Holyoke Cinema Shops, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

HOLYOKE CINEMA SHOPS, INC., ETC. 1321
Holyoke Cinema Shops, Inc.; Miracle Mart, inc. (a Michigan
corporation ) ; Miracle Mart, Inc. (a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion ) ; Miracle Mart , Inc. (an Indiana corporation ) ; Miracle
Mart, Inc. (a Virginia corporation ) ; Miracle Mart of Kings-
ton, Inc.; Miracle Mart of Detroit , Inc.; Miracle Mart of Joy,
Inc.; Miracle Mart of Warren, Inc.; Miracle Mart of Johns-
town, Inc.; Miracle Mart of Muskegon , Inc.; Miracle Mart of
Muncie, Inc. ; Allen Fur Company , Inc. d/b/a Miracle Mart ;
Riga, Inc. d/b/a Franklin Discount Department Store and
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO; Cen-
tral States Joint Board , Retail and Department Store Em-
ployees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO; Kentuckiana Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO ( Holyoke Cinema Shops, Inc.,
et al.) and Local 1441 , Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 25-CA-1432 and 25-CB-467. November
26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 19, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent Unions and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in sup-
port thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Leedom].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in these cases, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and finds merit in the exceptions of the Respondent Unions.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner
only insofar as consistent with this Decision and Order.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Employers, herein
called the Company, by rendering "substantial assistance" to Respond-
ent Unions, herein called Amalgamated, in their organizing campaign
at the newly established Miracle Mart store in Muncie, Indiana ; by
refusing "similar assistance" to the Retail Clerks, the Charging Par-
139 NLRB No. 106.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ties herein; and by entering into a union-security contract with Amal-
gamated "under such conditions," violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and
(3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner also found that, by entering
into the union-security agreement with the Company, Amalgamated
violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2). For the reasons stated below,
we disagree with these findings.
1. The Trial Examiner found initially that on August 1, 1961,1
Charles Breihof, general manager and labor relations director of the
Company, agreed with Max Ungar, a representative of Amalgamated,
that three women organizers, who were also experienced "discount
girls," would be put on the payroll of the Company's Muncie store to
do "quiet, efficient" organizing; that "pursuant to this arrangement"
union, organizers Howard, Ice, and Denham were hired; and that, by
this conduct, the Cpmpany violated Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the
Act. We do not agree. Even assuming, as the Trial Examiner found,
that Breihof arranged with Ungar to hire three union organizers, we
are not satisfied that the record establishes that the three named em-
ployees, were hired "pursuant to this arrangement." We find, rather,
that these individuals were hired by Store Manager Lester LaVictor in
the normal course of the Company's business. Thus, Breihof, who was
the General Counsel's principal witness on this point, testified that La-
Victor did all the hiring at the Muncie store and that LaVictor hired
the three individuals. Ice and Denham corroborated this testimony
that they were hired by LaVictor 2 Nor does the record otherwise
show that LaVictor knew anything of the alleged agreement between
Breihof and Ungar, that he hired the three employees pursuant to such
agreement, or that these employees received any different treatment
than other job applicants. On the contrary, the record discloses that
at the time they were hired, the Company was in the process of hiring
a large complement of employees in connection with the opening of
its Muncie store. As the record does not show that they were hired
pursuant to any "arrangement" or for any reason other than the fact
that they were needed to do the work required at the Company's
Muncie store, we do not find this employment to be unlawful. Nor
would such arrangement between Breihof and Ungar standing alone,
be unlawful. At most, it would indicate an intent to violate the Act.
However, the Board has held that mere intent to engage in unlawful
conduct, in a context like that presented here, is not an unfair labor
practice.3 We shall therefore dismiss those allegations of the com-
plaint relating to the hiring of Howard, Ice, and Denham 4
1 Unless otherwise stated , all dates herein are in 1961.
2 Howard and LaVictor did not testify at the hearing.
3B. M. Reeves Company, Inc ., 128 NLRB 320
4In view of our findings herein, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether in fact
Breihof and Ungar entered into an agreement on August 1.
HOLYOKE CINEMA SHOPS, INC., ETC. 1323
2. The Trial Examiner further found that the Company rendered
unlawful assistance to Amalgamated in that Breihof was aware of
the organizing efforts of employees Howard, Ice, and Denham, but
did nothing to interfere with these activities. While Breihof ad-
mitted that he had general knowledge of union organizing efforts
directed towards employees at the Muncie store, there is no specific
evidence that Breihof or any other supervisor knew of any organizing
activity occurring on company time or on the store premises. Breihof
testified that he did not see any of the three organizers engaging in
union activity during working time and that, although supervisory
employees were instructed to report to him any union activity occur-
ring on store premises, no organizing activity was so reported.' As
the record does not indicate that the Company assisted Amalgamated
in its organizing activities, we shall also dismiss these allegations of
the complaint.
3. The Trial Examiner also found that the Company violated
Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act by refusing to allow representa-
tives of Retail Clerks to "sign the employees" at the Muncie store
on August 7 and 15, and by refusing a "similar request" on August
18, while during the same period the Company was rendering assist-
ance to Amalgamated. We disagree. As we have already found that
the Company did not hire Amalgamated organizers pursuant to its
alleged agreement and that the Company had no knowledge of any
Amalgamated organizing activity taking place on working time or on
company property, we find that the Company did not treat Retail
Clerks disparately in such connection, by denying them assistance
"similar" to that rendered to Amalgamated. Moreover, at no time
until August 18, did Retail Clerks request permission to solicit the
Company's Muncie employees for organizational purposes. Rather,
the record establishes that the Retail Clerks in effect sought to obtain
recognition at the Muncie store on the purported basis, that its Fort
Wayne contract 6 with the Company covered the Muncie operation.
6 Although Breihof testified that LaVictor reported to him that an employee had asked
LaVictor about the propriety of this employee going to a union dinner which was to be
held after working hours, there is no evidence linking this inquiry with any organizing
efforts taking place on company time or on company premises.
Breihof also testified that there was a "broad" no-solicitation rule in effect at the
Muncie store. However, as we find that the Company had no knowledge of any organiz-
ing activity by Amalgamated on company time or premises, no finding of unlawful assist-
ance by the Company to Amalgamated may be based on the Company ' s failure to enforce
this rule against Amalgamated.
6 The Fort Wayne agreement was entered into November 10, 1960, between Miracle
Mart, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Retail Clerks Union Local No. 10, an affiliate
to the Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, one of the Charging Parties in
the present cases. This agreement covered "employees presently employed and those em-
ployees hired in the future in stores now or hereafter owned and/or operated by the
Employer in the 65-mile area of Fort Wayne, Indiana." However , the General Counsel
does not contend that the Muncie store was in fact an accretion to the Fort Wayne unit
or that Respondent Company violated the Act by rejecting the Retail Clerks' demand for
recognition at the Muncie store, in reliance on this contract.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Company did not unlawfully refuse access to Retail
Clerks.
4. The Trial Examiner further found that by entering into a union-
security agreement on August 16 under the above circumstances, the
Company and Amalgamated violated 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and
8(b) (1) (A) and (2), respectively. The Trial Examiner's conclu-
sion that the Respondents unlawfully entered into this agreement is
predicated solely on his finding that, prior to entering into this agree-
ment, the Company had unlawfully assisted Amalgamated and, there-
fore, on August 16, Amalgamated did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the Company's employees. However, we have found that
the Company had rendered no unlawful assistance to Amalgamated
prior to the signing of the agreement on August 16. Moreover, the
record shows that on August 15, a neutral party conducted an in-
dependent card check and certified that Amalgamated represented a
majority of the Muncie employees. Relying on this card check, the
Company, on August 15, recognized Amalgamated as the exclusive
bargaining agent for its Muncie employees, and, on August 16, the
Company and Amalgamated entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement containing an agency-shop provision.? Under these cir-
cumstances, we find that the Respondents did not violate the Act by
entering into such a collective-bargaining agreement on August 16.
As we have found that the Respondents have not violated the Act,
we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
I would adopt the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion that Re-
spondent Company and Respondent Amalgmated have, respectively,
violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b) (1) (A) and
(2) of the Act. The record shows that in Indiana, a right-to-work
State, Respondents entered into an agency-shop agreement. Such an
agreement, in my opinion, is unlawful under the Act which we ad-
minister., Respondent Company has therefore unlawfully interfered
with the Section 7 rights of its employees, unlawfully assisted Re-
spondent Amalgamated, and unlawfully discriminated against its
employees; and Respondent Amalgamated has unlawfully restrained
and coerced such employees and caused Respondent Company to dis-
criminate against them. Consequently, and without passing on the
issues decided by my colleagues, since the remedy would in any event
be substantially the same, I dissent from their decision to dismiss
the complaint.
7 For the reasons set forth in the majority opinion in General Motors Corporation, 133
NLRB 451, enf. denied 303 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 6), we find that such agency-shop clause is
not unlawful.
8 See my dissenting opinion in General Motors Corporation, supra, at 461-464.
HOLYOKE CINEMA SHOPS, INC., ETC. 1325
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An original charge in Case No. 25-CA-1432 was filed by the Retail Clerks on
August 18, 1961. It was duly served upon the parties. A first amended charge in
the same case was filed on January 22, 1962. An original charge in Case No.
25-CB-467 was filed jointly by nine locals of the Retail Clerks, and a first amended
charge in the same case was filed on January 22, 1962. On January 26, 1962,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued an order con-
solidating the two cases, a complaint and a notice of hearing thereon. Answers were
thereafter filed by the various Respondents. The complaint alleges and the answers
deny that the Respondent Employers have engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) (2) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and that the Respondent Unions have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
in Muncie, Indiana, on April 10 and 11, 1962, before Trial Examiner C. W.
Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Briefs have been received from all parties except the Respondent Employers.
Disposition of the Respondent Unions' motion to dismiss the allegations of the
complaint against them, upon which ruling was reserved at the hearing, is made
by the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS
The Respondent Employers, listed immediately below, are corporations existing
by virtue of the laws of the respective States listed beside each, and operate retail
department stores in cities also noted beside each name:
Establishment State Location Trade name
Respondent Michigan- __ Michigan ------- Grand Rapids-- Miracle Mart
Respondent Pennsylva-
nia.
Pennsylvania___ Reading -------- Do
Respondent Indiana ______ Indiana--------- Fort Wayne_____ Do.
Respondent Virginia------ Virginia_________ Richmond------ Do.
Respondent Kingston----- Pennsylvania--- Kingston -------- Do.
Respondent Detroit-_ _ __ Michigan_______ Detroit ---------- Do
Respondent Joy__________ ----- do----------- ----do----------- Do.
Respondent Warren______ ----- do----------- Warren_________ Do.
Respondent Johnstown--- Pennsylvania--- Johnstown ------ Do.
Respondent Muskegon--- Michigan ------- Muskegon ------ Do.
Respondent Muncie______ Indiana_________ Muncie --------- Do.
Respondent Allen________ Pennsylva ma --- York__ Do.
Respondent Riga --------- ----- do ----------- ---- do----------- Franklin Discount Department Store.
Respondent Holyoke_____ _Massachusetts_ Holyoke______- John Edwards Clothes
Each of the above-named Respondents annually sells products of more than
$500,000 in value. Each of them, except the Respondent Holyoke, annually causes
to be transported to it, in interstate commerce, products valued at more than $100,000.
Holyoke annually causes goods valued at more than $50,000 to be shipped to it
in interstate commerce.
The Respondent Holyoke owns a majority of the outstanding shares of all the
named corporations. Irvin Bernstein is president and George Desser is secretary
of all the corporations. The directors of all the corporations are: Irvin Bernstein,
George Desser, Edith Bernstein, and Sarah Desser.
Receipts from the sale of merchandise by all corporations named above are de-
posited in banks at the location of each, but Irvin Bernstein and Desser are the only
persons authorized to withdraw such funds.
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The foregoing facts were stipulated to by all parties. It is therefore found that
the Respondent Employers, and each of them, are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Central States Joint
Board, Retail and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO; Kentuckians Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO; and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, are
Labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
All of the conduct claimed by General Counsel to be violative of the Act occurred
at Muncie, Indiana, within a period of a few days before and upon the opening for
business of a new discount store at this location. In preliminary summary, the facts
established by the undisputed testimony of Charles Breihof, former general manager
of the chain of stores, depict the unsavory spectacle of collusion between an employer
of national scope and labor organizations of international jurisdiction to deprive
employees of their rights, guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, to select, if any, their
own collective-bargaining representatives.
Such collusion consisted of an oral agreement between Breihof and an Amalga-
mated representative, even before the Muncie store opened, whereby Amalgamated
organizers would be hired as employees for the specific purpose of soliciting regular
employees to join that labor organization. The agreement was fulfilled and, as
noted below, resulted in an exclusive-recognition contract between management and
the Amalgamated. General Counsel not only contends that such conduct was
violative of several sections of the Act, but also urges that a broad "cease and desist"
preventive order be issued against all corporations owned and controlled by Bernstein
and Desser, as named herein.
B. The facts
In nud-August 1961 Charles Breihof was the general manager and labor relations
director of all 14 stores listed herein. His authority was subordinate only to Irvin
Bernstein and George Desser, previously identified as president and secretary of all
corporations. Breihof retained these positions and authority until March 1962.
According to his undisputed testimony, corroborated by certain sworn statements
previously made before a Board agent which General Counsel properly characterized
as admissions against interest, the following material events occurred:
(1) Breihof first came to Muncie in July, to oversee the preparations for opening
a new store in that city. He transferred Lester LaVictor from the Fort Wayne,
Indiana, store to be resident manager at Muncie.
(2) About August 1, Breihof met with Max Ungar, a representative of the Re-
spondent Central States. Ungar requested and Breihof granted permission to have
three women organizers , who were also experienced "discount girls," put on the
Muncie payroll and do "quiet, efficient" organizing.
(3) Pursuant to this arrangement, Union Organizers Howard, Ice, and Denham
were hired. (Ice is head of a Louisville, Kentucky, Local of Amalgamated, Den-
ham a delegate to the Respondent Kentuckiana.)
(4) The organizing efforts of these three, of which Breihof admitted he was
aware, were not interfered with by management.
(5) On August 12, Breihof returned to his headquarters in Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan, and Bernard Bernstein, brother of Irvin Bernstein, came to Muncie to oversee
the actual opening of the store to the public.
(6) During the next 2 or 3 days Breihof was in telephonic communication with
Bernstein and a union representative in Muncie , concerning steps to be taken in
arranging for a card check of Amalgamated authorization cards,' oral recognition,
and setting up negotiation meetings.
(7) Breihof met with Ungar on August 16, in Cleveland, Ohio, and an exclusive-
recognition contract, covering the Muncie store, was executed. The contract also
contains a union -security clause.2
The authorization cards were applications for membership In the parent International.
The contract was signed by Ungar and Alarsella , as representatives of the Respondent
Central States.
HOLYOKE CINEMA SHOPS, INC., ETC. 1327
In marked contradistinction to the open assistance thus accorded Amalgamated
representatives, the undisputed testimony of an official of the Retail Clerks, R. B.
Lewis, shows that:
(1) On August 7 Lewis and another representative of the same labor organiza-
tion went to Store Manager LaVictor, and "requested permission to sign the em-
ployees." Lewis informed LaVictor that he had previously been in communication
with Attorney Burns, in Detroit, who had negotiated an earlier contract between
his client, the Miracle Mart store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Retail Clerks,
and that Burns had informed him that the parties had agreed that when opened the
Muncie store would be covered by the same Fort Wayne contract. LaVictor, how-
ever, told Lewis that he had had no word about this matter from company officials,
and declined to permit him to "talk to the employees."
(2) On August 15, the day before its public opening, Lewis again went to the
Muncie store. He approached Bernard Bernstein, claimed that the Fort Wayne
contract covered Muncie, and requested "the right to sign these employees in the
store." Bernstein refused such permission, and ordered Lewis from the store.
(3) A similar request to Bernstein was refused on August 18, and by police
order Lewis was ordered from the premises.
C. Conclusions
From these uncontradicted facts it is concluded that: (1) the Respondent Em-
ployers rendered substantial assistance to the Respondent Unions in their organizing
at Muncie; (2) that similar assistance was denied the Retail Clerks; (3) by entering
into an exclusive-recognition contract under such conditions the Respondents de-
prived the Muncie employees of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
employer Muncie violating Section 8(a)(1) and the Union Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
As noted above, the contract entered into by the Respondents Muncie and Amal-
gamated contains a union-security clause. Although it appears that up to the date
of the hearing no dues have been paid by members or that the equivalent of dues
have been exacted from nonmembers, as the agreement requires, the excution of such
a contract was clearly unlawful from its inceptions The proviso of Section 8(a) (3)
permits a union-security clause under certain conditions, but not where the labor
organization has been unlawfully assisted, as here, by an employer. It follows that
by entering into this contract the employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by imposing
discriminatory conditions upon employees to encourage membership in and sup-
port of a labor organization, while the Respondent Union, in causing or attempting
to cause such discrimination violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
General Counsel does not contend that there was, or is, merit in the claim made
by the Retail Clerks, through its representative Lewis that the Fort Wayne contract
lawfully covered Muncie employees .4 Indeed, from the state of the record it ap-
pears that the Retail Clerks sought, but failed, to obtain the same unlawful assistance
rendered a rival organization. It is clear that neither the employer nor the com-
peting labor organizations at any material time gave consideration to the underlying
purpose of the Act-the protection of employees' rights to choose, or not to choose,
any labor organization as their bargaining representative. Thus the claims in the
brief of Retail Clerks that the Respondents engaged in 'shameful conspiracy" and
"ran roughshod over employee rights" seems no more than the disgruntled and
envious voice of the pot vilifying the kettle.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent Employers, and each of them,
as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
8 N.L R.B. v Revere Metal Art Co , 280 F. 2d 96, at 100, cert. denied 364 U.S. 894
d The Fort Wayne contract, in evidence, purports to cover an area far exceeding the
unit certified by the Board.
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel seeks a broad cease and desist order . The Trial Examiner be-
lieves there is merit in his contention that under the circumstances existing here, as
a preventive measure such an order is fully warranted . There is no question but
that this chain of discount stores is not only an expanding operation but a single,
integrated enterprise , with central labor policy and control.
It will be recommended that the contract of August 16 between the Respondents
be set aside, and that recognition of the Respondent Unions be withdrawn and with-
held unless and until the said labor organizations shall have been certified as such
representative by the Board.
Because of the nature of the unfair labor practices here involved , which occurred
even before actual operations of the store began, it will be recommended that the
Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Central States Joint
Board, Retail and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; Kentuckiana Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By contributing assistance and support to Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO; Central States Joint Board, Retail and Department Store
Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and Kentuckiana
Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Respond-
ent Employers have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of their
Muncie, Indiana , employees, thereby encouraging membership in and support of a
labor organization , the Respondent Employers have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Employers have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By causing and attempting to cause the Respondent Employers to discriminate
against employees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent
Unions have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Unions have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Robert S. Abbott Publishing Company and Chicago Newspaper
Guild , Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO
Robert S. Abbott Publishing . Company and Chicago Newspaper
Guild , Local 71, ANG, AFL-CIO. Cases Not. 13-CA-4208,13-CA-
4208-2, 13-CA-4208-3, 13-CA-4208-4, 13-CA-4208-5, 13-CA-
4208-6, 13-CA-4208-7, and 13-CA-4264. November 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 8, 1961, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent had engaged
139 NLRB No. 118.