Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1490 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc and Indianapolis Typo-
graphical Union No 1, a/w International Typo-
graphical Union and Indianapolis Mailers Union
No 10, a/w International Typographical Union
Cases 25-CA-7066 and 25-CA-7066-2
June 21, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On February 24, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Maurice S Bush issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the Charging Parties
filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions
and brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge and a motion to correct inadvertent typo-
graphical errors in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
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
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, Indianapolis Newspa-
pers, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order
i The General Counsels motion of April 8 1976 to correct inadvertent
typographical errors in the Administrative Law Judge s Decision is hereby
granted and the corrections have been made in the attached Decision
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board s established policy not to over
rule an Administrative Law Judge s resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 ( 1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE S BUSH, Administrative Law Judge Respon-
dent Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc, is the publisher of the
Indianapolis Star, a morning newspaper, and the Indianap
olis News, an evening newspaper For many years Respon-
dent has had separate collective-bargaining agreements
with Charging Party, Indianapolis Typographical Union
No 1, a/w International Typographical Union, hereafter
called the Printers or Printers Union, and with Charging
Party Indianapolis Mailers Union No 10, a/w Internation-
al Typographical Union, hereafter called the Mailers or
Mailers Union Respondent also has contracts with eight
other craft unions not here directly involved
The Printers in January 1975 and the Mailers in Febru-
ary 1975, sought to negotiate new collective-bargaining
agreements with Respondent to replace their then current
but expiring agreements For most of the early numerous
bargaining sessions the Printers had with Respondent, the
Printers' negotiation committee was composed solely of
members of the Printers Union but towards the end of the
bargaining the Printers added to its negotiation committee
representatives who were members of other in-plant
Unions Similarly, the Mailer's negotiation committee at
first was composed exclusively of members of the Mailers
Union but later the Mailers added to its negotiation com-
mittee representatives who were members of other in-plant
Unions
Respondent objected to the presence of representatives
on the Printers' contract negotiation committee who were
members of other in-plant labor Unions and at all times
declined and refused to bargain with the Printers' contract
negotiation committee when such representatives of other
in plant labor Unions were on the Printers' negotiation
committee Similarly, Respondent objected to the presence
of representatives on the Mailers contract negotiation
committee who were members of other in-plant labor
Unions and at all times declined and refused to bargain
with the Mailers' contract negotiation committee when
such representatives of other in-plant labor Unions were
on the Mailers' contract negotiation committee
The Printers and Mailers, after repeated failures to get
Respondent to participate in contract negotiations with
them when they had on their respective contract negotia-
tion committees appointees who were members of other
in-plant labor unions, filed unfair labor practice charges
against Respondent for its consistent refusal to bargain
with their contract negotiations committees as so constitut-
ed
Having thus taken steps, by the filing of their unfair la-
bor practice charges, to eventually resolve their legal rights
to have representatives from other in-plant Unions on their
respective collective-bargaining committees, the Printers
and Mailers thereafter reduced and contracted their bar-
gaining committees to only members of their Unions This
broke the bargaining deadlock and shortly thereafter the
two Unions and Respondent agreed upon and entered into
new collective-bargaining agreements
Under these essentially undisputed but skeletonized
224 NLRB No 196
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS, INC 1491
facts, the sole issue in this proceeding is whether Respon-
dent is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act by its refusal to participate in any
contract negotiations with the Printers and Mailers at any
agreed times for bargaining when the bargammg commit-
tees of the two Unions had representatives thereon who
were not members of the involved bargaining union but
were members of other in-plant Unions I
Respondent's defense for its refusal to bargain with the
negotiating committees of the Unions here involved when
they were in part composed of appointees from other in-
plant Unions is that such outside appointees or representa-
tives "were not bona-fide members" of the committees In
its brief the Respondent terms such appointees `bogus ap-
pointees "
The consolidated complaint herein was issued on June
25, 1975, pursuant to a charge filed by the Printers Union
in Case 25-CA-7066 on May 6, 1975, and pursuant to a
charge filed by the Mailers Union in Case 25-CA-7066-2
on May 15, 1975, copies of which were duly served upon
the Respondent Respondent's answer denies the alleged
unfair labor practices
The case was heard at Indianapolis, Indiana, on August
21 and 22 and September 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 24,
1975 The briefs filed by counsel herein on November 19,
1975, have been carefully reviewed and considered
For reasons hereinafter indicated, I find Respondent in
violation of the Act as alleged in the complaint
Upon the entire record 2 in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent, an Indiana corporation with principal of-
fice and place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana, hereaf-
ter called facility, at all times here material has been en-
gaged at said place of business in the printing, publication,
sale, and distribution of two daily newspapers, the India-
napolis Star and Indianapolis News During the past year,
a representative period, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operation, purchased, transferred,
and delivered to its facility, goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 which were transported to said facility
directly from States other than the State of Indiana Dur-
ing the same representative year Respondent in the course
i Respondent in its brief does not appear to contend that the two Unions
here involved as Charging Parties waived the right to litigate before the
Board the issue of Respondents refusal to bargain with their respective
bargaining committees as composed in part with representatives from other
in plant Unions by their action in subsequently signing collective bargain
mg agreements with Respondent In any event I find that there is no true
waiver issue in this proceeding because the courts have unanimously held
that a union does not waive the issue of an Employer s refusal to bargain by
signing a contract with the Employer before the waiver issue has been re
solved Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers v
N L R B 304 F 2d 750 (C A 9) Henry I Siegal Company Inc v N L R B
340 F 2d 309 (C A 2) Southern Tours Inc 167 NLRB 363 (1967) Massil
Ion Publishing Co 215 NLRB 380 (1974)
2 The uncontested Motion to Correct Record filed by counsel for Gen
eral Counsel on December 19 1975 is hereby granted
and conduct of its business operation, printed, published,
sold, and distributed at its facility, products valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 which were shipped from its facility directly
to States other than the State of Indiana
During the same representative year, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its publishing operations, (i) held
membership in, or subscribed to, various interstate news
services, and (u) published various syndicated features and
advertised nationally sold products for which it received in
excess of $10,000 In the same representative period Re-
spondent received gross revenues in excess of $200,000
from its publishing operations
It is found, as admitted, that at all times here material
Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HERE INVOLVED
The Printers Union and the Mailers Union, more pre-
cisely identified in the caption, are each labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and Sequence of Events
Respondent employs approximately 1,400 employees in
its business as the publisher of the Indianapolis Star and
Indianapolis News, most of whom are represented by craft
unions It has had collective-bargaining agreements with
the Printers Union since about the turn of the century and
successive bargaining agreements with the Mailers Union
since the late 1940s The Printers currently represent be-
tween 450 and 481 of Respondent's employees and the
Mailers, about 75 employees In addition Respondent has
had successive labor contracts for at least the past 5 years
with eight other different labor unions, some of which are
here indirectly involved, these will be identified below as
they become involved in the sequence of events
Over the years Respondent has bargained separately
with each of the 10 Unions at its Indianapolis facility, with
resultant separate contracts with each of such Unions
The Printers began negotiations with Respondent for a
new labor contract on January 17, 1975, to replace its then
expiring contract From January 17 until April 18, 1975,
the negotiating teams of the Union and Company met
twice a week in bargaining efforts to forge a new contract
During that period the Printers' negotiation committee was
composed exclusively of members of the Printers Union
Similarly, the Mailers commenced bargaining with Re-
spondent for a new contract on February 27, 1975, to re-
place its expiring labor contract From February 27 to
April 17, 1975, the bargaining representatives of the Mail
ers and the Company met once a week to hammer out a
new collective-bargaining agreement During that period
the Mailers' negotiation committee was likewise composed
exclusively of members of its own Union
In March 1975, 8 of the 10 Unions in Respondent's Indi-
anapolis facility decided to band together to request point
bargaining with the Publisher on limited matters of "mutu-
al concern to all our local unions, ' exclusive of wages and
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, covering areas involving adjustments in wage scales
to reflect increases in cost of living, hospitalization and life
insurance, sick pay, and vacations By letter dated March
31, 1975, the eight Unions made formal request through
appropriate officers for joint bargaining on these matters
of common interest to Respondent's general manager,
Thomas K Crowe The letter reads
Dear Mr Crowe
The undersigned Unions, representing employees in
various departments of Indianapolis Newspapers,
Inc , hereby request to jointly meet with representa-
tives of the Publisher and to negotiate on the following
items, which are of mutual concern to all our local
unions
1 Cost of Living Clause
2 Hospitalization and Life Insurance
3 Sick Pay
4 Vacations
These Unions believe it would be in the best interest
of all the parties concerned to negotiate jointly on
those benefits we have listed
We would appreciate an early reply to the officers
of each of the undersigned Unions
The Company in identical letters, dated April 11, 1975,
addressed to the signatory officers of each of the eight peti-
tioning Unions, flatly rejected the request for joint bargain-
ing on the noted items of common interest The text of the
Company's letter, under the signature of its General Man-
ager Crowe, reads as follows
This will acknowledge receipt today of your letter of
March 31, 1975, asking that the Publisher meet with
other unions to negotiate the terms of the contract
between the Publisher and your Union
To do so would be both unwise and unlawful Your
Union is, under the law, the sole representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to the
unit described in our mutual contract Since your
Union is so designated by a majority of the employees
in that unit, we will (and must as a matter of law)
bargain with your Union alone
The two Charging Parties here involved, the Printers and
the Mailers, immediately accepted, without argument, the
Company's decision that it would not engage in joint bar-
gaining on the items in question of common interest and
thereafter made no further requests of any kind for joint
union bargaining with Respondent
Joint bargaining had been only one of two strategies for
more effective bargaining with Respondent that the vari-
ous Unions at the plant had discussed among themselves
for weeks and months prior to the Company's rejection of
their request for limited joint bargaining The other strate-
gy they had discussed had been "coordinated bargaining,"
sometimes called "coalition bargaining " By this the
Unions meant adding to their regular negotiating commit-
tee, consisting solely of members of the bargaining union,
representatives from other in-plant Unions, which commit-
tee, as so composed would bargain only for the Union that
was seeking a new contract from Respondent As more
colorfully put by one of the principal union witnesses,
Francis N Biggs, president of the Printer's Union, "coordi-
nated bargaining" is "to have people from various unions
sitting on the negotiating committees of other unions" but
"to bargain only on the contract for the union for which
the meeting had been called " Under coordinated bargain
ing the representatives from other in-plant Unions on the
bargaining Union s negotiation committee would have the
right to fully participate in the bargaining negotiations with
the Company but would not have voting rights on the com-
mittee, as all such rights remained vested exclusively in
persons on the Union's negotiation committee who were
also members of the negotiating Union, the same as it
would be the case if the committee had an attorney present
to bargain for them
Upon the Company's refusal to engage in joint bargain-
ing with the petitioning Unions, a number of the Unions
decided to engage in "coordinated bargaining" with Re-
spondent, as above defined The record shows that the
Unions had a dual purpose in adopting the strategy of
coordinated bargaining One purpose was to seek for them-
selves as Unions the same advantage the Company had in
bargaining with any particular union of knowing in ad-
vance what had transpired in preceding negotiations with
other unions The Umons' other purpose for the adoption
of coordinated bargaining was to gain for their Unions the
bargaining skills and experience of representatives from
other in-plant Unions on their negotiation committees or
to give such outside representatives experience in contract
negotiations which would be helpful to their own Unions
when their time came up for bargaining with the Company
The forerunners of the Unions seeking to put coordinat-
ed bargaining into practice were the Printers and Mailers
because, with their collective-bargaining agreements expir-
ing in early 1975, they were the first among the in-plant
Unions in 1975 to start bargaining with the Company for
new contracts
Subsequently, the Printers' negotiating committee, here-
inafter sometimes called its scale committee in the parlance
of the parties, had prearranged meetings with Respondent
on April 22, 25, 29, and May 2, 1975 At each of these four
meetings with Respondent's negotiators, the Printers scale
committee was principally composed of the Printers origi-
nal negotiation team of six Printer Union members but
also included one to four representatives from other in-
plant Unions who were members of such other Unions but
were not members of the Printers Union At each of the
four meetings Respondent's negotiation team objected to
the presence of representatives from other in-plant Unions
on the Printers' scale committee and refused and declined
to engage in any bargaining with the Printers so long as
they had appointees on their committee who were not
members of the Printers Union Thus, each of the four
above-noted contract neogtiating meetings between the
Printers and the Company broke up without any actual
bargaining More detailed accounts of each of the four
meetings are shown below
At the April 22, 1975, meeting, the Printers' scale com-
mittee, besides being composed of Printers President Biggs
and five other members of the Printers Union constituting
the Printers' original negotiation committee, also included
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS, INC 1493
Preston Gwin, president of the Mailers Union, and Dale
Tumey, president of Indianapolis Newspaper Printing
Pressmen & Paper Handlers Union #37, hereinafter called
the Pressmens Union Gwm and Tumey had received and
accepted their appointments to the Printers' Scale Commit-
tee from Printers' President Biggs The Company's negoti-
ating team was composed of Respondent's General Man-
ager Thomas Crowe, Respondent's Production Manager
Golden Fans who acted as spokesman for the Company s
team, and two other company executives Pressman Tu-
mey, the other outside representative on the Printers' com-
mittee, had not yet arrived at the meeting when
Respondent's team got to the meeting place Faris, noting
the presence of Mailers' President Gwm on the Printers'
negotiation team, at the meeting, called Printers' President
Biggs aside and privately asked him what Gwm was doing
at the meeting Biggs replied that the Printers' scale com-
mittee had been expanded "to take advantage of the expe-
rience and expertise" of outsiders "in order for us to nego-
tiate a better contract for our printers " 3
The meeting ended with accusations by Respondent's
spokesman Faris that the Printers Union, by adding to
their negotiation committee representatives from other in-
plant Unions, was seeking "to force us [Respondent] to
negotiate with several unions " Biggs responded by deny-
ing that the Printers were endeavoring to engage in joint
bargaining and further informed Respondent's negotiation
team that the Printers' team was at the meeting to bargain
only on the Printers' contract and that Gwin and Tumey
were present to negotiate on the Printers' contract and not
on the contracts of their particular Unions
At the next scheduled meeting held on April 25, 1975,
the Publisher was represented by the same team of negotia-
tors, with Production Manager Faris again functioning as
spokesman for the Company The Printers' negotiation
team included four new appointee representatives from
other in-plant Unions in addition to the Printers' original
team of six Printer members, headed by President Biggs
who again functioned as spokesman for the Printers' com-
mittee The four new members of the Printers' committee
who received and accepted their appointments from Biggs
were Cliff Marksbary of the Pressmen Union, Monte
Trammer of Indianapolis Newspaper Guild, hereinafter
called Guild, John Rossman of the Mailers Union, and
Marlin Todd of the International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District 90, here-
inafter called the Machinists Union
At the very outset of the April 25 meeting the Publisher's
spokesman, Faris, told the union representatives that the
Company "position is still the same that is, that these
3 This finding is based on Biggs credited and undisputed testimony
Other evidence has Biggs replying to Respondents negotiating teams
spokesman Faris in response to his inquiry as to why Gwin and Tumey
were at the meeting that outsiders Gwin and Tumey were present at the
April 22 1975 negotiation meeting on the Printers team as observers I
credit Biggs denial that he made that reply as by his demeanor as well as
by the contents of his lengthy and obviously honest testimony both on
direct and cross examination I regard all of his testimony to be wholly
reliable But even if I found that Biggs actually made the attributed remark
I would find that remark to be wholly unindicative evidence of the joint
bargaining Respondent originally contended that remark to be indicative of
people [i e , the four above-identified representatives
present for the Printers Union who were not members of
the Printers, but members of other in-plant Unions] are not
truly members of your committee, and we feel that it is a
subterfuge to attain joint bargaining as requested in the
letter to Mr Crowe [the Publisher' s general manager]
signed by several union presidents " In reply Biggs persist-
ed that the Printers' negotiation committee was there "to
engage in bargaining only on the contract" for the Printers
Union The Union then adjourned for a caucus and then
came back with a formal written statement which stated
It is our position that this committee is a legally con-
stituted scale committee of Indianapolis Typographi-
cal Union No 1
The Publisher's committee nevertheless stuck to its posi-
tion that the four nonprmters on the Printers' negotiation
committee were not bona fide members of the Printers'
committee and again declined and refused to participate in
any bargaining at the meeting because of the presence of
these representatives from other in-plant Unions The
meeting thus also broke up without any bargaining but
with an agreement, at the suggestion of the Printers' coin
mittee, that the two committees would request their re
spective attorneys "to resolve this difference of opinion "
The attorneys, meeting before the next bargaining meeting
scheduled for April 29, 1975, sided with the positions taken
by their respective clients, and thus "agreed to disagree "4
The same attorneys represented the parties hereto at the
hearing
At the April 29, 1975, negotiating meeting the Publisher
was again represented by the same team as it had previous-
ly, with Production Manager Faris and General Manager
Crowe functioning as the Publisher's primary spokesmen
The Printers' team was made up of its original team of six
printers and four appointee-representatives from other in-
plant Unions, all of whom had been appointed by Printers'
President Biggs Two of these four appointees were the
aforementioned Preston Gwin, president of the Mailers
Union, and the aforementioned Dale Tuiney, president of
the Pressmens Union, both had served as part of the Print-
ers' first coordinated negotiation committee at the bargain-
ing session of April 22, 1975 The other two appointees
were Bill Quinlin, a member of both the Mailers Union
and its contract negotiation team, and Dick Easton, Presi-
dent of Indianapolis Stereotypers Union Local #38, Inter-
national Stereotypers, Electrotypers and Platemakers
Union of N A, hereinafter called the Stereotypers Union
At the April 29 meeting the Publisher' s committee again
refused to participate in any bargaining with the Printers'
negotiation committee as long as there were present in the
meeting room the four above-mentioned appointee repre-
sentatives from other in-plant Unions on the Printers' ne-
gotiation committee The Printers' committee, through
President Biggs, reiterated the Printers stand "we were not
engaging in joint bargaining, as they [the Publishers' com-
nuttee] were accusing us, that we were there to negotiate
entirely for Indianapolis No 1 [the Printers Union] and its
4 It appears that the positions taken by the parties over the subject matter
of coordinated bargaining were the positions advised by their respective
attorneys from the beginning
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract " The Publisher's minutes of the meeting
show the following exchange of remarks by the spokesmen
of the two bargaining committees
Respondent's General Manager Crowe Why, if it was
so important to expand your committee, did you have
to do it with members of other unions9 What do you
hope to gain by it'
Printers' President Biggs A satisfactory contract
Respondents Production Manager Faris Our posi-
tion is still the same We feel that these people cannot
intelligently discuss matters pertaining to Printers
Respondents General Manager Crowe (To the out-
siders 5) You guys thought #I [Printers Union] wasn't
going fast enough, or #1 thought they weren't going
fast enough [in negotiating a contract] and asked the
big guns [i e representatives from other in-plant
Unions] to come in and help
The credited Publisher' s minutes of the April 29 meeting
also show that President Gwin of the Mailers Union, sit-
ting by appointment on the Printers' negotiating commit-
tee, made the following remark at the meeting
Don't you think that there are things in common that
we can negotiate For instance one of these guys at the
table [Quinlm of the Mailers Union] is an expert on
the cost of living provisions 6
Respondent in its brief contends that Gwin s above re-
mark about "things in common we can neogtiate about" is
an indication that the four outside representatives on the
Printers' negotiation committee "were representing and
promoting their own union's interests and that they were
not present to bargain solely on behalf of the then bargain-
ing unit " In other words Respondent contends that Gwin's
above quoted remark supports Respondent's persistent po-
sition as reflected in their own minutes of the meetings
with the Printers that the Printers coordinated negotiation
committee was really attempting to engage in joint bar-
gaining However, the record shows that Respondent's
General Manager Crowe clearly understood that what was
going on at the April 29 meeting was not joint bargaining
This appears from the remark Crowe made at the same
April 29 meeting in which he told the Printers' coordinated
negotiation committee, "Your committee is improperly ex-
panded I never suggested that your procedure was a subter
fuge for point bargaining However, what does I T U # 1
[Printers Union] hope to gain9" 7 (Emphasis supplied)
The last meeting at which the Printers sought to bargain
with Respondent through a coordinated negotiation coin
5 To the outsiders is a reference to the four men on the Printers com
mittee who were members of other in plant Unions and not members of the
Printers Union
6 Gwin admits that he made a statement similar to the second sentence in
the above quotation at the April 29 meeting but denies that he made the
statement contained in the above first quoted sentence His denial is not
credited
7 The above statement by Respondents General Manager Crowe appears
in the Printers contemporary minutes of the April 29 1975 meeting which
I fully credit
mittee took place on May 2, 1975 Representing the Print-
ers at this meeting were the six original members of the
Printers' negotiation committee, all of whom were mem
bers of the Printers Union, and the aforementioned John
Rossman of the Mailers Union The Company was again
represented by the same four man team of executives as
previously, with Crowe and Faris again acting as spokes-
men for the Company's negotiation committee At the out-
set of the meeting, a letter dated May 2, 1975, by the Print
ers Union under the signature of President Biggs was
presented to Respondent's General Manager Crowe which
notified him that a total of 14 persons had been appointed
by the Printers Union to represent the Printers in the cur-
rent negotiation with the Publisher Those named in the
letter were the original six members of the Printers ' negoti-
ation committee , all of whom are members of the Printers
Union, and the eight representatives heretofore named
from other in-plant Unions who had been appointed to the
Printers' negotiation committee, all of whom had attended
at least one bargaining session between April 22 and May
2, 1975 Biggs again told the Publisher s committee that the
Printers ' negotiation committee, as constituted , "repre-
sented only Indianapolis No I [i e the Printers Union]"
and "that we weren't trying to engage in joint bargaining
effort " The minutes of the Publisher's committee for the
meeting show that the members thereof again refused to
bargain with the Printers ' committee "as long as there are
members of other unions in the room " Although the meet-
ing broke up without any bargaining, the two committees
agreed to a further meeting to be held on May 6, 1975
On May 3, 1975, Respondent's General Manager Crowe
hand delivered a letter of the same date to Biggs as presi-
dent of the Printers Union in which he stated in part the
following
For reasons we do not understand, you have been
unwilling to bargain with us as you always have in the
past You have insisted on the presence at the bargain-
ing table and participation in the bargaining of people
who in fact are members of, are representatives of,
and were seeking to bargain in behalf of other bar-
gaining units I do not like to say that you have en-
gaged in a subterfuge, but it is hard to avoid that word
and still describe what has happened
As we told you yesterday, we will be in our usual
bargaining room at the Indianapolis Athletic Club at 2
p in, on Tuesday, May 6th, for the purpose of bar-
gaining We hope that Indianapolis Typographical
Union No 1 will be represented there by a bona fide
committee to bargain on its behalf
On May 6, 1975, the Printers Union, having become
convinced that it could not persuade Respondent to bar-
gain with its negotiation committee while representatives
from other in-plant Unions by appointment were on the
committee, filed its aforenoted unfair labor practice refus-
al to-bargain charges against the Respondent Having tak-
en this step to resolve the controversy over its rights to
appoint representatives from other in-plant Unions to its
contract negotiation committee, the Printers Union there-
after, in the interest of getting an agreed contract as quick-
ly as possible, contracted its negotiation committee to its
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS , INC. 1495
original membership of six persons , all of whom are mem-
bers of the Printers Union. With its negotiation committee
so limited , the Printers met with the Publisher 's negotiation
committee on May 6, the day it filed its unfair labor prac-
tice charges , to start bargaining which eventually led to a
collective-bargaining agreement on July 2, 1975.
But to go back to the events of May 6, the record shows
that at the beginning of the negotiating meeting of that day
the Printers ' President Biggs handed to Crowe his written
reply to Crowe's hand delivered letter of May 3, in which
Biggs summarized the events leading up to and into the
Printers' endeavors to engage Respondent in coordinated
bargaining as follows:
This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1975, which
you hand delivered to me at my home on that date.
Your statements about the [good] relationship in the
past between Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. and Indi-
anapolis Typographical Union No. I are appreciated
by the members of our Negotiating Committee. How-
ever, we do not agree with the inferences that our
committee is not a "genuine negotiating committee"
representing Indianapolis Typographical Union No. 1,
that we are engaged in a "subterfuge" and that we are
attempting to engage in joint bargaining.
It is true that Indianapolis Typographical Union No.
1, together with other unions representing employees
of the Publisher, requested joint negotiations on cer-
tain benefits of mutual concern. The Publisher refused
point negotiations which was his legal right . Had the
Publisher agreed , it would have been legal to negotiate
in this manner. We accepted the Publisher ' s decision
not to bargain jointly.
Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. has refused to negoti-
ate with the committee representing Indianapolis Ty-
pographical Union No. I while we have present at the
bargaining table , as members of our Negotiating
Committee , employees of the Publisher who are mem-
bers of other unions or who work in other depart-
ments.
It now becomes necessary for the union to take the
necessary steps to establish what it believes to be its
legal rights-to select its own negotiating committee
and be represented by persons of our own choosing
without interference from, or approval by, the Pub-
lisher 8
Our Committee has been present at all of our sched-
uled meetings and has stated repeatedly that we are
anxious to negotiate only on the contract for India-
napolis Typographical Union No. I The Publisher
has repeatedly refused to negotiate at these meetings.
The Publisher has no basis for a charge that we are
bargaining for any union other than Indianapolis Ty-
pographical Union No. I since he has refused to nego-
tiate . If in our future meetings, this committee at-
8 This is a reference to the charges filed by the Printers against Respon-
dent
tempts to negotiate another union 's contract , then the
Publisher can object and refuse to negotiate.
The Mailers, like the Printers , also attempted almost si-
multaneous coordinated bargaining with Respondent but
with the same total lack of successs . Although the negotiat-
ing committees of the Company and the Mailers met on
April 24, May I and 8, 1975, the Company' s team ada-
mantly refused to bargain with the Mailers' committee be-
cause it was partially composed of appointee -representa-
tives from other in-plant Unions.
At each of these three meetings the Mailers ' scale com-
mittee stated that its sole purpose was to negotiate a con-
tract for the Mailers Union only. At each of the same meet-
ings the Company's bargaining team challenged the right
of the Mailers to have on their negotiation team appointee-
representatives from other in -plant Unions and refused to
participate in any bargaining with the Mailers' committee
as so composed on the same grounds that the Company's
team had refused to bargain with the Printers ' coordinated
bargaining committee , namely, that the appointees from
other in-plant Unions on the Mailers ' coordinated bargain-
ing committee were not bona fide members thereof and
that the Mailers ' committee with such appointees thereon
was a subterfuge for thejoint bargaining which the Unions
had earlier requested and the Company had turned down
as being illegal.
At the May 8, 1975, meeting between the contract nego-
tiating committees of the Publisher and the Mailers, a letter
of the same date from President Gwin of the Mailers to
Respondent' s General Manager Crowe was handed to the
spokesman for the Publisher's bargaining team . The letter
informed Mr. Crowe of the appointment of 14 members of
the Mailers' scale committee , including the names of ap-
pointees who were members of other in -plant Unions. The
letter was identical in form and purpose to the earlier letter
President Biggs had given Mr. Crowe on May 2, 1975, in
behalf of the Printers Union , as described above. By letter
dated May 9, 1975, Crowe made reply to Gwin' s letter of
May 8; Crowe's letter is virtually a verbatim copy of his
earlier letter to Biggs as fully set forth above . For conve-
nience a part of Crowe's reply to Gwin is repeated below:
For reasons we do not understand , you have been un-
willing to bargain with us as you always have in the
past. You have insisted on the presence at the bargain-
ing table and participation in the bargaining of people
who in fact are members of, are representatives of,
and were seeking to bargain in behalf of other bar-
gaining units . I do not like to say that you have en-
gaged in a subterfuge , but it is hard to avoid that word
and still describe what has happened.
On May 13, 1975, Gwin in reply sent Crowe a letter
which word for word is in its essential parts and meaning
identical with the earlier letter ' Printers' President Biggs
had sent to Crowe as set forth in full above. For the sake of
convenience the last two paragraphs of Gwin's May 13
identical reply to Crowe is set forth below-
Our Committee has been present at all of our sched-
uled meetings and has stated repeatedly that we were
anxious to negotiate only on the contract for India-
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
napolis Mailers Union No 10, ITU The Publisher has
repeatedly refused to negotiate at these meetings
The Publisher has no basis for a charge that we are
bargaining for any union other than Indianapolis
Mailers Union No 10, ITU, since he has refused to
negotiate If in our future meetings, this committee
attempts to negotiate another union's contract, then
the Publisher can object and refuse to negotiate
On May 15, 1975, the Mailers Union, having become
convinced that it too could not persuade Respondent to
bargain with its scale committee while it was in part com-
posed of persons who were members of other in-plant
Unions, filed its aforenoted unfair labor practice refusal-
to-bargain charges against the Respondent Having taken
this step to resolve the controversy over its rights to ap-
point persons of its own choosing to its contract negotiat-
ing committee, the Mailers Union, in the interest of getting
an agreed contract as quickly as possible, limited its negoti-
ation committee at its next bargaining session with the
Company to its original number of representatives, all of
whom were and are members of the Mailers Union With
its committee so limited, the Mailers Union met with the
Publisher's negotiation team on May 15, 1975, the very day
the Mailers had filed its unfair labor practice charges, and
this time bargaining between the two negotiation teams
was once again resumed from where it had left off just
before the Mailers enlarged its original negotiating com-
mittee to include appointee representatives from other in
plant Unions
On July 3 and 10, 1975, the Mailers' scale committee
again met with Respondent's bargaining team To test Re-
spondent to see if its May 15 filing of charges against Re-
spondent had changed the Company's position about bar-
gaining with a coordinated union negotiation committee,
the Mailers started the July 3 and 10 meetings with negoti-
ation committees partially composed of appointees from
other in-plant Unions, but quickly after caucuses withdrew
such outside appointees from its negotiating committee be-
cause of Respondent's continued refusal to bargain with
the Mailers with such outside appointees present at the
meeting room With the withdrawal of the outside appoin-
tees, the two committees quickly resumed their bargaining
at the July 3 and 10 meetings and at a final meeting held
on July 18, 1975, the parties agreed to the terms of a new
collective-bargaining agreement
Although Respondent in its brief states that it has `never
refused to confer with a union because its bona fide repre-
sentatives were members of other labor organizations," it
defends its refusal to bargain with the coordinated bargain-
ing committees of the Printers Union and the Mailers
Union on the ground that appointees thereto from other
in plant Unions were not bona fide members of the re-
spective union scale members
Respondent's first attack on the `bona fides" of the out-
side representatives on the bargaining committees of the
Printers and Mailers is that, from Respondent's interpreta-
tions of the constitutions and bylaws of the two Unions, it
appears to Respondent that the Printers and Mailers had
no authority to appoint such outsiders to their contract
negotiation committees Without further discussion I find
this attack on the "bona fides" of the membership of such
outsiders without merit because the law is well settled, as
stated in the Board's decision in American Radiator & Stan
dard Sanitary Corporation, 155 NLRB 736, 744 (1965), en-
forcement denied on other grounds 381 F 2d 632, (C A 6)
and recently restated in Harley Davidson Motor Co, Inc
AMF, 214 NLRB 433 (1974), that
Respondent has no standing and no privilege to probe
into the internal arrangements of a union or to con-
cern itself with whether or not the union conforms its
actions with self-imposed procedural requirements in
the designation of negotiators
For the same reason I find without merit the attacks on the
"bona fides" of the outside representatives on the Printers'
and Mailers' negotiation committees because of the infor-
mality of their appointments by the respective presidents of
the two Unions or the failure of these presidents to secure
approval of the appointment of these outside representa-
tives to their negotiation committees from the membership
of the two Unions
Respondent relies on what it terms "factual differences"
between members of the two respective union contract ne-
gotiating committees who themselves are members of the
bargaining union and such other members who are not
members of the bargaining union but are appointee-repre-
sentatives from other in-plant Unions, as proof of its con-
tention that such outside representatives were not bona
fide members of the respective union negotiation commit
tees Respondent calls the former, "regular members,' and
the later, "bogus appointees " The "factual differences' be-
tween the two as set forth in Respondent's brief are sum-
marized below as follows
(1) The `regular" members of the two union scale or
negotiation committees are reimbursed by the bargaining
union for time lost on their jobs while attending negotia-
tion or prenegotiation meetings with Respondent's bar-
gaining team whereas the appointees to the scale commit-
tees from other in-plant Unions are not so reimbursed
(2) For many years prior to April 1975, the scale com-
mittees of the Printers and Mailers had always been com-
posed exclusively of members of their own Unions
(3) The new labor contract which was finally executed
by the Printers Union with the Publisher was signed on
behalf of the Printers Union only by the original or regular
members of its scale committee and not by any of the ap
pointee-representatives to the committee from other in-
plant Unions The same is also true of the new Mailers'
contract except that not all of the regular members of its
scale committee signed the agreement
(4) All original or regular members of the two scale
committees knew each other, whereas appointees to such
committees from other in-plant Unions might or might not
know each other
(5) At the first contract interpretation meeting of the
new Printers' contract, only the six regular or original
members of the Printers' scale committee were present, but
none of the other appointees from other in-plant Unions
were present as they had not been invited to attend The
same situation prevailed at all of the Mailers' contract in
terpretation meetings
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS INC 1497
(6) With a single exception none of the appointees from
other in-plant Unions on the Mailers' scale committee at-
tended any of its prebargainmg meetings which were held
immediately prior to scheduled bargaining meetings with
the Publisher
(7) Of the membership of the Mailers' scale committee,
only the regular elected members thereof had the right to
vote on contract sections during negotiations, the appoin-
tees on the committee from other in-plant Unions had the
right to participate in the bargaining and debate but did
not have the right to vote The same also appears to be true
for the Printers' scale committee
(8) President Gwm of the Mailers Union had the right
to cancel the appointments of representatives from other
in-plant Unions, to the Mailers' scale committee but did
not have the authority to remove the elected or regular
members of the committee from their membership therein
Respondent also relies on certain statements made by an
outside representative on the Printers' scale committee at
the Printers' first attempted coordinated bargaining meet-
ing with Respondent's negotiators on April 22, 1975, as
proof of Respondent's contention that the nonprinter ap-
pointees on the Printers' scale committee from other in-
plant Unions, were not bona fide members thereof but
were present to represent their own unions Respondent
contends that the following statements made by the afore-
mentioned Dale Tumey, an appointee-representative on
the Printers' scale committee from the Pressmens Union,
as recorded in Respondents minutes of the meeting, show
that Tumey was not a bona fide member of the Printers
scale committee but was attempting to engage Respondent
in joint bargaining
Tumey We haven't offered a proposal we just
thought we could shorten negotiations by getting to-
gether
Tumey We want to help these guys [i e, the Print-
ers] negotiate some of the things that will be beneficial
to the Pressmen's Union also
* * * *
Tumey The pattern set by the Star-News of negoti-
ating the same dollars for most Unions is the reason
we re trying to do this
General Counsel contends that the above statements by
Tumey should be viewed in the light of the cooperative
efforts made in preceding years by the various Unions at
the publishing plant to advance their common interests
and to attain common goals The record shows that in pre-
vious years the various Unions at the plant held prenegoti-
ation meetings among themselves to plan common strate-
gies for their individual bargainings with the Company and
to push for such matters of common employee concern as
higher wages, hospital insurance, and uniform vacations
Similarly, the Unions also held meetings amongst them-
selves for the same purposes between negotiation meetings
with Respondent Illustrative of this long term trend, the
testimony of a former president of the Printers Union
shows that in 1969 when he was president he "contacted
the other crafts, the officers and we had a common goal of
hospitalization insurance and I had caused an actuary
study to be made of the cost to our Union and the benefits
therein and I distributed that amongst all the officers of the
Crafts for a common clause in the negotiations "
Discussion and Conclusions
Although Respondent in its brief states the issue of its
refusal to bargain with the respective coordinated bargain-
ing committees of the Printers and Mailers solely in terms
of "persons present at the negotiation table who are there
to represent and advance the interests of their own union's
membership and not there to bargain on behalf of the
then negotiating unit,") the record is replete with evidence
that Respondent refused to bargain with the two commit-
tees on the ground that they were attempting to engage the
Company in joint bargaining contrary to its wishes and
rights under the law to refuse to engage in joint bargaining
This is evident from Respondent's own minutes of its
meetings with the Printers Union on April 22, 1975, and
with the Mailers Union on April 24, 1975, which were the
first bargaining meetings at which the two Unions sought
to bargain with Respondent through their respective coor
dmated negotiation committees As quoted in Re-
spondent's brief the Company's minutes of these two
meetings show that Production Manager Golden Faris, as
spokesman for the Publisher's bargaining team, in an iden-
tical prepared written statement read to the two union
committees, accused the two Unions of attempting to en-
gage Respondent in joint bargaining as follows
we view your action today as an attempt to force
us to negotiate jointly with several Unions As
you know we are not legally required to negotiate
jointly, nor do we wish to do so
Therefore, we feel that we should not meet with you in
the presence of people representing members of other
crafts to negotiate matters still open in your proposal
The record further shows that this same accusation of
attempted joint bargaining or of a subterfuge therefor was
levied by Respondent against the two Unions at virtually
all of the remaining meetings in which the two Unions
sought to bargain separately with the Publisher through
their respective coordinated negotiation committees
However, the record is undisputed that the two Unions
through their coordinated negotiation committees never at
any time sought to engage Respondent in 'joint bargain-
ing" in accordance with the definition of that term as de-
fined in Robert s Dictionary of Industrial Relations (pub-
lished in 1966 by the Bureau of National Affairs), to wit
"Joint-bargaining is bargaining engaged in by several
unions with one employer the object being the execu-
tion of a collective bargaining agreement, the terms of
'Respondents brief states the sole issue in the case to be as follows The
sole question which the Administrative Law Judge must decide is whether
Respondent is required to negotiate with a union bargaining committee
when there are persons present at the negotiating table who are there to
represent and advance the interests of their own union s membership and
are not there to bargain on behalf of the then negotiating unit
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which have been mutually or jointly agreed upon by both
the unions and management , or in accordance with the
more colorful and comprehensive lay definition thereof of
record as stated by President Biggs of the Printers Union,
to wit In joint bargaining, the Unions meet with repre-
sentatives of the several unions, to negotiate on contracts
for all Unions simultaneously, or parts of contract of all
Unions, simultaneously In the absence of a discoverable
Board definition, I adopt and find Roberts definition to be
an accurate description of joint bargaining
The fact that the Printers Union through its coordinated
negotiation committee had never attempted directly or in-
directly to engage the Respondent in point bargaining has
been acknowledged by Respondent's General Manager
Crowe himself At a contract negotiation session held on
April 29, 1975, Crowe told the Printers' negotiation com-
mittee that, "I never suggested that your procedure was a
subterfuge for joint bargaining " At that meeting he only
claimed that the Printers' committee, by the inclusion
thereon of representatives from other in-plant Unions, was
"improperly expanded ' I infer and find that these remarks
by Crowe concerning the Printers' coordinated negotiation
committee also reflected Crowe's views of the Mailers
coordinated negotiation committee, as the "procedures" of
these two union committees were the same
Conversely, the undisputed record shows that the coor
dinated negotiation committees of the two Unions at each
of their separate meetings with Respondent's bargaining
team made it clear that they were there to bargain only for
their respective involved bargaining Unions and that they
were seeking collective bargaining agreements only for
their respective involved bargaining Unions and not for
any other unions at Respondent's plant Accordingly, I
find and conclude that each of the two Unions through its
respective coordinated negotiation committee at no time
sought to bargain with Respondent for a collective-bar-
gaining agreement other than for its own Union
Respondent now apparently acknowledges that it has
not presented any competent evidence to prove its original
contention that the two Unions through their respective
coordinated negotiation committees had directly or indi-
rectly attempted to engage Respondent in joint bargaining,
as no such defense is asserted in Respondent's brief as a
justification for its refusal to bargain with the two Unions
Instead, Respondent by its brief now seeks to defend its
refusal to bargain on the sole ground that the outside ap
pointee representatives from other in-plant Unions on the
two negotiation committees, were not bona fide members
thereof In its statement of the "Issue Presented' Respon-
dent attacks the bona fides of such outside representatives
as "persons present at the negotiation table who are not
there to bargain on behalf of the then negotiation unit "
Respondent relies on two separate classifications of evi-
dence to support its contention that these outside appoin-
tee-representatives were present at the negotiation table "to
represent and advance the interests of their own union's
membership and not to bargain on behalf of the
then negotiation unit "
The first such classification consists of the aforenoted
remarks made to Respondent's bargaining team by Tumey,
not in his capacity as president of the Pressmens Union but
as an appointed member of the Printers coordinated nego
Nation meeting, at the bargaining meeting held on April 22,
1975 At that meeting Tumey made the following remarks
to the Company's bargaining team, "We haven't offered a
proposal we just thought we could shorten negotia-
tions by getting together We want to help these guys
[Printers] negotiate some of the things that will be benefi-
cial to the Pressmens Union also The pattern set by
the Star-News of negotiating the same dollars for most
Unions is the reason we're trying to do this " Similarly, as
aforenoted, President Gwin of the Mailers Union, while
sitting as an appointee-representative on the Printers nego-
tiation committee at a subsequent bargaining session,
made the following remark to Respondent's bargaining
team, " I believe there are things in common that we
can negotiate for "
The above findings also show that the aforenoted re-
marks by Tumey and Gwin were merely reflective of the
long preexisting cooperation in matters of common interest
to all employees among the Unions which represent virtu-
ally all of Respondent's employees at its news plant This
cooperation has been manifested over the years by meet-
ings among the Unions or officers thereof prior to the be-
ginnings of and during the course of contract negotiations
with Respondent, to plan common strategies for their sepa-
rate bargainings with Respondent and to push matters of
common concern to all employees such as higher wages,
hospital insurance, and uniform vacations Similarly, the
Company in its individual contract negotiations with the
various Unions at its plant has sought to set up predeter
mined uniform patterns for incorporation in all of its col-
lective-bargaining agreements with the Unions, as appears
from Tumey s above-undisputed and credited statement
that Respondent in its negotiations with the Unions seeks
to set the same dollar pattern for most Unions
I find and conclude from the record as a whole that the
outside appointee-representatives on the contract negotiat-
ing committees of the Printers and Mailers in their at
tempted negotiations with Respondent's negotiators would
have been primarily interested in negotiating aspects of
contracts for the Printers and Mailers which would also be
of common interest to their own union, such as higher wag-
es, hospital insurance and vacations I find however, that
this factor has no bearing on the bona fides of the repre-
sentation of such outside appointees in behalf of the nego-
tiating unit All the evidence of record shows that these
outside appointees would have bargained as vigorously in
behalf of the Printers and Mailers on such matters as hos-
pitalization insurance and vacations as they would have if
they were bargaining in behalf of their own Unions I find
nothing in the record to sustain Respondents contention
that the outside appointees on the coordinated committees
of the two Unions were "bogus appointees ' On the con-
trary I find and conclude from the entire record that all
such outside appointees on the two union committees were
bona fide members of the bargaining committees notwith-
standing the fact that they would be most vocal at the
bargaining table on proposed contract provisions that
would also benefit their own Unions when their turn for
bargaining with Respondent came up
The only other evidence Respondent relies on as proof
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS, INC 1499
that the outside appointee -members of the two union scale
committees were not bona fide members thereof is what
Respondent terms "factual differences" between such out-
side appointees and what Respondent calls the "regular"
members of the scale committees who unlike the outside
appointees are union members of bargaining unit seeking
to bargain with Respondent These "factual differences" as
summarized from the findings above , are as follows (1)
The regular members of the two scale committees are reim-
bursed by their Unions for time lost from their j obs while
attending precontract negotiation meetings or while at-
tending bargaining meetings with Respondent whereas
outside appointees to the two union scale committees are
not so reimbursed , (2) In prior years the Printers' and
Mailers' scale committees were always exclusively corn
posed of regular members thereof , (3) The new Printers'
and Mailers ' collective-bargaining agreements do not bear
the signatures of any of the outside appointees on the coor-
dinated bargaining committees of the two Unions, (4) All
regular members of the two union scale committees knew
each other whereas outside appointees of such committees
may or may not know each other, (5) None of the outside
appointees to the two scale committees participated in the
post contract interpretation meetings held by the regular
scale committee members of the two committees , (6) With
a single exception , none of the outside appointees to the
two union scale committees attended any of the prebar-
gaining meetings the two scale committees held to decide
on what they would ask for at the bargaining table, (7)
Only the regular members of the union scale committees
had voting privileges on contract proposals , and (8) The
president of the Mailers Union has no power to remove
regular or elected members from the Union's scale commit-
tee but did have the right to remove appointee -representa-
tives from other in-plant Unions from the Mailers' scale
committee
I find that these "factual differences between the out
side members and the regular members of the two union
scale committees are entirely devoid of any genuine rele-
vance on the question of whether the outside members
would truly represent and vigorously bargain for the nego-
tiating Unions to whose scale committees they were ap-
pointed The more positive evidence in the case shows that
the outside appointees to the two union scale committees
would bargain energetically with Respondent 's negotiating
team on items of common interest to all employees because
any new benefits they helped the bargaining unit to get
would serve as precedent for the granting of the same ben-
efits to all other Unions in Respondent ' s news plant This
is evident from the remark, among others set forth in the
findings , made by Tumey as an outside appointee on the
Printers ' scale committee to Respondent 's negotiating
team, to wit "We want to help these guys [Printers ] negoti-
ate some of the things that will be beneficial to the
Pressmen 's Union also "
Even more conclusive evidence of the bona fide charac-
ter of the representation of the outside appointees to the
two union scale committees is contained in the remark
made by Respondent 's own General Manager Crowe to
the Printers ' coordinated negotiation committee at the bar-
gaining session held on April 29, 1975 , as aforenoted, to
wit "You guys [the outside appointees] thought that #1
[Printers Local] wasn t going fast enough or #1 [Printers
Local] thought they weren t going fast enough [in negotiat-
ing a contract] and asked the big guns [outside members of
the Printers' negotiation committee from other in-plant
Unions] to come in and help " (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the record shows that the real reason for
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the coordinated nego-
tiation committees of the Printers Union and the Mailers
Union was its fear that the "big guns," that is, the outsiders
on such union coordinated committees, by combining their
bargaining strength with that of the regular members could
help the bargaining unit to get better deals from the Com-
pany than a scale committee composed exclusively of
union members of the bargaining unit
From the record as a whole I find and conclude that the
outside appointees from other in-plant Unions on the
Printers' and Mailers' coordinated scale or negotiation
committees were and are bona fide representatives of such
committees, dedicated to bargain for and on behalf of
these respective bargaining Unions, each of which sought a
contract only for itself The fact that the evidence herein
shows that such outside appointees would be primarily in-
terested in bargaining with the Company on items of com-
mon interest to their own Unions and other in-plant
Unions does not in any way detract from the bona fides of
their representation for the Charging Parties In Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company 173 NLRB 275
(1968), enfd 415 F 2d 174 (C A 8, 1969), a case essentially
on all fours with the present case, the Board upheld the
right of the Union therein to engage in "coordinated bar-
gaining" and found the Company in violation of the Act
for its refusal to bargain with the Union's coordinated bar-
gaining committee in language which is equally applicable
to the instant proceeding
The Company contends that the Union's ultimate aim
is "co-ordinated bargaining," that is, bargaining which
will embrace more than the single unit the Union repre
sents, and which will settle terms for other units and at
other plants The record does establish that this [is] an
ultimate objective of the Union the presence of rep-
resentatives of other labor organizations in the St
Paul and Hastings negotiations may well be an open
ing wedge in this hoped-for development The Compa-
ny perhaps should not be blamed for trying to keep
the union camel from sticking its nose under the tent
But whatever may be the Company's fears, and how-
soever accurate its prognostication, and its discern-
ment of the Union's ultimate aims, the Company here
and now is under a duty to bargain with the Union,
and this encompasses a duty to bargain with whatever
representatives the Union chooses to send The mere
possibility of future abuse (which indeed the Union
disclaims), is no justification for an anticipatory refus-
al to bargain " [Emphasis supplied ]
See also similar holding in General Electric Company, 173
NLRB 253 (1968), enfd as modified 412 F 2d 512 (C A 2,
1969)
It is well established that a union, like an employer, has
the right 'to choose whomever it wants to represent it in
formal labor negotiations" with rare exceptions "confined
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to situations so infected with ill will, usually personal, or
conflict of interest, as to make good faith bargaining im-
practical " Harley Davidson Motor Co, Inc AMF, 214
NLRB 433 (1974) As these exceptional situations are total-
ly absent in this case, I find that Respondent was under a
legal obligation under Section 7 of the Act to bargain with
the Printers' and Mailers' coordinated negotiating commit-
tees composed in part of appointee-representatives from
other in-plant Unions
The record shows that one of the motives of the Printers
and Mailers for appointing outside appointee-representa-
tives from other in-plant Unions to their respective negoti-
ating committees was to facilitate the exchange of informa-
tion among various unions I find that this motive was also
a legitimate and lawful facet of union coordinated bargain-
ing Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company supra,
178, General Electric Company, supra, 519
I find and conclude from the record as a whole that
Respondent's refusal and failure to bargain with the Print
ers Union and the Mailers Union through their respective
and separate coordinated negotiation committees consti-
tute under all the circumstances of this case a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By refusing on and after April 22, 1975, to engage in
negotiations with Indianapolis Typographical Union No
1, a/w International Typographical Union (hereinafter
called ITU No 1) for a collective-bargaining contract be-
cause the bargaining committee designated and selected by
ITU No 1 to represent it at such negotiations consisted of
not only members of ITU No 1, but, in addition, persons
who were members of other labor organizations engaged in
collective bargaining with the Respondent and unless ITU
No I confined its negotiating committee to members of
ITU No 1, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 By refusing on and after April 24, 1975, to engage in
negotiations with Indianapolis Mailers Union No 10, a/w
International Typographical Union (herinafter called IMU
No 10) for a collective-bargaining contract because the
bargaining committee designated and selected by IMU
No 10 to represent it at such negotiations, consisted of not
only members of IMU No 10, but in addition, persons
who were members of other labor organizations engaged in
collective bargaining with the Respondent and unless IMU
No 10 confined its negotiating committee to members of
IMU No 10, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action, specified in the recommended Order below, de
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER10
Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with ITU No 1, by declining to
meet with the selected negotiating committee of that union
for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement relating to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment of the employees in
the current contractual bargaining unit, because the bar-
gaining committee designated and selected by ITU No 1
to represent it at such negotiations consists of not only
members of ITU No 1, but, in addition, persons who are
members of other labor organizations engaged in collective
bargaining with the Respondent and unless ITU No I
confines its negotiating committee to members of ITU
No I
(b) Refusing to bargain with IMU No 10, by declining
to meet with the selected negotiating committee of that
union for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargain-
ing agreement relating to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the employ-
ees in the current contractual bargaining unit, because the
bargaining committee designated and selected by IMU
No 10 to represent it at such negotiations, consists of not
only members of IMU No 10, but in addition, persons
who are members of other labor organizations engaged in
collective bargaining with the Respondent and unless IMU
No 10 confines its negotiating committee to members of
IMU No 10
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with the
efforts of the above-named Unions to bargaip collectively
on behalf of the employees in the bargaining units each
above-named Union represents
2 Take the following affirmative action found necessary
to effectuate the purposes of the Act
(a) Meet and bargain, upon request of ITU No 1, with
the selected bargaining committee of ITU No 1, including
any members or officials of other labor organizations
whom ITU No 1 has invited to attend the negotiations for
the purpose of participating in the discussions and advising
and consulting with ITU No 1 on matters related to the
negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement for the
aforesaid unit
(b) Meet and bargain, upon request of IMU No, 10,
with the selected bargaining committee of IMU No 10,
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered
10 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
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS, INC 1501
including any members or officials of other labor organiza-
tions whom IMU No 10 has invited to attend the negotia-
tions for the purpose of participating in the discussions and
advising and consulting with IMU No 10 on matters relat-
ed to the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement
for the aforesaid unit
(c) Post at the facility operated by it in Indianapolis,
Indiana, at which ITU No 1 and IMU No 10 are each the
exclusive representative of certain of its employees, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix " I I Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily post-
ed Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to en-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
11 In the event that the Boards 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 read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice, and we intend
to carry out the Order of the Board
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Indianapolis Ty-
pographical Union No 1, a/w International Typo-
graphical Union (hereafter called ITU No 1), by de-
clining to meet with the selected negotiating
committee of ITU No 1 for the purpose of negotiating
a collective-bargaining agreement relating to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the employees in the contractual bar-
gaining unit because of the presence on that commit-
tee of any person who is a member or official of an-
other labor organization whom ITU No 1 has invited
to attend the negotiations for the purpose of partici-
pating in the discussions or advising and consulting
with it
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Indianapolis
Mailers Union No 10, a/w International Typographi-
cal Union (hereafter called IMU No 10), by declining
to meet with the selected negotiating committee of
IMU No 10 for the purpose of negotiating a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement relating to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the current contractual
bargaining unit because of the presence on that com-
mittee of any person who is a member or official of
another labor organization whom IMU No 10 has
invited to attend the negotiations for the purpose of
participating in the discussions or advising and con-
sulting with it
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL meet and bargain, upon request of ITU
No 1, with the selected bargaining committee of ITU
No 1, including any members or officials of other la-
bor organizations whom ITU No 1 has invited to at-
tend the negotiations for the purpose of participating
in the discussions and advising and consulting with it
on matters related to the negotiation of a collective-
bargaining agreement for the aforesaid unit
WE WILL meet and bargain, upon request of IMU
No 10, with the selected bargaining committee of
IMU No 10, including any members or officials of
other labor organizations whom IMU No 10 has in-
vited to attend the negotiations for the purpose of par-
ticipating in the discussions and advising and consult-
ing with it on matters related to the negotiation of a
collective-bargaining agreement for the aforesaid unit
INDIANAPOLIS NEWSPAPERS, INC