Connell Typesetting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 918 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Connell Typesetting Company; Spangler Printers, Inc;
Pulliam-Marty Typographers , Inc.; and M & M
Typesetting Company and Kansas City Typographi-
cal Union, No. 80 . Cases 17-CA-5605, 17-
CA-5644, 17-CA-5689, and 17-CA-5690
August 16, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY
AND PENELLO
Upon charges filed by Kansas City Typographical
Union, No. 80 (herein the Union), against the Re-
spondent,' the General Counsel of the National La-
bor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for Region 17 on August 14, 1973, issued complaints
against each of the Respondents. Each of the com-
plaints alleges that the Respondent therein had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of each charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing were duly served on the parties
thereto. By order dated August 17, 1973, the Acting
Regional Director for Region 17 consolidated the
above-captioned cases.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaints allege in substance as to each of the Employers
that it was part of multiemployer negotiations, that it
untimely withdrew from multiemployer bargaining
without the consent of the Union, and that it refuses
to maintain its membership in and/or designation of
the multiemployers' association as to the continuing
collective-bargaining negotiations in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondents filed
a consolidated answer denying the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaints.
On December 28, 1973, and January 3, 1974, all
parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation by
which they waived a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge, the making of findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law by the Administrative Law Judge, and the
issuance of a Decision by the Administrative Law
Judge. The parties agreed that they desired to submit
this case directly to the Board for findings or fact,
conclusions of law, and a Decision and Order. On
January 24, 1974, the Board approved the stipulation
and ordered the proceeding transferred to the Board.
' The charge against Connell Typesetting Company was filed on April 20,
1973 The charge against Spangler Printers , Inc , was filed on May 31, 1973
The charge against Pulliam-Marty Typographers , Inc, was filed on July 16,
1973. The charge against M & M Typesetting Company was filed on July 16,
1973
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, the General Counsel, Respondents, and
the Charging Party filed briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESSES OF THE RESPONDENTS
The complaints allege and the Respondents in their
consolidated answer admit that they are now and at
all times material herein have been members of the
Printing Industries Association of Kansas City, Inc.
(herein PIA).
PIA is an association of employers engaged in the
printing industry. The purpose of PIA, in part, is to
represent its members' interests in negotiating and
administering collective-bargaining agreements with
the Union The members of PIA collectively during
the year 1972, a representative period, purchased
goods and material valued in excess of $50,000 direct-
ly from suppliers located outside the State in which
the members' respective facilities were located. Dur-
ing the aforesaid period, the members of PIA collec-
tively shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State in
which the members' respective facilities were located.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and we find
that PIA and its employer-members, and each of
them, are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We find
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Kansas City Typographical Union, No. 80, is a la-
bor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The stipulated facts show that PIA and the Union
have bargained on a multiemployer basis for at least
25 years. The last collective-bargaining agreement ne-
gotiated between PIA and the Union was effective
November 1, 1968 and expired October 31, 1971. By
letter dated August 5, 1971, the Union requested PIA
to commence negotiations for a new contract to re-
place this agreement. Negotiations for a new agree-
ment commenced August 24, 1971. At that time, PIA
represented 36 employers, including the Respondents.
212 NLRB No. 140
11
CONNELL TYPESETTING COMPANY 919
At the time, there were 209 employees in the multiem-
ployer unit. During the period beginning August 24,
1971, and ending March 25, 1972, PIA and the Union
met 22 times.
As of the end of the March 25, 1972, collective-
bargaining meeting, there were f.,ur unresolved is-
sues: (a) the Union's demand that any agreed-upon
increase in wages would be effective retroactively to
November 1, 1971, (b) the Union's demand for the
merger of the PIA pension plan into the union pen-
sion plan,2 (c) the Union's demand concerning the
procedure applicable to introduction of new work
processes by the employer-members of PIA, and (d)
the Union's demand concerning jurisdiction over any
new work processes introduced by the said employers.
The PIA has rejected each of the Union's proposals,
as to the unresolved issues, and with respect to the
Union's proposal regarding the subject of pensions
the PIA has contended that the Union's proposal is
unlawful.
During the period from April 6, 1972, to May 18,
1972, the Union commenced strikes against 22 of the
employer-members of the association including the 4
Respondents.'
On April 11, 1972, Sosland Press signed an interim
agreement following individual negotiations with the
Union. These negotiations took place without the
consent of PIA and/or of the Respondents. Pursuant
to the terms of the interim agreement, Sosland Press
accepted the Union's proposal regarding the four un-
resolved issues. At the same time Sosland Press and
the Union agreed that they would execute a regular
labor contract based upon the final agreement that is
2 The Union's proposal was as follows:
In the event the Union signatory to this agreement elects to merge the
Printing Industries Association of Kansas City Typographical Union
Pension Plan into the ITU Negotiated Pension Plan on the basis of terms
and conditions of merger submitted by the Board of Trustees, ITU
Negotiated Pension Plan , it is agreed that the Union and the Employ-
er(s) will instruct their respectively designated Trustees of the Printing
Industries Association of Kansas City Typographical Union Pension
Plan to proceed with the arrangements necessary to complete merger of
the Printing Industries Association of Kansas City Typographical
Union Pension Plan into the ITU Negotiated Pension Plan . Should the
arrangements necessary to give full force and effect to the merger require
amendments to this agreement , including adjustment [of] existing wage
rates to provide for increased contribution rates if required, the Union
and the Employer(s) hereby agree to execute such amendments.
3 On April 6, 1972, the Union commenced strikes against Western Type,
Sosland Press , Lowell Press, Constable Hodgins , and Respondent Connell
Typesetting; on April 20, against Smith-Grieves, on May 2, against Accurate
Type, Burd & Fletcher , Callender, Columbian, Dodsworth, LaRue, Millar-
Greenlee, Respondent M &-M Typesetting, Pans Printing , Dick Richardson,
and Broadway Type (the stipulation contains a notation that as to Broadway
Type the employees were locked out); on May 10, against Acme Type and
Respondent Pulliam-Marty, and on May 18, against Sharp Color Press,
Quality Typesetting, and Respondent Spangler Printers The names of Qual-
ity, Broadway, and LaRue are not included in the list of the 36 employers
who were members as of 1971. No details are given as to when they became
members
negotiated between PIA and the Union, and that the
terms of that final agreement would replace the inter-
im agreement.
On April 12, 1972, Western Typesetting Co., the
employer with by far the largest complement of em-
ployees in the multiemployer unit (60 of the 209 origi-
nally in the unit) withdrew from multiemployer
negotiations with the consent of PIA and the Union .4
During the period from April 14, 1972, to June 8,
1972, the Union entered into interim agreements with
19 additional employers. The terms of these interim
agreements are identical with the terms of the Sosland
agreement. As was the case with the Sosland agree-
ment, the individual negotiations underlying entry
into these agreements took place without the consent
of PIA and/or of the Respondents.' Where strike and
picket action had been undertaken it ceased as of the
date of execution of the interim agreement. During
this period, multiemployer bargaining continued with
meetings held on April 21, 24, 30, May 1, and May 9.
On May 23, Burd & Fletcher (16 employees) with
the consent of PIA and the Union withdrew from
multiemployer negotiations and entered into individ-
ual negotiations with the Union. Meetings between
PIA and the Union were held thereafter on June 14
and July 6.
On July 10, following individual negotiations with
the Union, Constable Hodgins Printing Co. executed
a separate collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union. The individual negotiations underlying entry
into this separate agreement and the execution of this
separate agreement took place without the consent of
PIA and/or of the Respondents herein. On July 27,
1972, Dodsworth Co. and Accurate Typesetting, fol-
lowing joint negotiations with the Union, each execu-
ted separate but identical collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union. The negotiation and exe-
cution of the agreements with tDodsworth and Accu-
rate took place without the consent of PTA and/or of
the Respondents. On September 19, and October 3
and 17, PIA and the Union held additional bargaining
4 Thereafter , Western engaged in individual negotiations with the Union.
On April 9, 1973, Western filed a petition pursuant to Sec 9(c) of the Act
for the purpose of having the Board conduct a representation election On
May 31 , 1973, the Regional Director for Region 17, following the conduct
of a secret-ballot election, issued a certification of results of election decerti-
fying the Union as collective-bargaining representative for the aforesaid
employees of Western
Interim agreements were entered into with Associated Publications, In-
ternational Printing , and Kansas City News Press on April 14, with Midwest
Records on April 17; with Millar-Greenlee on May 11; with Callender Print-
ing, Paris Printing, and the McWhirter Co. Printers on May 12; with Smith-
Grieves, Columbian Printing, Dick Richardson, and Acme Typesetting on
May 15; with Sharp Color Press on May 22, with Speed-E Typesetting on
May 23 ; with Lowell Press on May 24, with Schooley Printing on May 30;
with Schooley-LaRue on May 31, and with Quality Typesetting on June S.
These six employer-members of PIA entered into interim agreements with
the Union without being struck or picketed- Associated Pubhcations ,, Inter-
national Printing Company, Midwest Records, Kansas City News Press,
Speed-E Typesetting , and the McWhirter Co. Printers.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sessions.
On November 7, 1972, the Union and Burd &
Fletcher entered into an agreement pursuant to their
individual negotiations.
On November 5, 1972, Sosland Press, Inc., executed
a separate collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union containing terms identical to those set forth in
the contract between Burd & Fletcher. On November
7, 1972, five other employers, Quality Typesetting
Co., Smith-Grieves Company, Associated Publica-
tions, Millar-Greenlee Typesetting Co., and Interna-
tional Printing Company, executed separate
collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, also
containing terms identical to those set forth in the
contract between Burd & Fletcher. The individual
negotiations underlying the entry into the separate
agreements and execution of the separate agreements,
other than the agreement with Burd & Fletcher, took
place without consent of PIA and/or of the Respon-
dents herein. Thereafter, on January 8, 1973, PIA and
the Union had a collective-bargaining session. On
January 10, 1973, two additional employers, Shifman
Printing Co. and Broadway Typesetting Co., signed
individual contracts containing terms identical to
those set forth in the Burd & Fletcher contract. The
individual negotiations underlying entry into these
separate agreements and the execution of these agree-
ments also took place without consent of PIA and/or
of the Respondents herein.
On April 6, 1973, each of the Respondents herein
sent an identically worded letter to the Union which
stated the following:
Please be advised that [employer's name] hereby
withdraws from the negotiations between Union
Employer Section, Printing Industries Associa-
tion of Kansas City, and Typographical Union
No. 80 of Greater Kansas City, Missouri. This
letter shall also serve as notice that Union Em-
ployer Section, Printing Industries Association of
Kansas City, is no longer authorized to represent
[employer' s name] in negotiations with Typo-
graphical Union No. 80 of Greater Kansas City,
Missouri.
[Employer's name] will negotiate on an individu-
al basis with Typographical Union No. 80 of
Greater Kansas City, Missouri, and will not be
bound by the terms of any collective bargaining
agreement that may be negotiated between your
association and the union.
On April 13, 1973, the Union sent an identically
worded letter to each of the Respondents. The letter
read as follows:
Your letter of April 6, 1973, has been received.
The Union does not consent to your unilateral
conduct in attempting to withdraw from multi-
employer bargaining. A negotiation meeting with
PIA is scheduled for Monday, April 16, 1:00
p.m., in the Association offices. The Union will
consider your company to be bound by any col-
lective bargaining agreement reached with the
PIA.
At all times since April 13, 1973, and continuing to
date, the Union has refused and continues to refuse
to bargain individually with any of the Respondents
herein.
On April 16, 1973, during a collective-bargaining
session held between PIA and the Union, a PIA repre-
sentative orally and in writing stated that PIA no
longer represents any of the four Respondents herein.
In response thereto, a representative of the Union
replied, "That's your opinion."
On April 10, 1973, following individual negotia-
tions with the Union, the Lowell Press executed a
separate collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union. The language of that agreement differs in
some respects from the language in the other separate
agreements, referred to above. The individual negoti-
ations underline entry into this separate agreement
and the execution of this separate agreement took
place without consent of PIA and/or of the Respon-
dents herein.
Subsequently, bargaining meetings between PIA
and the Union took place on April 16, May 10, May
31, June 19, and July 24. As of the July 24 meeting,
PIA and the Union had reduced the areas of dispute
with respect to new work processes and union juris-
diction related thereto. However, no final agreement
was reached. Subsequently, PIA and the Union had
collective-bargaining sessions on October 30, and No-
vember 6, 16, and 20. As of the date of the stipulation
no final agreement had been reached.6
General Counsel contends that the withdrawal by
each of the Respondents herein was untimely in that
6 The Charging Party has filed a motion to reopen the record to present
evidence that PIA and the Union on April 30, 1974, reached agreement on
a new collective-bargaining agreement , that the Union has demanded that
the Respondents be bound by the terms of that agreement , and that the
Respondents have refused to be bound The Charging Party also seeks to
present evidence concerning collective -bargaining agreements reached sub-
sequent to the stipulation by certain Employers who withdrew from PIA, as
discussed above The General Counsel supports his motion and the Respon-
dents oppose it Since the matters sought to be presented have no bearing on
the violation , and, to the extent relevant, are only relevant as to the remedy,
we shall , and hereby do, deny the motion
CONNELL TYPESETTING COMPANY 921
it came after the commencement of the current nego-
tiations and further that there is no unusual circum-
stance which would permit such a withdrawal without
the Union's consent. Respondents contend that even
though their withdrawal was after the commencement
of multiemployer bargaining it was nevertheless per-
missible since the Union had failed to bargain in good
faith by insisting to impasse upon an unlawful de-
mand. They further contend that the Union's conduct
with respect to the other employers in the association
and the results thereof are such as to require a finding
that Respondents have made an effective withdrawal
from multiemployer bargaining.
In Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388 (1958), the
Board set forth the rules governing the withdrawal of
an employer or a union from multiemployer bargain-
ing. An employer may withdraw without the union's
consent prior to the start of bargaining by giving un-
equivocal notice of the intent to abandon the mul-
tiemployer unit and to pursue negotiations on an
individual employer basis. However, once negotia-
tions have actually begun, withdrawal can only be
effectuated on the basis of "mutual consent" or "un-
usual circumstances."
In view of our decision herein, we do not pass upon
the Respondents' contention that the Union's propos-
als for a merger of the Printing Industries Association
pension plan into the ITU-negotiated pension plan
was unlawful or that an extended impasse between the
parties from March 25, 1972, is a sufficient basis to
support a claim of unusual circumstances for purpos-
es of withdrawal from a multiemployer association.
In our opinion, the facts in this case are sufficiently
unusual to warrant the conclusion that the general
rule of Retail Associates, supra, is not applicable to
these Respondents. Here the bargaining unit had dis-
sipated to the point where only 13 of the original 36
employers remained, as a practical matter, as active
participants in the bargaining. These employers em-
ployed only 36 of the original employee complement
of 209 employees.
Thus, prior to Respondents' withdrawal, 17 of the
36 employers had signed interim agreements under
the terms of which they capitulated as to all of the
items remaining in issue. These employers employed
a total of 83 employees? It is true that these employers
after signing the interim agreement remained obligat-
ed to sign any final agreement, and to that extent
remained part of the multiemployer unit. However,
having agreed with the Union on all remaining issues
they were, as a practical matter, no longer able to
contest those issues at the bargaining table. Thus,
their strength had been removed from the multiem-
ployer unit and they, in effect, had withdrawn from
further multiemployer bargaining as to this contract.
A total of 11 employers made complete withdraw-
als from the bargaining unit. These employers had an
employee complement of 132 employees. Of these em-
ployers 10 signed individual agreements with the
Union. Five had earlier signed interim agreements,'
and thus are already included in the earlier group. The
5 who are not included in the earlier group had an
employee complement of 30 employees .9 Western, the
employer who withdrew but who did not sign any
agreement had an employee complement of 60 em-
ployees. Thus, of the original multiemployer comple-
ment of 36 employers 23,10 with 173 employees, had
either withdrawn completely or had withdrawn their
strength from the multiemployer unit at the time of
Respondents' withdrawal leaving the multiemployer
unit with a total effective (at least insofar as the then
current negotiations) membership of 13 employers
with an employee complement of 36 of the original
209.11
The Board is always concerned as to stability in the
collective-bargaining relationship. However, in our
opinion, this unit has, with the consent of the Union,
been so reduced in size and strength that it would be
unfair and harmful to the collective-bargaining pro-
cess to require Respondents to continue in a unit
merely because the Union, which consented to the
withdrawal of so many others, is unwilling to consent
to their withdrawal. In these unusual circumstances
we conclude that Respondetns were not required to
remain within the multiemployer bargaining-unit.
Accordingly, we find that Repondents did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing and refus-
ing to bargain through PIA. We shall therefore
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
7 The employers who signed the interim agreements and their employee
complements are as follows : Sosland Press-l2; Lowell Press-16; Smith-
Grieves-I7; Callender Printing-1, Columbian Printing-I. Millar-Green-
lee-3; Paris Punting-2; Dick Richardson-1, Acme Typesetting-7;
Sharp Color Press-2, Associated Publications-9; International Print-
ing-1; Midwest Records-3; Schooley Printing-2, Kansas City News
Press-2; Speed-E Typesetting-3; The McWhirter Co. Printing-l. In ad-
dition , three employers not included in the original complement signed inter-
im agreements . Schooley-LaRue, Broadway Typesetting, and Quality
Typesetting.
8 Sosland Press, Smith-Grieves, Millar-Greenlee , Associated Publications,
and International Printing In addition two employers not part of the original
complement, Boardway and Quality, also signed final agreements after hav-
ing signed interim agreements.
Burd & Fletcher-16, Constable Hodgins-4; Saml Dodsworth-2; Ac-
curate Typesetting-7, and Schifman Printing-1.
10 The 17 employers who signed interim agreements ; the 5 employers who
signed individual agreements, and the employer who withdrew but did not
sign any agreement
11 Of the remaining 36 employees 22 were employed by the 4 Respondents.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.