Clark-Sprague, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 622 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Clark-Sprague, Inc. and Local 252, Lithographers
and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA-5120
March 10, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 7, 1969, Trial Examiner Marion C.
Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith:
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when
Supervisor Bruno offered employee Menke increased
benefits to abandon the Union and affiliate with a
union of his craft and instructed Menke to let Bruno
know if he was going to continue his affiliation with
the Union.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by withdrawing
recognition from the Union as alleged by the
General Counsel since the Respondent never
actually granted voluntary recognition to the Union.
We disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that recognition had not been granted.
At the luncheon meeting on May 13, 1969,2
Union President Creel told Respondent's president
that the Union represented a majority of the
'Respondent 's exceptions directed to the credibility resolutions of the
Trial Examiner are without merit This Board will not overrule the Trial
Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Oh the entire record,
such conclusion is not warranted herein Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 2)
previously unrepresented composing room and
letterpress department employees whom it was
therefore entitled to represent under the terms of
their lithographic unit contract, and wanted to
negotiate an appropriate contract supplement.
Respondent's President Fishman suggested they all
go to the plant and talk to Supervisor Bruno. Later,
at the plant Fishman and Bruno looked at the cards.
Creel stated "there shouldn't be too much of a
problem putting these people under the fringe
benefits but we have to negotiate wages." Fishman
raised the problem of paying union wages to a
disabled veteran and Bruno raised the matter of
continuing occasional work for a retired compositor
and asked if the Union could refer a compositor
when one was needed. The Union indicated the
Company would have to advertise for such
employees as it had in the past. At the end of the
meeting at the plant Fishman said he would leave it
up to Bruno. On May 28, when a Union
representative called the Respondent, he was told
that the employees did not want a union.
The Trial Examiner concluded as contended by
Respondent that when Fishman said he would leave
the matter up to Bruno , Fishman was referring to
whether or not the Respondent would voluntarily
recognize and bargain with the Union and no
agreement on recognition was reached. To the
contrary, we find that the parties h, ' reached
agreement on recognition, when without questioning
the Union's majority status and its contract right to
add these employees to the existing contract unit,
they proceeded to discuss the various problems
requiring disposition preparatory to that end.
Several were in fact resolved, and there remained
merely the problems of the wages to be paid and
agreement with respect to certain contract terms to
be applied to the employees.3 The foregoing
exchange of queries and responses shows an
acceptance of recognition and an attempt to
negotiate resolutions to problems under the contract"
Under these circumstances we find that the
Respondent on May 13, 1969, voluntarily and
lawfully recognized the Union as the majority
representative of employees in an appropriate unit.
'We hereby correct the Trial Examiner's inadvertent reference on page 5
of the Decision to May 23 as the day the Union requested recognition
'While we note that Creel's correct statement inadvertently misquoted by
the Trial Examiner was, "There was no doubt in my mind we were not
going to negotiate a contract," it is clear that Creel meant that the parties
were not going to negotiate a contract at the luncheon meeting, but that
the parties would meet in the future to pursue the contract matter further
'Even Fishman admitted that recognition was not an issue
So, the question was if we decided it was convenient for us to permit
the Lithographers to represent them There was no question about a
majority or minority
Q In other words you did not make any claims they did not represent
a majority?
A No
Indeed, other conduct of Respondent after this meeting indicates that
Respondent later decided it would rather deal with a union which could
supply referral of skilled employees and that this was the reason for
retraction of the recognition extended
181 NLRB No. 91
CLARK-SPRAGUE , INC. 623
Thereafter, Respondent's withdrawal of recognition
at a time when the Union continued to be the
lawfully recognized representative, and before giving
the bargaining relationship to which it had agreed a
reasonable time to function, violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Acts
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law
and add the following as paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5.
"2. An appropriate unit of Respondent's
employees for purposes of collective bargaining is a
unit of employees in the composing room and
letterpress department, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees and supervisors, as defined
in the Act.
"3. On May 5, 1969, a majority of the employees
in the above-described unit designated the Union as
bargaining representative to represent them in
collective bargaining with Respondent , regarding
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and on May 13, 1969, the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain with it on
behalf of these employees.
"4. On May 28, 1969, and thereafter, Respondent
refused to bargain with the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
"5. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Clark-Sprague, Inc., St.
Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order as so modified:
1. Reletter paragraph 1(c) as 1(d) and add the
following as paragraph 1(c):
"(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit of
composing room and letterpress department
employees, regarding wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment."
2. Reletter paragraph 2(a) as 2(b) and add the
following as paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local
252, Lithographers and Photoengravers
International Union AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
'Simon Bros Co, Inc, 173 NLRB No 135, San Clemente Publishing
Corporation , 167 NLRB No 2 See also Keller Plastics Eastern , Inc , 157
NLRB 583
unit found herein of composing room and letterpress
department employees, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors, as defined
in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is
reached, to embody such agreement in a written
contract."
3. Add the following to the notice:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit regarding wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the 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 and all such
activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Local 252, Lithographers and
Photoengravers International Union AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of our employees in
the appropriate unit of composing room and
letterpress department employees, but excluding
all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors,
regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an agreement is reached,
embody it in a written contract.
All our employees are free to become or refrain
from becoming members of Local 252,
Lithographers and Photoengravers, International
Union AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, I would affirm the Trial
Examiner's finding that there was no agreement by
Respondent to recognize the Union and hence no
subsequent withdrawal of recognition in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner This case was
tried at St. Louis, Missouri, on July 31, 1969,' pursuant to
a charge filed on May 28, and amended June 25, by Local
252, Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and pursuant
to a complaint issued on July 3 The primary issues are
whether the Respondent, Clark-Sprague, Inc , herein
called the Company, (a) granted voluntary recognition to
'All dates are in 1969
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, and thereafter withdrew recognition and
unlawfully refused to bargain, and (b) engaged in unlawful
conduct for the purpose of destroying the Union's
majority status, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION
INVOLVED
The Company, a Missouri corporation , operates a
commercial printing plant in St . Louis County, Missouri,
from which it ships annually products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State . The Company
admits, and I find , that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6) and (7)
of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
About 90 percent of the Company's printing is done by
the lithographic process, and about 10 percent with
letterpresses. Six employees, working solely in the
lithographic unit, have been represented by the Union for
about 6 or 7 years. The employees in the composing room
(which perform preparatory work for both the
lithographic offset press operation and the letterpresses),
and the single employee in the letterpress department have
been unrepresented. The remaining plant employees are a
paper cutter, represented by a different union , and two
unrepresented shipping department employees
On May 5, the letterpressman and one of the two
full-time employees in the composing room went to the
Union's office and signed authorization cards, seeking
representation by the Union. On May 13, the Union
requested recognition. Whether or not the Company
granted recognition is in sharp dispute.
B. Alleged Voluntary Recognition
The complaint alleges that the Company, after a card
check, granted voluntary recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the "letterpress
department including letterpress operator and composing
room employees." It further alleged that the Company
agreed to include these employees in the coverage of the
Union's contract covering the lithographic unit, "except
that the parties would negotiate wages."
In support of these allegations, General Counsel's
witness, Union Vice President Marvin J. Mantei, testified
that he and Union President Walter Creel on May 13 met
at lunch with Company President Louis Fishman, and
later at the plant with Fishman and Supervisor Peter
Bruno . At the lunch meeting, according to Mantei, Union
President Creel told Company President Fisher that under
"the provisions of our contract, Section 3.4, that when we
represented the majority of the people in a department
unorganized ... it entitles us to claim recognition for that
department. Mr. Fishman said that we do have two people
in that department and he said O.K." Mantei further
testified that Fishman said that the Company would have
no problem bringing up the wages, and "stated we would
go back and see Pete Bruno" and have a tour of the plant
Later they met with Supervisor Bruno in the conference
room, and "President Creel told Mr. Fishman we
represented a majority of the people in his letterpress
department." Then, after both Fishman and Bruno
examined the two authorization cards, Fishman (in
Mantei's words) "said there would be a phone call the
following Thursday to tell us when to meet [with],
Supervisor Bruno so he could work out the wage schedule'
on these people." (It is not disputed that when Mantel'
telephoned the Company on May 28, both Bruno and
Fisher advised him that the employees did not want a
union . No petition was filed for an election.)
Both President Fishman and Supervisor Bruno denied
that recognition had been granted. Fishman testified that
he raised problems which would be caused by the Union's
representing composing room and letterpress department
employees, who are ordinarily represented by other
unions. According to him, he told the union representative
at lunch that he would have to talk to Supervisor Bruno,
and then after discussing various problems in the meeting
at the plant, "it was understood we would consider all the
problems, pros and cons, and then let them know if we
decided they could represent these two people." According
to Peter Bruno, the conference at the plant concluded with
Fishman saying, "Well, it's up to Pete [Emphasis
supplied]. We'll see what he thinks and we'll sit down and
discuss this," whereupon Creel suggested that Bruno get in
touch with Mantei. Both Fishman and Bruno denied being
shown the cards.
When Union President Creel was called as a rebuttal
witness, he appeared to be a reliable, forthright witness,
with a reasonably good memory of what had transpired.
Concerning the luncheon meeting, Creel credibly testified
(in agreement with Mantei's testimony, denied by
President Fishman) that Creel referred to the Union's
right under the lithographic contract to represent newly
organized employees, and further testified that he told
Fishman "we do represent the rest of the people in your
plant ... and we want to sit down with you and negotiate
a settlement around these particular individuals."
However, Creel did not corroborate Mantei's testimony
that Fishman said "O.K." In agreement with Fishman's
testimony, Creel recalled that Fishman said that "we'll
have to talk with Pete." Concerning the meeting at the
plant, Creel credibly testified (in agreement with Mantei)
that both company representatives, Fishman and Bruno,
examined the authorization cards. Creel also credibly
testified that he told Fishman "there shouldn't be too
much of a problem putting these people under the fringe
benefits but we'd have to negotiate wages." Fishman
raised the problem of paying union wages to Roy J.
Kelsey, a disabled veteran working - full-time in the
composing room, and Creel responded, "Well, I'm sure
we could work something out." Then Supervisor Bruno
mentioned a retired compositor, Nino Caradonna, who
came in "occasionally" when they might call him in, and
Creel assured them that that was no problem, something
could be worked out. Bruno asked whether the Union
could refer a compositor when the Company needed one,
and Creel answered in the negative, stating that the
Company would have to advertise as in the past, and that
"We have the same problem with our lithographers and
photoengravers." Creel then gave testimony similar to
that given by Supervisor Pete Bruno, that at the
conclusion of the meeting, Fishman said, "Look, I'm
CLARK-SPRAGUE, INC. 625
going to leave it up to Pete" (Emphasis supplied), and
that Bruno was supposed to contact Mantei to meet and
pursue the matter. Creel testified that "There was no
doubt in my mind we were going to negotiate a contract,"
although there was no decision that they would be
discussing anything specifically, like wages.
There was evidently a misunderstanding The union
representatives apparently believed (1) that the Company,
by examining the cards and beginning to discuss wages for
the two card signers and the full-time disabled compositor,
had recognized the Union as the bargaining representative
of the three full-time employees in the composing room
and the letterpress department, and (2) that an
arrangement had been made for Supervisor Bruno to meet
with the union representatives and negotiate a contract.
However the company representatives were apparently
under the impression that when President Fishman stated
he was leaving the matter to Bruno's discretion, Fishman
was referring to whether or not the Company would
voluntarily recognize and bargain with the Union In view
of this misunderstanding, I find (in agreement with the
Company) that the evidence fails to support the allegation
of voluntary recognition.
The Company further contends that the employees in
the composing room and letterpress department could not
constitute an appropriate unit because they are in two
separate departments , and because the two shipping
department employees would have to be included in any
residual unit of unrepresented employees . The Board has
held, however , that a residual unit may be appropriate
without including all unrepresented employees , in such
circumstances as when they share common supervision,
the work is functionally integrated , and they have close
work ties . Equitable Gas Company , I11 NLRB 453, 455.
Here, the composing room and letterpress department
employees have common supervision with other
production employees in the printing operations, the
composing room employees perform preparatory work for
both the offset and letterpress printing, and the composing
room and letterpress department employees are the only
unrepresented production employees . The shipping
department (consisting of a driver and a shipping
clerk-porter ) is located in the plant about one-half block
from the composing room and the letterpresses , and the
only interchange between the production employees and
the shipping department employees occurs when the
shipping department is short-handed , and the
letterpressman performs some work there (estimated to
amount to about 10 percent of his time ) Under these
circumstances , I find that the composing room and
letterpress department employees have closer work ties,
and a greater community of interest , with the other
production employees than with the shipping department
employees , and may constitute an appropriate residual
unit of printing production employees . Gaylord Printing
Co , 135 NLRB 510, 511. Contrary to the Company's
contention that Caradonna (the retired compositor ) should
be included , the evidence clearly shows that he is not a
regular part -time employee , but instead is a casual
employee who is called intermittently to work on
particular jobs or to replace employees on vacation. He
performs no work between January 3 and the second week
in April , and worked only 7 days in 1969 before the
Union requested recognition on May 13. He therefore
should be excluded.
C. Alleged Interference
Letterpressman Steve Wisniewski was on vacation from
May 5, the day he signed an authorization card, until
May 19. It is undisputed that shortly after he returned to
work, Supervisor Bruno went to the press where he was
working and asked him if he was interested in the Union.
Wisniewski answered that he was not, that he had
changed his mind That ended the conversation. The
General Counsel contends that "by questioning
Wisniewski as to his attitude about the Union, shortly
after Wisniewski had signed up with Local 252,
Supervisor Bruno .. violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act."
Of course, under some circumstances, such integration
could be coercive However, I find that here, the General
Counsel has failed to prove any surrounding circumstances
which would cause this casual interrogation to have a
coercive impact on Wisniewski I shall therefore
recommend dismissal of the allegation that the Company
illegally interrogated this employee (In his brief, the
General Counsel contends that the Company further
violated Section 8(a)(1) by subsequently giving Wisniewski
a wage increase, "the timing and nature" of which "can
leave no doubt that Respondent's motive was to subvert
Wisniewski's interest in Local 252." However, the
complaint does not contain such an allegation, and the
matter was not fully litigated.)
The other allegations of interference are based on a
conversation which Supervisor Bruno had with the other
card signer, compositor Steven A. Menke, sometime the
latter part of May. Menke's testimony about the incident
was not disputed. He credibly testified that Bruno called
him into the plant office and offered him the typesetter
scale of $4.74 an hour, and 4 weeks vacation (Menke was
being paid $3.71, with a 2-week vacation) if he would
withdraw from the Union and join Local 8 of the
typesetters' union (International Typographical Union).
Bruno explained that there were not many typesetters in
the Union to replace Menke if he should leave. Menke
(who testified on cross-examination that "there is no
reason to expect I am going to be a typesetter the rest of
my life") told Bruno that he was interested in attending
the Union's Graphic Arts Institute to learn lithography.
Bruno responded that Menke was needed in the
composing room, not in the lithographic end of the
business. Bruno said (in Menke's words), "I was to let
him know whether I was going to continue with" the
Union. (Thereafter, Menke did not withdraw from the
Union, and did not receive the $1 03-an-hour increase, nor
the additional 2 weeks vacation.)
In its brief, the Company contends that in this
conversation, Supervisor Bruno "was doing no more than
pointing out to Menke that if he became part of Local 8
and subject to its contract in the'printing industry in St
Louis, he would receive the benefits set forth in that
contract." I disagree. Bruno was offering Menke the wage
increase and the 2 additional weeks of vacation if he
would drop his support of the Union and join Local 8
This, I find, clearly was the offering of benefits for Menke
to abandon the Union, for the purpose of undermining the
Union's strength (as alleged in the complaint) and violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Also, I find that Supervisor
Bruno's instruction that Menke let Bruno know if he was
going to continue his affiliation with the Union - under
the circumstances that Menke's withdrawal from the
Union was a prerequisite for receiving the increase in
benefits - constituted coercive interrogation, further
interfering with Menke's exercise of Section 7 rights, in
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
D. Alleged Refusal to Bargain
On May 23, when the Union requested recognition, it
represented a majority of two of the three employees in an
appropriate residual unit of composing room and
letterpress department employees. As previously found,
though , the evidence does not support the General
Counsel ' s contention that the Company granted voluntary
recognition . Therefore , there was no subsequent
withdrawal of recognition , as alleged in the complaint
In its brief, the General Counsel cites N.L R B v.
Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, and argues that
even if recognition was not granted , the Company violated
Section 8(a)(5) by refusing the May 13 bargaining request
and engaging in unfair labor practices , undermining the
Union ' s majority and precluding the holding of a fair
election . However , the evidence does not establish that the
Company coerced card signer Wisniewski into changing
his mind about supporting the Union , and the Company's
only 8(a)(l) violations did not succeed in causing Menke,
the other card signer , to withdraw his support. Under
these circumstances , I find that the General Counsel has
failed to prove a violation of Section 8(a)(5), and that a
bargaining order is not necessary to remedy the limited
unfair labor practices found.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By engaging in coercive interrogation and offering
wage and vacation benefits for abandoning the Union, the
Company committed unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The General Counsel has failed to prove that the
Company unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and
from any like or related invasion of its employees' Section
7 rights, and to take affirmative action, which I find
necessary to remedy and remove the effect of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act issuance of the
following:
ORDER
Respondent , Clark-Sprague, Inc., its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Attempting to discourage composing room and
letterpress department employees from supporting Local
252, Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union , AFL-CIO, by offering any of them wage and
vacation benefits for abandoning that Union and joining a
different union.
(b) Coercively interrogating any of its employees about
his continued support of the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its St Louis County, Missouri, plant copies
of the attached notice marked Appendix."' Copies of
such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.'
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found herein
'In the event no exceptions are riled as provided by Sectign 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 a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
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 "
,In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 25 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT attempt to discourage composing
room and letterpress department employees from
joining and supporting Local 252, Lithographers and
Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, by
offering wage and vacation benefits for abandoning that
Union and joining a different union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question any composing
room or letterpress department employee about whether
he continues to support Local 252, Lithographers and,
Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our
employees ' union activities.
Dated By
CLARK-SPRAGUE, INC.
(Employer)
(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.
CLARK-SPRAGUE , INC. 627
Any questions concerning this notice or, compliance 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St.
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.