merely because it has secondary effects. The wisdom of the Respond-
ent in seeking to eliminate the use of scanned positives is no proper
concern of ours in this proceeding so long as it acts within the law in
attempting to accomplish this. Accordingly, we would dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.16
13 United Dairy Workers , Local No. 83, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
( Sealtest Foods Division ), 146 NLRB 716, 722-723.
14 Milk Wagon Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local 603 , Teamsters (Drive-Thru
Dairy, Inc .), 145 NLRB 445, 448-449.
15 Local 761 , International Union of Electrical , Radio and •Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
366 U S. 667 ; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Local. Union No. 19
('Paci fic Maritime Assn ), 137 NLRB 119, 127.
1s In view of our position herein, we would not consider or pass upon the Trial Examiner's
grounds for dismissing the complaint as to Respondent International.
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTO-
ENGRAVERS UNION No. 2-P, LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, AND OF LITHOGRAPHERS AND
PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any individual
employed by Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication Corporation,
Glen Burnie, Maryland, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof
is to force or require Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication Cor-
poration to cease doing business with Printing Developments,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Alco-Gravure, Divi-
sion of Publication Corporation, Glen Burnie, Maryland, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require the
above-named Employer to cease doing business with Printing
Developments, Inc.
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS
UNION, LOCAL 2-P, INTERNATIONAL LITHOGRA-
PHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL LITHOGRAPHERS AND
PHOTOENGRAVERS UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
If members and officers have any questions concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly
with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Telephone 752-8460, Extension
2159.
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1215
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
"STATEMENT OF THE CASE - - '
Upon separate charges filed on June 21 and July 13, 1965, by Alco-Gravure, Divi-
sion of Publication Corporation, herein referred to as Alco-Baltimore, the Regional
Director for Region's of the. National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, issued a.consolidated complaint on July 15, 1965, on behalf of the General
Counsel of the Board against Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union,
Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein
referred to as the International, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151,
et seq.), herein called the Act. In their duly filed answers to the aforementioned
consolidated complaint, the Respondents, while admitting certain of the allegations
thereof, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Morton D. Fried-
man in Baltimore, Maryland, on August 9, 1965. All parties were present and
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present
oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by
all parties.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the
parties, and upon my observation of the demeanor of each of the witnesses testi-
fying before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
Alco-Gravure, a New York corporation, which maintains its principal office in
Hoboken, New Jersey, operates printing and processing plants in Glen Burnie,
Maryland, where it prints rotogravure newspaper supplements, catalogues, and
related products. The Glen Burnie, Maryland, plant is the only facility involved in
this proceeding. In the course and conduct of Alco-Baltimore's operations at its
glen Burnie, Maryland, plant during the 12 months immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, it purchased from points
and places outside the State of Maryland goods and merchandise valued in excess
of $50,000 and shipped to points and places outside the State of Maryland goods
and merchandise valued in excess of $50,000.
Printing Developments, Inc., herein called P.D.I., a New York corporation,
maintains its principal office and plant in the city of New York and other plants
and facilities in the States of Connecticut and Illinois, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of continuous tone separations and related
products. In the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a
representative period, in the course and conduct of its business, P.D.I. purchased
merchandise outside the State of New York and shipped from its New York plant
to points and places outside the State of New York goods, wares, and merchandise
valued in excess of $50,000.
From the foregoing, I conclude that Alto and P.D.I. are employers and persons
engaged in commerce and in businesses affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further conclude that it will effectuate the pol-
icies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.
U. THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Local 2-P and the International admit, and I find, that they are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complaint alleges, in effect, that the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging Alco's employees to refuse to
handle scanned positives purchased by Alco from P.D.I. with an object of forcing or
requiring Alco to cease doing business with P.D.I. The answers admit the encourage-
ment and inducement and the refusal to handle or process P.D.I. scanned positives.
However, the answers of each of the Respondents deny that the refusals to handle or
process P.D.I. scanned positives were for the purpose of forcing or requiring Alco to
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cease doing business with P .D.I. The answer of the International also denies respon-
sibility or participation on the part of the International and alleges affirmatively
that the purpose of its part in the refusal was to enforce contract provisions con-
tained in the agreement between Alco -Baltimore and Local 2-P.
Accordingly the issues presented are two in number:
1. Was the inducement and encouragement of Alco-Baltimore 's employees to
cease handling P.D.I.'s scanned positives for other than camera copy to prevent
Alco-Baltimore from doing business with P.D.I.?
2. If so, was the International legally responsible, along with Respondent Local
2-P, for the refusal of Alco-Gravure employees to handle P D.I.'s scanned positives
for other than initial copy for the camera?
B. Background
As alluded to heretofore, Alco-Baltimore is engaged at Glen Burnie, a suburb
of Baltimore, Maryland, as elsewhere, in the production of rotogravure printed
material. In Glen Burnie, Alco has two plants. One, located at Roseler Road, is
known as the process plant and the other, on Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard, is
known as the printing plant. These plants are complimentary to one another and
between them employ about '43 or 44 photoengraver members of Local 2-P.
The major customers of Alcu-Baltimore are the Baltimore Sun, the Washington
Star and, since the spring of 1965, the Philadelphia Bulletin. At these plants Alco
also produces rotogravure magazine sections for "This Week" magazine, mail flyers,
circulars, and catalogues. Only the color work involved in the printing of the fore-
going is the subject of this proceeding.
In 1964, as a result of the merger of former Lithographers and former Photo-
engravers' unions, the International Respondent herein was formed. Local 2-P is
the Baltimore Local which has jurisdiction over the Glen Burnie plants here
involved The work of its members, according to its most recent contracts with
Alco-Baltimore, is divided into several branches of work, which include photog-
raphy, retouching-layout, etching, re-etching, staging, printing and laydown, grind-
ing and plating , and finishing.
Also as noted above, P.D.I. is engaged in the business of developing and selling
continuous tone separations and related products. These continuous tone separations
are identified as scanned negatives and scanned positives in this proceeding. P.D.I.
is also engaged at the same time in the business of developing and selling new
products and procedures to the printing industry and for such purposes maintains
plants in New York, Chicago, and other cities. Involved in this proceeding is the
New York plant only.
Up to the time in recent years that P.D.I. developed the scanning process, roto-
gravure printing consisted of the following steps after receipt of a Kodachrome
(colored) transparency or other copy from the customer:
(1) The production by a photographic process of four negatives one for each
of the three primary colors and one for black; (2) the reproduction .therefrom of
four positives representing the same colors and the checking of the positives for
color balance; (3) the production from the positives of a rota or etching film used
to etch the picture on a copper cylinder; (4) the production of the copper cylinder
which consists of etching and chroming; and (5) the printing of the proofs made
from the cylinder and, of course, the final ,printed product.
All of the foregoing processes, especially the making of the negatives and the
positives in steps (1) and (2), were accomplished by hand methods and the use of
cameras.
However, during the 1950 's, P.D.I . developed a process for producing electron-
ically scanned negatives suitable for use in preparing the color plates for gravure
printing, offset printing , and letterpress printing. This process was known , as scan-
ning and the machines on which .the :scanned products were made are known as the
scanners . For several years past , Alco-Baltimore has sent virtually all of its Koda-
chrome transparencies and its other art copy to P.D .I. for the making of scanned
negatives . To this practice the Union has not and does not make any protest. When
the scanned negatives were ' returned to Alco-Baltimore , its employees produced
positives via the hand camera method and then completed the steps set forth above
to make the ultimate printed product . In emergencies or when there was an over-
abundance of work that could not be produced by Alco's own employees, it was
customary for Alco to send the Kodachromes or other copy to "supply houses" or
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P ' 1217
"trade shops" which would produce both negatives and positives by the traditional'
hand camera methods, returning the positives to Alco for the subsequent steps in
the rotogravure processing.
Sometime before the end of 1964, P.D.I. developed a process for using the
scanner to produce positives as well as negatives. P.D.I. is the only company which
produces and sells scanned positives to the trade, at least to any extent, in eastern
United States. There are other scanners but they are mostly in the hands of private
printers. These are not the, same machines as the one developed by P.D.I.
On an experimental basis, in about December 1964, Alco had P.D.I. process some
electronically scanned positives. Upon testing, Alco found that these positives were
satisfactory for use in many instances and that the production thereof was approxi-
mately the same cost as that incurred by Alco when it produced its own positives
from P.D.I. negatives. It was also found that the use of P.D.I. scanned positives
was less costly to Alco than having the work done by independent trade shops using
traditional methods.'
C. The events
By reason of the fact that the production of scanned positives offered a means
for the production of positives at a cost at no more than the amount which it
would cost Alco to produce positives in its own shop from scanned negatives sup-
plied by P.D.I., Alco let it be known around the first of December 1964, that it
was about to institute a program using the scanned positives. This proposed use
of scanned positives was, to an extent at least, brought about by the obtaining by
Alco of a printing contract for the rotogravure section of the Sunday supplement
of the Philadelphia Bulletin. This was an additional new account which added
much to the work of Alco's shop. Additionally, other increased work was brought
into the shop and the scanned positive method assured to Alco a means of meeting
the increased burden of work.
As noted above, Alco's employees are members of Local 2-P at the two Glen
Burnie plants and at the time of the events herein Alco and the Union were parties
to a collective-bargaining agreement which is effective from July 1, 1964, through
December 31, 1966.
About December 6, 1964, Charles W. Ochs, the president of Local 2-P, received
a telephone call from color photographer Ross Beine, an employee of Alco and
vice president of Local 2-P, to the effect that Alco was planning to send work
to P.D.I. for positive scans which would bypass the camera. Both Ochs and Beine
felt that it was a threat and a change of practice from normal. Normal practice
had been to send out only overflow work. Beine and Ochs also felt that this con-
stituted subcontracting.2 On December 7, Ochs spoke to Walter Hawk, Alco's fore-
man for color process, who informed Ochs that P.D.I. scanned positives would be
used considerably in the future, that this represented more work for his depart-
ment while it bypassed the camera.3
About the same time, Ochs also spoke to Frank A. McGowan, president of
Local 1-P in New York, who informed Ochs that Alco-Hoboken was using P.D.I.
scanned positives only for overflow work and no one was harmed thereby. Further,
Ochs also spoke to International Vice President Walter Risdon who agreed with
Ochs that Alco-Baltimore was subcontracting positives to P.D.I. Additionally, on
December 8 and 10, 1964, Ochs spoke to George Meiser, general plant manager
of Alco-Baltimore. Meiser took the position that the obtaining of scanned positives
from P.D.I. was not subcontracting or a change of operations or practice but merely
the purchasing of a product, a positive, much as Alco had purchased positives in
the past from trade shops. Additionally, on the night of December 7 or 8, Ochs
received a return telephone call from International Vice President Risdon who, in
turn, had spoken to International President Brown who thought that inasmuch as
various locals of the International had contracts with P.D.I. it would be incon-
1 All of the foregoing from the uncontroverted testimony of Alco-Baltimore' s associate
plant manager, Rowland Gets.
2 The contract between the parties which was in effect at all times critical to this pro-
ceeding did not have any specific clause prohibiting subcontracting.
3 All of the foregoing from the testimony of Ochs which I credit by reason of the fact
that this testimony of Ochs was not controverted by Hawk who testified for the General
Counsel and was present for rebuttal but was not called.
257-551-67-vol. 160-78
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sistent to refuse to accept products of P.D .I. or to refuse to allow Alco to use
P.D.I. scanned positives . Ochs thereafter spoke once again to Meiser and on
December 17, 1964 , wrote a letter to the latter in which he stated that while the
Union did not wish to put road blocks in the path of progress there was a possible
threat to the employment and job security of members of Local 2-P. The letter
then continued:
I have spent quite a bit of time in exploring the possibilities of this (in our
opinion ) change of practice on acceptance of the positive materials and feel
that , in view of your statement , no one should be hurt by their use at this
time.
While we do not accept the use of positive separations from the P .D.I. scan-
ner, we reserve the right to raise the question again whenever it would be
evident that their use constitutes a serious threat to the employment or job
security of our members.
In consequence of this letter, in January 1965 , Alco began to use the P.D.I.
scanned positives for commercial production . Although scanned positives can only
be used for certain types of work , e.g., "one shot" pages, during the period from
January 1 to May 30 , 1965 , more than 35 percent of the positives used by Alco
were produced by the P.D.I. scanner . The use of scanned positives was not , there-
fore , confined to overflow or emergency work .4 Because Alco 's business increased
substantially during that period due to the obtaining of the work from the Phila-
delphia Bulletin and others , heretofore mentioned , there were no layoffs. But, only
one new employee was hired during this period . However, it should be noted that
Alco did ask theUnion for two employees , not photographers, but the Union could
provide only one.
Ochs and the executive board of Local 2-P had some reservations with regard to
Vice President Risdon 's instructions and advice and on the fourth Tuesday of Janu-
ary 1965, at a meeting of the executive board of Local 2-P, the board instructed
Ochs to write to International President Brown and obtain further clarification.
There ensued from this a series of correspondence commencing with a letter by
Ochs to Brown dated February 19, 1965, in which Ochs requested further investi-
gation into the matter and clarification . In this letter, Ochs reiterated his position
that the use of scanned positives represented a change of practice and amounted
to subcontracting the regular work of the members of Local 2-P. From this series
of letters interchanged between Ochs and members of the International 's hierarchy,
it is evident that some misunderstanding among the International officers with
respect to the International 's position on the matter existed and on March 5 Inter-
national Vice President Hall informed Ochs that the Chicago and Detroit locals had
advised rotogravure employees in their respective cities that scanned positives would
only be accepted as copy for the camera and not for direct use as positives. Hall
advised Ochs to take the same position in Baltimore and assured him that the Inter-
national would support this position.
In the meantime , Ochs had also been in contact with Alco's plant manager who
told him that New York Local 1-P, was permitting the Alco plant at Hoboken,
New Jersey , to accept P.D.I. positives. On March 14 , Ochs wrote to Hall with
regard to the problem and stated in that letter that inasmuch as the P.D.I. contract
was coming up in May 1965, ... "it may be well to think along the lines of con-
trol of the scanner and the type of work that we will accept from it."
Ochs then went on to state that something would have to be done to keep the use
of P.D .I.'s scanned positives within bounds . He mentioned to Hall that he intended
to contact the New York local to see what its actual position was and that he felt
that if the problem was to be eliminated at Baltimore it would take the coordinated
effort by both locals. However, during this period of time, Local 2-P did not refuse
to work on scanned positives . In connection with this , Ochs testified that although
he spoke to McGowan upon several occasions, and, despite the letter to Hall of
March 14, neither Ochs nor anyone else representing Local 2 -P coordinated in any-
way with Local 1-P or any other locals of the International which were engaged in
negotiating new contracts with P .D.I. Ochs also denied that the later action which
Local 2-P took, as herein below set forth , had any connection , despite the March 14
letter and his conversations with McGowan , with the negotiations of the renewals
' Compare this to the facts in New York Lithographers, etc, No. 1-P, Case 22-CC-278,
the Trial Examiner 's Decision issued simultaneously herewith.
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1219
-of P.D .I.'s contracts with Local 1-P or other locals. In fact , Ochs testified, he did
not even know what demands were made upon P .D.I. by the various locals nego-
tiating with P.D.I. until some time in July 1965, after the terms, of renewed agree-
ments between P.D.I. and the various locals had been reached.
Finally, on April 12, Ochs called McGowan, Local 1-P president in New York,
who advised Ochs that Local 1-P had stopped handling P.D.I. scanned positives.
On May 19, McGowan called Ochs and informed Ochs that Alco in Hoboken had
filed charges against Local 1-P. On May 25, Ochs met with the Local 2-P execu-
tive board and told them that he proposed to take action to stop the use of scanned
positives except as copy for the camera. Thereafter, on May 30, Ochs sent a letter
to Local 2-P shop steward at Alco-Baltimore informing the latter that as of that
date no further scanned positives would be handled except as copy for the camera.
On the same date Ochs also sent a letter to George Meiser, Alco-Baltimore's man-
ager and informed the latter to the same effect.
Ochs testified that the reason he did not contact Meiser soon after the March 14
letter to Hall or take any definitive action with regard to the use of scanned posi-
tives at Baltimore until May 30, was because he was busy negotiating two contracts
with other employers on behalf of members of Local 2-P; he faced a potential
strike of the Newspaper Guild at the Sun Papers in Baltimore which strike would
involve and did involve Local 2-P members; there were an unusual number of
grievances filed during this period which had to be discussed with employers, and,
moreover, Ochs was a full-time employee himself and only a part-time union officer.
It should also be noted in connection therewith that before the latter part of
May, the locals of the International who dealt with P.D.I. had demanded of P.D.I.
that the contract renewal contain a provision that P.D.I. not produce any scanned
positives. However, when the contracts were negotiated, P.D.I. finally agreed not to
produce scanned positives for the gravure industry without the consent of the par-
ticular local representing P.D.I. employees involved. With regard to other types of
printing establishments such as offset and letterpress whose employees the Interna-
tional and the locals did not represent, there was no limitation set upon the produc-
tion by P.D.I. of scanned positives. So far as the Glen Burnie plants are concerned,
such consent must come from the New York local; the Baltimore local cannot con-
trol the decision. Moreover, in connection with P.D.I., the record shows that sales
of scanned positives to the gravure industry prior to the refusal to process herem
constituted less than 5 percent of the total sales of scanned positives.
Local 2-P's refusal to process scanned positives except as copy for the camera
placed Alco in a difficult situation. It is not economically feasible to use scanned
positives as copy for the camera because the entire process of first making nega-
tives and then new positives must be followed. Consequently, and the Respondents
admit, subsequent to May 30, 1965, the refusal by members of Local 2-P to work
on the scanned positives amounted to a partial strike.
D. Concluding findings
The General Counsel contends that Local 2-P, by refusing to permit its mem-
bers to handle and process scanned positives in the course of their employment by
Alco, which positives were produced by P.D.I., and thereby engaging in a partial
strike has engaged in and is engaging in secondary activity violative of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. The General Counsel further contends that
the International induced Local 2-P to indulge in this activity to effectuate the
International's scheme with its locals to use Local 2-P to force Alco to partially
refrain from doing business with P .D.I. to force P.D.I. to accede to the demands
of the various locals which have membership among P.D.I: s employees. Thus,
according to the General Counsel , the International was and is an active party to
the violative activity. In support of his contention the General Counsel points to
the timing of Local 2-P's refusal and argues that it was dictated by the Interna-
tional in Order to force Alco to bring pressure against P.D.I. to yield to the
demands of the various locals as aforesaid.
On the other hand, Local 2-P and the International contend that Local 2-P had
a primary dispute with Alco over the terms and conditions of the employment of
its members in that Alco's use of the P.D.I. positives constituted a violation of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Local 2-P and Alco and in that Local 2-P
was concerned at all times with its belief that Alco was subcontracting to the detri-
ment of Local 2-P's members in Alco's employ. The Respondents contend further
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Local 2-P's action taken to protest the breach of contract was protected by
the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act,5 even though an effect thereof was
to cause a cessation of business between Alco and P.D.I.
I find, that at the outset, at least, the action taken by Local 2-P showed that its
chief concern was that Alco's general use of P.D.I. scanned positives, as initiated
in early January of 1965, threatened the employment tenure of the Local's members.
This is illustrated by the conversation between Ochs and Beine in December 1964
in which Beine informed Ochs of Alco's proposed use of scanned positives. Both
Ochs and Beine agreed that this was a breach of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between Alco and Local 2-P in that it constituted a change from the cus-
tomary practice of obtaining positives from outside sources only in the event of
overflow or emergency situations and that it also constituted subcontracting con-
trary to the provisions of the contract. Whether there was merit in this position is
not in issue here. That this was the primary concern of Local 2-P and of Ochs as
its president is borne out more fully by the exchange of correspondence between
Ochs and the International officers between February 19 and March 14, 1965. Cer-
tainly, this correspondence shows that the primary concern of the Baltimore Local
2-P has at all times been the possible loss of present and potential jobs at Alco-
Baltimore's plants.
The General Counsel argues, however, that the May 30 letter from Ochs to
Meiser, Alco's plant manager, informing the latter that the International had
advised Local 2-P to handle P.D.I. scanned positives only as copy for the camera,
was timed and dictated by the International in order to force Alco to bring pres-
sure against P.D.I. to yield to the demands of the New York, Chicago, and Detroit
locals. The question, then, is whether the timing, and other factors are sufficient to
permit an inference that Local 2-P's refusal to handle P.D.I. scanned positives was
influenced by the negotiations the locals were then conducting with P.D.I. In sup-
port of this latter possible inference, I note that in the March 14 leter from Ochs
to Hall, Ochs stated that "it may be well to begin to think along the lines of con-
trol of the scanner and the type of work that we will accept from it." He also
stated that if the problem was to be eliminated it would take the coordinated efforts
of Local 2-P and Local 1-P in New York.
The foregoing would seem to indicate that Ochs was definitely interested in lim-
iting the output of P.D.I. scanned positives at the source. There are, also, the
admitted conversations between Ochs and Local 1-P's president, McGowan, although
Ochs contended he was unaware of the demands of Local 1-P and the other locals
that Alco produce no further scanned positives, until after the negotiations with
P.D.I. had been completed by the other locals. However, it must be remembered
that there is no verification of this testimony, and such testimony must be con-
sidered as self-serving.
There is also the fact of the lapse of time between the March 5, 4965, 'letter
from International Executive Vice President William J. Hall to Ochs in which Hall
informed Ochs that it had been decided that scanned positives would be accepted
only as copy and that if Local 2-P took the same position they could do so with
assurance that the International would support their position. Thus, a period of
almost 2 months elapsed before Ochs took any action to effectuate this policy sup-
plied by the International. Ochs, in his testimony, sought to explain this lapse of
time and the delay by stating that, in effect, he was too busy with his own personal
work and other union matters to get to it before May 30. He cited in support of
this excuse his negotiations with other employers, his full-time job as a photoen-
graver, the pending strikes and alleged lockout at newspaper plants in Baltimore
which affected members of Local 2-P and the general business concern of the
Union. However, I find it difficult to accept that a short letter such as the one sent
on May 30, 1965, from Ochs to Meiser would have been so difficult to compose
that it could not have been done during this period.
Accordingly, I find that there is sound basis for the inference urged by -the Gen-
eral Counsel that the timing of the refusal to process the scanned positives were
influenced by the negotiations of other locals of the International with P.D.I. in
and about the months of May and June 1965.
5 The proviso reads :
Provided, That nothing contained in this clause ( B) shall be construed to make
unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing.
BALTIMORE LITHOGRAPHERS, LOCAL 2-P 1221
A strike may be an unfair labor practice within the -meaning of Section 8(b) (4)
if only one of the objects of the strike is a proscribed object. A proscribed object
need, not be the only object of the strike.6
While it is true that Local 2-P did not have a direct dispute with P.D.I., and did
not, in fact, participate in the negotiations between P.D.I. and the other locals, nor
have any direct contact with P.D.I., this fact does not prevent the refusals to han-
dle from constituting a partial strike in violation of the Act. It must be noted that
Local 2-P's very concern with the source of the scanned positives was set forth by
Ochs in a letter to the International as noted above. I do not accept Ochs' excuse
for the delay between the March 5 letter from Hall and the May 30 letter to
Meiser. Accordingly I find that although one object of the refusal to handle was
primary in that Local 2-P was protesting the changed nature of Alco's operations,
the other secondary object that existed side by side was to force Alco to cease pur-
,chasing P.D.I. scanned positives to force P.D.I. to cease the manufacture of scanned
positives This, of course, was assistance to Local 2-P's sister locals which were
then in negotiation with P.D.I.
I conclude, therefore, that there existed a lawful primary object of the refusal to
handle action taken by Local 2-P in that Local 2-P had a contract dispute with
Alco and that it sought to resolve that dispute meritorious or otherwise by taking
the strike action. Moreover, I find that the-motivation was lawful in this respect
inasmuch as Local 2-P was concerned about- the future employment possibilities of
its members who were employees of Alco. But, merely because such dispute existed
did not immunize Local 2-P's action in seeking to bring about a partial cessation of
business between Alco and P.D.I. The mere fact that the ultimate objectives of a
boycott such as the one involved here may not be illegal does not justify the boy-
cott when, to achieve the permissible objectives, an illegal intermediate objective-
termination of a business relationship between two employers-must be accom-
plished to achieve this objective.? Under these circumstances, it cannot be concluded
that the forbidden object was merely an effect of Local 2-P's actions.8
Accordingly, I find that Local 2-P has violated and is.violating Section 8(b)(4)
(i) (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of Alco to engage in a
strike with a refusal to handle scanned positives purchased by Alco from P.D.I.
with an object of forcing or requiring Alco to cease doing business with P.D.I.
Moreover, I find additionally that Local 2-P threatened, coerced, and restrained
and is threatening, coercing, and restraining Alco which is engaged in commerce
and an industry affecting commerce and, that Local 2-P thereby did engage in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
^of the Act.
However, I do not find merit in the contention of the General Counsel that the
International participated in and was an active party to the unlawful conduct
engaged in by Local 2-P. Although the International did instruct Local 2-P, or at
least give it comfort, to refuse to handle P.D.I. scanned positives as anything
except copy for the camera, there is no record support to show that the Interna-
tional participated in the unlawful objective of Local 2-P. As the facts show, the
International did not participate or take an active part in any of the negotiations
between the locals and P.D.I. It was concerned only with the overall policy of pre-
serving the livelihood of the members of the various locals . Nowhere in the record
is there shown any direct influence or any direct action taken by the International
to effectuate the unlawful objective. Indeed, to find that the International indulged
in such unlawful conduct would require the making of an inference which is not
supported on the record as a whole. Accordingly, I shall recommend that so much
of the complaint that alleges the participation by the International in unlawful activ-
ity be dismissed.
9 N.L.R.B. v. Denver Buil4ing and Construction Trades Council (Gould & Prexsner), 341
U S. 675, 689 ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 (Samuel
Langer) v. N L R B , 341 U S. 694, 700; New York Mailers' Union, No 6, 136 NLRB 196.
, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (Swift & Com-
pany) v. N.L R B , 237 F 2d 20 (C A DC ) , Puget Sound District Council, Lumber &
Sawmill Workers, Carpenters, 153 NLRB 547.
b Cf. N.L.R B v Service Trade Chauffeurs, 191 F 2d 65 (C A 2) ; International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Local Union No 19, 137 NLRB 119
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent Local 2-P has engaged in unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Although the negotiations between the various locals of the International and
P.D.I. have resulted in agreements which, in effect, have virtually brought the ne-
cessity for secondary activity to an end in that P .D.I. has agreed not to produce
scanned negatives for the gravure industry, an improper object which is not any
longer operative may nevertheless be the basis for a Board Order because such
object may again become operative in the future . Accordingly, I recommend that a
cease-and-desist order in the usual form be issued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union, Local 2-P, International,
Lithographers and Photoengravers Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within,
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By inducing and encouraging employees of Alco-Gravure Division of Publica-
tion Corporation to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to handle or process scanned positives manufactured by P.D.I., an
objective thereof being to force or require Alco to cease doing business with P.D.I.,
the Respondent, Local 2-P, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) of the Act.
3. By the acts described above in paragraph 2, for the objects set forth in said,
paragraph , Respondent did threaten , coerce, and restrain and is now threatening,
coercing , and restraining Alco, a person engaged in commerce and in an industry
affecting commerce , and the Respondent thereby has engaged in and is now engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices , are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P,
International Lithographers & Photo -Engravers Union, AFL-
CIO and Alco -Gravure Division of Publication Corporation.
Case 22-CC-278. September 22, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
-December 13, 1965, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take,
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the Charg-
ing Party, hereinafter referred to as Alco, filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
160 NLRB No. 91.