Columbia Typographical Union No. 101

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 1089 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 101
Columbia Typographical Union No. 101 , International
Typographical Union of North America , AFL-CIO
(The Evening Star Newspaper Co.) and Washing-
ton Publishers Association
Columbia Typographical Union No. 101 , International
Typographical Union of North America , AFL-CIO
(The Washington Daily News ) and Washington
Publishers Association . Cases 5-CB-1019 and
5-CB-1043
November 1, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 15, 1971, Trial Examiner Bernard J. Seff
issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed timely 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 proceeding 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 proceeding, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with respect to Case 5-CB-1019.2
As for Case 5-CB-1043, we adopt such findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner only to the extent they are not inconsistent
with the following: In our view the Respondent
Union timely and effectively repudiated the allegedly
unlawful acts of Chapel Chairman Goldfinger direct-
ed to Foreman Clubb. Accordingly we find, contrary
to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent did not
through Goldfinger's conduct violate Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
complaint to the extent it alleges such a violation.
i As we are dismissing the complaint insofar as it alleges the
Respondent violated the Act with respect to those issues raised in Case
5-CB-11743, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Respondent's
contentions that the Trial Examiner improperly precluded its introducing
certain evidence allegedly relevant to its defense in that case
2 The Trial Examiner states in his Decision that Supervisor Brown was
fined for failing to report a contract violation "which he might correct"
when in fact the union charge against him was for failure to report an
ORDER
1089
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, Interna-
tional Typographical Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, its agents, officers, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining and coercing The Evening Star
Newspaper Co. in the selection of its representatives
for the purpose of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances.
(b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Supervisor
Albert Brown or any other such supervisory employ-
ees of The Evening Star Newspaper Co. because of
the performance of his duties.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices and
meeting halls, and other places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Columbia Typographical Union No.
101, International Typographical Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director signed copies of
such notice for posting by The Evening Star Newspa-
per Co., if willing, at places where notices • to
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, iii
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent
violated the Act in Case 5-CB-1043.
CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
I would dismiss the complaint in its entirety, for I
would find not only that the Respondent effectively
infraction "not within his province to personally correct " We find this
error does not affect the result
3 In the event that this 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 "
193 NLRB No. 167
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
repudiated the alleged illegal threats in the News case
but also that Respondent's International Union's
reversal of the action taken against Supervisor Brown
rendered moot the issue raised in the Star case.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law and
has ordered us to post this notice and abide by its
terms.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce The Evening
Star Newspaper Co. in its selection of representa-
tives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL NOT fine or otherwise discipline
Supervisor Albert Brown of The Evening Star
Newspaper Co., who is a member of this labor
organization, because of the performance of the
duties of his employment.
WE WILL formally and in compliance with the
Order of the Board rescind our fine of Supervisor
Albert Brown and will expunge all record thereof
from our files.
WE WILL notify Supervisor Albert Brown that
we have expunged all records of the aforesaid fine
directed against him from our files and that WE
WILL NOT take such action against him in the
future.
COLUMBIA
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
No. 101, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
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, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center,
Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-
2822.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J. SEFF, Trial Examiner: The Washington
Publishers Association handles negotiations and labor
relations for three newspapers in Washington, D.C., among
which are included The Evening Star Newspaper Co., and
The Washington Daily News (herein called the Employers
or Charging Parties). The Association negotiates one
contract for its members covering certain of the employees
of the Employer with the Columbia Typographical Union
No. 101, International Typographical Union of North
America, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent or Union).
The Washington Daily News charge, Case 5-CB-1043,
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act in that it threatened to fine
the Company's general foreman, Jeremiah Clubb, for his
refusal to post his vacation schedule along with other
employees. The Evening Star charge, Case 5-CB-1019,
alleges that Albert W. Brown, a supervisor (disputed by the
Union), was fined $25 for allegedly allowing a dispatch
department employee of The Evening Star to sort through
and remove pasteups from a dead file under his charge.
A copy of the charge filed in Case 5-CB-1019 on May 4,
1970, was served on Respondent on or about May 5, 1970.
In Case 5-CB-1043 the charge was filed on July 7 and
served on Respondent on or about the same day. A
consolidated complaint was issued on July 29, 1970.i The
facts of the consolidated cases will be dealt with separately.
A hearing was held pursuant to notice on varying dates
between December 8 and 29. All parties present were
afforded the opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to present evidence bearing on the
issues.
Upon the entire record in the cases, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due
consideration of the briefs filed by the parties I make the
following: 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The Washington Daily News Company, Inc., and The
Evening Star Newspaper Co., are corporations each of
which publish newspapers and maintain their principal
places of business in the District of Columbia. In the 12-
month period preceeding the issuance of this consolidated
complaint, the gross volume of business of each Employer
exceeded $200,000. They regularly advertise nationally
syndicated articles and news stones and ship newspapers
outside the District of Columbia. The Employers are each
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
I Unless otherwise indicated all dates occurred in 1970
2 Respondent served a "Motion to Strike the Brief filed by the Charging
Parties" on the ground that this brief contained no page references to the
transcript in compliance with Rule 102 46 (c)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Board's Rules and Regulations The rule cited by Respondent in
support of this motion refers to briefs filed before the Board The rule
applicable to filing briefs before a trial examiner, 102 42, does not require
page references Respondent 's motion is accordingly denied.
COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 101 1091
within the meaning of Section 2 (6), and (7) of the Act. The
Washington Publishers Association , the Charging Party
herein , is composed of three newspaper publishers,
including the Employers involved in the instant cases. It
negotiates labor contracts and handles labor matters for
these Employers with the Respondent.
The General Counsel argues, inter a/a, that the threat to
fine is in and of itself violative of the Act in that it tends to
inhibit management representatives from performing their
duties
Concluding Findings and Analysis
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings establish and I find that Respondent is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. The facts concerning The Washington Daily News,
Case 5-CB-1045, which are not in dispute are as follows:
Section 37H of the contract between the parties in
pertinent part provides that ". . . choice of scheduled
vacation periods shall be allowed an employee according to
his priority order [seniority]." The chapel chairman,
synonymous with union shop steward, circulates a vacation
schedule form around the composing room on which
employees sign up according to seniority indicating their
choice for vacation time. Around the middle of June,
Chapel Chairman Gene Goldfinger requested Foreman
Clubb to sign this schedule. Clubb refused to sign and told
Goldfinger that the foreman never posts his vacation time.
On June 30 Goldfinger delivered a letter to Clubb which
states:
I am now giving you until Friday noon to have your
vacation posted on our vacation list. If this order is
ignored you will be fined $10.
Apparently before the instant charge was filed Goldfing-
er told the union president, Raymond E Hall, of his threat
to fine Clubb. Hall ordered Goldfinger to "back off" and
withdraw his ruling because no such posting had been
required in the past of the foreman and no one knows better
when he can take a vacation than the foreman himself.
Hall personally told Clubb that he had instructed
Goldfinger not to assess any penalty or bring further
pressure on Clubb to post his vacation. The record shows
that Goldfinger informed Clubb that no fine would be
imposed but went on to say that if he were chapel chairman
on the next time around, May 1971, he would again insist
that Clubb sign the vacation schedule.
Contentions of the Parties
Respondent contends the General Counsel failed to
sustain the burden of proving that the chapel chairman
acted as an agent for the Union in threatening the fine; that
the Goldfinger threat was not implemented and was
effectively repudiated by the Union without any prejudice
to the Employer and therefore, under established rules of
agency, the Union cannot be held accountable for the
alleged restraint or coercion; in any event the case is so de
minimis that the matter should be dismissed.
3 Respondent , on the second day of the hearing on the consolidated
cases , and after the testimony on the Clubb matter had been completed,
sought leave to put in additional evidence that Goldfinger had been
defeated in a union election and thus would not be chapel chairman "on
the next time around" I refused to allow this evidence to be introduced
In its brief Respondent argues, inter aka, that the chapel
chairman had no authority to affix responsibility on the
Union for his threat to fine Clubb. In support of this
position Respondent argues that the record does not
support the conclusion that the chapel chairman was a
representative of the Union with authority such as to make
the Union responsible for Goldfinger's threat. General
Counsel's Exhibit 3 is a copy of the collective-bargaining
contract between the parties. Under the heading "Chapel
Chairman," section 18-b provides:
No chapel chairman shall be subject to discipline or
discharge for any act in the performance of his duties as
a union representative. [Emphasis supplied.]
The only reasonable inference to be drawn from this
language is that the chapel chairman is a representative of
the Union. He had the apparent authority to impose a fine.
Additional proof of the fact that Goldfinger's act was
binding on the Union is borne out by the events which
transpired after Clubb was threatened with a fine. It is
noted that though Hall, the president of the Union, ordered
Goldfinger to "back off" and withdraw the fine, and
offered to write a letter to the newspaper disavowing
Goldfinger's threat, Hall never indicated that Goldfinger
lacked the authority to take such action.
The further fact that the threat to impose a fine on Clubb
was contrary to union policy was apparently not known to
Goldfinger and provides additional weight to the usual
requirement of posting an official NLRB notice in order to
cure the unfair labor practice committed by the chapel
chairman.
In view of the above I find that Chapel Chairman
Goldfinger, at the time he threatened to fine Clubb, was a
union representative clothed with apparent authority to
bind the Union by his actions.
Respondent further contends that the threat was not
implemented and was effectively repudiated by the Union
without any prejudice to the Employer. Therefore, under
established rules of agency, the Union cannot be held
accountable for the alleged restraint and coercion. In this
connection it should be noted that after Hall repudiated
Goldfinger's threat the record shows that Goldfinger
informed Clubb that if he were elected shop steward
(chapel chairman) "the next time around" (April 1971), he
would again insist that Clubb post his vacation 3
The effect of Hall's repudiation of Goldfinger's act does
not make the matter moot. It would be equivalent to what
would be the case if Respondent had complied with a
Board order but resisted enforcement by an appropriate
court.
Goldfinger might later be again elected as chapel chairman More
importantly, absent the posting of an official NLRB notice to all
employees prohibiting the act complained of, there would be no assurance
that such action would not be repeated
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In N.L.R.B. v. Mexia, 26 LRRM 2123, 2125, the U.S.
Supreme Court stated:
We think it plain from the cases that the employer's
compliance with an order of the Board does not render
the cause moot, depriving the Board of its opportunity
to secure enforcement from an appropriate court ... .
A Board order imposes a continuing obligation; and the
Board is entitled to have the resumption of the unfair
labor practice barred by an enforcement decree ... .
The Act does not require the Board to play hide and
seek with those guilty of unfair labor practices.
In connection with Respondent's argument that the
unfair labor practice complained of is de minimis and need
not be remedied the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia, in International Woodworkers of
America, Local 3-10 [Long Lake Lumber Co.] v. N.L.R.B.,
380 F.2d 628 is instructive and apposite: The court there
held that where the Board found a violation of the Act, the
Board:
could not withhold a remedy and dismiss the complaint
on any de minimis principle.
The Act (Section 10(c)) says that if the Board shall be of
the opinion that any person has engaged in or is
engaging in any unfair labor practice, the Board `shall
issue' and cause to be served on such person an order
requiring such person to cease and desist from such
unfair labor practice, and to take such affirmative
action . . . as will effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Emphasis supplied.] We think these words mean what
they say, and that meaning, in terms of Congressionable
purpose, is unmistakable.
... And it is one thing for a successful complainant
to end up with a dismissed complaint, and quite another
to secure a cease-and-desist order. With the latter, he at
least does not have to start all over again if the violation
continues or is renewed.
Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, and in the
light of the failure of Respondent's defenses to stand up
under scrutiny, I am convinced and find that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
Case 5-CB-1019 (Washington Evening Star)
Facts
Albert W. Brown, who has been a member of the Union
for approximately 40 years, is employed by The Evening
Star Newspaper Company as a supervisor in charge of the
composing room. On March 13, during the course of his
duties, he was requested by James deMott, an employee in
the dispatch department, to furnish him with a dead
pasteup ad from a dead file in the composing room.
As a result of this incident certain employees in the
composing room filed two charges against Brown with the
Union's Executive Committee. These charges alleged that
Brown, by allowing deMott (who is not a member of the
composing room unit) to remove a pasteup ad from the
composing room, violated a provision of the collective-
bargaining agreement which limits work within the union's
jurisdiction from being performed except by journeymen
and apprentices. The second charge alleged that Brown also
violated a section of the union bylaws which requires any
union member who has personal knowledge of an
infraction of the contract which he might correct and who
neglects to inform the chapel chairman of the violation
shall, upon conviction, be fined . The executive committee
rejected the first charge but fined Brown $25 for failing to
notify the said chapel chairman that a dispatch department
clerk performed work reserved to members of the Union.
Respondent 's Contentions
Respondent defends on two principal grounds: (a)
Brown , although he has the title of supervisor, is not a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act;
(b) In any case his activities are not such as to constitute
him a management representative within the purview of
Section 8(b)(I)(B) of the Act.
It is the position of the General Counsel that Brown is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act
and that his authority included, inter alia, serving as a
management representative for the adjustment of griev-
ances . In effect the General Counsel urges that it is settled
Board law that a Union's fine of a supervisor for
performing work , in such circumstances , has the natural
effect of depriving the employer of the supervisor's
undivided loyalty and is therefore violative of Section
8(b)(1)(B). The cases which support this proposition are:
San Francisco-Oakland Mailer 's Union No. 18 International
Typographical Union (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172
NLRB No. 252; Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local Union 49, AFL-CIO (General Metal
Products, Inc.), 178 NLRB No. 24, enfd . 75 LRRM 2062
(C.A. 10); Dallas Mailers Union, Local No. 143, et al. (Dow
Jones Co.), 181 NLRB No. 49; Toledo Locals Nos. 151-P
and 272 of the Litographers and Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), 175
NLRB No. 173.
Brown 's Supervisory Status
The record is replete with evidence that Brown's
functions encompass, among others , the following activi-
ties : Leo Fisher , the Star's general foreman , who testified in
a straightforward, direct, and truthful manner, said Brown
is a night shift and ad supervisor ; he controls the flow of
work , assigns work , and supervises 20-30 employees; he
grants time off and in this connection his initial's on an
employee's timecard is authorization that the worker be
paid ; he assigns employees to various work areas and jobs;
he expedites the flow of work ; he determines the order of
priorities concerning which work must be done and in what
order ; different from rank-and-file employees he does not
need permission to leave the work area; he is paid $20 over
the scale ; he has almost no production work; he keeps his
own time ; if he reports in for work on his 7-hour trick he is
paid for a full day's work even if he leaves after 2 hours;
rank-and-file employees are paid for actual hours on the
job as reflected on their timecards ; if an employee wants to
go home because of illness he has the authority to permit
such employee to leave the plant . This evidence was
corroborated by Brown who was not in the hearing room
during Fisher 's testimony and who impressed me with his
candor. Assistant Foreman Alex W. Kuzemka testified to
the same effect , for example:
COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 101 1093
Kuzemka: Brown is in charge of the ad alley and
spends 90%a of his time not doing production work.
Q. Do supervisors recommend what extra help is
needed in an area?
A. (By Kuzemka) Yes.
Q. Isn't it a fact that rank and file employees often
complain to supervisors with respect to what I would
call personal grievances?
A. Yes they do.
Q. Brown and Fisher testified to some length that
supervisors and Brown specifically okayed time cards
or initialled them when people took off?
A. Yes, they can do that if I'm not present.
Q. If you are busy they can initial the timecards?
A. They can do that with the proper excuse, sick or
whatever it might be.
Q. Can Brown initiate an investigation into whether
or not a man should be terminated?
A. He can come to me with a complaint about a
man.
Kuzemka went on to say that after supervisors check in and
work-if they work a few hours and then one of them gets a
call-for example that a child is ill-he will come to me, tell
me the situation and he will then be gone-I will put him
down for 7 hours of work. Kuzemka further testified that he
was injured in an auto accident in March which kept him
off the job for 2-1/2 months. During that period Brown
acted as assistant foreman regularly once a week. If Ronald
Moore, the supervisor who occupies one slot in seniority
above Brown, was sick, Brown would act in his stead.
Based on a composite of testimony in the record I find
and conclude that Brown is a supervisor within Section
2(11) of the Act.4
Concluding Findings and Analysis
Respondent argues that the fine of $25 against Brown
was later rescinded . Thus, in addition as argued in the
companion Daily News case . . . the union's action was
repudiated by its principal (the ITU) and the fine was
restored , thereby removing all damage to the Company; in
such circumstances , the wrongdoing has been remedied. In
this connection it hardly needs to be pointed out that the
National Labor Relations Act is a public act violations of
which only the Board can remedy. Furthermore this
contention has been demolished by the ruling of the U.S.
Supreme court in the Mexia Textile Mills case cited supra.
It is not disputed that Brown acted as assistant foreman
at least once a week during the 2- 1/2 months when
Kuzemka was on sick leave due to injuries he received in an
auto accident . It is also not disputed that any time
Kuzemka and Moore (senior to Brown on the supervisory
ladder) are both absent Brown acts as assistant foreman.
There are approximately 80 employees on Brown 's night
shift . Respondent takes the position that Brown never acts
4 As defined in Sec . 2(l1) of the Act, a supervisor is " . . any
individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,
transfer , suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge , assign , reward, or
discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their
grievances , or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with
the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature , but requires the use of independent judgment " It is settled
as a supervisor because the men in the composing room are
journeymen members of the Union and need no supervi-
sion. This argument does not hold water because it is highly
unlikely that a working crew of 80 would be permitted to
work without any representative of management present
for an entire shift. It should be pointed out that Brown has
authority and exercises independent judgment in determin-
ing whether to allow employees to leave thejob when they
"beg off" because they are ill or have some other valid
excuse.
Section 2(11) of the Act is written in the disjunctive and
the existence of any one authority is sufficient to constitute
an employee with such authority as a supervisor. The
adjudicated cases show that "Section 2(11) does not require
the exercise of the power described for all or any part of the
employee's time for it is the existence of the power which
determines the classification." See Ohio Power Company v.
N.L.R. B., supra.
Further on the supervisory issue note the General
Foreman's answer to a question put to him by the General
Counsel as follows:
Q. Does Mr. Brown have authority to send an
individual home or order him to punch out?
A. Yes. If he was to send someone home and
recommend that the man be discharged, yes. He would
tell him to punch out, go home and come back and see
the foreman.
Respondent in his brief states that on cross-examination:
Fisher admitted the firing recommendation could only
come from the shift foreman. And, moreover, even on
those occasions when Brown was theoretically in the
position of Acting Shift Foreman, he never made any
such recommendations.
Respondent characterized Fisher's testimony on direct
examination as misleading. If there is anything misleading
it lies in Respondent's use of the words "theoretically in the
position of Acting Shift Foreman". The record shows that
Brown in fact was acting shift foreman whenever Kuzemka
and Moore were absent. The fact that Brown made no such
recommendations is not controlling. The courts have held
that the test of supervisory status is determined by the
existence of supervisory authority and not its exercise. See
Ohio Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra.
Additional Findings, Conclusions, and Analysis
"The operable elements of Section 8 (b)(1)(B) concern the
status occupied by the fined union member as well as the
reason for the fine , to the end that union discipline will not
interfere with the statutorily reserved right of management
to be free of any restraint or coercion in the selection of its
representatives for collective bargaining or the adjustment
of grievances ." Detroit Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union No. 13, International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
law that Sec 2 ( 11) is to be read in the disjunctive and the existence of any
authority enumerated therein is sufficient to constitute the person a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, further, Sec 2 ( 11) does not
require the exercise of the power described for all or any part of the
employee's time, for it is the existence of the power which determines the
classification Ohio Power Co v N.L R B, 176 F.2d 385.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and "The Detroit
Free Press, " TX D-756-70.
The General Counsel's brief states:
Respondent argues that if the shift foremen have
actually adjusted any grievances they were "personal
grievances" or "gripes"-not `contractual grievances.'
Respondent contended further that only the authority
to adjust "contractual grievances" and not the authority
to adjust "personal grievances" would make a supervi-
sor a representative of his employer "for the purposes of
the adjustment of grievances" within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(I)(B) of the Act.
In this connection , the Trial Examiner , with Board
approval, in Toledo Locals Nos. 151-P and 272 of the
Litographers and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), stated:
... it appears that , notwithstanding the continuing
significance of the distinction between "personal
grievances" and "contractual grievances" as it relates to
an employer's obligation to bargain collectively only
with the exclusive bargaining representative, the
distinction has no relevance to the construction of the
broad term "grievances" as used not only in the proviso
of Section 9(a) of the Act but also in Sections 2(11) and
8(b)(1)(B), and that in all three sections of the Act it
must be uniformly construed as including both
"personal grievances " and "contractual grievances." I
therefore reject the Respondent 's contention and
conclude that if shift foremen had authority to adjust,
or did in fact at times adjust , either "personal
grievances" or "contractual grievances ," they were
representatives of the Blade "for the purposes of .. .
the adjustment grievances " within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of of the Act.
The General Counsel's brief includes a further citation on
this point taken from Grinnell Company of the Pacific, 183
NLRB No. 49, footnote 1, which states:
... However, even assuming arguendo, that he did
not have specific authority as to his work, it is clear that
he had the authority generally to represent the employer
in the adjustment of grievances, and that the Union's
conduct in fining a supervisor who represents the
Employer for purposes of bargaining or handling
grievances restrains and coerces the Employer in its
selection of a bargaining representative and violates
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. (Citing Toledo Blade).
I concur with the General Counsel that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by its actions in both the
Evening Star and Washington Daily News Cases.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Companies described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the cases , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Evening Star Newspaper Co., and The Washing-
ton Daily News are employers within the meaning of
Sections 2(2) and 8 (b)(1)(B) of the Act.
2. The Evening Star Newspaper Co., and The Washing-
ton Daily News are employers within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8 (b) of the Act.
4. By threatening to impose a fine against General
Foreman Clubb and initially imposing a fine against
Supervisor Brown, representatives of the Companies,
because of conduct engaged in as supervisors , Respondent
restrained and coerced the Companies in the selection and
retention of their representatives for collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances, and engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]