International Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AND ITS
AGENTS WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, LARRY TAYLOR, ELMER BROWN, AND
DON HURD and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
Case No. 9-CB-5.Decided October 28, 1919
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 8, 1948, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices, and recommended disniissal.of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the Respondents, complainant, and the General
Counsel, and Intervenors 1 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and briefs in support thereof.
All parties participated in oral argument before the Board on May
24, 1949.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the briefs and exceptions, the contentions advanced at oral
argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the following additibns, explications, and modifications.
1. The violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
A
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8
(b) (2) of the Act on and after August 23, 1947, by applying coercive
pressures on employers in the newspaper industry in order to compel
Southern Newspaper Publishers Association and Inland Daily Press Association.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 115.
951
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them to conduct labor relations pursuant to a "bargaining" scheme
designed primarily to effect the maintenance of "closed-shop" condi-
tions. His affirmative findings in this respect are premised upon his
interpretation of what the contemplated or actual operation of two
successive facets of the "bargaining" scheme would be. These two
are now rather widely known as the "Conditions of Employment" or
"no-contract" strategy and the "P-6A" or "60-day contract" strategy,
respectively. The Respondents have challenged both the factual and
legal sufficiency of these findings as a predicate to sustaining alleged
violations of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. For the reasons stated
below we find no merit to these exceptions.
Summarizing the pertinent facts, more fully set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report, it appears that on or about August 21, 1947, the Re-
spondent I. T. U.2 and the subordinate I. T. U. local unions, meeting
in convention, unanimously adopted and agreed to follow a uniform
bargaining policy,3 avowedly designed to avoid the impact of those
provisions of the amended Act which, inter. alia, outlawed the "closed-
shop" employment practices then in effect in shops organized and rep-
resented by the I. T. U. and/or its subordinate locals. The "Policy"
so adopted, and widely publicized by the Respondents, contemplated
the use during future negotiations, of a "bargaining strategy" calcu-
lated to compel employers to maintain, noncontractually and under
threat of strike, employment conditions "satisfactory" to the Re-
spondents and to the members of local unions immediately engaged
in the negotiations. To this end, the Respondents formulated and
the convention adopted, a "Conditions of Employment" form which
both : (1) Set forth the "only" conditions under which I. T. U. mem-
bers would work-one such condition being that they would not work
with .nonunion men; and (2) embodied the threat that the failure of
the employers to provide the stated conditions would result in the
declaration by.the unions, pursuant to procedures in I. T. U. "laws,"
of a "lockout:"
'As'found by the Trial Examiner, the negotiations taking place after
August 2;1947, throughout the country were marked, on the union side,
by the employment of the "Conditions" form, the adamant refusal of
the unions to enter into any contract written or oral with respect to
any employment condition, and by the publication by the local unions
and the Respondents through the "Conditions" form and. otherwise, of
the threat that union members would walk out if nonunion men were
a Respondent International Typographical Union is . referred to herein as the "I. T. U."
3Identified at the convention and throughout these proceedings as the "I . T. U. 1947
Collective Bargaining . Policy." This is sometimes referred to in our decision herein as the
"Policy." It was adopted on the very eve of the effective date of the amendments of the
Act, which was August 22, 1947.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 953
.employed. It was further publicized by the local unions and the Re-
spondents that the absence of any contractual relation was calculated
to and was deliberately insisted upon so as to enable the Respondent
I. T. U. and local unions to carry out the threat of strike,' without
incurring liability under the Act. Thus, in the view of the unions, the
absence of a contract would provide them with such freedom in the
formulation of a strike issue , as would enable them, in the event the
Employers departed from "closed-shop" practices in the day-to-day
administration of labor relations, to cloak the threatened strike with
a legitimate economic label. Unquestionably, the use of the "Condi-
tions of Employment" strategy in the manner described above, con-
stituted conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.5
As is further set forth in the Intermediate Report, the "Conditions"
strategy was slightly modified by the Respondents 6 in about October
1947, following the institution of Board proceedings by employers
(not involved immediately in the instant cases ) complaining of the
illegality of the use of such tactics by the I. T. U. and its local union.
The modified strategy contemplated the unions' submission to employ-
ers of an alternate proposal, known as "P-6A," embodying the unions'
offer to enter into a bilateral agreement cancellable at any time upon 60
days' notice. This alternate proposal, frankly designated by the Re-
spondents to make the "Conditions" form "more desirable to the em-
ployers," was in fact utilized on a Nation-wide basis in the negotiations
here in issue. Its use represented the sole departure, during the period
here material, from the "no-contract" strategy above described.
Analysis of the purport and effect of the "P-6A" proposal, in the
light of the entire record, convinces us that, as the Examiner so suc-
cinctly finds, "the only difference between `P-6A' and no contract at
all was that, under `P-6A', reprisal action against an employer for
hiring non-union employees might be postponed for 60 days." The
record is replete with evidence, substantially outlined in the Interme-
diate Report, that the "P-6A" strategy was but a tactical maneuver,
calculated , at the very least, to compel, as in the case of the "Condi-
* we agree with the Trial Examiner 's implicit holding that the announcement by a
union to employers that its membership would not work under certain conditions , coupled
With a union 's careful maneuvering of negotiations so as to permit a ready, and coinci-
dental , exercise of "the right not to work" having union sanction, constitutes a union
threat to strike for the maintenance of the specified conditions . Cf. Matter of United
Mine Workers of America, et at., 83 N . L. R. B. 916.
5 Like the Trial Examiner , we find no merit to the Respondent 's contention that the
violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act cannot be established absent a showing that par-
ticular employees were the actual or intended objects of a discriminatory scheme. See
Matter of National Maritime Union of America, et at. (The Texas Co.), 78 N. L. R. B. 971,
enforced 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2) ; Matter of American Radio Association et al., 82
N. L. R. B. 1344; Matter of United Mine Workers, et al., 83 N. L. It. B. 916.
9 The Respondents were empowered, under the terms of the "Policy," to make such modi-
fications and to enforce local union and membership adherence thereto.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions" strategy, the noncontractual employer maintenance of "closed-
shop" conditions by the use of a continuing threat to strike. Indeed,
as the record shows, the Respondents plainly and contemporaneously
advertised the 60-day clause in "P-6A" as a coercive pressure element
designed to put "the employer in a position where he is likely not to
have union men working for him [at the end of 60 days] if he hires
non-union men...."
We accordingly conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that the in-
tended and actual effect 7 of the application of the "Collective Bargain-
ing Policy" was to compel the employers discriminatorily to exclude
nonunion men from employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, and that, by causing and participating in the application of
the "Policy" against employers, as fully described in the Intermediate
Report, the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
B
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents did not violate
Section 8 (b) (2) by demanding the inclusion, in the "P-6A" contract
framework, of certain "miscellaneous" union-security clauses covering,
inter alia, the work jurisdiction of the union, the competency of com-
posing room employees, and the operation of I. T. U. and local union
"laws" during the contract term. To these findings, the General
Counsel and the employer parties to these proceedings take exception.
For the reasons hereafter stated, we neither pass upon the merits of
these exceptions, nor adopt the Trial Examiner's findings in this
respect.
We have heretofore found, as did the Trial Examiner, that, like the
"Conditions of Employment" strategy, the "P-6A" phase of the I. T. U.
"bargaining strategy" was designed to compel the employers to main-
tain "closed-shop" conditions noncontractually under penalty of strike
action, and that the 60-day cancellation feature of "P-6A" constituted
the coercive element in that agreement. Indeed, as found in the
Chicago Publishers' case," the 60-clay cancellation clause of "P-6A"
alone, and without regard to the substantive provision of the contract,
.renders that contract an invalid bargaining proposal within the mean-
ing of the Act. In these circumstances, and for reasons set forth in
our discussion of the 8 (b) (3) aspects of the Chicago Publishers'
, In those instances where the employer acquiesced in the "Policy " in operating under
the "Conditions of Employment" form or by executing "P-6A" form contracts.
' Matter of Chicago Newspaper Publishers' Association, et al., 86 N. L. R. B. 1041,
referred to herein as the Chicago Publishers' case.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 955
-case,9 we find it unnecessary to pass upon the legality of the "miscel-
laneous" clauses of "P-6A." 10
2. The alleged violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
The complaint, as construed in the course of litigation, alleged the
following conduct by the Respondents to be violative of Section 8 (b)
-(1) (A) : (1) all of the conduct relied upon as a basis for the 8 (b)
(2) allegations of the complaint; (2) refusing, or causing the subordi-
nate I. T. U. Locals to refuse to bargain collectively; (3) using against
local unions and their members the threat of summary expulsion,
-when such local unions failed to follow I. T. U.-promulgated edicts
requiring local union conduct inconsistent with the latter's statutory
obligations; (4) demanding or causing local unions to demand that
employers accept certain (specified) contractual terms 11 which, if
:adopted and carried out, would constitute, on the employer's part, a
-violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and a negation of the effect of other
provisions of the Act; and (5) causing or supporting "slow-downs"
in production engaged in by members of subordinate local unions in
an effort to force employers to comply with the terms of the "Collec-
tive Bargaining Policy." For various reasons, the Trial Examiner,
-with the one exception noted below, dismissed these allegations, which
-are now before us on exceptions by the parties.
The Respondents, although denying generally the commission of
the conduct complained of and the sufficiency of the evidence adduced
to prove the commission, have challenged all of these allegations on
grounds of legal sufficiency. It is the Respondents' legal position 12
that, aside from any issue of proof, no part of the complaint states
a "cause of action" under Section 8 (b) (1) (A). Various aspects
of these legal problems have been presented to us on numerous occa-
sions since our interlocutory ruling denying, in effect, Respondents'
9 Matter of Chicago Newspaper Publishers ' Association, et al., 86 N. L. R. B. 1041.
10 Member Reynolds does not join in the majority decision not to pass upon the legality
of these clauses, for the reasons stated in his separate opinion attached to the Chicago
Publishers' case.
31 Some of the contract terms objected to are set forth in the Trial Examiner's Report.
12 The legal sufficiency of these allegations was first challenged by the Respondents at
the outset of the hearing under a motion for summary dismissal, which the Trial Examiner
granted in part, and denied in part . Upon the General Counsel's appeal from the Trial
Examiner ' s grant of the Respondents ' motion to dismiss certain allegations , we then rein-
stated allegations thus ordered struck from the complaint. At the same time, we denied
the Respondents' motion for leave to appeal so much of the Trial Examiner ' s ruling on the
motion to dismiss as was adverse to the Respondents , indicating that our refusal to enter-
tain the Respondents ' appeal was not to be taken as a ruling on the merits of the issues
of law raised by the motion to dismiss . We further indicated at that time that we would
consider these issues when the entire case was before us for decision.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motion for summary dismissal. We here summarize those cases to,
clarify the concepts there considered and to indicate their applicability
here.
In the National Maritime Union case,13 the first of the series, we
decided on the basis of the legislative history there cited, that, although
Congress used the generic term "restraint and coercion" on this section,.
the legislative scheme envisaged a narrow construction of the terms.
We held its proscriptions were limited to situations involving actual
or threatened economic reprisals and physical violence by unions or
their agents against specific individuals or groups of individuals in
an effort to compel them to join a union or to cooperate in a union's
strike activities.14
Application of the foregoing principle and its refinement in sub-
sequent cases 11 require the conclusion that, with one possible exception,.
none of the activities encompassed by the complaint constitute unfair-
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). The
exception is the claim that the Respondents coerced segments of the
membership to cooperate in the successful operation of the unlawful
"Collective Bargaining Policy" by threatening to expel recalcitrants:
from membership under provisions of intraunion rules granting the
Respondents summary expulsion power. It is argued by the General.
Counsel and the Charging Parties that, because expulsion would de-
prive the expelled members of certain economic perquisites of the-
union-membership relation, findings of "coercion" in the statutory
sense could appropriately be premised on the threat. We agree with
13 Matter of National Maritime Union, et at . ( The Texas Co.), (1948 ), 78 N. L. R. B..
971, enforced 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2).
13 Our decisions in Matter of Sunset Line and Twine Co., 79 N . L. R. B. 1487; Matter of-
Scamprufe Mfg. Co., Inc., 82 N . L. R. B. 892 ; Matter of Smith Cabinet Co., 81 N . L. R. B,
886; Matter of Perry-Norvell Mfg. Co., 80 N. L. R. B. 225; and Matter of H. Milton New--
man, et at ., 85 N. L. R. B. 725; reflect the type of conduct we deem proscribed by Section.
8 (b) (1) (A).
15 In National Maritime Union of America , et at. ( The Texas Co.), 78 N. L . It. B. 971,
we held that a union or its agent does not violate 8 (b) (1) (A ) by unlawfully refusing-
to bargain , or by attempting , through strike action , to obtain from an employer an unlaw-
ful "closed -shop" agreement . Similar holdings were made in Matter of Amalgamated Meat
Cutters ( The Great Atlantic & Pacific Company ), 81 N. L . R. B. 1052 ; Matter of American
Radio Association , et at ., 82 N. L . R. B. 1344 ; Matter of National Maritime Union, et at.,.
82 N. L. R. B. 1365. In Matter of United Mine Workers of America, et at., 83 N. L. R. B.
916, we ruled that no "restraint and coercion " within the meaning of 8 (b) (1) (A) can.
be found even where a union has succeeded in obtaining an employer ' s agreement to main-
tain "closed -shop" conditions . In Matter of Perry Norvell, et at., 80 N. L. R . B. 225, we-
decided that , although violent conduct or the application of forcible restraints against par-
ticular individuals during the course of a strike are proscribed by 8 (b ) (1) (A), the-
collateral "restraints" and "coercions " of a strike having an unlawful objective are not
encompassed within Section 8 (b) (1) (A). In Matter of Sealright Pacific, at at., 82-
N. L. R. B. 271, we squarely rejected contentions that the collateral " restraints" and'
"coercions" effected by secondary picketing violative of 8 (b ) ( 4) (A) were per so within.
the scope of 8 (b ) ( 1) (A). In Matter of Watson 's Specialty Store, et at ., we refused to
find that conduct violative of 8 (b ) ( 4) (A) also automatically constituted a violation of
8 (b) (1) (A).
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 957
the Trial Examiner, however, that that argument is squarely at odds
with the unambiguous language of the proviso to Section 8 (b) (1)
(A)16 and the legislative scheme as a whole, and must therefore be
rejected. In our view, by including this proviso Congress unmistak-
ably intended to, and did, remove the application of a union's mem-
bership rules to its members from the proscriptions of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A), irrespective of any ulterior reasons motivating the union's
application of such rules or the direct effect thereof on particular
employees.
As the Respondents' legal attacks on the sufficiency of the complaint
are consistent with these views, we find them meritorious. Therefore
we shall dismiss all the 8 (b) (1) (A) allegations, without passing
upon the sufficiency of proof. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the
Trial Examiner's finding that 8 (b) (1) (A) violations occurred in
those instances where the union had been successful in causing the
employers to continue "closed-shop" hiring practices. To the extent
that the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the remaining 8 (b) (1) (A)
allegations is predicated upon reasons in harmony with the views ex-
pressed above, were hereby adopt them.17
3. The violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act
The Trial Examiner found that by engaging in coercive conduct
designed to compel employers to continue hiring only union foremen,
the Respondents violated 8 (b) (1) (B). The Respondents' excep-
tions to these findings present the following broad questions: (1)
whether in the projected union-employer arrangement the Respond-
ents here sought to achieve, composing room foremen are management
representatives "for the purpose of . . . the adjustment of griev-
ances" within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (B) ; and (2) whether
the Respondents' bargaining position with respect to foremen con-
stituted "restraint and coercion" of the employers.
The record clearly shows, as found by the Trial Examiner, that
under the Respondents' "Collective Bargaining Policy" the employers
were required to continue to hire only union foremen and to delegate
to these foremen certain managerial powers, including the power of
adjusting grievances. The precise scope and nature of these powers
is spelled out in the provisions of the ITU "Laws" which were in-
corporated both in the "Conditions of Employment" and "P-6A"
1o This proviso states that Section 8 (b) (1) (A) shall not be applied so as to "impair
the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules for the acquisition or retention
of membership." It is unnecessary to do more than mention that the guarantee of a right
to "prescribe" rules extends to the enforcement of such rules as well.
17 In view of our disposition of the case, we expressly adopt Section III, R, 4 (e) of the
Intermediate Report, but do not pass upon or adopt Section III, E, 4 (a), 4 (c), and {
(f) thereof.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forms.Y' As a comprehensive reading of these "Laws" establishes, the
breadth of the managerial powers so vested in foremen is such that
the foreman constitutes an arbiter of all matters affecting the employ-
ment of individual employees and any and all grievances pertaining
to their work, subject only to appeal to the union itself or to whatever
joint union-employer agency there be established by collective contract
for the purpose of resolving disputes about the interpretation of the.
express contract provisions.10 Thus, inter alia, the "Laws" specifically
provide that the foreman is the "only recognized authority in the com-
posing room," 20 and that all grievances based upon claimed contract.
violations must in the first instance be submitted to him for adjust-
ment.21 The "Laws" further provide that'the foreman have the ex-
clusive power to hire and discharge, and that a "member who has been
discharged for any reason other than to reduce the force may be
reinstated at the option of the foreman, or by proceeding to appeal
to the subordinate union in the manner provided by the subordinate.
union laws." 22 Under these circumstances, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the foremen here involved constitute employer "repre-
sentatives for the purposes . . . of the adjustment of grievances"'
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (B) and that, under the
legislative plan projected in this section, the Respondents could not,
by applying coercive pressure, attempt to compel the employers to
limit the selection of this type of foremen to a class composed only-
of union members.23
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the threat of strike
action, which was an integral part of the above-described "Policy"
scheme, was utilized by the Respondents to implement their bargain-
ing position on foremen in the same manner as it was utilized to im-
plement their bargaining position on rank-and-file employees. That
the employers did not affirmatively resist the foreman demands is not.
11 Both the "Conditions" and "P-6A" forms require employer compliance with the-
specific provisions of the ITU "Laws" in all situations not otherwise covered by the
express terms of the forms . In addition, the "Conditions " form expressly provides that
the composing room be under the "direction and supervision of a foreman who is a member-
[of the ITV ] and who , as foreman , shall have complete control over the hiring and],
discharging of [ITU] members."
1° The "Conditions" form did not provide for any such joint agency. The "P-6A"'
contract contemplated the establishment of an appellate body having the power to adjudi-
cate disputes "as to the construction to be placed upon any clause of the agreement . . .
or alleged violations thereof which cannot be settled otherwise."
20 Article V, Section 1 of the 1947 General Laws of the ITU.
21 Article III, Section 6 of the 1947 ITU General Laws.
22 Article V, Section 7 of the 1947 ITU General Laws.
21 That the statutory scheme extended the protection of 8 (b) (1) (B) to the right
of employers to select foremen having the type of duties above detailed , is indicated not
only by the absence of any exemptive language in Section 8 (b) (1) (B ) but also by
the legislative history of this provision . See e . g. Senate Report No. 105 on S . 1126, 80th
Cong ., 1st Sess ., at p. 21 ; the remarks of Senator Ellender at 93 Cong . Rec,, p . 4266; and
the remarks of Senator Taft at 93 Cong. Rec., pp , 3953-3954.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UN1ON 959
material to the issue of whether the Respondents resorted to unlawful
conduct. As found by the Trial Examiner, in accord with innumer-
able precedents,24 the existence of coercion within the meaning of the
law does not depend upon a determination of the actual effect of such
coercion in a particular case. It is enough, as here, that the Respond-
ents threatened strike action-a coercive tactic 25 calculated and de-
signed to force the Employers to capitulate to the foreman demands.
We accordingly find '213 as did the Trial Examiner, that by the con-
duct described above, the Respondents restrained and coerced the
employers in the selection of their representatives for the purposes
of the adjustment of grievances, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1)
(B) of the Act.27
4. The alleged violation of Section 8 (b) (6) of the Act
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respond-
ent's demands for maintenance of reproduction practices in the in-
dustry cannot be reached under Section 8 (b) (6) of the Act. It is
not our function, of course, to pass upon the social or economic de-
sirability of the practices.
It is clear from the legislative history set forth in the Intermediate
Report that Section 8 (b) (6) did not purport to reach all "feather-
bedding" practices. The scope of the section as passed was limited
to but one of the several types of featherbedding which had been en-
compassed in the earlier House version of the Act-exaction of pay-
ment for services "not performed or not to be performed." Conceding,
as the proponents of the complaint urge, that the reproduction prac-
tice requires the employer to pay employees for time-equivalent to
approximately 5 percent of their total work time-during which they
perform no actual work in the statutory sense, it does not follow that
such payment constitutes an "exaction," within the meaning of the
section. Thus, Senator Taft in effect stated, as noted by the Trial
Examiner, that it would not be "in the nature of exaction" to compel
employers to give employees paid rest or vacation periods because
"they are paid for the work they do" and the payment for rest periods,
29 See cases cited by the Trial Examiner at p. 1014 of the Intermediate Report.
25 See Matter of American Radio Association , et al., 82 N. L . R. B. 1344.
21 Member Murdock does not join ih the finding of the Section 8 (b) (1) (B) violation.
In the context of this case , he does not feel that the foreman demands of the Respondents
should be treated as anything more than a facet of the attempt to achieve closed-shop
conditions which has been found violative of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
21 Our decision is in no way to be interpreted to mean that we would hold on other
facts that Section 8 ( b) (1) (B) prohibits employees from collective action designed
to induce their employer to remove specific supervisory employees having power to adjust
grievances. It is sufficient to point out, for purposes of this case, that the Respondents'
efforts were aimed at arrogating to itself , as a matter of policy and practice, general
control over the selection of such supervisory employees.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during which no work is done, is "for valuable consideration incident
to the employment itself." It seems to us that Senator Taft's view
as to what is not an exaction incorporates by analogy, the well-estab-
lished reproduction practice in the printing industry. Thus, in the
case at bar, as fully described in the Intermediate Report, all em-
ployees engage in production work for the employer's benefit, but as
an incident to such employment they demand and receive payment
for certain nonproduction time.
In our opinion, the instant situation is unlike the only concrete
examples mentioned in the legislative history as constituting an exac-
tion. As set forth in the Intermediate Report, one such example in-
volved a demand that the employer "hire one orchestra and then pay
for another stand-by orchestra which does no work at all" ; the other
example involved a union demand that the employer "must have 10
musicians, and if you insist there is room for only 6, you must pay for
the other 4 anyway." The common circumstance in both examples is
the fact that the stand-by or extra employees furnish no consideration
whatsoever for their employment, and their entire compensation rep=
resents payment for nonproductive time; in fact, their employment
relationship is created and maintained solely for the purpose of forcing
payment of wages for services not to be performed. These examples
cannot be equated with the instant situation, where the employment is
for the primary purpose.of doing production work-representing 95
percent of the employees' time-and the consideration for such em-
ployment includes payment, as in the case of a paid rest period, for a
relatively short period of nonproductive time. We are satisfied that
payment for reproduction work can represent an integral part of the
wage structure of workers already standing in a proximate employer-
employee relationship, not unlike a guaranteed weekly or annual wage
arrangement, which is generally recognized as a legal demand, al-
though it may and often does in any given situation, involve payment
for nonproductive time.
Under all the circumstances, especially the clear congressional in-
tent to limit and restrict the application of this section, we are not
convinced that the long-established and well-known reproduction
practice falls within the proscription of S (b) (6) 21 We shall accord-
ingly dismiss that allegation of the complaint.
28 Significantly, reproduction practices in the printing industry, although well known,
were not referred to in the debates as one of the industrial practices to be outlawed by
this section.
INT'ERNAT'IONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 961
5. Post-injunction conduct
Our consideration of the record so far has been limited to conduct
occurring before March 27, 1948.29 As detailed in the Intermediate
Report, the General Counsel also adduced evidence in support of the
complaint as to matters occurring after that date. At the hearing and
before the Board the Respondents have opposed the Trial Examiner's
admission of this evidence, contending that the daw of the injunction
was the proper "cut off" date for the receipt of evidence in support of
the complaint 30
The Respondents' objection to this evidence is bawl in part upon its
legitimate interest in having a speedy determinatioll of issues in a case,
like this one, involving an outstanding injunction, and also upon the
lack of materiality-of the evidence with respect to any remedy which
might otherwise be ordered in the case. The Respondents argue, and
we agree, that even if the post-injunction conduct be found legal, it
could in no event render moot any unfair labor practice committed
prior thereto, because, apart from other considerations, conduct en-
gaged in under an injunction is necessarily ambiguous, it being impos-
sible to determine whether such conduct is voluntary or springs from
the compulsion of the injunction. It is equally clear that even though
this conduct were found unlawful, more specifically violative of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (2),31 such a finding could add nothing to the normal order
which we shall otherwise issue to remedy the Respondents' earlier
violation of the Act.
Under all the circumstances of the case, we find it unnecessary to
consider this post-injunction conduct and accordingly do not adopt or
pass upon the Trial Examiner's findings thereon.
6. 8 (c) Considerations
We find no merit in the Respondents' contention that Section 8 (c)
and the proviso to Section 8 (b) (1) (A) render inadmissible in evi-
21 On March 27, 1948, in an ancillary proceeding to this case , the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an injunction pursuant to Section 10 (j)
of this Act, Evans v. ITU, 76 F. Stipp . 881. The court found that there was a probability
that Respondents herein had violated Section 8 (b) (1) and 8 (b) (2) and ordered the
Respondents to cease and desist from certain specified conduct.
80 In view of our prior disposition of the issues raised by the complaint , the evidence in
question could have bearing only on Section 8 (b) (2).
31 As fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, this post-injunction evidence concerned
a so-called form contract having a year's duration and the New York negotiations with
respect to this contract . For various reasons, the Trial Examiner found that this evidence
did not establish a violation of the Act . The General Counsel and the charging parties
have excepted to the Trial Examiner 's substantive conclusions.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deuce certain intraunion publications, relied upon to some extent by
the Trial Examiner. As set forth fully in the Intermediate Report,
the record contains numerous documents published and circulated by
the I. T. U. among its Locals and membership. These documents in-
clude official publications concerning the adoption of the collective
bargaining policy here in issue, and post-card bulletins and other
statements interpreting, construing, and directing the enforcement of
the established policy in a particular manner. All of the documents
considered by us report the official position of the Respondents with
respect to a collective bargaining policy which they were empowered
to interpret and enforce and which was actually followed and enforced
in negotiations with employers.
On the basis of the legislative history of Section 8 (c),32 we are
entirely satisfied that these publications were not expressions of
"views, argument or opinion" privileged by that section, but were in
the nature of admissions, directions, instructions, or other verbal
acts-and hence properly admissible in evidence. Nor are we per-
suaded by the Respondents' argument that these documents are in-
admissible because of the proviso to Section 8 (b) (1) (A). Assum-
ing arguendo that the proviso may be applicable to sections of the Act
other than 8 (b) (1) (A),33 there is certainly no legislative warrant
for torturing the language of the proviso so as to preclude the Board
from considering all relevant evidence in ascertaining the nature and
purpose of a union's established collective bargaining policy or
whether that Policy's application to employers violated unfair labor
practice sections of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that :
1. Respondent International Typographical Union, and its officers,
agents, and representatives, and
2. Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don
Hurd, their agents and successors, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Threatening to take strike action, or directing, instigating, or
encouraging employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in, strike
action, or approving or ratifying strike action taken by employees, for
the purpose of requiring employers either noncontractually or as a
33 See Matter of Amalgamated Meat Cutters ( The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.),
81 N. L . R. B. 1052.
33 See supra, Section 2, where we relied upon the proviso in determining the intended
scope of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 963
matter of contractual obligation to violate Section 8 (a) (3), by dis-
criminating with respect to the employment or conditions of employ-
ment of any employee;
(2) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause employers
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act; -
(3) In any manner restraining or coercing employers in the selec-
tion of their representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(1) Post immediately in conspicuous places at all halls and offices
of the Respondent I. T. U. and its Locals, and all other places where
notices to members are customarily posted, and publish in the Typo-
graphical Journal, official paper of the Respondent International
Typographical Union, a copy of the notice attached hereto and
marked Appendix A. These notices shall be signed by a duly author-
ized officer of the Respondent, International Typographical Union
and by the individual Respondents herein or their successors in
office, and shall remain so posted and maintained for a period of 60
days;
(2) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents coerced and restrained
employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act; that they
caused or attempted to cause employers to pay for services not per-
formed or not to be performed in violation of Section 8 (b) (6) of
the Act.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision
and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strike action , or ratify strike action taken by employees , for the
purpose of requiring employers either noncontractually or as a
matter of contractual obligation to violate Section 8 ( a) (3) of
the Act by discriminating with respect to the employment or con-
ditions of employment of any employee.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause
employers to discriminate against employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employers in
the selection of their representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
By --------------------------------------
President.
WOODRUFF RANDOLPH
ELMER BROWN
LARRY TAYLOR
DON HURD
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Page
Statement of the Case ------------------------------------------------ 966
Findings of Fact----------------------------------------------------- 968
I. Commerce----------------------------------------------------- 968
II. Respondents involved------------------------------------------ 969
III. The unfair labor practices-------------------------------------- 969
A. Background--------------------------------------------- 969
1. Prefatory statement ------------------------------ 969
2. The organization of the ITU and the extent of its
control over subordinate local unions and their bar-
gaining policies----------------------------------- 969
3. Traditional hiring practices in ITU organized offices
prior to August 22, 1947-closed shop conditions, the
role of the foreman priority and apprenticeship
systems------------------ ------------------------ 972
4. Duration of contracts prior to August 22, 1947------ 973
5. The ITU traditional policies concerning "struck work"
and work jurisdiction----------------------------- 974
B. The ITU "collective bargaining policy" of 1947------------ 975
1. The policy begins to take shape ; Form A------------ 975
2. The policy is adopted----------------------------- 976
3. Construction and interpretation of policy-August to
October 1947 ; Conditions of Employment ------------ 979
4. ITU changes strategy ; Form P-6A----------------- 981
C. The "line" of the ANPA bulletins -------------------------- 983
D. Application of ITU "collective bargaining policy " at local
bargaining levels---------------------------------------- 984
1. Introduction ------------------------------------ 984
2. Chicago, III -------------------------------------- 984
3. Hammond , Ind---------------------------------- 991
4. South Bend , Ind--------------------------------- 992
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Findings of Fact-Continued
III. The unfair labor practices-Continued
965
D. Application of ITU, etc.-Continued Page.
5. Sioux City , Iowa-------- ------------------------ 992
6. Detroit , Mich------------------------------------ 994-
7. Buffalo, N. Y------------------------------------ 996
8. Albany, N . Y------------------------------------ 997
9. New Bedford, Mass ------------------------------ 998.
10. Columbus , Ga----------------------------------- 999
11. Jamestown , N. Y--------------------------------- 1000=
12. Rockville Center, N. Y---------------------------- 1001
13. New York City----------------------------------
14. Miscellaneous cities and events------------------- 1006-
E. Conclusions--------------------------------------------- 1008-
1. Violation of Section 8 (b) (2) --------------------- 1008-
2. Violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) ----------------- 1013.
3. Violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (B ) ----------------- 1014-
4. Alleged additional violations of Section 8• (b-). (1) (A)
and/or Section 8 (b) (2) -------------------------- 1014
(a) Struck work ----------------------------- 1014
(b) Picket line clause- ----------------------- 1016;
(c) Jurisdiction ------------------------------ 1016
(d) Post-injunction conduct; , competency and
foremen clauses-------------------------- 1017
(e) Refusal to bargain------------------------ 1020-
(f) Slow-down ------------------------------- 1023
F. Reproduction ; alleged violation of Section 8 (b)^ (6).-------- 1024-
1. How reproduction operates------------------------ 1024-
2. History and economic aspects of reproduction -------- 1025
3. How the issue arises------------------------------ 1027-
4. Conclusions -------------------------------------- 1028-
IV. The effect of the unfair labor practices on commerce-------------- 1033
V. The remedy- --------------------------------------------------- 1033-
Conclusions of Law--------------------------------------------------- 1034-
Recommendations---------------------------------------------------- 1035,
Appendices
A. Commerce data.
B. Form P-6A.
C. Notice.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Allen Sinsheimer , Jr., and Carroll L. Martin, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for
the General Counsel.
Messrs. Gerhard P. Van Arkel and Henry Kaiser ( Van Arkel & Kaiser), of
Washington , D. C., and Mr. Clarence R. Martin, of Indianapolis , Ind., for Re-
spondents.
Messrs. Elisha Hanson , William K. Van Allen, and Arthur B. Hanson, and
Miss Letitia Armistead, all of Washington , D. C., for American Newspaper
Pubishers Association.
Messrs. Thurman Arnold and Norman Diamond (Arnold, Fortas & Porter),
of Washington , D. C., for Southern Newspaper Publishers Association.
867351-50-vol. 86-62
X966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Messrs. Gerard D. Reilly and Charles E. Rhetts, of Washington, D. C., for
Inland Daily. Press Association.
Mr. Andrew C. Hamilton (Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin and Ellis), of
Chicago, Ill., for Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge dated November 1.7, 1947, filed on behalf of newspaper pub-
lishers by American Newspaper Publishers Association, herein called ANPA,
,the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board' by the Regional
.Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued his complaint dated
November 21, 1947, against International Typographical Union, herein called
.ITU, and its agents, Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don
Hurd, herein called the individual Respondents, and collectively with the ITU,
.Respondents, alleging that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
.unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A), (b) (1) (B), (b) (2), and (b) (6), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act as amended (June 23, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th
Cong., Chapter 120, 1st Sess.), herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance that, since August 22, 1947, Respondents:
1. Violated Section 8 (b) (2) by attempting to cause employers to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. More specifically,
it is alleged, Respondents directly and through subordinate ITU locals, in their
.dealings with a substantial number of employers (a) imposed conditions of
employment ; (b) demanded, requested, or insisted upon certain contract provi-
sions; (c) caused and attempted to cause the employment of only ITU members
.as foremen; and (d) failed or refused to enter into or agree to any contract not
terminable upon 60 days' notice-all with the design of accomplishing the fore-
..said unlawful objectives.
2. Violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A), by (a) engaging in the conduct alleged
.to be violative of Section 8 (b) (2) ; (b) directly and through subordinate local
.unions imposing conditions of employment and demanding contract provisions
which restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section
-7 of the Act; (c) failing and refusing and causing subordinate locals to fail
and refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with employers, and (d) engaging
or causing subordinate locals to engage in slow-downs in support and as part
of other unfair labor practices!
3. Violated 8 (b) (1) (B), by demanding, directly and through subordinate
locals, that employers hire only foremen who are ITU members.
4. Violated 8 (b) (6), by demanding and causing subordinate locals to demand
,,contract provisions, and by imposing and causing to be imposed conditions of
employment, providing for payment for reproducing advertising material or
.other materials which when reproduced are not used and are not to be used.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly
:served upon Respondents.
3 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the General
,Counsel, the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
2 Slow-downs were also alleged to be violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) In that they
constituted illegal occupancy of employers ' premises , and as violative of Section 8 (b) (6)
in that they resulted in payment for services not performed and not to be performed. Upon
motion of the General Counsel made at the conclusion of the hearing , however, these
.allegations were ordered deleted from the complaint.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 967
Prior to the hearing, Respondents filed a special appearance and plea to the
Jurisdiction of the Board. The grounds asserted for dismissal of the complaint
were (1) that the National Labor Relations Act as amended is unconstitutional
in specified respects ; (2) that the Board is without jurisdiction over the persons
,of Respondents or the subject matter of the controversy for the reason
that the operations of certain of the companies referred to in the complaint
.are not such as to affect commerce, thus depriving the Board of jurisdiction of
any of the companies and their employees; and (3) that the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 5, are ultra wires and void, and that no valid hearing can
be held thereunder. Respondents' special appearance and motion to dismiss were
.overruled at the opening of the bearing.'
Without waiving the position expressed in the special appearance, Respondents
Sled an answer denying generally the material allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Indianapolis, Indiana ; Chicago,
Illinois ; Detroit, Michigan ; Buffalo, New York ; Albany, New York ; and Wash-
ington, D. C., on various dates from December 9, 1947, to May 18, 1948, before
the undersigned, Arthur Leff, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
'Trial Examiner. Motions were granted, over the objection of Respondents, per-
mitting Southern Newspaper Publishers Association and The Inland Daily Press
Association to intervene as parties in this proceeding. All parties were repre-
sented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues.
At the opening of the hearing, Respondents moved to dismiss specified para-
graphs of the complaint for failure to state violations of the Act. The motion
was granted as to Paragraph VIII, subsections 6 and 7 (pleading the alleged
refusal to bargain as a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)) and as to Paragraph
VIII, subsection 8 (pleading "slow-downs," without more, as a violation of the
same section of the Act). In all other respects, the motion was denied. Upon
appeal to the Board by the General Counsel, the ruling dismissing subsection 6
and 7 of Paragraph VIII' was reversed and the allegations were ordered rein-
stated in the complaint. At the same time the Board denied Respondents' motion
for leave to appeal from such portions of the ruling on the motion to dismiss as
were adverse to them.' Before the taking of any testimony, motions by the
General Counsel to amend the complaint in certain respects were granted, a
motion by Respondents to have the complaint made more definite and certain was
denied, and a motion by Respondents for a bill of particulars was granted in
part. Toward the close of the hearing, Respondents moved to limit proof to
events occurring prior to March 27, 1948, the date of issuance of a District Court
of the United States temporary injunction decree, under Section 10 (j) of the
,Act, applicable to this proceeding. The motion was denied.
3 The merits of that portion of the motion to dismiss which related to the constitutionality
of the Act were not considered . The motion was decided in conformity to the Board's
policy enunciated in Matter of Rite-Form Corset Company, Inc., 75 N.. L. R. B. 174.
' No appeal was taken by the General Counsel from the ruling relating to subsection 8 of
Paragraph VIII. That subsection was subsequently reinstated in the complaint in an
amended form.
5 The Board , in granting the General Counsel's appeal and in denying Respondents'
motion for leave to appeal , refrained from passing on the merits of the issues of law
involved . The Board stated in its order , dated December 16, 1947, that it was "unable
to conclude at [that] juncture that any of the paragraphs in issue [were ] clearly insufficient
as a matter of law," and that it desired "to pass upon the questions raised only at the time
of its consideration of the record as a whole on the merits."
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the conclusion of the hearing, an unopposed motion of the General Counsel
was granted to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor vari-
ances not going to the substance of the complaint. Decision was reserved at
that time upon Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of
proof. That motion is disposed of in accordance with the findings of fact and
conclusion of law made below. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to argue the
issues orally upon the record. Briefs were thereafter filed by all parties.
On January 14, 1948, during the course of the hearing, the General Counsel
entered an order, pursuant to Section 203.33 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, consolidating, for the purposes of hearing only, the above-entitled
proceeding with Matter of Chicago Typographical Union and -International Union
et ano, Case No. 13-CB-6 (86 N. L. R. B. 1041). A separate Intermediate Report,
incorporating by reference pertinent findings in this report, will be issued in Case
No. 13-CB-6.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
American Newspaper Publishers Association, a New York membership corpora-
tion, has a membership of over 800 newspaper publishers, whose publications
carry over 90 percent of the advertising published in daily and Sunday news-
papers throughout the United States, and whose daily and Sunday circulation
exceeds 90 percent of the total such circulation in the United States. Among the
Association members are the publishers of the newspapers listed in Appendix A
hereto attached. In the production and publication of their respective papers,
a substantial number of newspaper publishers throughout the United States,
including the publishers of the newspapers listed in Appendix A, use materials
and supplies which are transported in interstate commerce. During the year
1947 these materials included approximately 4,500;000 tons of newsprint paper,
of which over 3,000,000 tons came from Canada, over 100,000 tans from Newfound-
land, and about 100,000 from Europe ; and ink, type metal, and other supplies
valued in millions of dollars. A substantial number of newspapers;. among then,
the newspapers listed in Appendix A, utilize national and international news
services, including Associated Press, United Press, International News Service,
and other agencies which supply feature materials of various kinds. The fur-
nishing of these services requires the use of various channels of interstate com-
merce and communications. A substantial amount of the newspapers circulated
in the United States are circulated through the channels of interstate commerce.
Appendix A contains the names of those newspapers whose relations with the
ITU and its subordinate unions since August 22, 1947, were more particularly
explored during the course of the hearing. The Appendix discloses in approxi-
mate figures the daily circulation of each paper so listed, the percentage of such
circulation which crossed State lines, the dollar value of purchases- of newsprint
and other supplies from and through States of the United States other than the
State in which each is located, and the ratio which its national and' out-of-State
advertisements bears to its total advertisements.
It is found that a substantial number of newspaper publishers throughout the
United States, including specifically but not exclusively, the publishers of the
newspapers named in Appendix A, are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 969
II. RESPONDENTS INVOLVED
International Typographical Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Woodruff Ran-
dolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don Hurd are respectively president,
first vice president, second vice president, and secretary-treasurer of the re-
spondent union. As such each is an officer of the respondent union and a member
of its executive council.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Prefatory statement
The allegations of unfair labor practices-except for those relating to repro-
duction-flow from the Nation-wide "collective bargaining policy" adopted by
the ITU shortly after the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947. This case is novel in at least one respect. Only the ITU and its executive
officers are named as Respondents. The subordinate locals are not joined, al-
though it was largely through them, in their direct dealings with employers
upon a local level, that the ITU policy was given objective expression.
The professed aim of this proceeding is to curb the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices by striking at their nerve center-the ITU. So that the issues of this case
may be clearly evaluated, it is important at the outset to examine the organiza-
tional structure of the ITU, to bring into proper focus the relationship of the
International to its locals, and to consider the extent to which the parent is em-
powered to shape and control the practices and policies of its subordinates in
their dealings with employers. As supplying a backdrop for the events later to
be related, it is important also to consider certain employment and other prac-
tices in the industry as they existed prior to August 22, 1947.
2. The organization of the ITU and the extent of its control over subordinate
local unions and their bargaining policies
The ITU, organized in 1852, under the name of National Typographical Union
as an amalgamation of previously existing local typographical societies, some of
which had existed since about 1815, now numbers among its membership some
87,000 journeymen contained in about 850 locals e The ITU now asserts juris-
diction over composing room employees, who are organized into subordinate Typo-
graphical Unions, and mailing room employees, who are combined in separate
Mailers locals.'
The governing laws of the ITU consist of its constitution, bylaws, and General
Laws. The former two relate mainly to the internal organization of the ITU,
the third, as will more fully be disclosed, to the contractual relationship between
subordinate locals and employers.
Substantial organizational control, under the ITU constitution and bylaws, is
centered in the International body. The constitution empowers the International
to "exercise complete and unrestricted authority to define its jurisdiction, enact,
The ITU was the parent organization from which, without objection from it, the press-
men organized their own labor organization in 1892, the bookbinders in 1896, the stereo-
typers in 1903, and the photoengravers in 1906.
'' Mailing room employers arrange for the dispatch of papers from press to truck. Their
-work is generally far less skilled than that of composing room employees.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enforce and amend as provided in its constitution and bylaws all laws for the
government of the International Union, its subordinate unions and its officers
and members throughout its entire jurisdiction." To subordinate unions is
reserved the right to make only such "necessary laws for local self-government
which do not conflict with the laws of the International Union." The constitu-
tion provides that ITU "mandates must be obeyed at all times and under all
circumstances." Subordinate unions are required, under their charters, not only
to comply with ITU laws, but "to be guided and controlled by all acts and de-
cisions of the International as they may from time to time be enacted." Neglect
or refusal by a subordinate local to obey any law or legal mandate of the ITU
or its Executive Committee may result in the imposition of a fine or the suspension
of the local's charter by the Executive Council.
To the Executive Council-composed of the ITU president, vice presidents, and
secretary-treasurer, positions occupied by the individual respondents-is com-
mitted "the general supervision of the business of the International Union and
of subordinate unions." The bylaws vest in the Council "authority to interpret
and enforce contracts and agreements, interpret and construe the laws of the
International Union and subordinate unions," and "to enforce such interpretation.
and construction unless and until reversed on appeal" in accordance with pre-
scribed ITU procedures. As amended at the August 1947 convention, the bylaws
further provide that "any subordinate union, member, or members refusing to
accept and observe a decision or action of the Executive Council pending appeal
to a convention-shall be subject to summary expulsion by the Executive
Council." 8
Centralization extends also to bargaining negotiations conducted by locals.
With respect to certain subjects, such as the negotiation of wage scales and.
other economic conditions considered of a local character, the locals enjoy
substantial autonomy. But as to others, regarded as fundamental to the interests
of the Union as a whole, tight restrictions are imposed upon subordinate unions
by the ITU General Laws-laws which are defined in the constitution as relating.
.to "conditions of employment and the relation of subordinate unions and in-
dividual members to the employer."
The General Laws are traceable in their origin to the original custom of the
Union-prevailing generally before collective bargaining contracts were first
negotiated about 1886-of adopting scales of prices and operating rules of conduct,.
setting the conditions on which union members agreed to sell their services..
As developed in more recent years, the "laws" constitute a union code of op-
erating rules and minimum working conditions relating to the operation of ITU-
organized composing rooms wherever located. The "laws" covers a variety of'
subjects. Some relate to procedures and restrictions governing or affecting
such matters as discharges and lay-offs, the filling of temporary vacancies,.
apprenticeship training, priority (seniority), and grievance procedure. Others
are concerned with minimum working conditions that locals must provide for
either in their contracts or in their proposals for a contract. Still others, affect-
ing subjects of more direct concern in this proceeding-such as closed-shop
conditions, work jurisdiction, struck work, and reproduction-will more fully
be considered below.
The requirements of the General Laws are considered by the ITU to represent
the floor upon which the structure of collective bargaining is erected. Locals
bargain for wages and economic conditions not covere+i by the laws, or only
8 The 1947 convention amendment substituted "expulsion" for "suspension ," thus further
tightening the control of the Council.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 971.
partially covered ; and where minimum conditions are prescribed , they may
bargain for more than the minimum . But they may not, without contravening
the "laws ," bargain away what the "laws " provide. General laws are adopted,
and may be amended, at ITU conventions , taking effect at the beginning of the
succeeding year. In practice such laws are adopted only after the subject
matter covered has won general acceptance in the industry , largely as a result
of collective bargaining by the larger locals . Their adoption into the General
Laws is designed to bring stragglers into line , to stabilize working conditions in
the industry and to achieve industry-wide standardization considered desirable
in view of the mobility of printers as a craft . It has long been traditional in
the industry to consider the ITU General Laws as a part of every contract;
indeed the obligation to observe pre-existing ITU laws was expressed in Nation-
wide arbitration agreements between the ITU and the ANPA in force from 1901
to 1922. The ITU has steadfastly maintained the position that its laws were an
internal union matter , not subject to arbitration , and it was over this issue
largely that relations between the ITU and the ANPA were broken in 1944.
Since that time the ITU has declined to approve any local contract which did
not expressly or in substance provide:
That the General Laws of the International Typographical Union in effect
[January 1 the preceding year], not in conflict with this contract, shall
govern the relations between the parties on conditions not specifically
enumerated herein.
To assure adherence to ITU laws , provision is made for International super-
vision of all local contracts . The General Laws require subordinate unions "to
submit to the International President for review and approval , as complying
with the requirements of International Union laws , all proposals for a new
contract-before presentation to the employer ." After a contract has been
negotiated by the local scale committee , the negotiated contract again must
be similarly submitted for review before it can be finally accepted and signed.
The "laws, " as most recently amended, state that "no local union shall sign a
contract guaranteeing its members to work for any proprietor , firm or corpo-
ration, unless such contract is in accordance with International law and policy
and approved as such by the International President." °
Notwithstanding the provisions requiring ITU approval , the record reflects
that there have been numerous occasions in the past when subordinate locals;
have consummated and signed nonapproved contracts ." In no instance has
the noncomplying local been subjected to any reprisal or disciplinary action by
the ITU. The power to discipline exists , nevertheless , in the various provisions
already referred to, authorizing the imposition of sanctions for nonconformity,
by means of expulsion , suspension , or fine. And as will be seen , the exercise of
that power on at least one occasion after August 1947-at San Francisco-was
actually threatened by the Executive Council. Moreover certain substantial
disadvantages flow from a local's failure to secure ITU approval . The ITU
will refuse to assist a subordinate union in the enforcement of a nonapproved
contract . In the event of a dispute thereunder , it will not aid the local by
strike authorization or payment of strike benefits. Since the ITU controls the
strike defense fund, making locals largely dependent upon the central body in
the event of disputes , this is not a matter of small consequence.
° The words emphasized were added at the 1947 convention at the time the "collective
bargaining policy" here in question was adopted.
10 In all instances but two-involving contracts at Akron, Ohio, and San Francisco to be-
referred to infra-this occurred prior to the adoption of the "collective bargaining policy."
Usually the contract defects which blocked approval were corrected in succeeding contracts..
'.972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As for contract negotiations themselves, these are conducted, at least initially,
directly by the local body. International representatives may not intervene
in local negotiations unless requested to. But they must be called in by the
locals under certain circumstances. The ITU bylaws prescribe that in the event
-of disagreement with an employer, which, in the opinon of a local, may result
in a strike, "such [local] union shall notify the [ITU] President, who shall
in person or by proxy investigate the cause of the disagreement, and endeavor
-to adjust the differences." This "investigation," as will be seen, takes the form
of direct participation by the ITU president or his representative in the negoti-
ations. The ITU cannot force a local to accept a contract or a settlement not to
its liking. But it is in a position to prevent a strike on the issue, since under
-the bylaws, absent certain special circumstances, no strike may be called or
lock-outs declared without the sanction of the ITU executive council."Y And, by
virtue of its disapproval power it may in effect veto a contract settlement that
may be palatable to a local, unless the local chooses to risk such consequences as
flow from nonapproval.
: 3. Traditional hiring practices in ITU-organized offices prior to August 22,
1947-closed shop conditions ; the role of the foremen ; priority and apprentice-
ship systems
Scattered through the General Laws are a number of clauses restricting
-to ITU members, work in various occupational categories. All, however, are
,epitomized by Article V, Section 10 of the "laws," which requires that
all persons performing the work of foremen or journeymen at any branch
of the printing trade, in offices under the jurisdiction of the International
Typographical Union, must be members of the local union of their craft
and entitled to all privileges of membership.
Ever since the ITU's early beginnings, the closed shop has constituted the
cornerstone of its organizational and operating structure. The requirement
that the foreman be a union member has been an integral part of its closed
.shop policy. In practice, and as provided in the General Laws, the foreman
is in complete charge of composing room operations in union shops ; he is "the
only recognized authority" who may give orders directly to rank-and-file em-
ployees ; he passes on the competency of employees ; he alone may employ or
discharge. Moreover, under the General Laws, he is the person to whom all
grievances based upon claimed contract violations must in the first instance
,be submitted for adjustment. Like rank-and-file employees, foremen are amen-
able to ITU authority," and, like them, are subject to the oath and obligation, to
which all members are required to subscribe upon admission to the Union, "to
support the [ITU] laws, regulations and decisions" and "to use all honorable
means within, my power to procure employment for members of the International
'Typographical Union in preference to others." 13
31 That is not to say that the Council can force a local into a strike situation. Even
-where the Council has authorized a strike, it still requires a three-fourths vote of the local
-membership before the strike may be inaugurated.
12 It is, however, not uncommon for ITU-approved contracts to contain a provision, such
as in the last Chicago newspaper contract , that no foreman shall be subject to disciplinary
action by the Union "for any act in the performance of his duties as foreman , when such
action is authorized by this Agreement and Scale , or when there is a difference of opinion
as to the interpretation of this agreement."
13 Randolph , while testifying , asserted that in view of the present law , the obligation to
prefer union men in hiring, could no longer be considered binding. At the same time, he
admitted that no notice to that effect had been given by the ITU, stating, "That is the
boss' business."
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 973:
The priority and apprenticeship training systems, historically recognized in
ITU-organized shops, have been integrated with the closed shop employment
practices. Under traditional ITU practices, priority (seniority) rights are
recognized in hiring as well as in lay-offs. Although the ITU foreman has gen-
eral authority to hire, his choice to a considerable extent is circumscribed by
certain priority rules for which provision is made in the General Laws and in
local or chapel rules. In actual practice, the hiring system operates generally
as follows: Each office has a group of regular situation holders who work
steadily and another group who appear for extra or substitute work. At each
chapel (the local union's office unit) there is maintained a slipboard (priority
board) which is the property of the union and subject to its exclusive control.
A union member seeking work at that particular chapel, instead of making
application to management, has his card registered at the foot of the slipboard,.
after clearing with the Union's chapel chairman. When a situation vacancy
occurs, or an extra position is to be filled, the foreman selects the person with
highest priority who is competent to fill the job. A regular situation holder is
charged with individual responsibility for the performance of his own work
assignment, and, in the event of temporary absence, he selects himself, without
clearing with the foreman, a competent substitute from the slipboard to fill his
place.
Under the ITU "laws," 6 years' apprenticeship training is a prerequisite to
qualification for journeyman status. In its organized offices, apprenticeship
training has been traditionally supervised by the local union, although joint
management labor apprenticeship committees are set up in some localities, a
practice which the ITU encourages. The General Laws provide that a person
entering the trade must first be approved by the local union and pass a technical
and physical examination. At the end of 1 year, the probationary period, if
found qualified for further training by the apprenticeship committee and the
foreman, he is required by the General Laws to become an apprentice member
of the local union and thereafter to pay the prescribed dues. During the suc-
ceeding 5 years he receives training in all branches of his craft and, in addition,.
must enroll in and complete the ITU course of Lessons in Printing, which in-
cludes a course in trade unionism. Apprenticeship training in an ITU-organized
office is not, however, the only road to ITU journeyman status. One who has.
learned the trade in an "unfair" office and possesses the necessary journeyman.
qualifications, may also be admitted to journeyman membership.
General testimony was adduced by Respondents that ITU traditions are such.
that individual ITU members will not on principle work with nonmembers.
Respondents attribute to that tradition the historical fact that composing rooms.
customarily have been either all union or all nonunion. That ITU members in
ITU closed shop offices have in the past been unwilling to work with nonunion
men is, of course, clearly true, and for reasons that are obvious. As to whether
this is similarly true in shops not under closed shop contracts, the general testi-
mony must be qualified to some extent by other evidence showing that ITU mem-
bers have in fact worked with nonunion men in shops that were being organized,
and that ITU members work alongside nonmembers in the Government Printing
Office.
4. Duration of contracts prior to August 22, 1947
Prior to August 22, 1947, relations between subordinate local unions of the
ITU and newspaper publishers were customarily fixed by written contracts eon-
°974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-taining closed shop provisions. Their normal term was for a fixed duration
period of 1 year or more.
-5. The ITU traditional policies concerning "struck work" and work jurisdiction
The ITU closed shop policy involved, as the ITU saw it, the exercise of its
fundamental "right" to refuse to work with nonunion men. In addition, two
,other traditional ITU policies-likewise viewed by it as fundamental "rights"-
-were affected in varying degrees by the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act. Their
-consideration is pertinent to a complete understanding of the ITU "collective
'bargaining policy."
One was the ITU traditional policy against handling "struck work"-the
"right" to refuse to work on nonunion goods. The exercise of this right was,
in the eyes of the ITU, fundamental to the maintenance of its craft working
standards. It had as its theoretical base, the principle that nonunion products
produced under substandard conditions compete unfairly against the union prod-
uct, tend, because they are cheaper, to reduce standards generally, and hence
operate as a downward drag on the wages and working conditions of union mem-
bers. Prior to the amended Act, it was customary to include in contracts a
"`struck work" provision, either expressly or by reference to the General Laws.
The law dealing with this matter (Art. III, Section 5, General Laws) was adopted
in 1906. It reads:
Subordinate unions at all times have the right to define as struck work com-
position executed wholly or in part by non-members, and composition on
other work coming from or destined for printing concerns which have been
declared by the union to be unfair, after which union members may refuse
to handle the work classified as struck work.
The other, is the traditional ITU policy of protecting its composing room work
jurisdiction-the "right" to safeguard the jobs within its asserted jurisdiction
from encroachment by others. As stated in the General Laws, Article III,
.Section 12:
It is the unalterable policy of the International Typographical Union that
all composing room work on any machine or process appertaining to printing
and the preparations therefor belongs to and is under the jurisdiction of the
International Typographical Union. Subordinate unions are hereby di-
rected to reclaim jurisdiction over and control of all composing room work
or processes appertaining to printing and the preparations therefor now
being performed by non-members."
The ITU considers it essential to its economic interests that its craft be kept
-intact ; that the employer be prevented from taking away portions of its com-
posing room work and giving it to other employees, whether organized or not;
.that its members be afforded the opportunity to work on newly developed com-
posing room processes ; and that they be guarded against technological displace-
ment in the composing room by persons from outside the craft who are willing
to work at lower standards.
14 Another, and more recent section of the General Laws supplements somewhat the above-
!quoted section by making specific jurisdictional claim "over all duplicating machines, such
As typewriters and varitypers, etc., the product of which is actually used in printing."
INTERNAT'IONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 975
B. The ITU "collective bargaining policy" of 1947
1. The policy begins to take shape; Form A
With the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in June 1947, the ITU came to
the conclusion, according to Woodruff Randolph's testimony, that the impact
of the new law upon established ITU policies and practices might prove dis-
astrous to the Union and the economic interests of its members unless protective
measures were devised. Randolph testified, "Three basic and fundamental
policies and practices of the ITU [were] at stake : the right to work only with
union men ; the right to work only on a union product ; and the right to work
only on matters within the jurisdiction of the Union." About July 1, 1947, the
ITTJ Executive Council began to issue for posting at Union chapels a series of
poet-card bulletins, cniied "T H-L Points," as well as other instructional ma-
terial indicating what course of conduct locals were to pursue "to avoid the
?pitfalls" of the law. It was not contemplated that these would be kept con-
fidential, and it was known that they would come to the notice of employer
representatives almost simultaneously with their receipt by the locals, as in
fact they did.
Agreements expiring before August 22, 1947, the effective date of the new
law, the locals were advised, could appropriately be extended for a year, pro-
vided an extension agreement in the precise form prescribed by the ITU Council,
styled Form A, was signed verbatim by both parties before that date. Form A
was designed to be attached to the prior contract, retaining all of its provisions.
Although designated as a 1-year extension agreement, it did not bind the parties
irrevocably for that term. It contained a G0-day cancellation clause exercisable
at the option of either party, a general invalidation clause effective if any
particular provision of the contract was determined unlawful, a provision per-
mitting the employer to terminate the contract in the event of an unresolved
.dispute over work jurisdiction, and a clause nullifying ti=,, contract in the
event of an action brought "by any person or agency whatsoever attacking the
validity of the agreement or seeking to prevent its terms being carried out."
The unit was defined as constituting "all composing room employees," a de-
scription that was to be subject to definition and limitation by the Union alone,
.but with the right reserved to the employer to terminate the contract in the
event of any unresolved dispute, as above noted. The employer agreed not to
.appeal any jurisdictional issue to any agency, and to limit all legal recourse
to a Joint Standing Committee whose maximum award was limited to $25.
A final clause provided that no union member could be required to cross a
wicket line established by any ITU subordinate union.
In the official communication accompanying "Form A," the locals were advised :
Do not be stampeded into signing before August 22, 1947, just to get a closed
shop contract. We will maintain our right to work only with union men
under any circumstances.
In post-card bulletins issued about that time, the locals were advised to make
it plain to employers that any proposals submitted were to be contingent upon
acceptance prior to August 22 and were to be void thereafter. "After August 22,"
they were cautioned, "do not verbally agree to or sign anything without com-
municating with the President of the ITU."
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As for contracts expiring after August 22, 1947, the subordinate unions were
instructed in Bulletin No. 81 (7/1/47) to serve notices, 60 days prior to the ter-
mination date, in the following form :
This is to serve you with 60-day notice of termination of the contract be-
tween your company and Union No. a subordinate union of the Inter-
national Typographical Union.
To the extent required by Section 8 (b) (3) of the LRMA this is to offer to
meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of employment
but reserving all rights provided by said LRMA Section 8 (d) that such ob-
ligation does not compel this union to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession.
Other bulletins issued during this period foreshadowed the "collective bargain-
ing policy" which was to be adopted at the August convention.
Thus in Bulletin No. 86 (7/17/47) the following was communicated:
A rock-bottom foundation must be built upon which our relations with
employers must rest. In order to do so, we must have a clear understanding
of our fundamental rights which remain inviolate under T-H-L or any
state law.
THIS IS IT-MEMORIZE IT !
We cannot be compelled to make contracts with employers.
We cannot be compelled to work against our will or under conditions un-
satisfactory to us.
We CAN collectively promulgate the specific conditions under which our
members will work after expiration of existing agreements.
We CAN collectively refuse to work for any employer refusing to meet
union-promulgated conditions of employment.
In Bulletin No. 95 (8/7/47) issued shortly before the annual convention, the
ITU Council explained the underlying objectives of that proposed policy, as
follows :
WARNING
After Au "us' 21, 1947, no union can protect itself in the essentials of ITU
laws if it signs a contract with employers.
The T-H-L will prevent you from securing a closed shop contract. The
T-H-L will prevent you from excluding non-union men. The T-H-L will
prevent your refusing to handle struck work. The T-H-L will interfere with
your jurisdiction over work.
The shortcomings of even a union shop contract in meeting the desired ob-
jectives were expatiated on in Bulletin No. 87 (7/28/47), where it was stated,
inter alia:
If you book yourself into being designated bargaining agent under the law
and THEN walk out when non-union men are brought into your shop, you
will be charged with striking for an illegal purpose and you can expect
injunctions to be slapped on you and damage suits for violation of con-
tract... .
2. The policy is adopted
On August 21, 1947, the ITU at its annual convention, by unanimous vote of
the delegates democratically elected by the subordinate locals, adopted the "col-
lective bargaining policy." This policy took the form of a resolution which
passed as a revision of Section 1, Article III of the General Laws. The policy
statement, in addition to declaring a desire to continue harmonious relations
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 977
with employers ; expressing the belief that the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947 was "ill considered," and in certain respects "unconstitutional and
invalid-impractical and unworkable-inequitable and unjust"; and stating the
Union's position concerning compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the
Act-portions which have been omitted-reads :
It is our policy that we continue to maintain our long standing reputation
for integrity in performing our contracts and carrying out our union
commitments.
It is our policy that we maintain our historic rights and prerogatives, to
which we are entitled and which we have enjoyed for nearly a century.
While there should not be, and will not be, any attempt on the part of
the international or subordinate unions to violate any valid provisions of
this law, or of any law, federal or state, yet there should be, and will be,
earnest endeavors on the part of these unions to avoid any condition that
will result in their being penalized by these laws and to avoid the sacrifice
of rights and prerogatives which may be lost by the signing of contracts as
heretofore.
The Labor Management Relations Act does not compel the signing of
contracts, and refraining from doing so is not a violation or evasion of the
law. It will be our policy to refrain from signing contracts in order that
we avoid agreeing, or seeming to agree, or voluntarily accepting the condi-
tions created by such a relationship under the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947.
Even the Taft-Hartley law provides that : ,
Nothing in this Act shall be so construed to require an individual em-
ployee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything
in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual
employee an illegal act.
• Upon the expiration of existing contracts, and until the laws above re-
ferred to are amended and-free collective bargaining is again recognized, our
members may accept employment only from employers who are willing to
employ them under the Conditions of Employment which the several unions
adopt, after approval by the Executive Council of the I. T. U.
Our unions will give sixty days' notice before an existing contract may :
be. changed or terminated.
They will notify state and federal conciliation agencies simultaneously
thirty days- after the original notice.
They will engage in collective bargaining to the extent required. by law,
bearing in mind that the legal obligation,of a "labor organization" under the
LMRA to "bargain collectively," meet and confer in good faith with reference
to wages, hours, etc., expressly provides as follows : `,But such obligation does
not compel either party to.agree to a proposal or require. the making of a
concession."
A "Conditions of Employment" form, which must be used by all unions and
which is uniform except for local scales and practices, has been printed for
the convenience and use of all subordinate unions. The form sets out the
conditions under which our members offer their services- so long as they are
individually able and willing to work.
It is our policy that local unions ..: do -not seek to execute so-called
"union shop" contracts. The process provided by the Labor Management
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Act for that type of contract is too lengthy and cumbersome and
there are features of such a "union shop" that are unacceptable to our mem-
hers. Neither may our unions enter into "no strike" agreements or contracts
of any kind without approval of the Executive Council.
We realize that this policy may bring some disappointment to our employ-
ers because it provides for unilateral action. It may be possible for those
employers who do not approve the policy to prepare unilaterally a set of.
conditions of employment that would be satisfactory.
The Executive Council is hereby authorized to interpret, construe, and
enforce the above policy from August 22, 1947.
The convention also adopted two other amendments which in effect tightened
the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Executive Council with respect
to locally executed contracts. These have been adverted to more fully earlier-
in this report. One provided that thereafter all eontracts must be approved
"as such" by the International president, and that they must conform to Inter-
national "policy" as well as law. The other amended the bylaws by permitting
the Executive Council summarily to "expel," rather than merely to. "suspend," a
local for failing to observe a decision or action of the Council pending appeal to
a convention.
In his remarks to the convention urging adoption of the policy-remarks which
were in part reprinted in the succeeding issue of Typographic Journal, official
organ of the ITU, with the suggestion that members, read them so as "more easily.
[to] find the answers to many questions they are asking"-Randolph stated, inter
alia, as follows :
If you do not sign a contract, if you do not agree to the proposal of the
employer, the law protects you. If you have no agreement and no contract
in effect you can strike.
On that point let me be a little more explicit. There is no law that speci-
fies you must tell an employer why you are striking or why you are quitting
your job. That is none of his business..... Without any obligations to,
the employer by way of what is now a legal contract ,. you can strike for no
reason at all.
In an earlier address to the convention, Randolph, explaining the proposed
policy, had stated :
They'have set out to break open our closed shops: : That means they
have spt out to destroy our unions.
To my mindthe employer doesn' t have to put himself'•in.the positiom
where the proof of such discrimination is apparent . He doesn't have to'
hand out applications upon which such questions may be asked and answered-
A union man seeking work in the union composing room. knows how to get it.
He doesn't go to the office. He doesn't go to the employer. He goes to the
chairman to deposit his card and he goes to work in the union way.
Our method is so firmly entrenched that any employer in, the printing
industry that undertakes to put a non-union man in the composing room
has by that very act, demonstrated that it is his desire to break the union.
Any employer in the printing industry that undertakes to put you in a posi-
tion where you will have to refuse to handle an unfair product is, by that
very act, proving that he is your enemy.
. . . We only want to do what we have always done for nearly a hundred
years, and I can assure them that we will do only what comes naturally.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 979
It is natural for a union man not to work with a non-union man ; it comes
natural to him to insist upon maintaining those jobs upon which his living-
depends; it is natural for him to refuse to work upon non-union prod-
uci:s...
. . . We have the right to choose not to make contracts, and if we don't
make them we are free to do a lot of things that we are not free to do if"
we make them. . . .
3. Construction and interpretation of policy-August to October 1947; Conditions,
of Employment
In accordance with the policy adopted, the ITU issued to each of its locals
a printed Conditions of Employment form. This consisted of a unilateral state-
ment setting forth the wages, hours, and conditions upon which Union members:
were prepared to work. The preamble to the "Conditions" recited that it was.
not a contract nor an offer susceptible of acceptance ; that the "Conditions" were
established by the Local subject to all [ITU] laws, regulations and decisions";
that "the Union promulgating these conditions of employment accepts no obliga-
tion as collective bargaining agent as defined by the Labor-Management Rela-
tions Act of 1947" ; and that any act of union members in quitting their employ-
ment was "a matter of their individual rights and prerogatives." The preamble
to the form concluded with this statement :
Failure on the part of any employer of members of the union, to provide
employment at the standards set forth in these conditions will be evidence
such employer has locked out members of our union and with the consent
of the International Typographical Union such members may be classified,
as locked out and other union members may be notified of such lock out.
Following the preamble, the "Conditions" form-which in time became known:,
as the "long form" to distinguish it from an abbreviated form later issued-set
out under the heading, "Schedules and Provisions," the working conditions-
These included clauses covering wages, hours, and other economic terms, with,
appropriate blanks provided for insertion by the Local after these were deter-
mined ; a section on apprentices setting forth generally the provisions of the
General Laws concerning this subject ; and a miscellaneous section of other mat-
ters covered by the General Laws. Included among the miscellaneous clauses.
was one covering the reproduction rule, and a clause reading:
The-,Union reserves to its members the right to seek employment else-
where when any condition in the office they are working becomes.
unsatisfactory .. .
The union prescribes no obligation or duty for, or on behalf of, its members
to work on any particular product not wholly produced in the shop in which
they work. The union hereby reserved to each member the right to
exercise any legal prerogative he may have to act individually in the quitting
of his employment or to work only when he considers himself able to do so.
The last two paragraphs of the Conditions declared :
Members will work only under direction and supervision of a foreman.
of the composing room who is a member and who, as foreman, shall have
full and complete control over the hiring and discharge of members doing
any work in said composing room.16
'$ This was in the form submitted for use by Typographical Unions. The Mailers
Union forms carried an appropriate change.
:980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The composing room will be operated under the laws of the International
Typographical Union and of . . . Union No. .. .
The use of the "Conditions" form was not new in the annals of the ITU.
In the early history of the ITU, before collective bargaining agreements were
known in the industry, it was the customary practice for locals, usually after
consultation with employees generally, to establish at their local union meet-
ings, and thereafter promulgate, scales of hours, wages, and other conditions
at which union members were prepared to sell their services. In more recent
.years it had been used as a device to avoid restrictions on closed shop agree-
ments in States which had enacted so-called "right to work" laws.
The "collective bargaining policy," as noted, conferred upon the Executive
Council authority "to interpret, construe and enforce the above policy from
August 22, 1947." This the Executive Council proceeded to do by a series of
post-card bulletins and other releases. Thus, in Bulletin No. 96, issued August
'25, the Locals were cautioned:
Follow ITU policy no matter what happens ! . . . If it becomes necessary to
leave your job make no statement to employer, conciliator or anyone else
as to the reason. You will strike or quit work because you do not want
to work for a particular employer or do not want to work at all . . . and
for no other reason. . . . Any proposal of any employer must be complete
and referred to the [ITU] president . . . before any commitment of any
kind is made by local committees or unions.
Concerning their duty to bargain, the locals were told, "our collective bar-
gaining policy . . . can be successful only so long as local unions and employers
fail to reach an agreement." They were further advised, "the only compulsion
of the T-H-L is that you `bargain in good faith,' but there is no legal definition,
-thereof in the law . . . If by chance the NLRB or court should say we have not
bargained in good faith, the Board or court would have to define it or leave it to
.our definition . . . We have never been accused of lack of imagination."
Detailed instructions were given to the locals as to the steps to be followed in
.collective bargaining. Sixty days before the expiration of a contract they were
to send out a termination notice in the precise form adverted to above. They
were to meet with employer representatives, but "discuss only what pertains to
-wages, hours, and working conditions from the standpoint of their desirability."
If the employer asked for proposals they were to give him an "offer" in a form
prescribed 16 They were to "try to determine, through discussion a fair price
for [their] labor, giving due consideration to employers' arguments and ability
to meet conditions." They were to bear in mind that the obligation to bargain
'imposed by law, in the words of the statute, "does not compel either party to agree
to a proposal or to require the making of a concession." They were to insist upon
•a.complete proposal from the employer, and when such a proposal was made they
were to refer it for consideration to the ITU with a full explanation, but were
not to submit it to the local union until it had been approved by the ITU in