Dallas Mailers Union, Local 143

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 286 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dallas Mailers Union , Local No. 143, and
International Mailers Union and Dow Jones
Company, Inc. Case 16-CB-457
February 25, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 28, 1969, Trial Examiner John M.
Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
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 Respondents' exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts his findings, conclusions, and
recommendations
The complaint alleged that the Respondents
restrained and coerced the Charging Party in the
selection and retention of its representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining and the adjustment
of grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act. As set forth more fully by the Trial
Examiner, the action which was alleged to constitute
a violation of the Act was certain disciplinary action
taken by the Respondents against the Charging
`Party's foreman, who was also a member of the
Respondents' union. Specifically, mailing room
foreman Colston, in the exercise of his supervisory
authority under the contract to direct, control, and
assign all employees in his department, ordered a
fellow union member and mailing room employee,
Cantrell, to step down to the end of the table to
catch the newspapers so he could keep pace with the
machine and did not have to stop it. Subsequently,
Cantrell filed charges with the Respondent Local,
alleging that Colston had discriminated against him
and had engaged in conduct unbecoming a union
member. After the Respondent International
assumed jurisdiction of the matter, the Company
sent a telegram to it with a copy to the Respondent
Local, stating that it had told Colston not to reply
to the charges since the Company considered the
action to be a direct violation of its contract with
the Respondents. At the same time the Company
requested a meeting of the Joint Standing
Committee' concerning the matter. Neither
Respondent ever replied to the Company's request,
and no meeting of the Joint Standing Committee
was held. Eventually, the charges were upheld by the
Respondent International, and upon Colston's
failure to respond, he was expelled from the Union
in June 1969. Colston twice tendered his dues for
the month of July, and in a letter to the Union,
stated that he sincerely wished to remain a member.
However, his tender was refused on the ground that
he had been expelled.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the expulsion
from union membership, which Colston wished to
retain for the privileges afforded by the traveling
card and the other benefits, would, in this trade,
tend to inhibit him and restrain his effectiveness as
the Company's supervisor and representative in the
mailroom, and was thus violative of the Company's
rights as guaranteed by Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act.
The Respondents contend that the expulsion of a
foreman who is a union member does not restrain or
coerce the Company in the selection or retention of
the expelled foreman for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, as, once
expelled, the foreman is relieved of any further
responsibility or fear of any action on the part of
the Union which might tend to inhibit him from
representing the viewpoint of management. We do
not agree that this is so. As the Trial Examiner
found, the inhibiting effect of the expulsion on
Colston does not terminate with his expulsion. It is
evident that Colston tendered his dues for July after
his expulsion because of his desire to retain the
benefits that union membership afforded. Thus, as
the Trial Examiner noted, his expulsion would likely
have an inhibiting effect on his future conduct as a
supervisor and representative of the Company
because of his desire for reinstatement in the Union,
and would accordingly restrain and coerce the
Company from retaining him as its representative
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
Moreover, the effect of Colston's expulsion is not
limited merely to its impact on Colston and his
relationship to the Company. His expulsion will also
be a clear signal to other foremen, who are, under
the established practice, members of the Union, that
they could be subject to similar discipline if they
administer the contract in a manner so as to incur
the Union's displeasure. An additional effect of the
expulsion, therefore, is to restrain and coerce the
Company within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
by limiting its "right at any time to make and rely
upon a selection of representatives from an
uncoerced group of such supervisors whose loyalty
'Section 9 of the parties' contract , entitled "Joint Standing Committee,"
provides a method for the settlement of disputes
181 NLRB No. 49
DALLAS MAILERS UNION, LOCAL 143
to [it] has not been prejudiced."2 In all the
circumstances, therefore, we find that the
Respondents' expulsion of the Charging Party's
foreman for the performance of his supervisory
duties in administering the collective-bargaining
agreement constitutes restraint and coercion of the
Charging Party in the selection and retention of its
representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining and the adjustment of grievances in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondents, Dallas Mailers
Union, Local No. 143, and International Mailers
Union, their officers,, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order
'Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and
Photoengravers International Union . AFL-CIO ( The Toledo Blade
Company , Inc ), 175 NLRB No 173, TXD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER , Trial Examiner: On June 4, 1969,'
Dow Jones Company, Inc., herein variously called the
Company or the Employer, filed a charge alleging
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(B) against Dallas Mailers
Union, No 143 (herein called the Local) and
International Mailers Union , herein called the
International , and collectively called Respondents , alleging
that Respondents had restrained the Company in violation
of the above section regarding the Company' s selection of
its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
or adjustment of grievances and by expelling or
threatening to expel Foreman Robert Leon Colston from
membership in Respondents because of the performance
of his normal duties as a foreman.
On August 13, 1969, the Director of Region 16 issued a
complaint which alleged that ( 1) Respondents since
December 4 (the 10 (b) date herein ) had threatened to
expel Foreman Colston from membership in Respondents
because of his performance of his normal duties as a
foreman; (2) on March 31 the Local filed charges against
Colston for the purpose of investigating his conduct as a
supervisor and representative of the Employer ; (3) on June
5 the International requested his appearance for that
purpose; and ( 4) on June 27 the International terminated
Colston ' s membership in Respondents because of the
manner in which Colston interpreted and administered the
collective -bargaining agreement in effect between the
Company and Respondents.
Respondents in their answer admitted the requisite
jurisdictional facts, the positions of the various
International officers and agents and the Local president,
'Most of the events in this case occurred between the fall of 1968 and
the summer of 1969 Where months are referred to in this decision they
are the months falling in that period Where events occurred outside of this
period, the year is stated
287
that a contract was in effect between Respondents and the
Company, and the supervisory status of Colston.
Respondents denied threatening to expel Colston or that
charges were filed against him by the Local and denied
the alleged reasons for termination of Colston's
membership in Respondents and the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear,
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally
at the hearing held before me in Dallas, Texas, on
September 3, 1969. The General Counsel, Respondents,
and the Company have filed briefs which have been
carefully considered
On the entire record in this case including my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based on the
evidence received and my observation of their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Employer is a Delaware corporation maintaining
one of its offices and places of business in Dallas, Texas,
where it is engaged in publishing an edition of the Wall
Street Journal. While so engaged the Employer
disseminated news in association with Associated Press,
advertised national products, and received for the past
year gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from said
operations. During the same period the Employer received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points directly outside of the State of Texas
Respondents admit, the Employer agrees, and I find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Respondents admit, the Employer agrees, and I find
that Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
Ii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
The Company's plant in Dallas, Texas, publishes the
southwest edition of the Wall Street Journal. In this case
we are concerned with the operation of the mailing room
which is under the general supervision of Production
Manager Munson and the direct supervision of Foreman
Leon Colston. Negotiations for contracts, as well as
various meetings and grievance meetings of the so-called
Standing Committee, were in most instances handled for
the Company by their Counsel Joseph Barletta, Esq.,
from their main offices in Princeton, New Jersey
Prior to January 1962 the mailing room work was
handled for the Company by an independent contractor,
Ridgway Mailing Company. In January 1962 Dow Jones
terminated the contract with Ridgway and took over the
operations of the mailroom, recognized the Local, and
entered into contracts with Respondents thereafter The
current contract between the Company and Respondents
is for a term of 3 years beginning January 1, 1968, and
extending until December 31, 1970. In addition to the
normal contractual terms, this contract has a section 8
entitled "Foreman" which defines the supervisory status
and duties of the mailing room foreman and states that he
is the publishers' representative and sole judge of the
workers' competency in the mailing room. Among other
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
things section 8 provides that seniority is to govern layoff
and recall and that the foreman's decisions are to be
guided accordingly and in apparent recognition of the
custom in the trade of the foreman being a union member,
section 8 concludes with subsection (f) as follows:
The Union shall not discipline the foreman for
carrying out orders of the Publisher or his
representatives as authorized by this contract
The contract also provides for a method of settling
disputes in section 9 entitled "Joint Standing Committee "
This section provides for procedural steps starting with
discussions concerning the dispute between the chapel
chairman, representing the Union, and the foreman of the
mailing room and ending with binding arbitration and
with an express proviso that this is the exclusive means for
settling a dispute between the partie's
Foreman Leon Colston began as a Ridgway employee
on March 23, 1958, and joined the Local at that time.
This Local consists only of the mailroom employees,
foreman, and assistants employed by Dow Jones in
Dallas Colston was active in the affairs of the Union,
served as its secretary-treasurer for some 5 years, was a
member of the negotiating committee, and was chapel
chairman on two occasions resigning from that position in
November 1967 to become the mailroom assistant
foreman. Colston was made foreman on February 29,
1968.
W. F Cantrell, the other principal in this problem,
served with the Company and its predecessor for some 22
years, during 18 of which he was the mailing room
foreman He held that position when Colston started for
the Company and was replaced in November 1967 and
returned to the line as a journeyman mailer Colston is a
fairly large man and from my observation and from his
testimony I conclude that he is a rather sensitive
individual who remembers any slights and appears to
nurture them. From his testimony and from some of his
letters and documents it is readily discernible that Cantrell
feels Colston has picked on him with no justification
Cantrell is also prone to exaggeration since in his
testimony he stated that Colston was constantly harassing
him and when pressed on the subject mentioned two or
three things which he equated with constant harassment
It is probably only human nature that having been
deposed as foreman and knowing that position, that
Cantrell would harbor some ill feelings toward anyone
serving in that position and it is apparent that he did so.
It is also clear that he took orders from Foreman Colston
literally looking to the precise letter of the word for his
instructions and not to the rather obvious meaning of the
instruction This is not to deny that Foreman Colston may
have been overbearing in giving instructions.
Attorney Barletta's testimony was uncontradicted that
following Colston's being made foreman, threats of
physical abuse were made against Colston to the extent
that the Company felt it necessary to have a special
meeting with the Union attended by a representative of
the International. At this meeting the Company informed
all present that it was convinced the Union wanted the
Company to get rid of Foreman Colston and that it would
not do so and warned that it would sooner let each of the
employees go rather than lose Colston The Company
emphasized that there was to be no violence of any type.
In December at a meeting attended by International Vice
President Valero, Attorney Barletta complained that the
Company was still experiencing trouble in the mailroom
despite what Valero had said earlier, that resentment
toward a union official who became a supervisor would
eventually fade According to Barletta, Valero assessed
the situation and gave as his opinion that the situation
was not going to improve but would stay the same unless
the Company changed foremen Barletta further testified
to rumblings against Colston at practically every meeting
he attended with the Union.
In July 1968 an automatic "kicker" was installed on
the mailing machine This device separated groups of
papers going to one area or into one postal bag In
conducting experiments with the system the Company
found that it was necessary to lengthen the table situated
at the end of the conveyor belt next to the tying machine
and bag rack Due to the conveyor belt's continually
moving papers forward it was found necessary for the
labeler who stood at the first position at the table to pull
a group of newspapers from the edge of the conveyor belt
further onto the table and into the appropriate bag at the
end of the table
There are two mailing machines at the Company's
plant with six to seven men manning each line depending
on the size of the newspaper. Each man moves to the next
position on the line every 15 minutes (rotates) so that each
employee must be capable of doing all the jobs on the
particular machine or line Following the installation of
the "kicker," Foreman Colston, in July 1968,
demonstrated the operation of it to all the men The only
real change in the men's operation was at the labeler's
position and required the labeler on occasion to, as
Foreman Colston put it, "Step down and pull the papers
up" G.C. Exh. 8 is a picture of this operation with the
labeler standing on the left side reaching for the
newspapers As was testified, the labeler is expected to
reach about 1 foot further towards the conveyor belt than
the individual shown in the picture (G.C. Exh 8) is doing
What this means is that if a man is standing in the proper
position with his feet some 8 inches or so apart near the
right hand end of the table, he will have to shift his left
foot 1 or more feet to the left and lean to his left to reach
to the appropriate spot at the end of the conveyor belt. If
a man standing in the labeler's position stood with hi- feet
wide apart he would probably be able to lean to the left
and perform the operation without shifting his left foot
On November 19 Foreman Colston sent a letter to W
F Cantrell stating that on November 16 Cantrell failed to
obey a reasonable valid order and was insubordinate. The
letter warned that future failure to obey an order might
result in his discharge Cantrell in a letter dated
November 30 replied denying that he had disobeyed an
order and stating that Foreman Colston had not agreed
with Cantrell's method of accomplishing the work at the
labeler's position but that the work was performed
Cantrell denied any insubordination or refusal to perform
a task. In a'later document (Joint Exh. 5) Cantrell stated
he had his chapel chairman deliver this answer to
Foreman Colston
Colston testified that in February while observing the
operation of one of the machines he saw it stopped some
four to five times by Cantrell and that he then went to
Cantrell and told him to step down and pull up the papers
so he could keep up with the machine and not have to
stop it After leaving Cantrell's spot, Colston said he
continued his observation and noticed that Cantrell
continued to stop the machine. Colston then called
Cantrell, the chapel chairman, and the assistant foreman
off the floor and ordered Cantrell to step down to the
edge of the table and catch the papers or be fired Cantrell
said that he then walked to the end of the table and after
doing this a number of times and not being told to stop
DALLAS MAILERS UNION, LOCAL 143 289
saw that others were not doing so and went back to his
former method of operating at the labeler's position
Colston confirmed that Cantrell for a while performed the
job in an exaggerated fashion.
Colston testified that on February 27 he told Local
President Wright to step down and catch the papers and
some 15 minutes later Wright handed Colston a copy of a
letter from Cantrell to Wright dated February 22
Cantrell's letter charged Colston with conduct unbecoming
a union man , alleging that Colston was discriminating
against Cantrell arbitrarily and maliciously by requiring
him to perform duties not required of others This charge
referred to the stepping down or walking the 1 foot or so
to the end of the table
In a union meeting held shortly thereafter, and with
Colston abstaining, the Local membership voted to
request the International to take jurisdiction of Cantrell's
charges. On March 14 the International in a letter to
Local President Wright and with copies to Cantrell and
Colston stated it had taken jurisdiction of the charges and
told Cantrell to send five copies of his charges to the
International and a copy to Colston and told Colston to
send five copies of his reply to the International
Colston informed the Company of the charges against
him when he received them in February and was advised
by the Company not to reply to them. Following the
International's letter accepting jurisdiction, the Company
on April 23 sent a telegram to International President
Hosier with a copy to the Local president, stating that it
had told Colston not to comply with the International's
directions since the Company considered the action a
direct violation of its contract with Respondents and
requested a meeting of the Joint Standing Committee
concerning the matter The Company further advised the
Union that it would consider any further attempts at
harassment of its foreman as a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B).
International President Hosier and Local President
Wright conferred and according to Wright he was
instructed not to answer the Company's telegram
Further, according to Wright, the Union considered the
request for a meeting of the Joint Standing Committee
inappropriate since no written charges had been filed and
the procedural steps of the grievance procedure had not
been followed. No mention was made of whether the
special meeting called and held in March 1968 which a
special representative of the International attended had
followed such procedural method or not This position
seems rather weak" in view of the manner in which this
dispute arose.
A letter dated May 19, and actually mailed on June 5
to Colston from the International, stated that the
Executive Council of the International had approved a
motion that the charges against Colston be upheld and
gave Colston 20 days to demonstrate why he should not
be expelled from the Union In a letter dated June 27 the
International stated that it had received no reply from
Colston and therefore as outlined in the previous letter,
Colston was expelled. Colston's tender of his dues for July
was refused by the Local and the International on the
grounds that he had been expelled.
The expulsion of Colston meant that he was no longer
a union member entitled to a traveling card as a
journeyman mailer and that an insurance policy carried by
the Union for him and presumably paid for by a portion
of his dues was canceled There was some mention made
of pension benefits during the proceeding but there was no
explanation of whether they or any other tangible benefits
were lost to Colston by Respondents' action
B Position of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Company maintain that
the charges brought against Colston and his expulsion
from the Union were further incidents of harassment by
the Union against Colston designed to restrain and coerce
the Company in their choice of a foreman to represent the
Company in bargaining and or in the adjustment of
grievances, all in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(B) of the
Act In support of their position the General Counsel and
the Company cite the cases which began with Haverhill
Gazette Company. 123 NLRB 806, and stress the San
Francisco - Oakland Mailers Union No 18, case, 172
NLRB No. 252, the Toledo Blade Company, Inc , case,
175 NLRB No 173, and the Sheet Metal Workers
International Association case, 178 NLRB No 24 It is
their position that Cantrell and the Union were getting
back at Foreman Colston for his direction of Cantrell in
the manner and method of operating as a labeler,
something clearly within Colston's powers and duties as a
foreman and so acknowledged in section 8 of the contract
Presumably it is also their position that if Cantrell felt he
was being discriminated against in the performance of his
work he could file a grievance with his chapel chairman
and the matter could be taken up in the regular course of
grievance procedures as set forth in the contract Indeed
Cantrell seemed to have nearly embarked on such a
course when he gave his November reply to the chapel
chairman for delivery to Colston However, Cantrell
testified that the Union, presumably the Local, informed
him that his problem did not come under the contract and
was a private matter between him and Colston
Respondents argue that the problem is a personal one
between the two men and that hard feelings between the
two have led to the present situation Respondents alleged
that Colston harassed Cantrell concerning his job and has
made him perform duties above those required by other
employees. Respondents' witnesses said that Cantrell was
told to walk to the end of the table rather than step down
to the end of the table This matter of semantics resolved
to the fact that the employee was being instructed to move
I or 2 feet so that the work could best be performed
Respondents argue that this "personal feud" brings the
matter within the bounds of the Allis Chalmers case, 388
U S. 175, as intraunion discipline brought about by the
actions of one member against the other Respondents
disclaim any responsibility, with the International stating
it had no alternative but to process the charges under the
Landrum-Griffin Act since Colston did not reply
C Analysis
The Union's answer does not bear scrutiny Both the
International and the Local were aware of the troubled
feelings and of the Company's stated position that it
would retain Colston as its foreman in the mailroom The
issue here may have developed from Cantrell's resentment
over being deposed as foreman and resentment of Colston
as the new foreman Colston may have been a rather strict
foreman In any event, as a part of his duties, and so
acknowledged by the contract, Colston had the right and
responsibility to "direct, control and assign all employees
in his department " The manner in which the mailing
machines are run by employees is clearly within that
scope. Cantrell's allegation of discrimination against
Colston is related directly to Colston's supervisory control
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and his manner in exercising it. If Cantrell thought that
there was discrimination he should have followed the
grievance procedure for this would clearly be encompassed
thereunder However, Cantrell stated during the hearing
that the Union told him this was not a problem to be
considered under the contract and grievance procedure
Cantrell may have been so told by the Local because they
thought his complaint had no validity, but the grievance
procedure, particularly following a written warning
regarding a possible discharge, was the only available
legitimate way for Cantrell to lodge a complaint to
management regarding possible discrimination against
him. The contract lays out that the use of the grievance
procedure is the only avenue to be used. If Cantrell's
complaint was legitimate or had a solid basis, I cannot
determine that management would not have recognized it,
or following the grievance procedure, an arbitrator would
not have recognized discrimination if it existed and
ordered it corrected under the binding arbitration provided
by the contract
Here a different manner was chosen by Cantrell to stop
what Cantrell felt was discrimination against him
Cantrell initiated charges against Colston to strip Colston
of his union membership and the other benefits accrued or
accruing thereunder. Respondents state that since Texas is
a "right to work State" it isn't necessary for Colston to
be a union member and as a member of management he
has not been hurt. However, it is traditional in this trade
for foremen and assistant foremen to be union members
Management to protect itself from problems of this type,
had secured Respondents' agreement to section 8(f) of the
contract quoted above Respondents' action seems to be in
direct violation of this contract provision. Respondents
refused to agree to a meeting of the Joint Standing
Committee and the Company warned Respondents of its
position that Respondents might violate Section 8(b)(1)(B)
of the Act if they continued in the course of conducting a
hearing on Cantrell's charges against Foreman Colston.
Respondents could have met with the Company to resolve
the differences. To answer one of Respondents' defenses,
Respondents would have a defense under the
Landrum-Griffin Act for not processing Cantrell's charges
if it was improper for them to do so and might arguably
have violated the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondents however pressed forward and expelled
Colston.
In these circumstances I conclude Respondents have
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. The Board in the
latter cases cited by the General Counsel and the
Company has approved the general proposition that a
union violates Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by disciplining
a foreman for the performance of his supervisory duties
The Board adopted the holding of Trial Examiner
Scharnikow in the Toledo Blade case in which he stated11 - it is apparent from the language of Section 8(b)(I)(B)
and from the general reasoning of the Board in San
Francisco Mailers, that it is not an essential element of
the unfair labor practices that the disciplined supervisor be
a compelled union member under the union-security clause
obtained by the Union It is enough that his actual
membership has colorably subjected him to the offensive
discipline and its effect on his employer's right to rely
upon him as a supervisor " The Board further referred to
the Toledo Blade case in approving Trial Examiner Weil's
decision in Sheet Metal Workers
Though the action taken here is not a fine, it is
something more fundamental , the union membership
itself, which Colston wished to retain for the privileges
afforded by the traveling card and the other benefits.
Denying those to Colston in this trade would tend to
inhibit him and restrain his effectiveness as the Company's
supervisor and representative in the mailroom This then
violates the Company's right as guaranteed by Section
8(b)(1)(B) which violation must needs be remedied.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents as set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
operations as described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents violated Section
8(b)(l)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents
cease and desist from restraining or coercing the
Employer in the manner found herein Additionally, I find
that the coercive effect herein can be removed only if
Respondents are required to rescind the action of
expelling Foreman Leon Colston from the Local and from
the International and restore to him his union
membership, the right to his travelei's card, and any and
all benefits accruing or due him because of union
membership; such as the insurance policy
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the record
herein, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Respondents are each labor organizations within the
meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act.
2. The Employer is an employer within the meaning of
Sections 2(2) and 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act
3. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing the Employer in the
selection of its representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances,
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(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
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, I
recommend that Respondents, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) In any manner restraining or coercing Dow Jones
and Company, Inc , in the selection of representatives
chosen by it for the purposes of collective bargaining or
the adjustment of grievances
(b) Expelling and refusing membership to or otherwise
disciplining Foreman Leon Colston because of his conduct
and performance of work as the Employer's selected
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or
the adjustment of grievances.
DALLAS MAILERS UNION, LOCAL 143
(c) Refraining from or refusing to use the means for
adjustment of disputes provided in the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondents and
the Employer
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the action taken in expelling Leon Colston
from membership in Respondents
(b) Make Leon Colston whole for any losses he may
have suffered by reason of Respondents' action in
expelling him from membership in Respondents.
(c) Respondents, the Local and the International, are
both to advise Colston in writing that each has taken the
action of restoring Colston to full membership in the
International and the Local and that all references to his
expulsion from the Union are to be expunged from
Respondents' records
(d) Respondent Local is to post at its business office,
union hall, or any places where it customarily places
notices to members, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."2 Copies of the said notice shall also be
posted at the Employer's place of business if the Employer
is willing Respondent International shall post said notice
at its headquarters building on bulletin boards or such
places where notices to members are customarily posted
and shall publish a copy of the said notice for 2
consecutive months in its official publication "The
International Mailer." The notices, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 16, shall be signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent Local and by
authorized representatives of the Respondent International
and shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof in the manner provided above The notices
are to be posted for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted and reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents and by the Employer to insure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
'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 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 said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
291
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board An Agency of the United States Government
Following a trial in which the Company, the
International Union, the Local Union, and the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
participated and offered evidence, it has been found that
we violated the Act. We have been ordered to post this
notice and publish it and to abide by what we say in this
notice
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce Dow
Jones and Company, Inc , in their selection of
representatives chosen for the purposes of collective
bargaining and/or the adjustment of grievances or
disputes under the contract.
WE WILL NOT refuse to follow the contract
provisions in our collective-bargaining agreement for
the means provided for the adjustment of grievances or
disputes.
WE WILL NOT expel from membership or deny
membership to foremen or assistant foremen or
otherwise discipline them for the conduct or
performance of work while such persons are selected
representatives of the Employer and its representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL rescind the expulsion of Leon Colston from
union membership and restore him to membership in
the Union with all the rights and privileges due him and
remove from our records any reference to such
expulsion.
Dated By
Dated By
INTERNATIONAL MAILERS
UNION
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
DALLAS MAILERS UNION,
LOCAL No 143
(Labor Organization)
(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,
8A24 Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort
Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2941.