Dixie Color Printing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1431
2. To the extent that any present action depends upon such changes, the Board
reaffirm its Decision and Order of May 7, 1963 (142 NLRB 491).
NOTE.-Under the terms of the order directing the further hearing herein, the
parties shall have the right to file exceptions to this Decision in accordance with the
procedure outlined in Sections 102.45-102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended.
Dixie Color Printing Corp . and International Typographical
Union. Case No. 10-CA-5942. February 14, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 22, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with sup-
porting briefs.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the record establishes
that Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union was not motivated by
a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. Respondent's con-
sistent pattern of unlawful conduct after it became aware of the union
adherence of most of its employees clearly indicates that by its refusal
to recognize or bargain with the employees' majority representative,
Respondent rejected the collective-bargaining principle and sought
only to gain time within which to undermine the Union and dissipate
its majorit91
'Joy Sslk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied
341 U.S. 914 In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's findings that supervisor Horton's
interrogations and promises of benefits to seven employees on the night of November 20-
21 violated Section 8(a) (1), we place no reliance on the Trial Examiner's determination
that Plant Manager Clinton was informed in advance of the employees' union activities
Even if Clinton was not so informed, the record amply reveals that soon atter Horton
began his questioning, he became well aware of the employees' union affiliation but never-
theless persisted in unlawfully attempting to persuade them to abandon the exercise of
their Section 7 rights
156 NLRB No. 120.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this connection, we also conclude that the unit found herein to
be appropriate does not represent more than a slight variation from
that originally sought by the Union,2 and that such variance provides
no justification for Respondent's refusal to bargain. This is so even
though we find merit in Respondent's contention that the appropriate
production and maintenance unit 3 herein should include the three
janitors. Thus, it appears that in addition to their duties as set forth
by the Trial Examiner, the janitors regularly transport the comics
from the pressroom to the shipping room between the hours of 4 p.m.
and 8 a.m., when the day-shift shipping employees are not at work,
and bring skids or pallets and cardboard pads into the pressroom
when these items are needed by the pressmen. The parties stipulated
that the shipping employees are properly included in the unit. Since
the entire record indicates that a major part of the janitors' work is
closely related to that of other unit employees, we conclude that the
janitors possess a sufficiently close community of interest with them
and we shall, in accordance with our usual policy, include the janitors
in the Unit .4 However, we agree with the Trial Examiner that' even if
the janitors were included in the unit, the failure of the Union to
include them in the requested unit was only a "minor variance" which
would not affect our Section 8 (a) (5) finding.5
2. We also conclude, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by not bargaining
with the Union concerning the manner in which work schedules, reas-
signments , and layoffs would be affected by Respondent's installation
of the press inking carriage . As the Trial Examiner notes, these con-
ditions of employment manifestly were of interest to the employees
and their representative, and Respondent was not free to make these
changes without prior discussion with the Union.
We do not agree, however, with the Trial Examiner's finding that
the Respondent thereby also violated Section 8(a) (3). There is no
dispute that the installation of the carriage was economically justified,
and there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Respondent's motiva-
tion for the installation or its timing was fora discriminatory purpose.
2 The record and the Union 's letters reveal that the Union 's request to bargain for a
unit of production employees performing work , inter alia, in the stereotype room, reason-
ably contemplated the inclusion of the platers . The one or two plating employees work
in the same room with the stereotypers and their function is without question an integral
part of the production process.
8 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's characterization of the unit as a "skilled craft
group" or a "skilled craft unit."
' Challenge-Cook Bros., Incorporated , 129 NLRB 1235, 1242. We also note that Frank
Horton and Lavender , who are formally described as maintenance employees , perform
mechanical repairs on the press and clearly are properly included in the production and
maintenance unit
e In view of our agreement with the Trial Examiner that the head pressmen are not
supervisors , we find it necessary to pass upon his discussion of the effect of their union
activity if they were not properly included in the unit
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1433
Nor does the record indicate that Respondent unlawfully affected the
status of the particular individuals selected for layoff or other change.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint and
shall modify our order by deleting that portion of the backpay order
based-on it. Nevertheless, under all the circumstances, we find that
the manner in which Respondent implemented the cutback interfered
with its employees' statutory rights in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
Thus, in the entire context of this case, including the intensive efforts
by the Union to obtain recognition and commence, bargaining with
the Company and Respondent's adamant and well-publicized refusal
to accede to the Union's lawful demands, we conclude that Clinton's
unexpected and unexplained announcement of a loss of wages, a reduc-
tion in hours, and a change of position of certain employees was
intended to impress upon all the employees the adverse results which
t he,}, might suffer because of their exercise of Section 7 rights.6 By
such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein , and orders that the Respondent, Dixie Color Printing Corp.,
Sylacauga, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified : 7
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(i) :
"(i) Using the announcement of necessary maintenance work, and
of the manner in which employee work schedules would be changed
to accomplish such work, to interfere with employees' organizational
rights."
2. Substitute the following as paragraph 2 (a) :
"(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Typo-
graphical Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit :
"All employees at the Sylacauga plant, including pressroom employ-
ees, stereotype and plating room employees, mailing room (shipping)
employees , and maintenance employees and janitors, but excluding
all office clerical employees, professional and technical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act."
I The record indicated that this occasion was the first time in many months that
Clinton, the plant manager , and not Horton , had prepared the work schedules
7 We shall modify our order to conform to that set forth in his discussion of the proper
remedy, and accordingly shall order Respondent to reinstate the striking employees upon
their unconditional application , and we shall order that the Respondent reimburse them
for their lost earnings , if any , commencing 5 days after such application is made, com-
puted on a quarterly basis and with 6 percent interest per annum , as recommended by the
Trial Examiner.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Substitute the following as paragraph 2 (b) :
"(b) Upon application , offer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions to all those employ-
ees who went on strike on December 16, 1964, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges , dismissing, if necessary,
all persons hired on or after that day, and make such applicants whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the Respondent 's refusal,
if any, to reinstate them, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money to that which he normally would have earned, less the net
earnings , during the period from 5 days after the date on which he
applied or has applied for reinstatement to the date of the Respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement . Notify all those employees who went on
strike on December 16, 1964, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from
the Armed Forces."
3. Amend the notice attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision in
the following respects :
(a) Delete the seventh paragraph beginning with the words "WE
WILL NOT use necessary . . . ," substituting the following therefor :
WE WILL NOT Use the announcement of necessary maintenance
-work, and of the manner in which employee work schedules
would be changed to accomplish such work, to interfere with
employee -organizational rights.
(b) Delete the eighth indented paragraph beginning with the
words "WE WILL make whole... ," substituting the following therefor :
WE WILL, upon application, offer our employees who went on
strike on December 16, 1964, immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as
a result of any refusal to reinstate them upon such application.
(c) Modify the description of the appropriate bargaining unit, as
set forth in the last indented paragraph, by deleting the word "jani-
tors" which precedes -the terms "guards and supervisors," and by
inserting "and janitors" immediately after the terms "mailing room
(shipping) employees."
(d) Add the following immediately below the signature line at
the bottom of the notice:
NoTE.-We will notify all those employees who went on strike
on December 16, 1964, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1435
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleged unfair labor practices which we
have found were not committed.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented by counsel , was heard before Trial
Examiner Alba B. Martin , in Sylacauga , Alabama, on April 27-30, 1965, on com-
plaint of the General Counsel and answer Dixie Color Printing Corp., Respondent
herem .1 The issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and ( 5) of the National Labor Relations'Act , as amended , 29 U.S.C. Sec 151,
et seq ., herein called the Act. After the hearing all parties filed helpful briefs which
have been carefully considered.2
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , an Alabama corporation maintaining its office and plant at Sylacauga,
Alabama , is engaged in the printing , sale, and distribution of nationally syndicated
newspaper comics. During the calendar year 1964, a representative period, Respond-
ent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $200,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of Alabama Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Greater Buffalo Press, Inc., of
Buffalo, New York, which also has other wholly owned subsidiaries in several parts
of the country through which it does business.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Typographical Union , herein called the Union , is and has been at
all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The main issue presented here is whether Respondent acted in good faith in insist-
ing on an election before granting recognition and bargaining . The law is well
settled that an employer may in good faith insist upon a Board election as proof of a
union's majority , but that it unlawfully refuses to bargain if its insistence on such
election is motivated not by any bona fide doubt as to a union 's majority but rather
by the rejection of the collective -bargaining principle or by a desire to gain time
within which to undermine the union.3 It is also well settled that "there is no
absolute right vested in an employer to demand an election ." 4 The question here is
one of fact , whether Respondent 's refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union
was motivated by a good-faith doubt or by the rejection of the collective -bargaining
principle or a desire to gain time within which to undermine the Union.
1 The charge was filed by the Union on December 14, 1964 , and served on Respondent
on December 15, 1964.
2 After the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent filed motions to correct the
record in certain respects
3 Joy Silk Mills , Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd 185 F 2d 732 (C A.D C.), cert denied
341 U.S. 914.
4 N.L R B. v. Wheeling Pipe Line , Inc, 229 F 2d 391, 393 ( C A 8) Fred Snow, et al,
d/b/a Snow and Sons , 134 NLRB 709, enfd 308 F 2d 687 (C A 9) AI L R B. v Irving
Taitel, et al, d/b/a Taitel and Son , 261 F 2d 1 (C A. 7) N L R B v Loren A Decker,
d/b/a Decker Truck Lines , 296 F 2d 338, 341 (C A 8)
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At issue also is whether Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by interrogations , promises of benefit , and threats of reprisal ; and whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1 ) by unilaterally reducing the
hours of employment after the Union became the bargaining agent.
B. Self-organization of the employees, and Respondent 's refusal
to recognize the Union
The record thoroughly established that the impetus to find and join a union came
from the employees themselves and that an overwhelming majority of the employees
desired collective bargaining rather than individual bargaining with their employer.
Pursuant to this initiative employee Robert Gaston called on the president of the
Alabama Central Labor Council in Birmingham , Alabama, who referred the matter
to Donald M . McFee, the representative of the Charging Union, the International
Typographical Union. McFee got in touch with Gaston and met with 17 of Respond-
ent's employees , including those of its head pressman, in a town near Sylacauga on
October 25 , 1965.5 McFee credibly testified that those present filled out authoriza-
tion cards authorizing the Union to represent them in collective bargaining with
their employer concerning wages, hours, and working conditions . The entire record,
including McFee's demeanor as a credible witness, the employees ' signatures on and
the statements on two petitions , the employees' participation in the strike, Plant Man-
ager Clinton 's failure to examine the cards when invited to on November 23, and
Respondent 's failure in both of its letters to McFee to question employee signatures
on cards, guarantees the truthworthmess of the conclusion , which I reach, that
authorization cards were signed. Those present at the meeting also signed a petition
( the first petition ) addressed to the Company.
By November 23, 24 of the Company 's 38 workmen , a vast majority , in the entire
plant and in the unit found appropriate below, had signed the petition and on that
day the Union 's representative , McFee, presented the petition and a written request
to bargain to Respondent 's plant manager , Joseph T. Clinton . Their conversation is
considered below The request read as follows
Please be advised that the International Typographical Union , affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, has
been authorized in writing by a substantial majority of the employees in your
firm who perform work in the production department to represent them for the
purpose of collective bargaining of wages , hours and working conditions. The
production department operations include all production work in the press
room, stereotype room and mailing room ( shipping ). All journeymen and
apprentices employees performing the above described work are included in
the collective bargaining group represented by the International Typographical
Union.
We are prepared to meet promptly with you and your associates for the pur-
pose of negotiating an acceptable labor-management contract covering wages,
hours and working conditions for the employees of your firm as above set forth.
The International Typographical Union has been in existence since 1852.
It enjoys a well-merited reputation as a responsible and highly-esteemed trade
union composed of 115,000 highly skilled printing craftsmen . The many hun-
dreds of subordinate unions of the ITU maintain contractural relations with
thousands of fair-minded employers in the printing and publishing industry in
the United States and Canada.
The petition , signed by 24 employees and addressed to Clinton , read as follows-
We, the undersigned production employees of the Dixie Color Printing Corp.
who perform work in the production department of the color comics printing
operations , have designated the International Typographical Union in writing
to represent us in negotiations for the purpose of collective bargaining for
wages, hours and working conditions.
Since we constitute a substantial majority of all production employees per-
forming work in the press room, stereotype room and mailing room , which is
the production department , we, therefore , request that the Dixie Color Printing
Corp. recognize the International Typographical Union as our bargaining
representative.
On Monday , November 23, Union Representative McFee and two employees called
upon Clinton and presented the Union 's written request to bargain , set forth above,
5 Except as otherwise indicated all events herein occurred in 1964
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1437
and the first petition, set forth above. McFee stated that a substantial majority of
the production department employees had requested the Union to represent them.
When Clinton questioned the Union's majority McFee offered to let Clinton compare
the authorization cards with their signatures against the Company's payroll records,
provided that if the Union represented a majority the Company would recognize and
bargain with the Union. Clinton did not accept this offer. McFee offered to agree
to an election conducted by a minister, a public official, or by Clinton himself or
anyone of his selection, provided that the Union have an observer and that the
Company agree to recognize and bargain with the Union if the Union won. Clinton
declined this offer. McFee offered a nonsecret election by separation of the voters;
the voters would all stand at one side and those in favor of the Union would step
over to the other side. Clinton declined this offer. McFee offered to consent to an
election to be conducted by the Board. Clinton declined this offer also. During the
meeting Clinton raised no question as to the appropriateness of the unit or as to the
inclusion of head pressmen in the unit Clinton said that he would telephone his
superiors in Buffalo, New York (the office of the parent company which owns 100
percent of Respondent), and would see the union representatives the following day
before noon.
The following day Clinton got in touch with McFee, told him he had been in
touch with Buffalo and had been instructed to forward what the Union had given him;
that he had mailed the information to Buffalo and that the Company would get in
touch with the Union later. Clinton did not verbally disagree when McFee reiterated
that the Union represented a majority in an appropriate unit, and that the Union
represented a majority in the whole plant even if Plant Manager Clinton were
included in the unit.
On or about December 1 Plant Manager Clinton sent to McFee's home address
in Cary, North Carolina, a letter replying to the Union's November 23 request to
bargain. Not having heard from Clinton, and not having received this letter and
not knowing of its existence, on December 3 McFee went to Clinton's office in
Sylacauga, was told by Clinton that a letter had been mailed to him. Clinton refused,
upon request, however, to divulge the nature or contents of the letter. That night,
before McFee had received it, Respondent posted Clinton's reply letter on the plant
bulletin board. It read as follows:
We have had an opportunity to study and analyze your letter of November 23,
1964, in which you claim to represent a substantial majority of our employees in
the Press Room, Stereotype Room, and Mailing Room.
It is our opinion that the unit which you have requested is not appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. We are unwilling to recognize your
union unless and until the appropriate unit has been determined by the National
Labor Relations Board
We have a good faith doubt of your claim. We have been advised that a
number of the employees whose names appear on the petition do not wish to
be represented by your union and we understand that a number of other sig-
natures authorizing your union to represent them were obtained through coer-
cion and intimidation. In view of this situation, we are unwilling to agree that
your union represents even a substantial number, much less a majority, of our
employees in any appropriate unit.
For these reasons among others we will insist that an election be conducted
by the National Labor Relations Board after the appropriate unit has been
determined before we will recognize your union as the representative of a
majority of our employees.
The following night, December 4, at a meeting called by McFee, 24 employees
signed another petition (the second petition) addressed to the Respondent. On
December 8 McFee sent Plant Manager Clinton the following letter-
This will acknowledge your letter dated December 1, 1964, in which you
stated that you were unwilling to recognize the International Typographical
Union until such time as an election was conducted by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board among your employees. More specifically, you expressed a doubt
as to our majority status and you expressed a doubt as to the appropriateness
of the unit in question.
While we do not feel that the doubt you express is justified in any respect,
we are enclosing a second petition which has been executed by a majority of
your employees. This petition was signed freely and voluntarily by these
employees in my presence on Friday, December 4, subsequent to your statement
questioning our majority status.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Once again we request that you recognize and bargain with the International
Typographical Union as the collective bargaining representative of all of your
production department employees excluding office clericals, janitors, guards,
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. This clearly is an
appropriate unit for bargaining.
We are prepared to meet promptly with you and your associates for the
purpose of negotiating an acceptable labor-management contract covering wages,
hours and working conditions for the employees of your Company as set forth
above. Therefore, please contact us immediately so that we may make arrange-
ments for negotiations
Looking forward to early and amicable negotiating meetings, I am,
Enclosed with this letter was the second petition addressed to Clinton and reading
as follows
In reply to your statement in a letter posted on the Dixie Color Printing Corp.
bulletin board on December 3, 1964, concerning the majority status of the
company production employees desiring to be represented by the International
Typographical Union:
We, the undersigned production employees of the Dixie Color Printing Corp.,
who perform work in the production department of the color comics printing
operations, have designated the International Typogiaphical Union in writing
to represent us in negotiations for the purpose of collective bargaining for
wages, hours and working conditions.
Since we constitute a substantial majority of all production employees per-
forming work in the pressroom, stereotype room and mailing room, which is
the production department, we, therefore, request that the Dixie Color Printing
Corp. recognize the International Typographical Union as our bargaining
representative.
On Monday, December 14, Plant Manager Clinton sent McFee the following reply
letter.
In reply to your letter of December 8, 1964, we have received no facts which
would cause us to change the position we set forth in our letter of December 1,
1964.
In order that the questions raised in our letter can be settled at the earliest
possible time, we again suggest that you file a representation petition with the
National Labor Relations Board If you do this, we assure you that we will
cooperate in every way toward having an early election.
This letter had not reached McFee's home in North Carolina by the night of
December 15.
Twenty-six employees, all who had signed the second petition,F'plus three head
pressmen, and all but two of those who had signed the first petition, struck early in
the morning on December 16, and all but two 7 continued on strike and took their
turn at picketing at least until the hearing herein the last week in April 1965 This
was strong evidence of majority employee support of the Union and the strike. Yet
Plant Manager Clinton testified at the hearing that he still believed some of the
striking employees wanted to get out of the Union
C. An appropriate unit
The record showed that an appropriate unit in Respondent's plant consists of all
pioduction and maintenance employees, including pressroom employees, stereotype
and plating room employees, and mailing room (shipping) employees, but excluding
the janitors and the other customary exclusions There are approximately 34 employ-
ees in this unit. This is a skilled craft unit consisting of those charged with preparing
for and making and shipping Respondent's final product, the comic sections for
Sunday newspapers. The parties stipulated that the shipping employees should be
included.
From the mattresses, which came to Respondent from the Buffalo plant, stereotype
plates are cast and cut down to size; they are then "cut in to register." They are
"split and run." Then "routers" take away dead metal left on the plates. Then the
plates are nickeled, grouped, and dovetailed and cut down some so the plates can
take in rubber titles and coupons for ads. After "changes" are "dropped in" the ads
are proofread and the plates are put on shelves (the library) until a "newspaper run"
G Lavender signed the second petition but quit Respondent's employ before the strike
7 These two got jobs and worked full time elsewhere
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1439
is to be made up to go into the pressroom. Then the plates are removed from the
shelves, are put in order according to folios to be run, and are then ready for the
pressroom.
The above work is done in one large room sometimes referred to by employees as
the stereotype room or the stereotype room and the library. Some six employees
work in this room and do all this work, four steieotypers and two platers. Respond-
ent speaks of two departments under two foremen, the stereotyping department under
Gene Leslie, and the plating department under Frank Foster. The work and employ-
ees in this entire room are closely related to each other and the Union's language in
its petitions and demand letters to the Company clearly referred to the entire room.
Of note is that in its refusal letters Respondent did not suggest that it had any doubt
of what the Union meant when it used the description, "production department,"
and "stereotype room." Further, Respondent stipulated that all six employees in
this room should properly be included in an appropriate unit
The men in the pressroom, working six or seven to a shift on threee shifts (7 to 3,
3 to 11, 11 to 7) perform their several functions according to a written job descrip-
tion , one man per shift as man-in-charge (sometimes called head pressman), oiler,
rollman, and several flyboys or delivery men. These employees work on the one
big press and obviously have a strong community of interest with each other and
with the employees who make and prepare the plates. The parties stipulated that
all pressroom employees (except head pressmen) 19 in number, should properly
be included in an appropriate unit
The four head pressmen should be included in the appropriate unit because the
entire recoid proved that they were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act
They were hourly paid and punched the timeclock They were young men Respond-
ent had trained for this plant and they were never given the authority of supervisors
and were never told they were supervisors until, in the middle of the union activities
on December 1, Plant Manager Clinton wrote and read to each of them before a
witness a letter to that effect. The entire record established that this letter, set forth
in the footnote,8 was an effort to undermine the Union rather than a bona fide effort
to neutralize Respondent under the Act. If Respondent had in good faith wished
to neutralize itself it would have informed the employees that the head pressmen
were not speaking for the Company in any union activity in which they were engag-
ing. In the light of the entire record this threat to the job security of the head press-
men because of their union activity was a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Appraised most charitably this letter was an implied admission that Respondent
knew it had not theretofore made these four employees (and employees generally)
aware that they were supervisors. The record supports the accuracy of this inference.
When they went to work on the press each of the 23 pressmen, including the 4
head pressmen, was given a 6-page document called "rules for operating press 2022."
These rules set out in specific detail the duties of each pressman on the press, and
left little room for the exercise by the head pressman or man-in-charge of any
independent judgment. Each pressman, including the head pressman, performed their
duties under the rules, mostly manual, routine duties, and, as the record thoroughly
established, whenever any special problem arose involving the men or the machine
Horton or Clinton or Chief Electrician Holmes was called upon to solve it Although
the man-in-charge was said in the rules to have all employees working on the press
"under his authority," the entire record established that the pressmen regarded the
head pressmen more as leadmen than supervisors, and that in fact head pressmen
were never given and never exercised the authority of supervisors as defined in
the Act.
8 The letter read as follows:
Under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act, you are a supervisor and a representative
of management. As a representative of management, you may not take any part
whatsoever in union activities or union affairs . If you take part in such activities,
you will be subjecting the Company to charges before the National Labor Relations
Board.
I want to instruct you at this time that you must not do anything whatsoever
which would in any way subject our Company to any kind of charges before the
National Labor Relations Board If you do so, it will be necessary for me to take
disciplinary action against you up to and including discharge. If you have any
question about this instruction, I want you to ask it at this time. If you have no
question , I will expect to carry out this instruction
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record proved that the pressmen as a group, including the head pressmen,
regarded Horton as their foreman and that head pressmen refer all matters, except
routine ones, to Horton for decision. Thus any time of night whenever he was in
town they had orders to and called Horton to get a replacement for a pressman who
was ill or failed to show up, or when they needed someone to help unload a truck
If Horton was unavailable, they called Plant Manager Clinton. After Clinton read
the December 1 letter to John Nickolson, a head pressman, Nickolson asked if his
duties would be changed. Clinton replied "No" and added "If there is a fire, call the
fire department." As the head pressmen always had called Horton or Clinton when
any unusual or unroutine problem arose, this Clinton language meant that they were
to continue to do so and that they had no power or authority to solve it themselves.
The head pressmen physically work along with the other pressmen during their
shifts. They set the ink by adjusting the keys on the ink fountain and thereafter
repeatedly check the color and make fountain adjustments as they are required.
They "register" copies for each page; i.e., they adjust the plates so that the color is
proper and in correct location. The head pressmen pull out proof copies and make
necessary adjustments. They regularly check the various mechanical devices on the
press, and whenever they are able to, make repairs to insure their proper functioning.
In addition, the head pressmen physically assist the other crewmen on the press in
performing their jobs as the occasion arises.
Assignment of employees is made weekly by a work schedule posted on the
bulletin board. This was made out by Horton until Clinton took it over the first
week in December , as is seen below. Head pressmen are not consulted in scheduling
the employees, and in fact do not know certainly what shift they themselves will be
on or what days they will work from week to week until they read it on the bulletin
board. Head pressmen rotate on shifts, and do not always work with the same
crew. Upon occasion, as during the week beginning December 7 when Clinton made
out the schedule, Head Pressman Nickolson was reduced to oiler and was paid oiler's
wages (which were less than head pressman's wages), and Head Pressman Thomas
was reduced to delivery man and reduced in pay accordingly, without being con-
sulted about the change. It is unlikely that Nickolson and Thomas would have been
thusly treated if Respondent had regarded them as supervisors. This system of
scheduling was one of the grievances which led the employees, including the head
pressmen , to seek union assistance.
Head pressmen have no authority and have never exercised any authority to hire
or fire or effectively to recommend hiring or firing. They have no authority and have
never exerted any authority to transfer, lay off, promote, or discipline employees or
effectively recommend such action They do not have authority to grant time off or
to assign overtime. Overtime is assigned by Horton, who signs a slip authorizing it.
Head pressmen are not consulted in scheduling the jobs to be run . This bypassing of
head pressmen in the making of all decisions affecting the pressman is incompatible
with any claimed delegation to direct the work of employees. See Lanipcraft Indus-
tries, Inc., 127 NLRB 92, 94-95.
Other evidence that Respondent did not regard head pressmen as supervisors are
the facts that the working conditions and fringe benefits of head pressmen were more
nearly the same as those of employees and different from the fringe benefits of stip-
ulated supervisors. Thus head pressmen and employees worked 371/2 hours per
week while the supervisors were guaranteed a 48-hour week with a minimum of 8
hours overtime. Head pressmen were covered by company-paid life insurance in
the amount of $1,000 whereas the amount of the stipulated supervisors was $20,000
partially paid by the Company. Hospitalization insurance of hourly paid employees
including head pressmen did not include major medical coverage , whereas the super-
visors' did. Hourly employees, including head pressmen, were not paid for any time
lost due to illness, but supervisors were. Hourly employees , including head press-
men, did not receive a Christmas bonus of money , whereas the supervisors did. -
The Respondent contended that it would not leave an expensive piece of equip-
ment like the press during the night and midnight shift (Horton's normal hours were
8 to about 5) in charge of somebody who was not a supervisor. But it is possible, as
in this situation, for men to be responsible workers taking care of the press, without
being supervisors as defined in the Act. The record proved that here there were no
disciplinary problems and no irresponsible pressmen . Indeed , Respondent's press-
men were all high-type young workers. Horton, Clinton, and Holmes were subject
to call and were called in emergencies. Under these circumstances Respondent would
not necessarily have a head pressman on duty at night with any more authority than
he would have on the day shifts, which was the authority of a leadman, not a super-
visor. The entire record proved, as has been seen above, that the head pressmen did
not have the authority of supervisors under the Act, and the head pressmen on duty
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1441
after 4 p.m. had no more authority on their shifts than they had on the 7 a.m. to
3 p.m. shifts when Horton and Clinton were in the plant and closer at hand. Cf.
The Woodman Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1784, 1787.
Respondent urged as evidence they were supervisors the fact that head pressmen
make out reports and sign their names on the oiler's report and the rollman 's report.
Sometimes these names are signed opposite the printed word "foreman ." Although
this is some indication of supervisory status, the overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence is , as has been seen above , that the head pressmen were not supervisors as
defined in the Act Further, the record showed that they signed the other pressmen's
reports routinely and without inspecting the other men's work . Nickolson credibly
testified that most of the time the oiler signs Nickolson 's name as well as his own on
the oiler's report . Thomas credibly testified that he signed the rollman 's report only
occasionally and that he has never been reprimanded for failing to sign such a report.
I find upon the entire record that the head pressmen did not meet the statutory
standards of responsible direction requiring the use of independent judgment , and that
rather they performed the functions of a more experienced worker to one with less
experience . They should therefore be included in the unit with the other employees.
Cf Sanborn Telephone Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 512, 515; Mead-Atlanta Paper
Company, 123 NLRB 306, 309-310.
Respondent would include and the General Counsel and the Union would exclude
the three janitors. The janitors clean up the locker room , clean and wax the floors,
clean up shavings in the stereotype room, mop the floor in the pressroom and the ink
spots on it , and bundle the waste paper against the wall They also empty and clean
the drip and grease pans of the press . Upon occasion they also washed Plant Man-
ager Clinton 's car , drove his children to and from school , and did yard work around
the plant They are paid less than half of what the pressmen earn Sometimes, when
the pressroom is cluttered , they assist in moving with a tow-motor the finished comics
from the pressroom into the shipping department . It is clear that they are not skilled
employees and that they do not do maintenance work , such as repairing , adjusting,
and tending to the press and other machines , and such as electrical work. The jani-
tors are unskilled employees whose principal function is housekeeping work which
comprises an appropriate unit in this plant. For all of these reasons the janitors are
excluded from the unit. See Sarasota Herald Tribune and Journal , 111 NLRB 654.
Respondent contended but failed to prove that the Union would not accept or represent
the janitors because they were Negroes . Even if the janitors were to be included, the
Union's failure to include them in the requested unit was only a minor variance and
cannot vitiate a bargaining order. See Galloway Manufacturing Corporation, 136
NLRB 405, enfd. 312 F. 2d 322 (C.A. 5); Ivy Hill Lithograph Company, 121 NLRB
831; United Butchers Abattoir , Inc, 123 NLRB 946; Delight Bakery, Inc., 145 NLRB
893, 908 , Sabine Vending Co. Inc., 147 NLRB 1010, 1011. These cases also apply to
the variance between the Union's requested production unit and the production and
maintenance unit found herein Of note is the fact that there are only two mainte-
nance employees in the unit , Frank Horton and Lavender Respondent knew the
Union included Lavender in its claimed unit because Lavender signed the second
petition which was in Respondent 's possession.
D. The Union's representation of a majority in the appropriate unit
As of November 23 when the Union first requested recognition, those included in
the unit found appropriate herein consisted of stereotypers Sanford, C. Bryant, Brown,
and Kirk; plating employees David Williams and Carden; head pressmen Hickey,
Wheeles, Thomas, and Nickelson; pressmen Grant, Allen, Reese, Raughton, Osbourn,
Norred, B. Bryant, Mizzell, Gaston, Graham, Jackson, Lawler, Ogle, Dura Williams,
Blankenship, Dees, G. Smith, T. Smith, and Wilemon; shipping employees H. Hickey,
Pullen, and Clifton; and maintenance employees F. Horton and Lavender. Thus
there were 34 employees in the appropriate unit on November 23. All of these
except Sanford, C. Bryant, Brown, Kirk, David Williams, Carden, Grant, Pullen,
F. Horton, and Lavender signed the first petition
Following Plant Manager Clinton's effort to undermine the Union by reading a
letter to each of the head pressmen, as related above, the employees signed the second
petition to show that they were not coerced into signing the first petition by the head
pressmen or anybody else; and the head pressmen refrained from signing the second
petition. The second petition was signed by all those who signed the first except
the four head pressmen who had signed the first: G. Hickey,,Nickolson, Wheeles, and
Thomas. In addition four employees signed the second petition who had not signed
the first. Sanford, Kirk, Carden, and Lavender
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thus when the Union made its two demands to bargain and presented the two
signed petitions to the Company the Union represented 24 in an appropriate unit of
34, an overwhelming majority.
E. Hostility, interrogations, thieatr
1. Upon his return from a short trip to Florida, on Friday, November 20, Plant
Manager Clinton received a telephone call from a local businessman and former
mayor of Sylacauga, Joseph Daik. Only Clinton testified about this conversation,
as Dark was not called as a witness. According to Clinton, it was 4 p m. and Dark
asked him to come down to his office at Dark's place of business. Clinton did so, and
when he arrived Dark allegedly told him that he had heard there was much grumbling
by pressmen at Respondent's plant about working on Sundays and not being paid
overtime for Sunday and holiday work. Clinton incredibly testified that Dark did not
mention anything about a union being in the picture. This was incredible because
the employees had made it clear to the union representative at their first meeting,
verbally and by signing the first petition addressed to Plant Manager Clinton, that
the employees wanted their union activity to be in the open and wanted Clinton to
know of their identity with the Union. If employees were talking down town, they
were certainly not hiding their affiliation with the Union. Clinton's testimony was
incredible further because no reason appears why a former major would not tell
Clinton over the telephone about some grumbling in his plant rather than ask him
to come to his office to hear that news It was incredible further because it is the
Board's experience that businessmen and city officials sometimes ally themselves to
defeat a union incursion in their midst but do not do so merely because there is
grumbling in a plant. Because of this and other clearly incredible testimony, and his
treatment of his employees in the matter, Plant Manager Clinton did not impress me
as a completely credible witness.
Upon his return to his plant, Clinton instructed his next in command, Leck Horton,9
to find out what the complaining was about. "Union" was allegedly not mentioned,
but this is unbelievable under all the circumstances of the case.
Pursuant to these instructions, during the night hours of Friday, November 20,
and the early morning hours of Saturday, November 21, Horton went to the plant
when he was not normally on duty, in street clothes, summoned or sought out seven
employees one at a time, and engaged them in conversation during their working
hours, some of them in lengthy conversation.
According to the credited testimony of Gene Graham, a credible witness, about
10.30 that night Horton told him in substance that he wanted to talk to him about
this union business Then after preliminary questions Horton asked Graham why
he wanted the Union. After getting Graham's answer Horton asked what were the
men's gripes. Graham replied that "I don't like to work straight time on Sunday."
Horton said that that was the only thing "you have been abused on," and then asked,
"do you think if this was corrected it would stop the Union?" Graham replied in
the negative. Then Horton said that Plant Manager Clinton and he had decided to
have a committee represent the employees in monthly meetings with Horton and Plant
Manager Clinton, the committee to be composed of one man from each of the three
shifts Horton added, "no one will pay union dues, and everybody would be happy."
When Horton asked Graham if he thought that would work, Graham replied that
he did not. Repeatedly during this conversation Horton hung his head down and
said he "wished we would call this thing off."
That night between 10 and 11, according to the credible and credited testimony of
Harmon Allen, who impressed me as a credible witness, Horton asked Allen "what
was this stuff he had been hearing about the Union" and said that he had heard "ya'll
have gone union." Then Horton asked "well, is there anything that you know we
can do to stop it?" Allen replied in the negative. Horton then asked if a gripe com-
mittee "would work," a committee composed of one representative from each shift
"to counsel with us." Allen replied in the negative Horton then asked if one of
the biggest gripes was Sunday work.
That night around 10:30, according to the credited testimony of Grover Blanken-
ship, a credible witness, Horton called him off to the side of the pressroom and said
that "this took me by complete surprise. It all hit me right in the face." Then Hor-
ton asked why the men were dissatisfied. In substance Blankenship replied that the
6
Horton was referred to in the evidence as foreman over the pressroom and as super-
intendent of the plant . Resolving the matter is not necessary to solving the case. It
is not questioned that Respondent is responsible for Horton 's acts and statements
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1443
men were dissatisfied because of the Sunday work, because of the way the work was
scheduled, and because of the Company's practice of calling men to work during
their off hours without paying them overtime to take over for men who were sick
Then Horton asked if the men would be satisfied if the Company eliminated Sunday
work and had a representative from each shift meet with Mr. Clinton once a month
to work out their problems. Blankenship replied that the men would not be satisfied
by this arrangement.
Employee Oscar Raughton credibly testified that about 12:30 to 12:45 a.m. on
the morning of November 21, when he was working on his job as a pressman, Horton
asked him to go into the plant cafeteria and there engaged him in conversation for
about 30 minutes. As to the other employees, Horton asked Raughton what the men's
problems were Raughton replied that he thought working conditions in general
were the biggest problem. Horton asked if Raughton thought the biggest problem
was Sunday work and whether, if Horton could get Sunday work eliminated or paid
by double time, this would solve the men's problems. Raughton replied that he did
not think this would solve the problem at that time. Twice during the conversation
Horton asked if Raughton thought the men could get a committee together to meet
with Horton and Clinton once a month in order to settle their problems. Raughton
replied that he did not think it would woik out because he did not believe Clinton
would meet with them; and he asked Horton if the latter had any guarantee that Clin-
ton would meet with them if they got a committee together. To this Horton made
no answer.
Buster Bryant who by his demeanor impressed me as a very honest and credible
witness, testified that Horton engaged him in conversation for about an hour between
midnight and 1 a.m. on November 21. Bryant credibly testified that during the con-
versation Horton wouldn't look me hardly in the face," and that Horton "was blush-
ing and he seemed to be perplexed and it was hard for him to look me in the face."
According to the credited testimony of Bryant, Horton's inteiview with him went
substantially as follows Horton opened with the question "what is this I hear about
your joining the Union " Bryant replied that he had joined the International Typo-
graphical Union. Horton asked him why and Bryant replied because lie thought it
was a fine organization and because he desired to be a part of organized labor, and
that through organized labor he hoped to improve his working conditions in the plant
which he considered to be veiy poor. Bryant elaborated that the men objected to
the way their jobs were shifted around on the work schedules without any regard to
the employees' welfare. After further discussion of the Company's job scheduling,
Horton asked if there was any way to stop the Union, if there was any way "that they
could get out of that " Bryant replied in the negative, adding that the men had joined
the Union and wanted the Union to represent them Hoiton asked if the problems
could be solved by the men's receiving overtime for Sunday work and if they set up
a committee composed of one man from each department to meet monthly with Hor-
ton and Clinton Bryant replied, "No." Horton said that once he had belonged to a
union in Anniston, Alabama; that the men had asked for a pay raise and that the plant
had closed down; Horton added it just goes to show you that a plant can close down,
you know, if they want to." All the way through this conversation Horton kept ask-
ing "is it too late?", "can we get out of this?"
During this conversation Bryant told Horton that what Horton was doing and
asking Bryant to do was illegal. Horton replied, "Well, I might be breaking the law
then." During the interview Horton asked "how all this got started," referring to
the union movement.
Horton talked with Jerry Dees in the plant cafeteria about 1:30 a.m. on Novem-
ber 21. Horton asked Dees, according to the latter's credited testimony, "if I didn't
think we could hold off on this Union business." Dees replied, "No." Horton asked
if it would do any good if he could get Clinton to agree to eliminate Sunday work or
to pay double time for Sunday work. Dees replied, "No." Horton asked how the
committee idea would work, to meet with Clinton. Dees replied that the men had
joined the Union and had gone too far to give up or back down or get out of the
Union. Horton said that just before he heard the union talk around the plant he
had gotten word that a "new" press was supposed to be running by March 1965, that
he didn't know how this union business would effect the installation of the new press."
Horton also mentioned that at "our other" plant in Anniston, Alabama, which is a
"union plant," when there was a cutback they went by seniority; and that Dees was
one of the low men in seniority.
Horton talked with John Nickolson at about 2 a m. on November 21. Horton ini-
tiated the same subjects with Nickolson that he had with the other employees, and
217-919-66-vol. 15 6-9 2
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
received the same answers: Couldn't they put the union off; how about double time
or time-and-a-half for Sunday work; how about a committee to discuss problems.
Nickolson said "no" on all counts and added that "thing had done gone too far."
Horton talked with pressmen on two shifts, the evening shift which worked from
3 to 11 p m., and the night shift which worked from 11 p.m. to 7 a m. As a witness
Horton admitted having about the same conversation with each of the men. He
admitted asking what the complaints were and suggesting a committee. He denied
some of the testimony credited above. He claimed not to have learned there was a
union in the picture until his conversation with the third employee he interviewed,
but he admitted continuing his interrogation of four employees thereafter. As by
some of his answers and by his demeanor Horton impressed me as a timid, unsure,
and not fully credible witness, as the employee witnesses he partially contradicted
where strong and credible witnesses, and upon the entire record considered as a
whole, I do not credit Horton's version of these conversations and I do not credit
his denials.
Upon the above facts and considerations I find that Respondent, through Horton,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) by the following acts
and conduct: (a) Directly and indirectly interrogating employees as to how the
Company could stop the Union ; (b) suggesting the formation of a plant committee
to stop the Union; (c) interrogating employees as to why they wanted the Union and
how the Union got started; (d) directly and indirectly threatening employees that if
the plant "went Union" the plant might shut down and that in the event of a cutback
those lowest in seniority might be affected.
A few days later Horton engaged employee Hugh Hickey in conversation about
job security with and without a union. Horton told Hickey of different places where
Horton had worked, and observed that he felt he had as much job security without a
union as with a union. Then Horton said that a certain factory had closed down
because the employees had tried to go union
A week or so later Horton, evidently referring to the same factory, told employee
Oscar Clifton that the employees, bargaining for a wage increase, had struck, and
upon their return worked only 2 months when the plant was closed down.
During the same period Horton told employee Oscar Raughton that even if the
employees did go union the Company still would have the right to hire and fire when
it wished Horton added, "by now, you can see that the Company does not want
to go union."
In the light of the other threats Horton was making and the other unfair labor
practices occurring during this period; 1 find that Horton's statements to Hugh
Hickey and Clifton concerning the plant that closed down because the employees
"went union" amounted to an implied threat that same could happen at Respondent's
plant, and that Horton's statement to Raughton that the Company retain the right
to fire amounted to an implied threat that Respondent might use this right against
the union employees. By these threats Respondent further interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby
further violated Section 8(a)(1)
On Saturday, November 21, the day after Horton had interrogated and threatened
employees on two shifts the night before, Horton reported to Plant Manager Clinton
that some of the employees had signed cards for a union and that he thought most of
the employees were in a union. He also told him what the employee complaints
consisted of.
2. According to credible and uncontradicted testimony, Chief Electrician Wilbur
Holmes interrogated and thieatened employees as follows:
(a) On November 21 Holmes said to employee Oscar Clifton: "I hear you boys
are fixing to put us out in the cold . . The old man will close this plant down ....
[ will bet you by next week we will be on 2 or 3 days a week."
(b) Between about November 21 and November 25, Holmes asked employee Hugh
Hickey if he was a member of the Union, and threatened that the plant "could close
down before it would ever go union."
(c) Around 3 p.m. on November 23, after McFee had presented the Union's first
letter and first request to bargain to the Company, Holmes told employee Thomas W.
Smith that "you boys are making a mistake .... The Company will never stand for
these union activities . . This is a non-union town .... It has never stood for the
union to be in here and they will not allow it in the future .... (you will) be on short
time within 2 weeks . . . The men that owned the Dixie Color would close the plant
down before they would allow it to go union."
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1445
(d) In later November Holmes threatened to employee Calvin Bryant that "if the
plant were to go union that they would close it down."
(e) On or about November 23 Respondent returned to the seller a defective large
spool of wire that had been intended for use on a new press Respondent was getting
ready to install. Holmes took advantage of the opportunity and told John Nickolson
that the wire was being returned because the Company had found out about the
Union; and he told shipping employee Hugh Hickey that they were shipping the wire
out "because the new press was not going up, that they were shipping it out because
of the Union."
Chief Electrician Holmes was responsible for the proper and continuous perform-
ance of all electrical devices in the plant, including the air conditioners, the tow-
motors, and the press itself, which were electrically run. In carrying out this respon-
sibility he frequently had employees working under him whose work he directed and
for whose work he was responsible. He had and exercised authority to pledge
Respondent's credit up to at least $12 for the making of purchases. He received
fringe benefits identical to those of two men Respondent stipulated to be supervisors,
including greater company-paid insurance benefits that those enjoyed by the employ-
ees, guaranteed pay for 48 hours a week (8 at time and a half) regardless of the num-
ber of hours he worked, and a Christmas bonus of $100. His weekly pay was the
same as the two stipulated supervisors , Frank Foster and Gene Leslie. These three
make out and hand in their own time slips whereas the employees punch a timeclock.
In addition, the credible testimony was that Holmes was responsible for the discharge
of a maintenance employee, one Thomas, in the middle of the midnight shift, at about
3 a.m., for abusing an electric tow-motor. Holmes told George Hickey and Robert
Gaston he had fired Thomas and that he would stay fired. Holmes told employees
Oscar Clifton that "you will not see that young buck around here tomorrow." Thomas
was not seen in the plant any more that early morning or ever, and it was later that
same shift that Holmes told Gaston he had fired Thomas. Although Plant Manager
Clinton testified that he discharged Thomas, presumably the next day, the entire
record established, and I find, that Holmes brought about the discharge and either
discharged the man on the spot or effectively recommended it.
Upon the above facts and considerations and the entire record considered as a
whole I find and hold that Holmes had authority, in the interest of Respondent, to
direct employees in their work and to discharge or effectively recommend discharge
of employees; and that the exercise of such authority required the use of independent
judgment. It follows, and I find, that Respondent was responsible for his statements
to employees. By Holmes' threats that the plant will or might close down because of
the Union, Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By Holmes'
asking employee Hickey if he was a member of the Union, which under all the cir-
cumstances of this case reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Shortly after the first petition Foreman Frank Foster singled out George Hickey,
who was known to be a union member , and engaged him in conversation about the
Union. Foster stated that if Foster was caught talking to Hickey, it would cost him
his job. This admission indicated a supervisor's knowledge of the hostility Respond-
ent had toward the Union and collective bargaining.
F. Efforts to undermine the Union
1. When high plant officials, such as Horton and Holmes, threaten and interrogate
employees as they did between November 20 and 23, a likely result is
that employees who are weak in their conviction for a union , will seek to get out of
it That is what Guy Wheeles and Bobby Norred did on the morning of Tuesday,
November 24. Early in the morning before Clinton got in touch with McFee
(though Clinton did not mention this to McFee ) Wheeles and Norred told Clinton
they wanted to get out of the Union , and asked whether they could keep their jobs
if they got out. Clinton told them they could keep their jobs. Wheeles asked Clinton
how he could get out of the Union and Clinton suggested that Wheeles get in touch
with his father -in-law, Mr. Appleby , another local businessman . Wheeles called
Appleby and a meeting was arranged for later that morning. Plant Manager Clinton
was scheduled to be there but arrived a little later after Appleby telephoned him.
The gathering lasted about 11/2 hours.
In urging employee Blankenship to go to this meeting, according to Blankenship's
credited testimony on cross-examination , employee Norred told Blankenship that
Clinton had promised to put it in writing that if Norred left the Union Clinton would
not fire him , and that Clinton would write the same thing for Blankenship.
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Present at the meeting at Appleby's house were local business leaders Appleby and
Dark, Plant Manager Clinton, and employees Wheeles, Norred, and Blankenship.
Ex-Mayor Dark had written language the employees could use to get out of the
Union. Wheeles and Norred used this language to write, then or later that day,
identical withdrawal letters from the Union. Dark said he would mail copies to the
Union and the Company, but there was no proof that they were ever mailed to the
Union or that the Union ever received them. Although Clinton may not have been
in the room when Dark helped employees word their withdrawal letters, this would
not insulate Clinton from responsibility for what happened at a meeting he suggested
or caused, attended and participated in.
At the meeting Dark and Clinton both told the employees that the Union was not
going to pay them any strike benefits amounting to $90 a week. Clinton said that
McFee would tell the employees anything, that McFee "was going to get 75 percent
of (your) union dues for a year" As he was talking about the employees' getting
out of the Union, Dark, referring to notes he had, stated the rates employees were
paid in Birmingham, Atlanta, and other places. Dark said that union dues would be
5 percent of Blankenship's monthly salary.
At the meeting Wheeles told Plant Manager Clinton that the men were dissatis-
fied because of Sunday work and no premium pay for Sunday work, and also because
of the Company's scheduling of jobs Clinton replied that he did not realize every-
body was dissatisfied. Employee Blankenship asked if Clinton would eliminate Sun-
day work. Clinton replied that he would eliminate it, but that this would necessitate
laying off some employees. Blankenship asked what Clinton was going to offer to
satisfy the men. Blankenship asked Clinton to put something in writing to the effect
that if the men got out of the Union they would not lose their jobs. Clinton declined.
After calling an executive of the parent company in Buffalo, New York, and
receiving a call back from a company lawyer in Buffalo, Clinton told the employees
that all he could tell them was to get themselves some competent advice. Then Clin-
ton left the meeting.
The events of November 24 before and during this meeting showed that at least
some of the employees were fearful for their jobs. Clinton assisted these employees
to get out of the Union by suggesting whom Wheeles might see to get help; and by
agreeing himself to go to Appleby's house and by going there obviously knowing that
the purpose of the meeting was to assist employees to get out of the Union. The
record showed also, as has been seen above, that Clinton sought to undermine the
Union by talking of a strike before employees had seriously considered or decided to
strike, and by talking down union strike benefits. Clinton's statement that McFee
would get 75 percent of the employees' dues for a year revealed a complete rejection
of the principle of collective bargaining.
Further, Clinton actually began to bargain individually with employee Blanken-
ship over eliminating Sunday work, thereby undermining collective bargaining with
the Union. All of these actions by Clinton raise a serious doubt as to whether
Respondent's alleged doubt of the Union's majority status was a good-faith doubt
2. Additional evidence that Plant Manager Clinton was undertaking to use the
time between the Union's November 23, request and the Respondent's December 1
refusal to undermine the Union was the fact that on November 30, Clinton unilat-
erally, without first discussing the matter with the Union, which then represented a
majority of his employees in an appropriate unit, announced the reduction of the
weekly hours of most of the employees, reduced the status of some, and temporarily
laid off several of them. Clinton did this by changes in the posted employee work
schedule which Clinton made out himself. This was the first time in many months
that Clinton had made out the employee work schedule Prior to this Horton had
been doing it. By this scheduling, Clinton assigned one head pressman as oiler,
and while assigning another head pressman as delivery boy scheduled a pressman as
head pressman. By this time Clinton had received the Union's first demand letter
and first petition bearing 24 employees' signatures and had talked with McFee twice
Clinton knew that scheduling of the men was one of their grievances and one of the
subjects they wished to bargain about collectively through the Union Clinton pub-
lished no reason as to why he was making these changes. Although he had a plausible
reason other than to undermine the Union, no reason appears as to why he failed to
to post a notice stating the plausible reason. His failure, while posting his refusal
letter to the Union on December 3. was interpreted by the employees as an antiunion
move. Clinton could not have failed to know and to have excepted and intended
that posting the schedule as he did, with no explanation as to why, would have
affected employees as it did.
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1447
The plausible reason was that there was a substitute inking carriage in the plant
which had been worked on for months and was intended for the press It was neces-
sary to shut down the press to install this inking carriage. It was installed at about
this time because it was ready to install and was long overdue To maintain produc-
tion some work was sent out to other affiliated plants.
Clinton testified employees knew the "cutback" in the scheduling was to install
the inking carriage. The proof was lacking that employees, generally, knew the
carriage was ready for installation at just this time and that the cutback was for this
purpose. The fact that employees interpreted Clinton's maneuver as antiunion was
evidence to the contrary.
Upon the entire record considered as a whole, I find that Clinton used the installa-
tion of the ink carriage to discriminate against employees because of their union
activities, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and that in taking this
unilateral action without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning it,
thereby undermining the Union and rejecting the principle of collective bargaining,
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. See N.L R.B. v. Crompton-
Highland Mills, Inc, 337 US 217, rehearing denied 337 U S. 950, N.L R B v
Beane Katz etc d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 US 736.
G. Refusal to bargain defenses; conclusions
The entire record reveals, and I find, that Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union not because of any good-faith doubt concerning the Union's
majority but because it rejected the principle of collective bargaining and because
it wishes to gain time within which to undermine the Union The Union's majority
was overwhelming, as shown by the employees' signatures on two petitions which were
handed to Respondent. That Respondent did not question these signatures was
shown by the fact that although Clinton cross-checked the signatures on the two
withdrawal letters he received against payroll signatures, he did not so cross-check
the signatures on the petitions Further, as early as November 21, Horton told
Clinton he thought most of the employees were in a union
If Respondent had had any good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status in an
appropriate unit it could have accepted the Union's offer of November 23 to consent
to a Board election and could have filed a petition with the Board. This it never
did Instead it engaged in a course of conduct which showed a rejection of the
collective-bargaining principle and was obviously designed to undermine the Union's
majority status. Thus, it threatened and interrogated employees, undertook individual
bargaining with employees, and suggested a plant committee with no dues to defeat
the Union It informed employees the plant was in a nonunion town and the Com-
pany would not stand for a union and, rather, would close down. While refusing to
disclose its contents to its union addressee, Respondent posted its first letter rejecting
the Union's request to bargain, for maximum impact upon employees' minds in the
face of the Union's outstanding request to bargain and the request of its employees
in the first petition that Respondent recognize and bargain with the Union Respond-
ent unilaterally instituted and announced a reduction in hours, and hence wages, of
employees, which effectively laid off some employees. It sought to undermine the
Union by threatening the job security of head pressmen because of their union
activities. These numerous unfair labor practices are an absolute refutation of any
good-faith doubt on the part of Respondent.
Respondent professed a doubt as to the composition of an appropriate unit. Of
note is that the plant manager on the scene expressed no doubt on November 23,
when he first talked with a union representative. Respondent may have had such
a doubt, but any such doubt was not the basis for Respondent's actions, which was as
stated above. See N L R.B v Austin Powder Company, 350 F 2d 973 (C A 6)
Respondent contended some employees wanted to withdraw from the Union As
has been above, only two employees. Wheeles and Norred, took steps to withdraw,
and then only after Horton's several hours of threats and interrogations in the plant
and after some of Chief Electrician Holmes' threats, and with the help of Plant
Manager Clinton and local leadeis and businessmen with whom Clinton was in
alliance on the matter. The effect of Horton's and Holmes' threats was shown by
the employees' concern at the meeting at Appleby's house that they get written
assurance from Clinton that if they got out of the Union they could keep their jobs
Any other employees who allegedly wanted to withdraw signed the second petition
without any coercion, went on strike without any coercion, and stayed on strike
Although this was absolute refutation of any desire to withdraw Respondent never
abandoned its position of rejecting the Union. In any case a company which causes
and fosters and assists withdrawals from a union cannot be heard to assert the Union
lacks a majority, because it would be profiting from its own wrongdoing.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contended but failed to prove that some employees, principally
Wheeles and Norred, joined the Union under coercion Wheeles testified he joined
of his own free will, and other testimony did not sustain a finding of coercion. There
was no proof Norred or anybody else was coerced This was as clean a situation of
employees' self-organization as could be found. The union representative, McFee,
was very careful not to coerce the employees and to let them know the choice was
theirs freely to make. The enthusiasm of employees for the Union led them to urge
doubters to join, but their actions were not proven to be coercive
Respondent contended the head pressmen were supervisors and that they organized
the Union at the plant. As have been found above they were not supervisors Even
if they were, all evidence was, as Respondent well understood, that in helping them-
selves and the employees get a union the head pressmen were acting in the interest
of the employees and themselves. They were acting to better their own interest.
They wanted a union of their choice, not no union of Respondent's choice. There
was only one union in the picture, which the Company opposed, and the head press-
men joined that union, and went on strike with the other employees, to assist them-
selves and employees in their dealings with the Company, not to use Respondent's
power to subvert the Union Of note is that the night Horton was in the plant
interrogating and threatening employees, he spoke to head pressman Nickolson the
same as he did the others, and did not state that Nickelson was a supervisor and
should not be in the Union for that reason. See Douglas County Electric Member-
ship Corporation, 148 NLRB 559. Further, even if Respondent, despite its unfair
labor practices found herein, could be deemed to have had a good-faith doubt as to
the status of the head pressmen, its course of action was to object to the inclusion of
the head pressmen in the bargaining unit, not to refuse to bargain altogether.10
My final conclusion on the entire record considered as a whole is that by failing
and refusing on and after November 23, 1964, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found herein to
be an appropriate unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent set forth 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 certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in the unit set forth herein concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement.
As to the cause of the strike, all the evidence on this subject proved that the stoke
was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices and that it was an unfair labor
practice strike Thus McFee credibly testified that on December 3 he told Clinton
that the employees were concerned over what Horton and others were saying in
the plant and over the actions of the townspeople, that the employees were tremen-
dously upset over the "cutback." At the December 4 union meeting, precipitated
by Clinton's posting of his first refusal letter on the bulletin board, McFee told the
employees the Company was not going to recognize the Union, that the Company
was raising legal technicalities, that theie was little likelihood that the actions of the
Company and townspeople, the short schedules, the layoffs, the coercion, would be
eliminated. McFee outlined Respondent's activities against the employees and the
Union, told them the decision was theirs as to whether they continued to work or
struck, and that if they struck it would be an unfair labor practice strike. The vote
was unanimous to strike. McFee said that before a strike he would exhaust every
possible avenue to avoid it. Other testimony by employees corroborated that the
strike was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices. As it was an unfair labor
10Sakrete of Northern California v. N.LR.B., 332 F. 2d 902 ( C.A 9), enfg 140 NLRB
765; see also N.L.R.B v. Sunrise Lumber d Trim Corp, 241 F . 2d 620 (C A. 2) , N L R B
v. White Construction and Engineering Co. Inc , 204 F. 2d 950 (C.A. 5)
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1449
practice strike, the striking employees are entitled to their jobs back, or substantially
equivalent employment, upon the strikers' unqualified application to return to work.
It is therefore recommended that upon the strikers' unqualified application to return
to work Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position 11 without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of any discrimination against him by payment to each of a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of Respondent's failure to offer him reinstatement or substantially equivalent
employment, the date of the discrimination against him, to the date when, pursuant
to the Recommendations herein, Respondent shall offer him reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498),
said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. The backpay obligation of
Respondent shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent to be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 As
provided in the Woolworth case, I shall recommend further that Respondent make
available to the Board on request payroll and other records in order to facilitate the
checking of the amount of backpay due.
Respondent having used the "cutback" to discriminate against employees because
of their union activities, I shall recommend that Respondent make whole all employ-
ees 12 affected by the "cutback," including those temporarily laid off, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from December 4 through December 15, the period of the cutback. This
backpay obligation shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent to
be computed in the manner set forth in the Isis case As provided in the Woolworth
case, I recommend further that Respondent make available to the Board, on request,
payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of this
backpay due.
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and the danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Order is coextensive
with the threat. In order therefore to make more effective the interdependent
guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices. and thereby
minimize industrial strike which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuates
the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case,
I hereby make the following: -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dixie Color Printing Corp. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 International Typographical Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees as to whether they were members of the Union, why
they wanted the Union, how the Union got started, and how Respondent could stop
the Union; by suggesting the formation of a plant committee to stop the Union;
by threatening employees that if the plant "went union" the plant would or might
shut down and that in the event of a cutback those lowest in senority might be affected;
by threatening possible discharge against union employees; by threatening that the
Company would never stand for union activities and would close down before it
would "go union"; by threatening the plant would go on "short time" because of
employee union activities; and by threatening the job security of head pressmen
u The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
12 Those shown by the record to have been affected were
Oscar Clifton Frank Gene Graham Jerry Lawler
Billy Carden John Nickolson Ronnye Jackson
Thomas Smith Buster Bryant Harold Ogle
Gary Smith Bobby Gaston Dura Williams
David Wilemon John Thomas George Blankenship
Jerry Dees James Reese, Jr. Oscar Raughton
George Hickey William F Osbourn D. R Kirk
Harmon Allen Charles Mizzell
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their union activities; Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the following employees of Respondent at its
Sylacauga, Alabama, plant have constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining:
All employees at the Sylacauga plant, including pressroom employees, stereotype
and plating room employees, and mailing room (shipping employees), but excluding
all office clerical employees, professional and technical employees, janitors, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5 On November 23, 1964, and at all times thereafter, International Typographical
Union was and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
6 By retusing on November 23, 1964, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with said Upton as the exclusive representative of all its employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
7. From December 4 to 15, 1964, by unilaterally changing the hours of work
and rates of pay of employees and temporarily laying off some employees, without
discussing these changes with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in an appropriate unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
By using necessary maintenance work as a vehicle or excuse to discriminate against
employees because of their union activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
8. The aforesaid 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 upon
the entire record in the case considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Dixie Color
Printing Corp., Sylacauga, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall:
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees as to whether they are members of the Union, why
they wanted the Union, how the Union got started, and how Respondent could stop
the Union
(b) Suggesting the formation of a plant committee to stop the Union.
(c) Threatening employees that if the plant "went union" the plant would or might
shut down and that in the event of a cutback those lowest in seniority might be
affected.
(d) Threatening possible discharge against union employees.
(e) Threatening that the Company would never stand for union activities and
would close down before it would "go union "
(f) Threatening that the plant would go on "short time" because of employee
union activities.
(g) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Typographical Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions of
employment.
(h) Unilaterally announcing and changing the hours of work and rates of pay of
employees without first discussing those changes with the Union.
(i) Using necessary maintenance work as a vehicle or excuse to discriminate
against employees because of their union activities
(j) In any other manner inteifering with, iestrainmg, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act•
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Typographical Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit found herein,
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP. 1451
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Make whole any employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered or may
suffer in the future by reason of any discrimination practiced against them, in accord-
ance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of any backpay due under the terms of these recommendations
(d) Post at its plant in Sylacauga, Alabama, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 10 (Atlanta, Georgia ), shall, after being signed by the Respondent 's repre-
sentative, be posted by Respondent and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14
13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
14In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Laboi
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to whether they are members of Inter-
national Typographical Union, why they want this Union, how this Union got
started, or how we can stop this Union.
WE WILL NOT suggest the formation of a plant committee to stop the above-
named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any way threaten or suggest to employees that if the employ-
ees organize into a Union the plant might or will shut down
WE WILL NOT threaten possible discharge of any employees because they have
joined , formed, or assisted the above -named or any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the plant will go on "short time" because of Union
activities and that in the event of a cutback those lowest in seniority might be
affected.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally put into effect a reduction of hours of employees
for the purpose of discouraging membership in, or undermining, the above-
named or any other labor organization
WE WILL NOT use necessary maintenance work, such as the installation of an
inking carriage, as a vehicle or excuse to discriminate against employees because
of their union activities.
WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of pay suffered
by them by reason of the discrimination practiced against them in accordance
with the recommendation of the Trial Examiner's Decision
Oscar Clifton Frank Gene Graham Jerry Lawler
Billy Carden John Nickolson Ronnye Jackson
Thomas Smith Buster Bryant Harold Ogle
Gary Smith Bobby Gaston Duna Williams
David Wilemon John Thomas George Blankenship
Jerry Dees James Reese, Jr. Oscar Raughton
George Hickey William F Osbourn D R. Kirk
Harmon Allen Charles Mizzell
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request , with International Typographical
Union , as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All of our production and maintenance employees at our Sylacauga
plant, including pressroom employees , stereotype and plating room employ-
ees and mailing room ( shipping ) employees , but excluding all office clerical
employees , professional and technical employees , janitors, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
DIXIE COLOR PRINTING CORP.,
Employer.
Dated--- --------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE ., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
No. 526-5741.
Acme Markets , Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union , Local 692,
RCIA , AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-4819. February 14,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Retail Store Employees Union, Local
692, RCIA, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 5, issued a complaint dated October 21, 1964, against Acme
Markets, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Sections 8(a) (1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of a hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly
served upon the Respondent and the Union. On November 2, 1964,
the Respondent filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the
complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, on January 13, 1965, the parties agreed to submit the case
to the Board for decision on a complete stipulation of facts which
expressly waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and a Trial
Examiner's recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
order. The Board having authorized such submission of the case and
156 NLRB No. 127.