Houston Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 592 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Houston Typographical Union No 87 and Houston Shop
ping News Company , d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats
Case 23-CB-995
May 20, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On February 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas S
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Decision
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 con
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner with the following modi-
fications
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
restrained and coerced the Employer in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by fining Superintendent
William Browning for allegedly failing to adhere to the
collective-bargaining agreement in bypassing Foreman
Jones and hiring a nonunion man as assistant foreman
We agree Stripped to its essentials, this is a situation
where Respondent took such action so as to render
Superintendent Browning, a representative of the
Employer, more amenable to its interpretation of how
the contract should be applied, i e , selection of the
assistant foreman by the foreman rather than by the
superintendent and of a union rather than a nonunion
member, thus depriving the Employer of the effective
representation that it is entitled to under the Act '
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions 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, Houston Typographical
Union No 87, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
' We find it unnecessary to decide whether as found by the Trial
Examiner the foregoing conduct also violates Sec 8(b)(I)(A) of the
Act
the Trial Examiner s Recommended Order, as so mod-
ified
Delete from the first paragraph of the attached Appen-
dix that part which reads "and abide by its terms"
and substitute therefor "and we intend to carry out
the Order of the Board, and abide by the following "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S WILSON, Trial Examiner Upon a charge
duly filed on October 9, 1969, by Houston Shopping
News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, herein
referred to as the Company or the Charging Party,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein referred to as the General Counsel' and
the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for
Region 23, Houston, Texas, issued its complaint dated
November 3, 1969, against Houston Typographical Union
No 87, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent
The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to
as the Act
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain
allegations of the complaint but denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice a hearing thereon was held before
me in Houston Texas, on December 8, 1969 All parties
appeared at the hearing, were represented by Counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to prod-
uce and cross examine witnesses, and to introduce evi
dence material and pertinent to the issues At the conclu
lion of the hearing, oral argument was waived Briefs
were received from General Counsel on January 14,
1970, and a document labeled "Reply of Respondent
to Memorandum of the General Counsel to the Trial
Examiner" on January 19, 1970 Although received after
the required filing date this Reply" brief has been
considered
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I
therefore find
Houston Shopping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type
and Mats, is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly organized under and existing by
the virtue of the laws of the State of Texas At all
times material herein the Company has maintained its
principal office and place of business at 2520 Robin
' This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing
182 NLRB No 91
HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Hood, Houston, Texas, and is, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in the manufacture, proc-
essing , sale, and distribution of printed reproduction
proofs and related materials. During the preceding calen-
dar year, the Company, in the course and conduct
of its business operations; purchased, transferred, and
received at its Houston, Texas, plant, goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States
of the United States other than the State of Texas
Accordingly, I find that the Company is now, and
has been at all times material herein, engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
It. THE RESPONDENT
Houston Typographical Union No. 87 is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Compa-
ny
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The parties hereto, Respondent and the Company,
were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement cover-
ing the composing room employees.of the Company
which was dated July 1, 1967, and which expired by
its terms on August 31, 1969. This contract contained,
inter a/ia, the following provisions:
FOREMEN
Sec. 2. The operation, authority and control of
each composing room shall be vested exclusively
in the, Office through its representative, the foreman,
who shall be a journeyman. In the absence (off
days, sickness, vacation or leave of absence) of
the foreman, he may designate and post who will
be foreman during his absence and such designated
person shall be vested with the full authority granted
by this agreement to the foreman. The foreman
may also designate and post an assistant to represent
him as acting foreman on each shift in any 24-
hour period during which the foreman has been
on duty, and who shall have full authority of the
foreman except that he may reprimand but may
not discharge employees or change Office rules.
Nothing in this section shall interfere' with instruc-
tions being given by others for the proper execution
of a job, when such instructions are deemed neces-
sary by the foreman.
Sec. 2(a) At the discretion of the Employer
through its representative, the foreman and/or
assistant foremen, supervisory'personne'l in addition
to foremen and assistants may be designated for
the purpose of assigning work to journeymen and
issuing instructions necessary for the proper execu-
tion of the composing room work. Such supervisory
personnel, when designated by the Employer
through its representatives, the foreman and/or
593
assistant foremen, shall have all°the authority vested
in the foreman and/or assistant foremen except
that of discharge or changing office rules.
Sec 3(a) The foreman shall hire all employees
for composing room operations. Applications for
work must be made to the foreman, who as the
representative of the Employer is the only person
having the authority to employ journeymen in the
composing room. A journeyman is defined as
About May 1969 Theodore DeFelice, president of
the Company, appointed William E. Browning the com-
pany plant superintendent. Prior thereto Browning for
the past 3 or 4 years had been the acting plant superin-
tendent. For most of that period Foreman John Jones
had been the foreman of the composing room under
Browning. As of July 1969, John Henley was the night
or assistant foreman for the night shift, appointed to
that position by Foreman John Jones All the above-
named individuals, except DeFelice, were members of
Local 87.
A few weeks prior to July 21, 1969,2 Browning became
dissatisfied with Henley as assistant or night foreman
and began looking around for another person to assume
that position.' Browning and Jones discussed the matter
at which time the name of Earl Browning," a cousin
of Browning and a nonmember of Respondent, was
casually mentioned for the position by Browning. Jones
voiced no opposition.
Earl was a journeyman. but was not a member of
Respondent, as was known by Browning.
Despite , the articles of the contract quoted above
Jones acknowledged in his testimony that, as a' practical
matter, he exercised the contractual power to hire and
fire and to appoint only after consultation with Browning
and/or DeFelice
On July 14 Foreman Jones went on a week's vacation
after appointing one Zarelli to substitute for him as
foreman. There is no showing of any consultations
between Zarelli and Browning and/or DeFelice over
the evening assistant foremanship.
On July 21 Jones returned to work and was informed
by Browning that Earl was to be the evening or assistant
foreman beginning that evening. Jones so instructed
Henley who returned to a production job and Earl
took over the position of evening or assistant foreman
on July 21.
Earl worked as assistant foreman on July 21 but
notified the Company early on July 22 that he did
not wish to retain the job.
On July 22 Henley was reinstated as assistant foreman
and has remained such ever since.
On August 5 Respondent received the following:
Charges are hereby preferred against Bill Brown-
ing, Superintendent of Naylor Type & Mats, for
2 All dates herein are in the year 1969 unless otherwise specified
Although it is unimportant, Browning testified that he had called
the union hall for an assistant foreman This the Union denies
' Hereinafter Earl Browning will be referred to as Earl in order
to distinguish him from Plant Superintendent William Browning
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conduct unbecoming a union member and failure
to observe provisions of the contract in that on
July 21, 1969, he usurped the power and duties
of the foreman and hired a non -union man and
appointed him assistant foreman in charge of the
night shift Bill Browing [sic] later that same day
refused permission for the chairman to use the
office telephone to call the president of the local
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ E DOUGLAS AUSTIN
E DOUGLAS AUSTIN
124493
On August 6, the following letter dated August 6
with a copy of the above charge attached was mailed
by Respondent to Browning
Dear Mr Browning
I am enclosing a copy of charges filed against
you by E Douglas Austin These charges will be
read at the regular meeting of HTU No 87 Sunday
August 10 , at which time you will be given and
[sic] opportunity to explain your position, if you
desire
The meeting will be held at 1 30 p in at 1815
Walker Avenue
Fraternally yours,
LEROY WILLIAMS
SECRETARY
HTU No 87
The Union held a meeting on August 10 Browning
was not present The charges were read and discussed
and then the president referred the matter to the Union's
disciplinary committee
The disciplinary committee was scheduled to meet
on September 24 Twice before that time Rayner went
to Browning to urge him to appear in person before
the committee Browning failed to appear at the Septem-
ber 25 meeting but did send the following letter by
personal messenger
In answer to the charges preferred against me
by Mr Austin-I believe them unfair and I think
his conduct as a member of the Union should
be questioned He with others refused to work
the shift assigned to him He kept other men from
working and caused quite a stink I do not want
to file charges against Mr Austin-I don't believe
he can afford a fine any more than I can
I carry a not at the trade card
I also know all about the right to work law
I expect the union to furnish us with the help
we need
Respectfully submitted
/S/ WILLIAM E
BROWNING
At the Meeting on September 25 the disciplinary
committee voted to fine Browning I day's pay
This decision was affirmed by the membership at
the next regular union meeting (which was attended
by some of the Employer ' s employees ) despite the vocal
opposition of several union members E Douglas Austin,
who originated the charge against Browning against the
advice of some union officials, vocally defended his
charges on the floor Finally the meeting voted to fine
Browning I day's pay
By letter dated October 6 the Union notified Browning
of this action as follows
At a regular meeting of Houston Typographical
Union No 87 on September 14, 1969, you were
found guilty of charges filed against you by Douglas
Austin and assessed a penalty of one day's pay-
$30 90
This amount will be added to your next dues
payment , unless paid beforehand
Although the Union billed Browning for the amount
of this fine, the fine has never been paid Nor to the
date of the hearing has the Union taken any further
steps to collect the fine
Browning remains a member of the Union in good
standing
B Analysis and Conclusions
Respondent and General Counsel view this case from
the standpoint of whether or not Earl is a supervisor
or one who is a representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining or for the adjustment of griev-
ances ' the General Counsel contends that Earl, as
night foreman , is a supervisor or "representative" and
he is within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and there
fore any attempt by the Respondent to unduly influence
an employer in the employer ' s choice of or control
over his representative amounts to a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B) Respondent meets General Counsel only at
the threshhold and contends solely that Earl is not
a representative of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act On the basis of the
credited testimony of Superintendent Browning it is
clear that the night foreman position at the Employer's
place of business possesses sufficient indicia of a supervi-
sor under Section 2(11) of the Act Furthermore, the
night foreman ' s responsibilities include the adjustment
of grievances and thus Earl, as night foreman was
a supervisor or representative of the Employer within
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act It is more manifest and
I also find that Superintendent Browning was a supervisor
or representative of the Employer entitled to protection
of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
There is no evidence that Earl left his position as
night foreman involuntarily The nub of the case is
whether the Employer's authority to choose its represent-
atives was divested by the contract between the parties
HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
If the Employer's authority was not divested then union
discipline against Browning for hiring a nonunion man
and appointing him as "assistant foreman in charge
of the night shift" would be a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B).
A union may not strike an employer to obtain a
clause in the contract requiring foremen to become
members of the union, for to do so the union restrains
and coerces the employer by limiting his choice of
foremen to union members.5 However, if the union
does not require foremen-members to hire members
only or does not discipline foremen-members for hiring
nonmembers, a contract requiring union membership
for foremen does not violate Section 8(b)(2)." "An
employer must be free of pressure in choosing his repre-
sentatives for collective bargaining."'
In Respondent's view the instant case involves disci-
pline of a supervisor-member, Browning, for violation
of the contract by usurping the power of the foremen
in the hiring of the assistant foreman, Earl. The contract
in question is subject to more than one interpretation
on the issue and Respondent and General Counsel have
both argued persuasively in support of their respective
conflicting interpretations. In the San Francisco Mailers'
case" the union disciplined the employer's supervisors
for violations of the collective-bargaining contract. The
Board found a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B). The rela-
tionship affected was one between the employer and
the union as the dispute was an outgrowth of the collec-
tive-bargaining contract as in the instant case. The Board
stated "The relationship between the Union and its
members appears to have been of only secondary impor-
tance, used as a convenient and . . . powerful tool
to affect the employer-union relationship, i.e., to compel
the Employer's foremen to take pro-union positions
in interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement."
Such a purpose violates the statutory policy of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of allowing the employer an unimpeded choice
of representatives for collective bargaining and settle-
ment of grievances. To allow discipline of a supervisor
for alleged violations of the contract deprives the employ-
er of the loyalty and agressive representation by his
supervisor that the employer is entitled to by Section
8(b)(1)(B). Even though the supervisor does not handle
grievances, because of his position he would be a natural
possible future choice of the employer to handle griev-
ances which is sufficient to bring him within the protec-
tion of Section 8(b)(l)(B).11 A union may not use its
internal rules to boycott an employer who did not have
a contract with the union since such dispute is not
an intraunion matter and thus discipline of a supervisor-
member for working for an employer who was not
International Typographical Union v N L R B [Hanerhill Gazette]
278 F 2d 6 (C A 1, 1960), affd by equally divided court 365 U S
705(1%1)
N.L.RB v News Syndicate Co, Inc, 365 US 695,699(1961)
Portland Stereotypers Union No 48 (Journal Publishing Co) 137
NLRB 782, 787 (1962)
" San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18 (Northwest Publica-
tions), 172 NLRB No 252 (1969)
Toledo Locals 15-P and 272, Lithographers (Toledo Blade Company),
175 NLRB No 173 (1969)
595
signatory to a contract with the union violates Section
8(b)(1)(B)."' In another A. S. Horner case" the union
disciplined a supervisor-member for urging the employ-
ees to vote "no" in an upcoming union election among
his employer's employees and for hiring nonunion
employees prior to the election. The discipline was
held to be violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) because the
union was attempting by such discipline to compel the
employer to select a superintendent more amenable to
the union's position. The fine levied against the superin-
tendent in Horner for hiring nonunion employees was
held to be an attempt to cause the company superintend-
ent to discriminate against nonunion applicants which
is prohibited by Section 8(a)(3) and thus a violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).
In General Metal Products12 a union was held to
have violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by firing a working
foreman who was a member of the union for violating
the contract by working prior to the beginning of the
workday and for using men of other crafts to assist
him in doing the work. Since the disciplinary action
was connected with the foreman's supervisory functions
and since the fine was leveled at the foreman for violation
of the contract and constitution, the union was held
to be attempting to cause the foreman to substitute
the union's determination of the meaning of the collec-
tive-bargaining contract for the employer's, thus coercing
the employer's choice of representatives for collective
bargaining or handling of grievance.
It is clear that Respondent fined or disciplined Brown-
ing for alleged failure to adhere to the contract in
bypassing Foreman Jones and hiring a nonunion man
as assistant foreman. These were the charges that Brown-
ing was found guilty of in the Union's letter of October
6. Such action by the Union was aimed at rendering
Browning more amenable to their interpretation of the
contract provision in dispute in this case thus depriving
the employer of effective representation in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. By attempting to cause
Browning to discriminate against the nonunion assistant
foreman, Earl, and by engaging in such discipline in
the presence of employees of the Employer, the
Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
The parties' collective-bargaining agreement contains
extensive provisions for arbitration of grievances arising
under the contract by the Joint Standing Committee.
In the instant case Respondent chose to proceed unilater-
ally to resolve the dispute under the contract by disciplin-
ing Browning instead of utilizing the contractual provi-
sions. Respondent cannot now be heard to complain
that the Board resolve the dispute. The substitution
of unilateral action in form of discipline of Browning
by Respondent forecloses at this late date resort to
the arbitration provisions of the contract. Such contractu-
al defense does not divest the Board of jurisdiction."
New Mexico District Council of Carpenters (A S Horner), 177
NLRB No 76 (1969)
" New Mexico District Council of Carpenters, 176 NLRB No 105
(1969)
2 Sheet Metal Workers', Local 49, 178 NLRB No 24 (1969)
" Mastro Plastics Corp v N L R B, 350 U S 270, cf N L R B
(Cont )
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`Neither party ^ has` sought to invoke arbitration of the
dispute. Furthermore,' as the Respondent's purpose here
was to compel Browning to adopt a prounion position
regarding the,interpretation of the contract, it is unneces-
sary for the Trial Examiner to resort to an interpretation
of the contract or to resolve or reconcile the conflicting
and ambiguous language of section 2, 2(a),, and 3(a)
of the contract for, even if Respondent's interpretation
be correct, it has utilized an improper means to enforce
those provisions.14 '
Assuming , as Respondent contends , that Earl was
not a supervisor ' or representative compels no different
result . The issue here is discipline of Browning as, repre-
sentative of the Employer , not Earl . The subject matter
of the discipline was alleged violation of the contract
as' it was in San ' Francisco-Oakland Mailers ', supra.
and whether or'not Earl was 'a supervisor or representa-
tive in noway affects •the, result . It is the discipline
of Browning (which was made known to the employees),
clearly a representative of the Employer , for giving
to the contract an interpretation more advantageous
to the Employer that we are concerned with. I find
such conduct by Respondent to violate Section 8 (b)(1)(B)
and 8 (b)(l)(A).
The parties hereto' will no doubt consider this case
to have been "an exercise in utter futility"-which,
except for the rescission of the fine, it is. The decision
here is, however, in scrupulous accord with Board law
which appears to be premised'upon the rather speculative
future effects of the union action involved upon the
individual affected if and when at some future date
he becomes the Employer's "representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. or the adjustment of griev-
ances," neither of -which is involved here. That then
is the basis of the instant decision. Under that theory
an interpretation of the contract provisions quoted supra
becomes immaterial., Therefore, although both parties
here apparently anticipated such interpretation here,
none has been made. For such an interpretation the
parties will have to utilize the arbitration provisions
of their agreement-which probably should have been
done in the first place
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the Charging
Party's operations described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
v C & C Plywood Corporation, 385 U S 421, Internatu,nal Harvester
Company, 138 NLRB 923 (1962)
" San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union, supra C & C Plywood
requires no other result for in that case, unlike here, there was no
arbitration clause That case is inapplicable here
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act.
2. The Employer,'is an employer within the meaning
of Sections 2(2) and 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act:
3. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By restraining and ' coercing the Employer in the
selection of its representatives for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or the'adjustment of grievances Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
,the Act.
5. By attempting to cause the Employer to discrimi-
nate against the nonunion assistant foreman, Earl Brown-
ing, in the presence of employees of the Employer,
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce -within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I shall recommend
that it cease and desist from restraining or coercing
the Employer or any employer `with whom it has a
collective-bargaining agreement in.the manner charged
herein. Additionally, I find that the coercive effect herein
can be removed only if Respondent is required to rescind
the fine imposed against Browning. The debilitating
effects on the employees will be remedied by the posting
of the notice as prescribed below.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of,the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
case, I recommend that the Respondent, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In any manner restraining or coercing Houston
Shopping News Company, d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats,
in the selection of representatives chosen for the purpos-
es of collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-
ances.
(b) Refraining or refusing to use the means provided
by its collective-bargaining agreement for the adjustment
of grievances and disputes thereunder in order to restrain
or coerce the Employer in the selection of its representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fine levied against William E. Brown-
ing and excise all record thereof from its files.
(b) Post at offices of the Charging Party, the employer
willing, as well as at Respondent's meeting place, copies
HOUSTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix "''
Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 23 , Houston , Texas, after being
duly signed by Respondent ' s authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members of Respondent and employees of
the Charging Party are customarily posted and be main-
tained as posted for the duration of the contract with
the Charging Party, but in no event for less than 60
consecutive days from the date of posting Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith "
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional
Director for Region 23 in writing within 10 days from the date of
this Order what steps 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
After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity
597
to present their evidence , the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the law and has
ordered us to post this notice and abide by its terms
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce
the aforesaid Employer , Houston Shopping News
Company , d/b/a Naylor Type and Mats, in the
selection of representatives he may choose for the
purposes of collective bargaining and the adjustment
of grievances or disputes under the contract
WE WILL NOT cite superintendents or representa-
tives of Houston Shopping News Company, d/
b/a Naylor Type and Mats before our trial board
nor require them to answer for decisions made
by them as to the meaning or application of any
collective -bargaining agreement to which we are
a party where such an agreement contains provi
sions for the adjustment of grievances and disputes
WE have rescinded and have notified William
E Browning that the fine imposed has been rescind-
ed and all reference thereto has been expunged
from our records
Dated By
HOUSTON
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
No 87
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board ' s Office,
6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue , Houston,
Texas 77002, Telephone 713-226-4296