Greensboro Printing Pressmen, Union 319

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 893 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

GREENSBORO PRINTING PRESSMEN, UNION 319 893
Greensboro Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 319 and The Greensboro News Company. Case
11-CB- 487
February 13, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING,
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On September 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that Respondent Union has violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(3) by bargaining in bad faith with no inten-
tion of entering into a final binding contract, we do
not, as suggested by our dissenting colleague, rely
solely on the fact, standing alone, that Respondent
submitted a new proposal for an agreement of 12
years' duration at the last negotiation session held
between the parties. Rather, as is evident from the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision, the finding of
this violation rests on a consideration of the entire
circumstances herein. Thus, as set forth in section III
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Respon-
dent, in addition to its new proposal for a contract
term of 12 years, demanded wages in excess of those
sought during the prior bargaining sessions. Further-
more, following the submission of the new proposals,
Payne, one of Respondent's principal negotiators,
when asked by the Company's counsel whether the
Union would agree to a contract containing all the
new proposals, but excluding an interest arbitration
provision,- merely responded, "You are not going to
back me into a corner." Additionally, although Re-
spondent presented testimony that its negotiating
committee, during a caucus held on the last day of
bargaining, had agreed to recommend to the Union
membership ratification of a contract without an in-
terest arbitration provision if the Company would ac-
cede to its other' new proposals, Respondent did not
at any material time apprise the Company of such a
changed posture. Instead, at the conclusion of the
last bargaining session, Respondent, consistent with
its previously expressed position, informed the Com-
pany -that it intended to submit a package to arbitra-
tion which would include an interest arbitration
clause. In view of all the circumstances of this case,
and particularly the foregoing factors, we find more
than a sufficient basis for concluding that Respon-
dent has evidenced an intention to avoid reaching a
final agreement with the Company and that it there-
by has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as -its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Greensboro Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 319, Greens-
boro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
MEMBER FANNING, concurring:
For reasons set forth in my separate opinion in
The Columbus Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union
No. 252, Subordinate to IP &-GCU (The R. W. Page
Corporation), 219 NLRB No. 54 (1975), I agree with
Members Jenkins and Penello that the disputed in-
terest arbitration clause is a nonmandatory subject of
bargaining and that therefore Respondent's insis-
tence to the point of impasse on its inclusion in a new
contract violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. For the
same reasons, I disagree with Chairman Murphy's
position concerning this issue.
For reasons expressed by Member Jenkins and
Penello, I also agree with their adoption of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's additional holding that Re-
spondent further violated Section 8(b)(3) by
engaging in bad-faith bargaining with no intention of
entering into a final or binding agreement. For those
reasons, I join them in disagreeing with Chairman
Murphy's contention to the contrary.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, dissenting:
I disagree with the findings of my colleagues that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3)' of the Act by
insisting to impasse on an interest arbitration provi-
sion in a collective-bargaining agreement. I would
dismiss that allegation for the reasons set forth in my
dissenting opinion in The Columbus Printing Press-
men & Assistants' Union No. 252, Subordinate to IP &
GCU (The R. W. Page Corporation), 219 NLRB No.
54 (1975). See also Chattanooga Mailers Union, Local
No. 92 v. The Chattanooga News-Free Press Company,
524 F.2d 1305 (C.A. 6, 1975).
Further, I find insufficient evidence upon which to
conclude that the Respondent violated - Section
8(b)(3) by proposing a 12-year contract, whether that
222 NLRB No. 144
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact be considered alone or in conjunction with a
demand for a large wage increase (assuming the lat-
ter to be established).' For, in some instances, such a
long term contract has been reached, particularly in
view of the inclusion of an interest arbitration clause
and provisions for periodic reopenings? Thus, a 10-
year contract- exists in the paper industry I and the
New York Times entered an 11-year contract effec-
tive in 1973.4 Accordingly, while it may be that in
some circumstances the demand for a 12-year con-
tract might evidence as intention to avoid reaching a
contract, that fact standing alone is insufficient to
warrant the finding of a violation, and more informa-
tion is required than is available in this case.
Under these circumstances I find that the General
Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof. Ac-
cordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its entire-
ty
-1 Inasmuch as the Administrative Law Judge does not state and the rec-
ord does not indicate the size of the increase, there is no basis for determin-
ing whether it was reasonable or unreasonable.
For examples of long term contracts, see 2 BNA Collective Bargaining
Netiations and Contracts 53.5713go
2 BNA Collective Bargaining Negotiations and Contracts 77 921; 1975
Daily Labor Report 100:A6-A7 (May 22, 1975), reporting a paper discuss-
mg the 10-year contract between Garden State Paper Company of Garfield,
N. J., and United Paperworkers International Union; CCH Labor Law
Reporter, Union Contracts ¶58726
2 BNA Collective Bargaining Negotiations and Contracts 53.571, New
York Times of Monday, July 29, 1974, article by A. H. Raskin headlined
"City Papers on Threshhold of Future as Result of I1-year Automation
Pact "
DECISION
FRANK H. ITIur't, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me,on June 11, 1975, in Greensboro,
North Carolina. The unfair labor practice' charge was filed
by the Company on January 8 and a complaint issued on
April 29, 1975. The principal issue presented is whether
Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act by insisting to impasse upon the in-
clusion in a collective-bargaining agreement of a clause
providing for arbitration of all disputed proposals arising
during the negotiation of. a new agreement and by engag-
ing in bad-faith bargaining with no intention of entering
into any final or binding agreement. Upon the entire rec-
ord, including my observation of the witnesses, and after
due consideration of the briefs filed by counsel, I make the
following findings of fact and conclusion of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION
The Charging Party Company, a corporation of North
Carolina, is engaged at Greensboro in the printing and sale
of newspapers. During the particular 12-month period, the
Company received goods and services from outside of the
State valued in excess of $50,000. It is undisputed and I
find and conclude that the Company is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. Further, it is undisputed and I find and conclude that
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In addition, it is undisputed and I find and conclude
that,
All journeymen pressmen and apprentices employed
at the Company's Greensboro, North Carolina, news-
paper, excluding office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
And, at all times since January 1, 1972, and continuing to
date, Respondent Union has been, and is, the collective-
bargaining agent of the employees in the above unit. Den-
nis C. Kyker is president of Respondent Union; R.T.
Payne is its international representative; and, at all times
material, both Kyker and Payne have been and are agents
of Respondent.
II. THE BARGAINING SESSIONS
Richard L. Hendricks, Jr., the Company's vice president
and assistant general manager, testified that Respondent
Union and the Company have been parties to collective-
bargaining agreements for over 30 years. The most recent
contract between the parties (Resp. Exh. 1) was effective
from January 1, 1972, through December 31, 1973. On Oc-
tober 25, 1973, the Company notified the Union that it
desired to negotiate a new contract. At the same time, the
Company submitted to the Union its new contract propos-
als. By letter dated October 29, 1973, the Union submitted
to the Company its contract proposals. The Union's pro-
posals (G.C. Exh. 5(m) p. 13, "Arbitration"), provided for
so-called "interest" or "terminal" arbitration, stating in
part, as follows:
It is mutually agreed that during the life, or extension
of, this contract, that any controversy which may, arise
during the life of this contract,, or the negotiation of a
new contract, which cannot be settled by conciliation,
shall be settled by arbitration in the manner herein pro-
scribed. [Emphasis added.] I
'The 1972-73 agreement between - the parties also provided for "termi-
nal" or "interest" arbitration (Resp Exh. 1 , p 1), stating:
SECTION I
Term
(1) Witnesseth that this contract shall be effective for a period of two
years from the 1st day of January, 1972, through the 31st day of De-
cember, 1973, and shall continue in effect from year to year thereafter
unless written notice of desire to terminate or'modify (said proposed
modifications shall be set forth in detail) shall be given by both parties
sixty days prior to the expiration date of this contract
(2) It is agreed that all disputes regarding a new contract and scale to
become effective at the expiration of this contract, which cannot be
settled by conciliation, shall be determined by arbitration as hereinafter
provided, and this contract shall remain in force until all disputes are
settled by conciliation or arbitration, provided that the Arbitration
Board is formed within thirty days from the date of the request of
either party to this contract that said-Arbitration Board be formed in
GREENSBORO PRINTING PRESSMEN, UNION 319 895
The parties thereafter held some 18 bargaining sessions.
The first session was on December 27, 1973. Present for the
Company -were, among others, President Peter B. Bush,
Vice President Arthur, P. Gormley, Jr., Production Manag-
er Kenneth Partlow and Vice President Hendricks. Hen-
dricks was .chief negotiator for the Company. Present for
the Union were, among others, President Kyker, Interna-
tional Representative Payne and employees Douglas Wells
and James Roberts. The second session was held on Janu-
ary 7, 1974. Hendricks credibly recalled that at the second
session Gormley, speaking for the Company, stated "that
the Company's position was that we wanted terminal arbi-
tration out of the contract"; "Mr. Gormley said we were
willing to negotiate this, but we want it out of the con-
tract." Dewey Seward, who was also present for the Union
at this session, responded: "if you take terminal arbitration
away from us, you're doing away with the Union."
The subject of "interest" or "terminal" arbitration came
up again at the third session on January 24, Gormley, ap-
pearing for the Company, said: "in order for a contract to
be arrived at between: the two parties, terminal arbitration
had to - be removed." Union Representative Payne re-
sponded: "You'll force us-to strike." Gormley replied: "if
they- wanted to go, they could go." And, at the fourth ses-
sion on February 20, Gormley, in response to an inquiry
from a union representative, again stated: "we want termi-
nal arbitration out of the contract"; "it has to come out of
the contract."
Hendricks recalled that the subject of "interest" or "ter-
minal" arbitration was next discussed at the thirteenth ses-
sion on July 25.2 Hendricks credibly testified that the
"Un_ ion asked the Company's position once more on termi-
nal arbitration" _and the Company's response was: "We
wanted it out of the contract ... we_could not get a con-
tract if terminal arbitration was not removed." Further, as
Hendricks, recalled:
There was some more discussion in which the Compa-
ny restated its position that terminal arbitration had to
come out of -the contract. And the Union stated its
- position that terminal arbitration had to be in the con-
tract. -
And, according to Hendricks , Union Representative Se-
ward asked:
If we agree to your position on terminal arbitration,
will you accept our position on grievance arbitration?
Seward added: "mind you, I'm not saying we will do this."
Hendricks credibly- testified that, -
Mr. -Gormley replied, as he-had previously, that the
Company was not changing grievance arbitration. We
"thought it [grievance arbitration] was an important
part of the contract and should be in "there. We had no
intent of taking "grievance'arbitration out `of the con-
tract.
accordance with the provisions of this contract.
And see sec . 21 of the agreement which provided for the formation of a
board of arbitration.
2 The parties also met on February 21, April 3 and 4, May 1, 22, and 23,
and June 26 and 27, 1974
Union Representative Payne said : "the Union was going to
convince the Company that terminal arbitration had to be
in the contract."
This subject was next discussed at the fourteenth session
on July 26. Union Representative Seward stated "that they
were going to give [the Company] a counterproposal" al-
though "any counterproposal [the Union] gave [The Com-
pany] would not contain the withdrawal of terminal„ arbi-
tration.... [The Union] wasn't going to withdraw
terminal arbitration." And, at the fifteenth session on Au-
gust 19, Federal Mediator Roger Leslie was present. The
Company restated its position on "terminal arbitra-
tion"-"that in order to get a contract, it had to come out "
The Union restated its position-"in order for the Union
to get a contract, it had to stay in." Gormley, for the Com-
pany, explained to the Mediator that "terminal arbitration
was the outstanding issue and if we got that out of the way,
the other issues could be easily resolved." As Hendricks
credibly recalled, Union Representative _Payne "agreed
that the chief stumbling block was terminal arbitration."
At the sixteenth session on August 20, or possibly the
seventeenth on-September 16, according to the credible tes-
timony of Hendricks, the mediator noted that " terminal
arbitration sets out like a sore thumb" and "if we could get
terminal arbitration agreed to, that, the "other points out-
standing would quickly fall into line"-"the chief sticking
point was terminal arbitration." The Union did not dispute
this statement.
The last session, the eighteenth, was on September 17,
1974, The mediator noted that "he was very pessimistic
about the outcome ..., the terminal arbitration was hold-
ing both parties apart." Hendricks credibly recalled that
the Union then submitted a new written proposal. The
Union's new proposal provided for a 12-year agreement
with a "terminal arbitration" clause described as the "same
language as contained in Norfolk, Virginia, contract or
similar language." The new wage :proposal, according to
Hendricks, was "in excess of what they [the Union] had
previously asked for." And, as for the "terminal arbitra-
tion" clause, Hendricks explained: -
The Union offered to put in language which was simi-
lar to a contract agreed to by the Union and the Com-
pany in Norfolk, Virginia, . . . which meant that at
the end of 12 years the terminal arbitration [provision]
would come out. But, the arbitrator could be called in
to arbitrate anything about terminal arbitration-
which means they could get another contract,for an-
other 12 years, which means we could have had a 24-
year contract? -
In response, the Company, offered the Union a 1-year con-
tract, a wage increase of $13.45 per week and "wanted ter-
minal arbitration out of the contract ..:." The Union
"rejected" the Company's proposal. And, the Company re-
jected the Union's proposal. Company Representative
3 Hendricks explained that he understood the Union 's proposal to be for
a 42-year agreement which would provide for the "next contract after that
to be arbitrated," but the "arbitrator could not put into the next contract
any terminal arbitration" clause. I note that the Norfolk agreement, as re-
ferred to above, was only for a 2-year term whereas the Union 's proposed
contract in this case was for a 12-year term.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hendricks credibly recalled that, "as the meeting [on Sep-
tember 17] was breaking up," counsel for the Employer,
Robert Balow, asked Union Representative Payne: "If we
were to accept all of your proposals submitted to us today
with the exception of terminal arbitration, would you agree
to a contract?" Union Representative Payne replied: "You
are not going to back me into a corner." Payne asserted at
this last bargaining session that "he was going to submit a
package to arbitration and that any package he submitted
would have terminal arbitration in the package." 4
Union Representative Payne testified that the Union
held a caucus prior to the September 17 bargaining session
and agreed that if the Company stated at the September 17
session "we'll accept this [union] proposal if you [the
Union] will delete any reference to terminal arbitration,"
the Union "would have carried it to the membership with a
recommendation for it to be accepted." Payne, however,
could not "recollect" whether he communicated this posi-
tion to the Company at the last session. Payne asserted that
the union representatives "never" advised company repre-
sentatives, in effect, "the {the Union] had to have terminal
arbitration in the contract before [the Union] would enter
into a contract." Payne asserted, inter alia, that he apprised
Company Counsel Balow on September 17 "that the inclu-
sion of terminal -arbitration in a new contract would not
hold up signing a new contract." Having reviewed the testi-
mony of both Hendricks and Payne, and the bargaining
notes of the parties, I am' persuaded, on the entire record,
including the demeanor of the witnesses, that Hendricks'
recollection of the various bargaining sessions , as detailed
above, is more reasonable, reliable, complete, and trust-
worthy.
4 The 1972-73 agreement between- the parties was, insofar, as pertinent
here, extended to November 1, 1974. The Union proposed arbitration under
the agreement . The parties met on October 25 and, on October 29, 1974,
signed the following agreement (Resp. Exh. 2): -
The parties signatory hereto agree that any Board of Arbitration
formed will be so formed pursuant to Sections 1 and 21 of the most
recent Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Greensboro News
Company and Greensboro Printing Pressmen and Assistant's Union
No. 319, dated April 12, 19721Resp. Exh. 11. The procedure for forma-
tion of a Board of Arbitration as set out in Sections 1 and 21 of the
aforementioned Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be used to the
exclusion of any-other procedure.
The above-mentioned Collective Bargaining Agreement, dated April
12, 1972, obligated the parties to arbitrate disputes over a new Collec-
tive Bargaining Agreement only if the Arbitration Board, as set out in
Section 1, paragraph 2 of the subject Collective Bargaining Agreement,
be formed within thirty (30) days of- a request by either party to arbi-
trate-This thirty (30) day period; for the purposes of this dispute, ex-
pired on October 17, 1974. The Greensboro News Company offered
and Greensboro Printing Pressmen and Assistant's Union No. 319 ac-
cepted an extension of the deadline up to and including November 1,
1974, for the purpose of attempting to form the Arbitration Board
referred to in Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement dated April 12, 1972.
Hendricks explained that the Company and the Union met in an attempt to
agree upon arbitrators "because, under the advice of counsel and under the
previous contract that we had signed (Resp. Exh. 1), we were obligated to
select an arbitrator " However, as Hendricks further explained, the parties
did not go to final and binding arbitration because they could not select an
arbitrator. Hendricks was later advised by his counsel after November 1,
1974, that "we had exhausted all means under the present contract in trying
to select an arbitrator and we no longer had a contract."
III. DISCUSSION
In R.W. Page Corporation, 219 NLRB No. 54 (1975), the
Board majority (Members Fanning and Jenkins concurring
and Chairman Murphy dissenting) held that the "interest"
arbitration clause involved in that case was not a mandato-
ry subject of collective bargaining and, consequently, the
union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by insisting to
impasse upon the inclusion of such a clause in a contract.
With respect to the related question, whether the Board
should defer to the "interest" arbitration procedure in the
parties' existing contract to resolve their dispute, the Board
majority, in refusing to defer, stated:
The present dispute . . . relates to whether the parties
lawfully bargained concerning the terms of a new
agreement. This issue is not one concerning the mean-
ing of an existing contract, but whether a proposed
term of a new agreement was a mandatory subject of
bargaining and whether, assuming that it was not
mandatory, the union bargained to impasse on the
subject, thus violating Section 8(b)(3). The questions
presented are therefore not ones of contract interpre-
tation, but of statutory -obligations. They are legal
questions concerning the National Labor Relations
Act which are within the special competence of the
Board rather than an arbitrator.
The "interest" or "terminal" arbitration clause involved
in the instant case is essentially similar to the clause in-
volved in R. W. Page Corporation and, under the circum-
stances present here, that decision is controlling. Counsel
for Respondent argues that the Union in this case "did not
insist upon the interest arbitration clause . . . to the point
of impasse." However, the credible evidence of record, as
summarized above, is to the contrary. Thus, throughout the
some 18 bargaining sessions, union representatives persis-
tently maintained that "terminal" or "interest" arbitration
"had to be in the contract"; the Union "wasn't going to
withdraw terminal arbitration";, "in order for the Union to
get a contract, it had to say in"; and the "chief stumbling
block was terminal arbitration." At the fifteenth bargain-
ing session on August 19, 1974, a Federal mediator was
present. The Company negotiator explained to the media-
tor that "terminal arbitration was the outstanding issue
and if we got that out of the way, the other issues could be
easily resolved." The union representative agreed. At the
sixteenth and seventeenth sessions, on August,20 and Sep-
tember 16, the parties agreed with the mediator that "ter-
nunal arbitration sets out like a sore thumb"; "if we could
get terminal arbitration agreed to, the other points out-
standing would quickly fall into line;'; and the "chief stick-
ing point was terminal arbitration." At the eighteenth ses-
sion, on September 17, the Union offered a new proposal
including, inter alia, wage provisions "in excess of what
they [the Union] had previously asked for" for an unprece-
dented 12-year term with a "terminal" or "interest" arbi-
tration provision which provided for the "next contract af-
ter that one to be arbitrated." As Hendricks explained, this
proposal "means they [the Union] could get another con-
tract for another 12 years [by arbitration], which means we
could have had a 24-year contract." The Company rejected
GREENSBORO PRINTING PRESSMEN, UNION 319 897
the offer; the Company "wanted terminal arbitration out
of the contract." Indeed, Union Representative Payne was
asked, "If we [the Company] were to accept all of your
proposals submitted to us today with the exception of ter-
minal arbitration, would you agree to a contract?" Payne
responded: "You are not going to back me into a corner."
I find and conclude, on this record, that Respondent
Union had insisted to impasse upon the inclusion of its
proposed "interest" or "terminal" arbitration clause in the
contract, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
In addition, I find and conclude that Respondent Union
further violated Section 8(b)(3) by engaging in bad-faith
bargaining with no intention of entering into any final or
binding agreement. As the Court stated in N.L.R.B. v. Gen-
eral Electric Company, 418 - F.2d 736, 762 (C.A. 2, 1969),
cert. denied 397 U.S. 965, enfg. 150 NLRB 192 (1964):
[T]he statute clearly contemplates that to the end of
encouraging productive bargaining, the parties must
make "a serious attempt to resolve differences and
reach a common ground", N LR.B. v. Insurance
Agents' Intl Union, 361 U.S. 477, 486, 487, 488 (1960),
an effort inconsistent with a "predetermined resolve
not to budge from an initial position." N.L.RB v.
Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 154-155 (1956) (Frank-
furter, J., concurring).
A pattern of conduct by which one party makes it
virtually impossible for him to respond to the other-
knowing that he is doing so diliberately-should be
condemned -by the same rationale that prohibits
"going through the motions" with a "predetermined"
resolve not to budge from an initial decision." See
N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra (concurring opin-
ion).
I am persuaded here that Respondent Union was not deal-
ing with the Company "in a serious attempt to resolve
[their] differences and reach a common ground"; rather,
the Union's conduct during the latter sessions, principally
the eighteenth, -"reflects a cast of mind against reaching
agreement." Ibid. At the eighteenth bargaining session, the
Union proposed an unprecedented 12-year term agreemnt
with "interest" arbitration which could extend the agree-
ment for another 12 years. And, the Union's accompany-
mg wage proposal was in excess of its earlier proposal.
When asked by Company representatives, "would [the
Union proposed an unprecedented 12-year term agreement
cept all of your proposals submitted to us today with the
exception of terminal arbitration", the Union representa-
tive refused to answer, asserting: "You are not going to
back me into a corner." And, although the Union asserted-
ly had agreed in caucus to recommend dropping its "inter-
est" or "terminal" arbitration clauses if the Company ac-
cepted its other proposals, the Union never apprised the
Company of this at the last session, which was attended by
a Federal mediator. Instead, the union representative stat-
ed that he "was going to submit a package to arbitration
and any package he submitted would have terminal arbi-
tration in the package." I find that Respondent, by the
foregoing conduct, was engaged in bad faith bargaining
with no intention of entering into a final or binding agree-
ment, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Charging Party Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act
by insisting to impasse upon the inclusion in a collective-
bargaining agreement of a clause providing for arbitration
of all disputed proposals during the negotiation of a new
agreement and by engaging in bad faith bargaining with no
intention of entering into any final or binding agreement.
4. The unfair labor practices found herein affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
In order to remedy the foregoing-unfair labor practices,
and to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, I will direct that Respondent cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices found herein
and from engaging in like or related conduct in violation of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Affirmatively, Respondent will
be directed, upon request, to bargain collectively 'and in
good faith with Charging Party Company with respect to
the employees in the unit described above; if an under-
standing is reached to embody such understanding in a
signed agreement; to give notice to the Employer that it
will not insist that the Employer agree to arbitrate new
contract terms for inclusion in a contract as a condition for
entering into a contract with the Employer; and to post
appropriate notices.
ORDERS
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, Respon-
dent Greensboro Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
No. 319, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing, upon request, to bargain collec-
tively and in good faith with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment with the Greensboro News Company for the employ-
ees in the appropriate bargaining unit described below, by
insisting to impasse upon the inclusion in a collective-bar-
gaining agreement of a clause providing for arbitration of
all disputed proposals arising during the negotiation of a
new collective bargaining agreement which cannot be set-
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tled by conciliation or by engaging in bad-faith bargaining
with no intention of entering into any final or binding
agreement.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All journeymen pressmen and apprentices, employed
at the Company's Greensboro, North Carolina, news-
paper, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner, refusing to bargain
collectively with said Employer by insisting to impasse
upon the inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement
of any clause or other proposal not involving wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment or by engag-
ing in bad" faith bargaining with no intention of entering
into any final or binding agreement:
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with said Employer with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment for the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Notify the Greensboro News Company, in writing,
that the Respondent will not insist that the Employer agree
to arbitrate new contract terms for-inclusion in a contract
as a condition of entering into a collective-bargaining con-
tract with the Employer.
(c) Post at Respondent's offices and meeting halls, and
all places where notices to members are customarily post-
ed, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 11, after, being duly signed by
Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon-
dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to the Greens-
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgemnt of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
boro News Company for information, and, if they are will-
ing, for posting by them in all locations where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to, comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT, upon request, fall or refuse to bargain
collectively and in good faith with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment with the Greensboro News'Com-
pany for the employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit described below, by insisting to impasse upon the
inclusion in a collective-bargaining agreement of -a
clause providing for arbitration of all disputed propos-
als arising during the negotiation of a new collective-
bargaining agreement which cannot be settled by con-
ciliation or by engaging in bad-faith bargaining with
no intention of entering into a final or binding agree-
ment. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All journeymen pressmen and apprentices, em-
ployed at the Company's Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, newspaper, excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to
bargain collectively with said Employer by insisting to
impasse upon the inclusion in any collective-bargain-
ing agreement of any clause or other proposal not in-
volving wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment or by engaging in bad-faith bargaining
with no intention of entering into any final or binding
agreement.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively and in
good faith with said Employer with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and-condi-
tions of employment for the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
GREENSBORO PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS'
UNION No. 319