Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., and Bloomsburg Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No . 732, affiliated
with Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America . Case 4-CA-5145
December 29, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On September 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Robert E.
Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam-
iner further found that Respondent had not engaged
in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a brief to the Decision. Charging Party has filed a
brief in answer to the exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified hereafter.
Respondent's sole exception is to that provision of
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Orders affirma-
tively directing Respondent to, inter alia, upon
request, bargain in good faith with the Union with
respect to transfer of employees from one shift to
another and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such an understanding in a signed agreement. No
exceptions have been taken to the substantive portion
of this Trial Examiner's Decision.
The record, in our view, supports Respondent's
exception. The contractual understanding between
Respondent and the Union is embodied in a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement valid for the period Janu-
i inadvertently titled in the Trial Examiner' s Decision as "Order"
2 Section 12 1 of the bargaining agreement reads
The Company has, retains , and shall possess and exercise all
management rights and functions , powers , privileges and authority
that it possessed prior to entering into this Agreement with Unions,
excepting only such as are specifically relinquished or restricted
herein
3 There can be no doubt that the supplemental agreement is an addition
to the collective -bargaining agreement and not a mere agreement to end a
ary 1969-January 1972. That agreement contains no
specific provision regarding shift changes of individu-
al employees, but does include a "management
rights" clause.2 In July 1969, within the term of the
existing collective-bargaining agreement and follow-
ing a work stoppage that began on June 30 and
continued until July 10, Respondent and the Union
executed a supplemental agreement3 to the collective-
bargaining agreement. The Supplemental Agreement
concerned certain issues then in dispute and set forth
the conditions pursuant to which the employees
would return to work. The Supplemental Agreement
provides in pertinent part:
3. The Company shall continue to have the right
to make all job assignments and shift changes in
the plant as in the past .. . .
We find it clear from the foregoing that Respondent
and the Union have agreed, for the term of the
bargaining agreement, to vest Respondent with the
exclusive right to unilaterally transfer an employee
from one shift to another for nondiscriminatory
reasons.
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, once a bargaining
agreement has been executed by a union and an
employer establishing terms and conditions for a
"fixed period," neither party is under the duty "to
discuss or agree to any modification" of these terms or
conditions during the contract period.4 Accordingly,
we shall delete that portion of the Order directing
Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union
with respect to transfer of employees from one shift to
another.
In view of the Trial Examiner's findings that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
threatening employees with loss of privileges for
exercising their protected right to file grievances; by
conditioning discussion on the subject of the griev-
ances upon formal withdrawal of the grievance; and
by polling employees individually in an attempt to
induce the Union to abandon the grievance, we find it
necessary to affirmatively direct Respondent to offer
to process grievances arising under the bargaining
agreement without threat, interference, or condition,
except as specifically set forth in the bargaining
agreement. Accordingly, we shall so modify the
Order.
work stoppage The supplemental agreement , in the preamble,
acknowledges that it is predicated upon the bargaining agreement Further,
paragraph 8 of the supplemental agreement provides that all terms and
conditions of the collective -bargaining agreement shall remain in full force
and effect except as specifically set forth in the supplemental agreement.
The agreement is signed by duly authorized representatives of Respondent
and the Union
4 C & S Industries Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 457, see Beacon Piece Dyeing
and Finishing Co, Inc, 121 NLRB 953, 956
187 NLRB No. 68
BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 507
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., Sunbury,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herei-
nafter:
1. Delete paragraph 2(c) of the Recommended
Order and insert the following in its place:
"(c) Process grievances arising under the bargaining
agreement without threat, interference, or condition,
except as specifically set forth in the bargaining
agreement and, upon request, bargain collectively in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and office
clericals, supervisors, guards and professional
employees."
2. In footnote 35 of the Trial Examiner's Decision
substitute "20" for "10" days.
3. Substitute the attached Appendix for Appendix
attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT transfer employees from one shift
to another for the purpose of discouraging union
membership in, or activity on behalf of, Blooms-
burg Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No.
732, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT condition discussion of the subject
matter of a grievance on its abandonment, poll
employees individually in an attempt to get them
to withdraw a grievance, refuse to discuss griev-
ances or transfers, encourage individual bargain-
ing, or threaten reprisals and discriminate against
employees for using or attempting to use the
grievance procedure.
WE WILL process grievances arising under the
bargaining agreement without threat, interference,
or condition, except as specifically set forth in the
bargaining agreement, and, upon request, bargain
collectively in good faith with the above-named
Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
at the Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and
office clericals, supervisors, guards and pro-
fessional employees.
WE WILL offer to reinstate CURTIS R. MOOR-
HEAD to his job on the day shift, if we have not
already so reinstated or offered to reinstate him,
and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as
a result of discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named Union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
BLOOMSBURG
CRAFTSMEN, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut &
Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107,
Telephone 215-597-7601.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: The hearing in this
case was held on May 5, 6, and 7, 1970, in Sunbury,
Pennsylvania, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,'
and a complaint issued on March 27, 1970. The complaint,
as amended at the hearing , 2 presents questions as to
whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
' The original charge was filed on February 5, 1970
2 At the outset of the hearing the complaint was amended to
incorporate a reference to the filing of an amended charge by the Union on
April 13, 1970 At the time he offered this amendment , however, the
(Continued)
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its
answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts
with respect to its business operations, but it denied all
allegations that it had committed any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing, the General Counsel, the Respondent,
and the Charging Union were represented by counsel. All
parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence, and to
file briefs. A motion to dismiss the complaint, made by the
Respondent at the conclusion of the hearing, was taken
under advisement . It is disposed of as appears hereinafter in
this Decision . On June 24, 1970, thorough and comprehen-
sive briefs were received from all counsel of record.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of
counsel, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with a
plant and office located in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the business of printing books.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a
representative period, the Respondent shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Upon the foregoing facts,
the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds,
that Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc. (herein called Blooms-
burg), is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At the time of the hearing, Bloomsburg Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 732, affiliated with
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America
(herein called Union, or Local 732, had been in existence
since about 1965. All of its members are employees of the
Respondent. As appears from the caption, Local 732 is
affiliated with the Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America. It is also a member of the Middle
Atlantic Joint Council of that Union.
Since 1965 the Respondent has recognized the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of all production
and maintenance employees at its Bloomsburg plant, with
the exception of plant and office clericals, supervisors,
guards, and professional employees.3 In March 1969, and
after the expiration of their original collective-bargaining
agreement , the Respondent and the Union negotiated a
new contract, for a further term of 3 years. In July 1969,
following a work stoppage that began on June 30 and
continued until about July 10, the Respondent and the
Union executed a supplemental agreement covering certain
General Counsel conceded that he was not enlarging the allegations set
forth in the complaint as issued on March 27, 1970
3 The Respondent conceded , and the Trial Examiner finds , that the
above-described grouping of employees constitutes a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act , and further that the Union is now , and at all times material herein,
has been, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act , the exclusive representative
issues then in dispute and setting forth the conditions
pursuant to which the employees were to return to work.
Notwithstanding the foregoing history of bargaining
relations between the parties, the Respondent denied in its
answer , and refused to concede at the hearing, that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. The Trial Examiner, however, on the substantial
record developed at the hearing in this matter, concludes
and finds that Local 732 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Sequence of Events
I The Respondent's corporate and labor relations
background
Bloomsburg, the Respondent herein, is the offset printing
division of Haddon Craftsmen. Much, if not all, of the
offset printing for the parent corporation is done at the
Bloomsburg plant, and the printed sheets so produced are
thereafter bound into books at the Haddon works located
in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The latter plant has approxi-
mately 1,300 employees and for many years Haddon has
had collective-bargaining relations with 11 different labor
organizations. In addition to most of the principal unions in
the printing field, such as the Pressmen, the Bookbinders,
the International Typographical Union, and the Mailers,
this number has also included the craft unions which
represent the machinists, carpenters, electricians, steamfit-
ters, and pipefitters. Harold Jones, director of industrial
relations for the Respondent, testified that Haddon's
bargaining relationship with one of the foregoing unions
extended as far back as 1904. It is of some significance that
Haddon has never been found guilty of an unfair labor
practice.
The Bloomsburg plant was opened in 1964. Initially, the
plant had one large press, known as a Harris press. Late in
1965 another Harris press was installed. Approximately a
year later the Company installed a Crabtree press.
Thereafter, at intervals of about a year each, the
Respondent installed two more Crabtree presses. Each of
these machines was a very large piece of equipment, the
purchase price of which ranged from $160,000 to $250,000.
The plant operated on a three-shift-a-day basis. On each
shift each press had a pressman responsible for the
operation of that particular machine. Each pressman on the
Harris presses had one assistant, and each pressmen on the
Crabtree presses had two assistants?
Local 732 was organized at the Bloomsburg plant in 1965.
At the time of the hearing it had approximately 70
members, all of whom were employees of the Company. As
noted earlier, the Union has had continuous collective-
bargaining relations with the Respondent since its incep-
tion. In its short history, Local 732 has had two elected
of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay. wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment
4 The Crabtree was a substantially more complex machine than the
Harris , for it printed both sides of a sheet simultaneously, whereas the
Harris only punted one
BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 509
presidents, the first being William McHugh and the second,
Curtis Moorhead. The latter was the principal witness for
the General Counsel and the Charging Party and the
former was the principal witness for the Respondent
Employer.
McHugh was instrumental in the establishment of Local
732 and served as chairman of its original negotiating
committee. He was elected president of the Local in 1965,
at a time when he was still a pressman. A short while after
becoming union president he was promoted to working
foreman and in January 1968 he was named superintendent
of the pressroom. In fact, McHugh had been acting
superintendent for some while prior thereto because his
predecessor as superintendent had been injured in an auto
accident during the summer of 1967 and McHugh had
taken over his duties at that point. McHugh resigned as
president of Local 732 in December 1967.5 At the hearing
he testified that he did not attend any further meetings of
the Union after he resigned the presidency, but that he
remained an active member until January 1969 when he
applied for, and received, an honorable withdrawal card.
Curtis Moorhead was one of the original employees hired
by Bloomsburg in 1964. He started as an assistant on the
first Harris press and in 1967 became a pressman. At the
time of the hearing he had been classified as a Crabtree
pressman since July 1968, and as such, was one of the three
most senior members of the pressroom.6
A biannual election of officers for Local 732 was
scheduled for the spring of 1968. In April, Moorhead
announced that he would campaign for the post of
president which McHugh had vacated the preceding
December. He credibly testified that soon thereafter
McHugh, who was then superintendent of the press room,
inquired if he was interested in becoming a working
foreman on the second shift. According to Moorhead, he
declined on the ground that he did not feel that he should
be both a foreman and president of the local simultaneous-
ly.
2. Events occurring prior to the Section 10(b)
period
It is apparent from the record that after Moorhead was
elected president of the Union in about June 1968, he
embarked on an aggressive campaign to enforce the terms
of the collective bargaining contract. McHugh testified that
while he had been president of the Local he had settled a
number of verbal grievances, but that he had processed
only one written grievance. He testified that with Moor-
head's accession to the presidency, the number of written
grievances was greatly multiplied, and that, in addition,
Moorhead also brought up some oral grievances.
As the newly elected president of the Union, Moorhead
5 Charles Williams, the vice president of the local, thereupon became
acting president , and served until the next regularly scheduled election held
the following spring when Curtis Moorhead was elected president
6 The two others were Robert W Edwards and Henry Shaffer, both of
whom were classified as journeymen Crabtree pressmen about 6 months
earlier than Moorhead The job progression in the pressroom, in ascending
order of importance, was (1) floorboy, (2) second assistant on Crabtree
press, (3) assistant on Harris press , (4) first assistant on Crabtree press, (5)
Harris pressman , and (6) Crabtree pressman
7 The quotations in the foregoing paragraph are from Moorhead's
quickly collided with the plant management. Early in
August 1968, an issue arose as to whether the floorboys
should continue to be available to relieve the pressmen and
assistants during break time. Moorhead demanded that
McHugh bring a man in on overtime, if necessary, to
provide the pressmen and their assistants the regular break
time. Moorhead testified that shortly thereafter at a
meeting on this issue with Superintendent McHugh and
Plant Manager Alex Maguire, McHugh cautioned him that
he could "catch more bees with honey than you can with
vinegar" and "that during his term as . . . president of
Local 732 . . . he [McHugh] believed in playing ball with
the company ...." Moorhead testified that during the
same conference Maguire told him that two of the
employees could be fired for not working that evening and
that if Moorhead "wanted to play by the rule book, that he
could be a real bastard ...." 7
A short while later, in an effort to increase the bargaining
power of Local 732, Moorhead succeeded in getting the
membership to approve its affiliation with the Middle
Atlantic Joint Council of the Pressmen. This was a move on
the part of the local which McHugh had opposed
throughout his incumbency as president.8 Moorhead
testified that not long after Local 732 voted to join the Joint
Council, McHugh reprimanded him for signing a check for
the Union while on duty, although this was the same type
check which McHugh, as union president, had always
signed on company time.
In October 1968, Local 732 and the Respondent began
negotiations for a new contract which were not concluded
until the following March. Moorhead testified that while
engaged in these bargaining sessions he received several
warning letters for quality infractions and a 1-day layoff.
On at least two occasions during this period the
Respondent's management made clear its desire to deal
with the employees alone. Late in August 1968, Paul Mont,
Jr., a first assistant on one of the Crabtree presses, did not
report for certain scheduled Saturday work. The following
Monday, on arriving at the plant, McHugh ordered that he
come to his office. When Mont declined to do so, unless he
could be accompanied by a union representative, McHugh
issued a written letter of warning to him, and told Mont
that if ever again he "refused to come into office without
union representation . . . I would be through." 9
In June 1969, John W. Haycock and Clement McIntyre,
two pressmen, were suspended for 2 weeks for violating a
plant rule against horseplay. On about June 25 they had a
conversation with McHugh and Maguire wherein they
protested the severity of their suspension. According to
Haycock, whose testimony was credible, these two officials
told him and his coworker that if they would confer with
Harold Jones, the Respondent's director of industrial
relations, without Union Representative Moorhead pres-
testimony about this incident which was credible and uncontradicted.
6 In this connection, however, it should be noted that McHugh was not
alone in his opposition for, on at least one previous occasion , a vote on the
question of affiliation with the Joint Council resulted in its unanimous
rejection At the hearing, McHugh further testified, with some conviction,
that he had found that the membership of the Council was made up of a
preponderance of "letterpress" locals, a field in printing that he felt was on
the decline, in contrast with the expanding offset printing field that was of
primary interest to the members of Local 732
9 The quotation is from Mont's credible testimony
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent, they might be able to get the 2-week suspension order
reduced to a layoff of I or 2 days Neither Haycock nor
McIntyre would take this course, however, and their
suspensions were not reduced.10
As noted earlier, during the latter part of June and early
in July 1969, a work stoppage occurred at the Bloomsburg
plant. This developed after the Company discharged all the
union officers and stewards, a total of nine people. After
approximately 10 days, the dispute was resolved with the
return to work of all the dischargees and an agreement
upon a number of other matters. During the course of the
settlement negotiations the Company proposed that the
issue as to the reinstatement of Moorehead should be
submitted to arbitration, but the Union rejected this
proposal and the Company did not insist on this condition.
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5); The Evidence,- Contentions of the Parties;
Findings and Conclusions In Connection Therewith
The General Counsel alleged that on about November
11, 1969,11 Superintendent McHugh attempted to transfer
employees from the first to the third shift because they had
exercised their right to bargain collectively through the
Union, that on about November 13, McHugh threatened
employees with loss of privileges because they exercised
their right to bargain through the Union and that shortly
thereafter McHugh discriminatorily assigned employee
Robert W. Edwards to a less desirable press and
discriminatorily reassigned employee Curtis Moorhead
from the first to the third shift. All of these allegations are
denied by the Respondent in their entirety.
Moorhead, one of the three most senior pressmen in the
pressroom,12 had been on the second shift for some while,
when early in 1969 he was transferred to the third shift.
Moorhead testified that he had trouble sleeping and
adjusting to that shift, and, as a result, he asked McHugh
that he be transferred back to the second shift. Sometime
thereafter in 1969, McHugh granted this request. Finally,
effective on November 10, and after discussing the matter
with Moorhead, McHugh transferred him to the first shift.
On November 11, Superintendent McHugh and Shift
Foreman Charles Williams held a meeting with all of the
day shift pressmen then on duty. There were five such
employees, namely; Moorhead, Robert W. Edwards, Henry
Shaffer, Doyle Beaver, and John Hayes. McHugh ex-
plained that he had called them together to announce that
because of production training problems on the third shift,
in the near future it would be necessary to transfer most of
10 At the time of the hearing, McIntyre had been promoted to foreman
He was never called to the stand by the Respondent Maquire was a
witness for the Company, but was never questioned about this incident
McHugh testified that during this conversation he told the employees that
he had heard that Moorhead had not given them any effective support
when the suspensions were first announced and that it might be better to
present their own case to the director of industrial relations It is the
conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the testimony of Haycock, related
above , presents a more accurate account of what was said during the
conference in question
I' All dates hereinafter are for the year 1969 , unless otherwise noted
12 The other two were Robert Edwards and Henry Shaffer
13 The foregoing findings are based on the credible testimony of
Moorhead , Edwards, and Shaffer. McHugh 's testimony as to what was said
at this meeting was in substantial accord with that of the employees, except
the senior pressmen and assistants to the third shift.
McHugh told them that part of the problem arose because
of the need to man a new press that had been installed
recently. This explanation was not satisfactory to the day
shift pressmen, however, and they questioned the superin-
tendent as to why the third shift supervision was unable to
handle any production problems that arose without
transfemng senior day shift men to the late night schedule.
McHugh declined to answer their questions, however, and
told the employees present that he called the meeting solely
to tell them what the Respondent was going to do and not
to engage in a discussion. McHugh did not, dunng the
meeting , name those whom he proposed to transfer.13
McHugh's announcement caused great concern among
the five day shift pressmen.14 That evening, all five
employees assembled at the home of Henry Shaffer, who,
along with being one of those involved, was also shop
steward on the day shift. There the five pressmen voted to
file a grievance about their proposed transfer which all of
them would sign . They did not actually submit this
grievance to the Respondent, however, until November 13.
In the meantime , and before any grievance was filed,
McHugh spoke to Moorhead and assured him that
Moorhead would not be transferred for some while, if at all.
Thus, Moorhead testified, credibly and without contradic-
tion, that on November 12, McHugh called him to his office
to tell him that since Moorhead had recently come off the
second shift and was then on only the first week as a day
shift pressmen, he would give him a reasonable time on the
day shift before transfemng him back to night work in the
event that became necessary at a later date. During this
conversation, McHugh told Moorhead that in the mean-
time he would transfer Shaffer to the third shift.
Moorhead's testimony as to this conversation with
McHugh was undenied.
There was other evidence that, at the time of the
aforesaid meeting and at least as of November 12, McHugh
had made no plan to transfer Moorhead off the first shift.
Thus, employee Edwards testified that shortly after the
pressmen's meeting with McHugh on November 11, he
himself was in McHugh's office with reference to another
matter.15 According to Edwards, while there he observed
the draft of a new manning list 16 on which two names on
the third shift had been crossed out and in their places the
names of Henry Shaffer, a first shift pressman, and John
Carter, a first shift assistant pressman, had been inserted in
ink. Edwards further testified that the same list also
indicated that William Stere, a pressman, and one other
employee, would be transferred from the third shift to the
that he testified that quality of third shift work had entered into the
explanation he gave those present The Respondent endeavored to
establish that at the meeting McHugh had emphasized that the production
problems on the third shift were of a qualitative, rather than of a
quantitative nature Moorhead, however, credibly denied having heard
McHugh say anything of that character at the meeting.
14 At the hearing McHugh testified that this occasion was the first time
he had ever called all the pressmen on a shift to his office as a group
15 It was undisputed that, in connection with his duties as a pressman,
Edwards frequently visited the office of Superintendent McHugh
is All shift and personnel changes for the pressroom were announced to
the employees on what were known as "manning " lists , or tables, which
McHugh posted on the bulletin board from time to time and shortly before
any change was to be effective.
BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 511
first. Edwards' testimony in this regard, of course,
corroborates Moorhead's account of his conversation with
McHugh on November 12, and McHugh's statement that
whereas he would not transfer Moorhead in the immediate
future, he did plan to transfer Shaffer to the third shift.
On the morning of November 13, Moorhead and Shaffer
presented to Superintendent McHugh a written grievance
which had been signed by all five of the first shift pressmen.
In this grievance the employees protested that McHugh's
announcement that the first shift employees would be
transferred to a later shift violated the collective-bargaining
agreement on the ground that Section 13.5 of that contract
required the superintendent to refrain from initiating any
such transfers without the permission of the employee.17
There followed a brief conversation between McHugh and
Moorhead. According to the latter, after McHugh read the
grievance he declared that anytime the Company endeav-
ored to better working conditions the Union filed a
grievance and that, in this instance, the grievance was
premature and improperly drafted in that the Company
had not yet taken any action as to the transfers. Moorhead
replied that the grievance was properly written and that it
would require a written response from the Company within
the 3-day time limit established by the contract.18
Shaffer testified that after he and Moorhead had
presented the grievance and as he was about to leave
McHugh's office, the superintendent said to him "Don't
ask me for any favors." Robert Edwards testified that
shortly thereafter McHugh came up to the press where he
was working and, in an obscene characterization of the five
who had signed the grievance declared to Edwards "You - -
- - - - guys are back filing grievances again." According to
Edwards, after this outburst from the superintendent he
declared on his own behalf "I'm only one of many" and
thereafter McHugh then said "Well, if Moorhead has you
wrapped around his finger like that, don't expect any more
special favors from me." Edwards testified that he
thereupon denied that Moorhead had him "wrapped
around his finger", but that the issue involved was one
about which he felt very strongly. According to Edwards,
McHugh concluded the conversation with the declaration
that the issue was one on which he also felt very strongly.
McHugh conceded that he had a conversation with
Edwards at the time and place in question and that during a
discussion of the grievance which had just been filed, he
told Edwards that he felt Moorhead had him wrapped
around his little finger.19 He disclaimed any recollection of
having used any obscene language to characterize the
grievants or that he had ever told either Edwards or Shaffer
that they need expect no further favors from him. After a
consideration of the foregoing testimony and the demeanor
of the witnesses at the time of their appearance on the
stand, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the
testimony of Edwards and Shaffer, insofar as there is any
conflict with that of McHugh, represents a more accurate
version of their conversation with the superintendent.
A meeting to discuss the Union' s grievance was
scheduled for 4 p.m. on Friday, November 14. At about
3:30 p.m., a manning list was posted on the plant bulletin
board. The latter disclosed that, effective the following
Monday, November 17, Moorhead would be transferred to
the third shift and that William Stere , a pressman who, as to
seniority, was several years junior to Moorhead, would
move from the third shift to the first shift. The manning
schedule also listed Edwards as being transferred from the
press on which he had been working for some time to
Crabtree press 3.
At the ensuing conference between the Company and the
Union, the former was represented by McHugh, Maguire,
Jones, and Personnel Director Meredith. The Union was
represented by Moorhead, Shaffer, the day shift steward,
and Doyle Beaver, secretary of Local 732. At the outset of
the meeting Maguire told the union representatives that
production difficulties on the third shift made it necessary
that some of the more senior employees on the day shift be
transferred. Then Meredith told the union committee that if
they would withdraw the grievance which had been filed it
would be possible for all parties to confer on the issue
involved and get it settled. When Meredith got no response
to his proposal from the representatives for the local, he
thereupon asked each one of them, on two different
occasions, if the individual member wanted to withdraw the
grievance. When all of the union representatives declined to
abandon the grievance the meeting was adjourned.
Another conference on the Union's grievance was held
on December 3. At this time the Union was represented by
Moorhead, John Haycock, and Vice President McCreary.20
The four company officials at the earlier meeting were
likewise present this time. In addition, Thomas F.
Stutzman, then director of manufacturing, was also there.
At the outset of the discussion, Moorhead asked why he
had been transferred to the third shift instead of one of the
pressmen on the second shift, all of whom had less seniority
than he. Maguire then told him that he felt Moorhead had
more ability than any of the pressmen on the second shift.
Moorhead responded that if that was the case, it was
unusual that he should have been cited several times in the
recent past for quality infractions arising out of his work on
the presses. Maguire terminated discussion of this issue
with the statement that he and the Company were the judge
in such matters, and that the Union's grievance was denied.
Moorhead then requested that the Union be supplied with
the records for all shifts on production, down time, and
quality infractions in order that the Union be in a position
to process the grievance properly. Jones concluded the
meeting with a denial of this request on the ground that the
11 Section 13 5 of the current collective-bargaining contract provided
"Seniority shall apply to layoff and recall and bidding "
is The findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on the credible
testimony of both Moorhead and McHugh which in this instance was
substantially corroborative of what occurred at the time the gnevance was
presented
19 On cross-examination with reference to the conversation he had with
Edwards, McHugh was asked the following questions and gave the answers
which appear below
Q You did think that Moorhead was leading the pack9
A Yes
Q " and that's the reason you told him , did you not, because
Moorhead had him wrapped around his little fmger9
A Yes
20 The union committee also brought a stenographer to the meeting, one
Rhea Miller
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records in question concerned confidential matters between
the Company and the employees 2'
After this meeting the Union did not press the grievance
any further, but filed the unfair labor practice charge on
which the complaint in the present case issued.
Although on November 11, McHugh told the five
pressmen on the day shift that in the near future it was
likely that all of the more senior employees would be
transferred to the third shift, in fact, only Moorhead was
moved to that shift. Whereas on November 12, and before
the grievance was filed, McHugh told Moorhead that
Shaffer would be transferred to the night shift, in fact,
Shaffer remained on the first shift. So, too, did Hayes,
Beaver ,22 and Edwards. As found earlier, however,
Edwards was transferred from Crabtree press 5 to Crabtree
press 3, effective the same day that Moorhead was
transferred to night work.
Whereas the General Counsel and the Charging Party
contend that the transfer of Moorhead to the third shift and
Edwards from one press to another were effected for
discriminatory reasons , the Respondent denies all such
allegations and contends that both moves were made solely
to promote the operating efficiency of the shop. Further,
the position of the Respondent, maintained both at the
hearing and in its brief, is that nothing in the current
collective-bargaining agreement forbade the action which it
took in this case , and that it had complete discretion to
move pressmen from one machine to another and from one
shift to another.
The current collective-bargaining contract clearly recog-
nizes seniority as a factor to be considered with respect to
bidding on new positions.23 There is some question,
however, as to whether "bidding" included bidding for a
shift by seniority. Moorhead testified that that was the way
the parties construed the clause in question. According to
him, prior to the preparation of a manning schedule, the
employees were accorded an opportunity to exercise their
seniority right to shift preference. McHugh, on the other
hand, did not agree that this was done in every instance, but
he conceded that 90 percent of the time he followed
seniority in making shift assignments. He further conceded
21 The findings as to the meetings of November 14 and December 3,
which appear above , are based on the credible testimony of Moorhead and
Shaffer. McHugh , who testified at length, did not contradict or deny any of
their testimony as to these two conferences Maguire and Jones , when on
the stand , were asked no questions about these meetings Meredith, who, at
the meeting of November 14, was alleged to have polled the union
representatives individually on whether they would withdraw the grievance,
was never called as a witness for the Respondent.
22 On May 4, 1970, the day before the hearing opened, Beaver was
transferred to the third shift This transfer , however , was not an issue in the
General Counsel's case
23 See footnote 17
24 The Respondent offered in evidence the manning schedules from
September 27, 1968 , to and including December 18, 1969 . These were
offered with supporting testimony by McHugh for the purpose of
establishing that seniority was not followed , at least with any consistency,
in shift assignments In its brief, the Union points out, correctly, that those
manning tables for the periods prior to March 4, 1969 , have no relevance
because the collective -bargaining contract in effect until then made no
provision for seniority rights in bidding The manning sheets for the period
which covered the summer vacation period from June I to September 29,
by McHugh's own admissions , reflected changes necessitated by an
endeavor to accomodate employees' vacation plans After putting to one
side all of the foregoing exhibits which , for the reasons stated , are not
representative , there remain for consideration , substantially only four of
that as to the remaining 10 percent of the cases where, for
one reason or another, he did not follow seniority, he would
discuss the matter with the employee involved as a courtesy
to the individual and to solicit his cooperation in waiving
any seniority claims. On the basis of the foregoing
testimony, and the record herein, the Trial Examiner
concludes that, in practice, McHugh followed seniority in
making virtually all shift assignments.24
As found earlier, on November 11, the day shift pressmen
were told that because of production problems on the third
shift the Respondent might have to transfer them all to the
late shift. At the hearing the Respondent endeavored to
establish that the production problems on the third shift did
not involve quantity, but quality. Much testimony was
offered on this issue, and Superintendent McHugh testified
at length as to alleged difficulties which the crews on the
third shift had encountered. The documentation which was
offered, however, tended to prove that in the period
immediately prior to November 11, the production
problems on the third shift were less, rather than greater,
than those of any other shift.
Thus, on cross-examination McHugh testified as to the
company records on production efficiency from November
3 to 13. These records, prepared as to each shift on each
working day, disclosed that the chargeable productive work
performed on the third shift ranged from 93 to 99 percent
each day and that this production efficiency was equal to,
or greater than, that of either of the other two shifts.
Of even more significance, however, was a letter which
the General Counsel offered, and which appears in the
record. This was an interoffice memo from Director of
Manufacturing Stutzman to Plant Manager Maguire. It was
dated October 29, and in it Stutzman lauded Maguire's
success in increasing the chargeable time rate on all three
shifts at the Bloomsburg plant.25 Stutzman congratulated
him on the performance of all the shifts, but he singled out
the third shift in particular as having made such a dramatic
improvement that it then had the highest percent of
chargeable time of all three shifts.26
In the summer of 1969, to improve the quality of work
produced, the Respondent had adopted what was known as
the manning lists offered , namely Respondent 's Exhibits 11, 31, 32, and
33 As to these last numbered manning lists it is significant that McHugh
did not testify as to any instance where seniority was not followed in their
preparation
25 Stutzman defined chargeable time as the amount of time that is
chargeable and billable to the customer, contrasted with downtime for
repairs, which is chargeable to the Company. From a production
standpoint it is obviously desirable , as Stutzman conceded, to have the
highest possible amount of chargeable time
26 This letter read , in relevant part, as follows
For the first twenty-one days of October the chargeable time at
Bloomsburg has increased The first shift has increased their
chargeable time from 55.8% to 59 2%- an increase of 3 4% The
second shift has increased the chargeable time from 62 1% to
64 7/-an increase of 2 6% The third shift has increased the
chargeable time from 57 8% to 68 2%-an increase of 10 4%
1 am very glad to see the improvement on each shift and you are
all to be congratulated for the excellent job that you have done Mr
Fedder [Supervisor of the Third Shift ] with an increase of 10 4% is to
be commended for the dramatic improvement he has made You will
note that the third shift now has the highest percent of chargeable time of
all three shifts
Again, congratulations for reversing the downward trend and lets
have a similar improvement in November [Emphasis supplied ]
BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 513
a "Quality Infraction Point Program." Employees responsi-
ble for any alleged quality infractions were issued demerits
known as "quality infraction points." The record of all such
points issued for allegedly poor work on the part of the'
pressmen was received in evidence. This record discloses
that from September 30 the number of points issued to the
pressmen dropped very substantially and that it remained
at a very low figure for the balance of the year.27
The only documentary evidence offered by the Respon-
dent to support McHugh's testimony that quality problems
on the third shift were serious was a set of photographs of
certain work performed by William Stere, the third shift
pressman who was moved to the day shift when Moorhead
was transferred on the night shift. The photographs
depicted certain work which Stere had performed where the
printed material was poorly jogged.28 On the other hand,
McHugh conceded that this irregularity was not of
sufficient importance to warrant the issuance of any quality
infraction points, that Stere had received no such demerits
on the job in question, and that, in fact, such points were
never issued for improper jogging.
From the testimony set forth above, it is apparent and the
Trial Examiner finds, that in the period prior to November
1969, Moorhead's leadership of Local 732 represented a
substantial change from that which the Union had had
when McHugh was the president. Moreover, it is apparent
from the background set forth earlier that this adoption of
an aggressive attitude on the part of the union leadership
met with very substantial resistance from the plant
management, most particularly from McHugh, after his
appointment as superintendent of the pressroom, and from
Maguire, the plant manager. In August 1968, during the
first confrontation with the plant hierarchy over an
employee grievance, McHugh pointed out to Moorhead
that while he (McHugh) had been president of Local 732 he
had "believed in playing ball with the Company ..." and
Maguire warned Moorhead that if the Union insisted on
rigid compliance with what he called "the rule book," he, as
the plant manager, "could be a real bastard." Thereafter,
when employee Paul Mont insisted that a union representa-
tive accompany him if he had to report to McHugh for a
disciplinary conference, the latter told him that if he made
such a demand again, he would be "through." Later, after
employees Haycock and McIntyre had received a 2-week
suspension for infraction of the plant rules, McHugh and
Maguire advised them that if they wanted a reduction of
the penalty that had been imposed, they should make their
request to Jones, the director of industrial relations,
personally, and without union representative Moorhead
being present.
On November 11, 1969, McHugh called the five
pressmen on the day shift to his office. Of the five, four
were, or had been, union officers.29 At that time McHugh
27 Thus, according to Plant Manager Maguire , the number of quality
infraction points issued to pressmen on all three shifts during the period
from July 14, 1969, to February 4, 1970, was as follows
July 14-August 29 19 1/2
August 29-September 30 11 1/2
September 30-November 3 3 1/2
November 3-November 26 2 2/3
November 26-December 13 3
announced the prospective transfer of all of them in the
near future to help remedy production problems on the
third shift. The next day, however, he told Moorhead
privately that his transfer probably would not be necessary
for some while and that Shaffer was the only one scheduled
for an early transfer. About this same time, Edwards saw
the draft of a manning table on McHugh's desk which
confirmed McHugh's statement that he planned to move
Shaffer to the third shift and leave Moorhead on the first.
On November 13, however, after the day shift pressmen
submitted the first joint grievance that had been filed at the
plant, there was an abrupt change in McHugh's attitude.
The superintendent complained that the Union filed a
grievance every time the Company sought to improve
conditions and warned Shaffer not to ask for any more
"favors." Later he cursed out Edwards, characterized him
as one whom Moorhead had "wrapped around his finger,"
and also warned Edwards not to expect any "special favors
from me." Just before the meeting on November 14 when
Moorhead and his colleagues were to discuss the grievance
with management, a manning list was published on which
he was scheduled for transfer to the third shift at the
beginning of the next week and Edwards was transferred to
another press. Later, at the conference which was held on
November 14, Meredith, the personnel director, suggested
that there was a prospect of resolving their problem but
only if the Union would first withdraw the grievance that
had been filed. When none of the union representatives
voiced any willingness to adopt this proposal, Meredith
polled each one individually on the question.
Concluding Findings as to Moorhead
While it may be presumed that most employees prefer the
day shift to the late night shift, in Moorhead's case it was,
or should have been, clear to Superintendent McHugh that
Moorhead, in particular, did not want to work at night.
Early in 1969 and several months before the period in
question, when Moorhead had been on the third shift, he
had requested that McHugh transfer him to an earlier shift
on the ground that working on the late shift caused
numerous personal problems for him. As soon as feasible
thereafter, McHugh honored this request and transferred
Moorhead to an earlier shift. Finally, on November 10,
1969, Moorhead was moved to the day shift.
It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner, on the findings
set forth above, that on November 11, when McHugh first
announced the transfer plan in question, Moorhead was
not one of those whom the superintendent proposed to
transfer to the third shift. After Moorhead launched an
aggressive protest and resorted to the grievance procedure,
however, McHugh again assigned him to the late night
shift. The Supreme Court has stated that some conduct is so
"inherently destructive of employee interests that it may be
deemed proscribed without need for proof of an underlying
28 On leaving the press, the large printed sheets had to be piled neatly in
stacks that might eventually become several feet high The pressman was
responsible for keeping them in a perfect square, back and side The failure
to do this and the irregular stacking which resulted was described as
improper Jogging
29 Moorhead, president , Beaver, secretary, Shaffer, day shift steward,
Edwards, former steward
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
improper motive" (N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.,
388 U.S. 26, 33, quoting N.L.R.B. v. Brown Food Store, 380
U.S. 278, 287), and that some conduct carries "its own
indicia of intent." Erie Resistor Corp. v. N.L R.B., 373 U.S.
221, 228, 231. Earlier herein, it was found, contrary to the
Respondent's contentions, that there were no production
problems as to quantity or quality on the third shift which
dictated Moorhead's reassignment. In the light of these
earlier findings, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner
that McHugh's rescheduling of Moorhead from the first to
the third shift was discriminatory and a move which he took
in retaliation for Moorhead's activities as a union leader.
The penalty imposed on Moorhead in this instance for his
reliance on the grievance procedure is clearly within the
"inherently destructive" category referred to in the
foregoing cases by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the
explanations offered by the Respondent for its conduct, do
not explain away its actions on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that
by this course of action as to Moorhead, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). N.L.R.B. v. Biederman
Furniture Co., 397 F.2d 282, 283 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v.
Southern Electronics Company, Inc., 302 F.2d 145 (C.A. 6);
Interstate Smelting and Refining Co., 148 NLRB 219,
228-229; Schott's Bakery, Inc., 164 NLRB 332, 337.
It is the further conclusion of the Trial Examiner that
McHugh's statement to Shaffer, after the grievance was
filed, that that employee should not "ask me for any favors"
and his declaration to Edwards that same morning ".. .
don't expect anymore special favors from me" were not
simply casual remarks. They were, in fact, coercive and
calculated to frighten the employees from pressing their
grievances and to chill further union activity. For this
reason , such comments were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Moon River Towing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 421 F.2d 1, 10
(C.A. 3).
It was likewise a violation of Section 8(a)(5) for the
Respondent, through McHugh, to threaten employees on
November 13, 1969, with loss of privileges for having
exercised their protected right to file a grievance and
thereafter to implement that threat by discriminatorily
transferring employee Moorhead from the first to the third
shift. Moreover, it was a further violation of Section 8(a)(5)
for the Respondent's officials to condition any discussion
of the matter on the employees' withdrawal of that
grievance and for Personnel Director Meredith thereafter
to poll them individually in an attempt to get the Union's
committee to abandon the grievance. Industrial Fabricating,
Inc., 119 NLRB 162, 171, enfd. 272 F.2d 184,185 (C.A. 6).
Concluding Findings as to Edwards
Robert W. Edwards, who, along with Shaffer and
Moorhead, was one of the three most senior pressmen in
the plant, had been assigned to the No. 5 press on August 4,
30 The record is not clear as to precisely when the No 5 press went into
production One exhibit offered by the Respondent indicates that it was
purchased by the Respondent on December I, 1969, for the sum of
$252,237 The latter date, however, is obviously a typographical error, for
the manning tables which the Respondent offered in evidence reflect the
assignment of a full complement of pressmen and assistants to No 5, from
1969, when, insofar as the record reflects, that particular
press was placed in operation.30 For one day in October, at
a time when repairs were being made on No. 5, Edwards
was assigned to work on No. 3. Edwards testified that No. 3
was in a very unsatisfactory state of repair and that at the
completion of that one shift he complained to McHugh
about the condition of the press and told him that he never
wanted to work on that machine again.
Edwards testified that on November 14, and after the day
shift pressmen had filed their grievance, McHugh gave him
a quality check on which the superintendent normally spent
about 5 minutes. According to Edwards, on this occasion
however, McHugh spent twice that much time. Later that
same day, when the new manning list was posted, it
disclosed that effective the following Monday, Edwards
was being moved from the No. 5 press to the No. 3.
The General Counsel alleged that this reassignment of
Edwards was discriminatory and came about because of
Edwards' identification with the other four pressmen who
signed the grievance that was presented to McHugh on
November 13.31 This allegation is denied by the Respon-
dent.
McHugh described Edwards as a very conscientious
employee who took great care and pride in his work. The
superintendent testified that he could not recall having
heard Edwards express his displeasure with No. 3 prior to
the transfer in question and he further testified that the
Respondent had experienced no unusual repair problems
with No. 3. According to McHugh the pressmen generally
considered press No. 4, and not No. 3, to be what he termed
the "dog of the pressroom."
Other than Edwards' testimony wherein he professed a
strong dislike for No. 3 on the ground that it was old and in
disrepair, there was no other evidence offered to establish
that this employee's aversion was founded in fact. There
was no corroborative testimony of other pressmen as to
their experience with the machine and no repair or
maintenance records which would tend to establish a
factual basis for the contention which Edwards made with
respect to the reputation of this particular press. In view of
the meticulous care with which the General Counsel and
the Charging Party developed the case in support of the
complaint and the fact that documentary evidence of the
repair record of No. 3 as compared with that of No. 5, was
not offered, it may be presumed that had such evidence
been offered it would not have supported Edwards'
assertions about No. 3.
As found above, on the morning that the grievance was
handed to McHugh by Moorhead and Shaffer, the
superintendent expressed his bitterness about this develop-
ment to Edwards, accused the latter of having allowed
Moorhead to "wrap him around his finger," and warned
Edwards to expect no further favors from him. Edwards
may have felt that his subsequent reassignment to another
press was a manifestation of McHugh's continuing and
discriminatory displeasure. On this record, however, apart
and after the week of August 4, 1969.
3i The General Counsel does not contend that either the contract, or
custom , dictated that seniority be followed in assigning pressmen to
machines , and in its brief the Charging Party concedes that the existing
collective-bargaining agreement did not require that press assignments be
made on the basis of seniority.
BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC.
from Edwards' testimony, there is no evidence that work on
No. 3 was any less desirable than on No. 5.32 Consequently,
the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the General
Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Edwards was discriminatorily reassigned from one
press to another. Accordingly, it will be recommended that
the allegation in the complaint to this effect be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the
Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, exclud-
ing plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards and
professional employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. Since 1965 and at all times material herein, the Union
has been, and is, the representative of all employees in the
unit described above, for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Curtis R. Moorhead because of his union
and concerted activities, the Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By conditioning discussion of the subject matter of a
dispute on the Union's withdrawal of a grievance, polling
employees individually in an attempt to get them to
abandon the grievance, threatening reprisals and discrimi-
nating against employees for using or attempting to use the
grievance procedure, refusing to discuss grievances or
transfers, and encouraging individual bargaining, the
Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5).
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices other than those herein specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
32 Both press No 3 and No. 5, as well as No 4, were known as
"Crabtrees " They were newer and much more complex than the Harris
presses which were designated as No 1 and No 2 According to McHugh,
the Company had had problems with all of the Crabtree presses, but most
particularly with No 4
33 It may very well develop that Moorhead is entitled to no backpay, for
the rate for pressmen on the third shift was $4 26 an hour, whereas the rate
515
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily
transferred Curtis R. Moorhead on November 17, 1969,
from the first shift to the third shift , the Trial Examiner will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer
Moorhead immediate and full reinstatement without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, to
the first shift , and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered from the time of the discriminatory
transfer to the third shift to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement to the first shift . The backpay for the
foregoing employee shall be computed in accordance with
the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289, with interest computed in the manner and amount
prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716,
717-721. It will also be recommended that the said
Respondent be required to preserve and make available to
the Board or its agents , on request, payroll and other
records to facilitate the computation of backpay due.33
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon-
dent are of a character staking at the root of employee
rights safeguarded by the Act , it will be recommended that
the said Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the
Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recommended:
ORDER
Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Transferring employees from one shift to another for
the purpose of discouraging Union membership in, or
activity on behalf of, Bloomsburg Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union No. 732, affiliated with Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, or any
other labor organization.
(b) Conditioning discussion of the subject matter of a
dispute on the abandonment of any grievance previously
filed, polling employees individually in an attempt to get
them to withdraw a grievance, threatening reprisals, and
discriminating against employees for using or attempting to
use the grievance procedure, refusing to discuss grievances
or transfers, and encouraging individual bargaining.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
on the first shift was only $4.05. On the other hand, no evidence was
offered as to whether Moorhead worked the same number of hours on the
third shift as he would have worked had he remained on the first shift
This, and other evidence as to whether Moorhead suffered any diminution
of earnings, is a matter that need not be considered until the compliance
stage of this proceeding is reached
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to transfer immediately employee Curtis R.
Moorhead from the night shift to the day shift, if he has not
already been so transferred, or offered such a transfer, and
make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay
due, if any.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the bargaining unit described below with respect to
transfer of employees from one shift to another, rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
34 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and office clericals,
supervisors, guards and professional employees.
(d) Post at its place of business in Bloomsburg,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 34 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed
by the Respondent, shall be posted by it for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this recommended Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.35
The complaint is dismissed in respect to all other
allegations not herein found.
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
31 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director for
Region 4 , in wnting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "