International Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1215 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND THE
BALTIMORE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 12 and GRAPHIC ARTS
LEAGUE ON BEHALF OF GILBERT MICHEL AND GOLDIE MICHEL, A CO-
PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AS THE ADPRESS; THE AMERICAN BANK
STATIONERY COMPANY ; ANTONE YIENGER AND RENETTA T. YIENGER,
A CO-PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AS BAIIrIMORE LINOTYPE COMPOSITION
COMPANY; BALTIMORE TYPE AND COMPOSITION CORPORATION; THE
DULANY-VERNAY COMPANY; THE FALCONER COMPANY OF BALTI-
MORE CITY; FLEET-MCGINLEY, INC.; THE FRENCH-BRAY PRINTING
Co., INC.; P. FRANCIS GARRIGAN AND T. LEO GARRIGAN, A CO-PARTNER-
SHIP, TRADING AS GARRIGAN BROTHERS; THE HORN-SHAFER COMPANY;
0. GLENN LINTHICUM, A PROPRIETORSHIP, TRADING AS LINTHICUM
AND PRAEGER; J. ROLLIN HUNTER AND B. MARIE HUNTER, A CO-
PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AS MILLIS-FRIZEL-EVANS COMPANY, MODERN
LINOTYPERS, INC.; MONOTYPE COMPOSITION COMPANY, INC.; REESE
PUBLICITY COMPANY, INC.; THE ROHM PRESS, INC.; ROLAND A.
NOVAK, A PROPRIETORSHIP, TRADING AS SERVICE COMPOSITION COM-
PANY; HARRY H. HOFFENBERG, A PROPRIETORSHIP, TRADING AS SHER-
WOOD PRESS; THE WATKINS PRINTING COMPANY; CLARENCE H.
WEANT AND QUILLIE E. WEANT, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AS THE
WEANT PRESS; FERDINAND F. WIRTII, A PROPRIETORSHIP, TRADING AS
WIRTH BROTHERS; MORRIS `YOLK AND DAVID C. WOLK, A CO-PARTNER-
SHIP, TRADING AS WOLK PRINTING COMPANY
Case No. 5-CB-I.-Decided December 21, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 20, 1948, Trial Examiner William R. Ringer issued his
Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, finding that
one or both of the Respondents (1) had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2), 8 (b) (3) and 8
(b) (1) (A) of the Act, and recommending that Respondents and
each of them cease and desist therefrom to the extent of their statu-
tory liability 1 and take certain affirmative action; and (2) had not
I The Trial Examiner found that no liability could be assessed to the Respondent ITU
under Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
87 NLRB No. 124.
1215
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (1) (B) of the Act, and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed as to that portion alleging the violation of Section 8 (b) (1)
(B). Thereafter, all parties to these proceedings filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs.
On April 29, 1949, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,
D. C., in which all parties participated 2
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, briefs, the oral argument and the
entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions,
modifications and explications indicated hereafter.
I. THE CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT
The complaint in this case is another of the series of proceedings 4
brought to test the nature and legal effect of the "Collective Bargain-
ing Policy" 5 as adopted at the 1947 ITU convention by the Respond-
ent Unions, among others, and as construed thereafter by the
Respondent ITU.e This proceeding specifically involves the activi-
ties of the Respondent ITU and its subordinate Local in Baltimore,
Maryland, during the course of negotiations they conducted 7 on and
after August 22, 1947, with employer members of the cominercial-and-
job printing industry in the Baltimore, Maryland, area.
The record in this case establishes that to the extent here material
the "Policy" was enforced against these employers in virtually the
same manner as it was enforced in the bargaining negotiations de-
scribed in the ANPA and Chicago Publishers cases. Indeed, the al-
legations of the complaint, the record, and the legal defenses offered
by the Respondents are substantially identical to those in the previ-
2 Pursuant to permission granted by the Board, Printing Industry of America, Inc.,
Union Employers' Section, participated in the oral argument in this case and filed a brief.
° Our decision that the Trial Examiner's rulings and his conduct of the hearing were
free from prejudicial error was reached after full consideration of the Respondents' con-
trary position. The Respondents' position in this respect and the specific basis of our
disposition of it is set forth fully in Section IV, infra.
4 See e. g., American Newspaper Publishers Association, et at ., 86 NLRB 951, herein called
the ANPA case. Chicago Newspaper Publishers et at ., 86 NLRB 1041, herein called the
Chicago Publishers case.
Herein called the "Policy."
° Respondent International Typographical Union is variously referred to herein as the
"ITU," or the "International."
° As found hereafter, both Respondents were designated by the employees to bargain
collectively on their behalf at all times here material.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1217
ously decided cases S The decisions in the ANPA and Chicago Pub-
lishers cases are thus applicable and controlling here.
For the reasons stated at length in those cases, we make the fol-
lowing specific findings on the basis of the record here :
1. We find that at all times here material the Respondents attempted
to compel the employers, under threat of strike action,' to maintain
noncontractually, "closed-shop" hiring practices both with respect to
the employment of employees in rank-and-file positions and the em-
ployment of individuals in foremen positions in the composing rooms.
2. Insofar as this attempt affected rank-and-file employees, it con-
stituted conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. We
shall accordingly adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion (and such
8 The complaints in all three cases allege the violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act. The complaint in the instant case also alleges the violation of
Section 8 (b) (1) (B) (an allegation not made in the Chicago Publishers case) and the
violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act (an allegation not made in the ANPA case).
Excerpts of the record in this case were made part of the record in the ANPA and
Chicago Publishers cases. Documentary evidence of the convention proceedings, the in-
structions of the Respondent ITU to its subordinate local unions as to the step-by-step
application of the "Policy" at various stages of employer-union negotiations, and of official
explanations of the goal the "Policy" sought to achieve, is substantially duplicated in
this and the record in the previously-decided cases. The Respondent ITU specifically
incorporated the brief in this case as part of its brief in the ANPA and Chicago Publishers
cases, and, pursuant to request of party-litigants, all the briefs of all the parties in all
the ITU cases pertaining to the legal issues as to the effect of enforcement of the
convention "Policy" were considered by us in arriving at our decision in the ANPA and
Chicago Publishers cases.
We note that, as in the ANPA and Chicago Publishers cases, the Respondent Unions
here argue that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (c), and the proviso to Section
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, the documentary evidence of the official intraunion instructions
and explanations of the "Policy" described immediately above, is not legally available for
consideration in determining the issues posed by the complaint, and that hence the Trial
Examiner ' s admission of that evidence was erroneous. Per the reasons set forth in the
ANPA case, we consider this argument to be without merit.
'The Respondents here contend, in effect, that particular statements made during the
Baltimore conferences by union negotiating agents disclose a promise to the Baltimore
employers that, despite the advertised adherence to the "bargaining" strategy formulated
under the "Policy," the members of the Respondent Local would not actually strike these
employers for the maintenance of the "closed -shop" conditions. The record as a whole
does not, however, support the factual premise upon which this contention rests. It is
true that at one point in the negotiating conferences, when the Employers pointed out
that under the "Policy" arrangements they were not free to hire nonunion men, the union
agents replied that they would give the Employers a statement within the framework of the
"Policy" arrangements that they were free to hire whomever they pleased.
However, this statement must be evaluated in a context of further exchanges in which
the Union (1) stated that strike action would not be invoked if, in the Union's view the
Employers earnestly attempted to exclude nonunion men and found themselves unable to
"avoid" hiring one occasionally ; and (2) the adamant refusal of the union agents to
entertain employer proposals for a guarantee that the Union would not encourage or
sponsor strike action for the purpose of enforcing maintenance of "closed-shop" employment
conditions.
We do not imply, in making this appraisal of the Respondents' position, that the Re-
spondents ' unfair labor practice liability stems from their refusal to agree to the "no-strike"
proposal of the employers . It is a fact which we consider in determining whether, as the
Respondents contended, they neither contemplated nor threatened the Employers with
strike action having an objective proscribed by the Act.
877359-50-vol. 87-78
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the reasoning upon which he based this conclusion as is in accord
with that we adopted in the ANPA case ) that by thus attempting to
cause the Employers discriminatorily to exclude nonunion men from
employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respond-
ents violated Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
3. Insofar as the attempt above described was directed towards
limiting the Employers' selection of composing-room foremen to a
class composed only of union members, it constituted, in our view,
conduct proscribed by Section 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act. We are
satisfied, on the basis of the record, that here, as in the ANPA case,
the foreman demands, which were communicated to the Employers
accompanied with the same coercive threats as accompanied the rank-
and-file "closed-shop" requests, 1° encompassed a demand that such
foremen continue to be cloaked with broad managerial powers, in-
cluding the power of adjusting grievances." We find, therefore, con-
trary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents restrained and
coerced Employers in the selection of representatives for the purposes
of the adjustment of grievances, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1)
(B) of the Act 12
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner insofar as he finds the grava-
men of the Section 8 (b) (3) violation to be the refusal of the employee
representatives; (a) during the period preceding the issuance of the
complaint, to enter into any bilateral contract, written or oral, with
respect to any term or condition of employment properly the subject 1
30 It appears from the record here, as it did in the d NPA case, that the Employers did
not affirmatively resist the foreman demands. As was pointed out in the ANPA case,
however, the existence of "coercion" within the meaning of the law is not dependent upon
a determination of the actual effect of the coercive tactics in a particular case. Hence
we do not consider the evidence tending to prove the lack of employer resistance as material
to a determination of the legal effect of the Respondents' conduct under the Section 8
(b) (1) (B) allegations.
11 Inter alia , we found, in the ANPA case, that the scope and nature of the managerial
powers traditionally vested in foremen of composing rooms organized by the ITU or its
affiliates, and sought to be carried over into the working arrangements formulated under
the "Policy," is spelled out in part in the provisions of the ITU "laws." As was true in
the ANPA case, the demand for the noncontractual maintenance of a "closed-shop" as to
foremen, included as part of the "conditions" and the "P-6A" bargaining proposals, also
incorporated a demand for employer application of the "laws" provisions to all matters
not otherwise covered by the express terms of the proposals. There is nothing in the
testimony concerning the exchanges of the parties with respect to the negotiations of these
proposals which evidences the existence of a different type of demand here. Indeed,
their discussions on the foreman demands clearly indicate here that the Baltimore em-
ployers had traditionally delegated to foremen the power to adjust grievances pursuant
to the express provisions of collective contracts, and that the employers' interpretation
of the instant foreman demands was that their acquiescence to them would effect a
continuation of that preexisting contract situation.
lz Member Murdock considers himself bound in the instant case by the decision of the
majority in the ANPA case on this point.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1219
of negotiation and agreement; 13 and (b) during the period succeeding
the issuance of the complaint, to enter into any contract having a .defi-
nite duration of more than 60 days. The rationale upon which these
findings rest is substantially identical with that we adopted in the
ANPA case.
As we point out hereafter, however, we believe, unlike the Trial Ex-
aminer, that liability for the unlawful refusal to bargain should not,
on this record, be limited to the Respondent Local but should also be
attributed to the Respondent International.14 We therefore find that
by the conduct immediately described above, the Respondents, and each
of them, have failed and refused to bargain collectively in good faith,
thereby violating Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall
order both to bargain collectively upon request by the complainants,
so long as they are empowered by the employees comprising the appro-
priate unit," to act as bargaining representatives in accord with the
provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act.16
5. In resolving the unfair labor practice issues in this manner, we
.have not considered the merits. of the positions respectively taken by
the parties with respect to the nature or legal effect of the substantive
demands embodied in the "miscellaneous" clauses of "P-6A." For
"We find no merit to the Respondents ' argument that it treated as "negotiable" the
question of whether or not it should execute a written contract, and that, accordingly, the
refusal to promise that an understanding reached during negotiations would be formalized,
was a temporary reservation dependent upon the Employer's willingness to grant certain
concessions demanded of them. In the first place, the record does not establish the willing-
ness of the Union at any time during the conferences preceding the complaint, to consider
or proffer in good faith any proposal cast in the framework of a bilateral agreement.
In the second, as we held in the Chicago Publishers case, the statutory concept of "good
faith" bargaining does not support the legal position on which this argument is based.
Nor do we consider as material to the determination of the refusal-to-bargain issue, the
aspects of the record disclosing that the Employers here, like those involved in the ANPA
and Chicago Publishers cases, were unwilling to make any commitment as to the wage-and
related economic demands of the Respondent Unions until they obtained from the Unions
their promise that such conditions would be stabilized for a reasonable period of time.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find nothing in the record which tends to prove that the
Respondents ' announced preference to avoid making any contract was in any way provoked
by the Employers ' position during the conferences . Indeed, the record establishes a basis
for testing the "good faith" of the Respondents with respect to their execution of the duty
to bargain wholly independent of the "good faith " of the Employers.
14 See Section III infra. Members Houston and Murdock , who dissented in the Chicago
Publishers case from a similar finding attributing to the International unfair labor prac-
tice liability under Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Under the circumstances in the present
-case, including the fact that the Local union has in the past been certified alone as the
representative of one or more employee groups of individual employers now members of
the League, and the fact that the bargaining history shows that the Local union has
concluded contracts with the League which.the International union did not approve, they
believe there is even less justification for finding the International guilty of a violation
of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, than there was in the Chicago Publishers case. However,
they feel bound in the instant case by the decision of the majority in the Chicago Publishers
case.
15 See Section II , infra.
16 Noncompliance with Section 9 (f) (g), and ( h) is not available to bar an order to
bargain . See the; Chicago Publishers case and our decision in National Maritime Union
of America, 78 NLRB 972, 988, enforced 175 F. 2d.686 (C. A. 2).
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons more fully set forth in the Chicago Publishers case, we believe
that we need not, and hence should not, resolve the issues so posed.
Accordingly, we neither adopt nor pass upon such of the Trial Exami-
ner's findings of fact or conclusions of law as are predicated upon the
proffer and negotiation of the "miscellaneous" clauses of "P-6A.)'17
6. Nor shall we decide the numerous questions as to the sufficiency of
proof of the conduct forming the subject of the 8 (b) (1) (A) allega-
tions of the complaint. We are satisfied, from an independent exami-
nation of the record here, that none of the conduct relied upon either
by the Trial Examiner or the proponents of the complaint in support
of these allegations, differs in character from that relied upon by the
proponents of the complaint in the Chicago Publishers and ANPA
cases. As we stated in the latter case, such conduct cannot be reached
by invocation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. We therefore re-
verse the Trial Examiner's contrary conclusion, and shall accordingly
dismiss the 8 (b) (1) (A) allegations of the complaint in their entirety.
II. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
But for the exclusion of supervisory employees,'S the unit found
appropriate by the Trial Examiner is the same unit for which the
parties to the collective bargaining relation have historically con-
tracted in the past. Despite the Respondents' general objections 19
to the unit at this time,20 we perceive no sound reason for disturbing
the historical bargaining relationship of. the parties here, either by
extending the bargaining unit to an area-wide, rather than associa-
tion-wide, employee group, or by setting up a number of separate
bargaining units confined to employees of one or more of the individ-
ual employers involved.21 Nor do we consider it material, as the
Respondents here suggest, that the record may not establish that the
operation of each and every individual employer whose employees
form part of the bargaining unit here substantially affects interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act. It is sufficient for our
"lllember Reynolds, who took a contrary position in the ANPA and Chicago Publishers
cases, considers himself bound in the instant case by the decision of the majority in those
cases.
"An exclusion mandated by the amended Act.
in The Respondents do not state which unit or units they deem to be appropriate.
The Respondents' contention that the unit is inappropriate was never voiced during
the course of the negotiations here in issue.
21 See Associated Shoo Industries of America, Inc., 81 NLRB 224 and cases there cited,
where we refused under circumstances similar to those here present, either : (1) to expand
a bargaining unit historically limited to employees of members of an employer association
into an area-wide unit, by including employees of nonmember employers who had agreed
in separate dealings with the union to accept the conditions established by the union-
association bargain as the conditions governing relations with their employees ; or
(2) to disrupt the historical association-wide bargaining pattern by setting up separate
units confined to the employees of one or more employer members of the association.
Compare the Chicago Publishers decision.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1221
purposes that the record discloses that the employee group compris-
ing the unit, comprehensively viewed, is composed predominantly of
employees whose employers ' activities affect interstate commerce.22
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the employees 23 of all
employers who were represented by the Graphic Arts League 24 during
the negotiations here in issue, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
-(b) of the Act.
III. THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL AS A BARGAINING
AGENT
It is our conclusion that here, as in the Chicago Publishers case,
unfair practice liability under Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act must
be assessed both aginst the International and the Local because, in
our view, the terms of the intraunion membership arrangement-
identical in both cases-establish the employees' designation of both
organizations as bargaining agents at all times here material. This
result is limited to these apparently unique cases and is based wholly
upon the special facts and relationships revealed by these records.
In reaching this conclusion, we have specifically considered the fact
that : (1) the Respondent Local alone was, at some time in the past,
separately certified as the representative of one or more employee
groups of individual employers now members of the League; and (2)
the history of collective bargaining between the parties to these nego-
tiations establishes that the Local previously concluded contracts
with the League which the International did not approved. We do
not, however, consider these facts to have controlling significance in
determining , as we must. here , whether the International 's direct and
indirect participation together with the Local in the course of negotia-
tions placed in issue by the complaint reflects the exercise of a bar-
gaining agent 's powers or whether, as the Respondents contend, it
represents the performance of purely "advisory" functions . As noted
in the Chicago Publishers case, the identity of the bargaining repre-
sentative in such a situation must of necessity be inferred from a
number of circumstances , including the nature of the procedures uti-
lized by the employees and the labor organizations involved to attain
the objectives which they all sought to achieve in bargaining collec-
tively with the employers.
It is our opinion that the intraunion rules and regulations, analyzed
at some length in the Chicago Publishers case, establish a modus
See Air Conditioning Corporation of Southern California , et al., 81 NLRB 946; The
Everett Autom . btive Jobbers Association, 81 NLRB 304.
23 In the categories listed in the Intermediate Report.
14 Hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "League."
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operandi for the conduct of bargaining on behalf of ITU members,.
pursuant to which the International, whether physically represented
at the negotiations or not, actively participated in many, if not all,
of the important stages of negotiations at Local levels so as to ensure-
achievement of a collective bargain palatable to all members of the
International. Thus, as we pointed out in the Chicago Publishers case,.
the relationship between this particular International, the Local, and
the individual members, as defined in the body of intraunion regu-
lations, provides for. International "control" of both the framework
and the substance of the employer-Local collective bargain and estab-
lishes a step-by-step procedure for the maintenance of such control
in the International. While there may well be valid economic justifi-
cation for this internal arrangement between the Respondent and its-
local, the fact remains that the arrangement contemplates that the
International participate directly or indirectly in bargaining nego-
tiations with employers by prescribing and enforcing certain uniform
working conditions.25
In these circumstances, we are satisfied that by joining both the
ITU and its Local, and remaining members,26 the employees subscribed
to the bargaining procedure long established by the internal rules
of both organizations, and designated as bargaining representatives
both organizations through which such procedure was designed to,
and did in fact, at all times here material, operate. We need not,
however, rest the finding of designation by the employees in interest
here on the proof of membership affiliation alone. For the record
establishes that the employees specifically adopted the 1947 Con-
vention "Policy" terms, which redefined the extent and nature of the
International's power to "control" the Local's making of a bargain
and its authority to participate in the shaping of the substantive pro-
visions of such bargain. As is undisputed, these "Policy" terms and
the bargaining procedures they defined were carefully complied with
at all times by the membership and its negotiating agents in the very
negotiations here in issue.27
25 This unique situation in which the Local is left with little, if any, autonomy in framing
the terms of the bargain is explained by the assertion of the Respondents ' counsel that, as
a matter of economic fact, the laboring group under ITU jurisdiction ( of which the
employees here form a part ) had for many years been a mobile one which markets its craft
skills on a national , rather than a purely local, basis.
This circumstance suggests that the interest of the employees here involved can be fully
protected only by granting to the International the power to control the collective agree-
ment under which they , as well as other members of the craft, work.
26 It was stipulated at the hearing that at all times here material , all employees in the
unit were members of both the ITU and the Local here involved.
27 There is a suggestion in the Respondents ' argument , in opposition to those aspects
of the complaint which go to the liability of the International under 8 ( b) (3) of the Act,
that the employers did not request the International to bargain . The request , however,
is implicit in fact that the employers actually negotiated with the International officials
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1223
For the reasons indicated above, as more fully expressed in the
Chicago Publishers case, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's dismis-
sal of these portions of the complaint charging the International with
the violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
We find that at all times here material, both the Respondent Inter-
national and the Respondent Local were under the duty to bargain
collectively imposed upon employee representatives by Section 8 (b)
(3) of the Act.
IV. THE RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
The Respondents object to the conduct of the hearing on two grounds.
They claim that: (1) the refusal of Board agents to delay the open-
ing of the hearing to November 3, 1948, constituted a denial of due
process; and (2) the failure of Board agents to notify Respondent
that they proposed to issue a complaint denied them the privilege,
granted by Section 5 (b) of the Administrative Procedures Act, to make
an "offer of settlement" or a "proposal of adjustment" of the matters
forming the subject of complaint 28 The Respondents request that
the case be reheard.29
On the first objection above stated, the record shows that the Re-
spondent ITU timely moved the Regional Director, after issuance of
the complaint, to delay the opening of the hearing from October 6,
1947, the date originally set, to November 3, 1947. The reason given
was that the officers of the ITU could not be present on October 6
or before November 3, because they were scheduled to attend the con-
vention of the American Federation of Labor opening at San Fran-
5
at certain stages of the negotiations and that , before the International officials partic-
ipated physically , they recognized and acquiesced in the procedure by which the Local
reserved comment on certain proposals until the international had been consulted.
29 Section 5 (b) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides :
"The agency shall afford all interested parties opportunity for (1 ) the submission and
consideration of facts, arguments , offers of settlement , or proposals of adjustment where
time, the nature of the proceeding , and the public interest permit, and (2) to the extent
that the parties are unable so to determine any controversy by consent, hearing and
decision upon notice and in conformity with Section 7 and 8."
The Attorney General 's Report on the Administrative Procedures Act (U. S. Dept. of
Justice , 1947 ) indicates ( at pp. 47-49) that the purport of this provision was, inter alia,
to avoid unnecessary adjudicatory processes , by permitting "parties to enter into consent
decrees orders or stipulations , as part of the settlement ." It also indicates that such
opportunity may be given before or after formal adjudicatory proceedings have been
initiated ( see p. 49).
29 At the oral argument , the Respondents advanced , as an additional reason for a
de novo hearing of the case, the fact that at that time Trial Examiner Ringer had not
been qualified under the examination conducted by certain persons designated by the
Civil Service Commission to pass , initially , on the qualifications of Trial Examiners.
Although we would in no event consider this argument seriously as a basis for a new
hearing ( see Russell Mfg. Co., 82 NLRB 1081), the fact is that the Civil Service Com-
mission has since determined that Trial Examiner Ringer is qualified to perform the duties
of his position.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cisco on October 6, and continuing until November 2 .30 The Regional
Director granted a postponement to October 14. On the latter date,
counsel for the ITU addressed a motion for continuance to the Trial
Examiner, giving again as the reason the absence of ITU officials at
the above-described convention. The charging parties and the Gen-
eral Counsel protested, on the ground that there was an imminent
and serious threat to industrial peace absent some resolution of the
case, and that all persons who had participated directly in the Balti-
more negotiating conferences up to the date were available for the
purposes of the hearing31 The Trial Examiner denied the request
for postponement, with the statement that "if at any time counsel feel
the need of a reasonable delay to bring any witness . . . or any per-
son needed for information on a particular point . . . I shall be glad
to hear counsel make the request and pass on it at that time."
This denial clearly did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the
Trial Examiner. Moreover, even if it were to be deemed unreasonable,
the ITU's case was not prejudiced thereby. Mr. Randolph, ITU pres-
ident, and Mr. Hurd, ITU secretary-treasurer, appeared at the hear-
ing'on October 17, 3 days after it opened. During that 3-day period,
ITU counsel did not make any further request for delay. We are
unable, under these circumstances, to find that the failure of Board
agents to postpone the hearing constituted prejudicial error.
On the second objection, we take administrative notice of the Gen-
eral Counsel's practice to investigate charges filed and to explore
the possibility of settlement before issuing a complaint. Moreover,
there is no showing in the record that the Respondents either were
precluded from making an offer of settlement because the complaint
was issued or in contemplation or that they in fact made such an
offer at any stage of this proceeding. We are therefore unable to
accept the Respondents' contention that they in fact were denied an
opportunity either before or after issuance of the complaint to sub-
mit an "offer of settlement or proposal of adjustment" which would
have avoided the conduct of the hearing.
For the above reasons, we find the Respondents' objections to the
conduct of the hearing to be without merit.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
30 It was claimed by the ITU that the absence of these officials from the hearing might
prejudice counsel 's opportunity to cross-examine witnesses hostile to the interest of the
Respondents.
31 The complaint originally alleged only the violation of Section 8 (b) (3) and 8 (b) (1)
(A) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1225
1. Respondents International Typographical Union, and Baltimore
Typographical Union No. 12, and their officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, 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 noncon-
tractually or as a matter of contractual obligation, to violate Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discriminating with respect to the em-
ployment or conditions of employment 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 employees in the selec-
tion of their representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances;
(4) Refusing by specific refusal, or insistence upon a 60-day cancel-
lable contract, or any other means, to bargain collectively as the ex-
clusive representatives of the employees in the unit herein found to
be appropriate,, so long as they are the representatives of the employ-
ees of such unit.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will. effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, bargain collectively as the exclusive representa-
tives of the employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate,
with the Employers or their representatives, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement having
a reasonable duration;
(2) Post. immediately at conspicuous places at the business office
of the Respondent Local, and at all other places where notices or
communications to members of Respondent Local are customarily
posted, and publish in the Typographical Journal, official paper of
the Respondent International Typographical Union, a copy of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A.32 This notice shall
be signed by a duly authorized officer of the International Typograph-
ical Union and by a duly authorized officer of the Baltimore Ty-
pographical Union No. 12, and shall remain so posted and maintained
for a period of 60 days ;
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER ," the words : "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondents 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 re-
strained employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act..
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 Rela-
tions 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, insti-
gate, or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to en-
gage in, 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 conditions 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 employees in the
selection of their representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith in
our capacity as exclusive representatives of all employees in the
bargaining unit described in the Intermediate Report of the Trial
Examiner with Graphic Arts League, as the representative of its
member-coiiipanies, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, we will embody such understanding in a
signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
BALTIMORE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 12,
By --------------------------------------------
( Title)
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
By --------------------------------------------
(Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1227
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sidney J. Barban, for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Joseph Bernstein and Earle K. Shawe, of Baltimore, Md.; for Graphic
Arts League.
Messrs. Gerhard P. Van Arkel and Henry Kaiser, of Washington, D. C., for
Respondent International Typographical Union.
• Messrs. Jacob J. Edelman and Isidore Roman, of Baltimore, Md., for Respond-
ent Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on September 23, 1947, by Graphic Arts League on behalf
of named employers, herein called the Employers, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued his complaint on
September 23, 1947, against International Typographical Union and Baltimore
Typographical Union No. 12, herein called respectively ITU, and the Local, and
collectively the Unions, alleging that the 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) (3), 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 unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended on Sep-
tember 25, 1947, alleged in substance that Graphic Arts League is a nonprofit
association, engaged in bargaining collectively with labor organizations repre-
senting employees of its members, which are engaged in manufacturing and
processing printed products and printing materials ; that the Local is a sub-
ordinate union of ITU and subject to the constitution, bylaws, and general laws
of ITU ; that on August 26, 1947, the employees of the printing companies named
in the complaint, within the appropriate unit alleged, had designated the ITU,
the Local, and each of them, as their representative for purposes of collective
bargaining with their employers ; that since August 26, 1947, the Respondents,
and each of them, have been the exclusive representative of the employees of
said printing companies in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining;
that the Respondents have, since August 26, 1947, refused to bargain collectively
with Graphic Arts League, on behalf of the Employers, in violation of Section
8 (b) (3) of the Act; that the Respondents, since on or about August 21, 1947,
have restrained and coerced the employees of the Employers by such refusal to
bargain and by attempting to impose and imposing upon such employees "con-
ditions of employment" requiring employees as a condition of employment to
obtain and maintain membership in said Unions, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1)
(A), and have restrained and coerced the Employers in the selection of repre-
sentatives for collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances by threatening
and warning said companies to refrain from employing foremen who are not or
do not become members of the Unions, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (B) of
the Act.
Copies of the charge, the complaint, and the amendment to the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondents and
the Graphic Arts League.
On October 9, 1947, the Respondents each filed special appearances, motions
to dismiss, and answers to the complaint. The answers admit certain of the
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
allegations of the complaint but deny the commission of any unfair labor
practice. The motions to dismiss are disposed of hereinafter.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Baltimore; Maryland, from October
14, 1947, to October 25, 1947, before William R. Ringer, the undersigned Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel, the Graphic Arts League, and the Respondents
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. After the hearing had closed,.
the Graphic Arts League, on November 13, 1947, filed an additional charge,
alleging that since August 26, 1947, the Respondents have attempted to cause
the Employers to discriminate against their employees by seeking to compel
the Employers to require their employees, as a condition of employment, to be
and remain members of the Unions in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
On November 18, 1947, the General Counsel moved the Trial Examiner to permit
amendment of the complaint by adding additional paragraphs in accordance with
the further charge and to reopen the record for further hearing on such issue.
Over objections by the Unions, the Trial Examiner permitted amendment of the
complaint and reopened the hearing. The Unions filed denials to the new allega-
tions and a further hearing was held on December 8, 1947, in Washington, D. C.,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner and 'the hearing closed. Thereafter,
within time fixed, briefs were filed with the Trial Examiner by each of the parties,
and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted by the ITU.
They are ruled on hereinafter. Oral argument before the Trial Examiner was
waived by all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE PARTIES
The Employers are engaged in the commercial printing industry in Baltimore,.
Maryland, either in actual commercial printing or in setting composition on
machines or by hand to be used by other printing firms in printing or making
printing impressions. There are 22 companies named in the complaint as mem-
bers of Graphic Arts League, which since 1940 has represented its members
for the purposes of collective bargaining with unions. During that period, the
League has bargained with the Local and other locals in the commercial print-
ing industry in Baltimore, and reached six annual collective bargaining agree-
ments. Such annual collective bargaining agreements have regularly set the
pattern and fixed the terms and conditions of employment of the employees
in the commercial printing industry in Baltimore, in the plants of the members
and nonmembers of the League.
International Typographical Union is an unincorporated association with its
principal place of business at Indianapolis, Indiana, and operates as an inter-
national labor union throughout the United States. It has been engaged for many
years in promoting the welfare of its members and its subordinate local unions.
Members of local unions are also members of the ITU. A local union of the
ITU becomes such upon the granting of a charter by the ITU.
The ITU operates under a constitution, bylaws, general laws, and convention
laws, which provide for control by the ITU and its Executive Council over the
locals except with respect to purely local matters not in conflict with ITU laws.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1229
Matters of terms and conditions of employment , collective bargaining and col-
lective bargaining contracts , have been and are under the supervision and con-
trol of the ITU and the Executive Council. It claims jurisdiction over non-
,clerical composing -room employees in the commercial printing industry.
The Local holds a charter from the ITU . Since 1940 , when the Graphic
Arts League was organized , this Local has acted as the bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the composing rooms of the commercial printing es-
tablishments which were members of the League , in bargaining with the
League.
II. THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
In the motions to dismiss filed by the ITU and the Local it is contended that
the Labor Management Relations Act is unconstitutional, that the Board is
without jurisdiction of the Respondents because the operations of some of the
printing companies do not affect commerce and that the Rules and Regulations
.adopted by the Board are void since they relate to investigation of charges
.and issuance of complaints the prosecution of such cases before the Board,
matters given to the General Counsel by the Act.
At the hearing, counsel for the Respondents stated that they were not asking
for a ruling by the Trial Examiner on the question of unconstitutionality of
the Act for the reason that it should more appropriately be ruled upon by the
courts after administrative action by the agency. Accordingly, the under-
signed did not rule on that aspect of the motion to dismiss and does not now
rule thereon.
The Respondents contend that the operations of certain of the companies who
are members of the Graphic Arts League do not affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act and that "the absence of jurisdiction over
some of the companies deprives the Board of jurisdiction over any of them."
It is clear from the record that 20 of the 22 employers sent products valued
at more than $4,000,000 into interstate commerce in the year 1946, and that
during the same year the 22 firms purchased raw materials, supplies, and ma-
chinery of a total value of $2,443,500, of which $2,067,200 originated from out-
side the State 00-Maryland. It is apparent from Board's Exhibit 34 and the
testimony in connection therewith, that almost 50 percent of the sales of 20
of the 22 member firms moves in interstate commerce and that more than 80
percent of the raw materials, supplies, and machinery purchased, has originated
in other States. As to the remaining 2 companies on which figures were
not introduced as to the amounts of sales entering into interstate commerce,
it appears that composition set by them goes to members of the Graphic Arts
League and other companies making substantial interstate sales out of Mary-
land. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the operations of the
printing companies named in the complaint are in commerce and that labor dis-
putes between their employees and the said companies would affect commerce
within the meaning of Title I, Section 2 (6) and (7) of the said Act.
The undersigned finds no merit in the contention that the Board had no auth-
ority to adopt rules and regulations relating to the investigation of charges and
issuance of complaints and the conducting of hearings in accordance with such
rules and regulations=
The motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction are accordingly
denied.
' See Evans v. International Typographical Union, 76 F. Stipp. 881 (D. C. Ind.).
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. The issues
This case involves the questions whether the Respondents or either of them
have refused to bargain with the Graphic Arts League ; whether they have re-
strained and coerced employees by attempting to impose conditions of employ-
ment requiring employees as a condition of employment to obtain and maintain
membership in the Unions ; and whether they have attempted to cause the Em-
ployers to discriminate by applying the requirement of membership in the
Unions as a condition of employment.
2. Chronology of events
Since 1940, when the Graphic Arts League was organized, collective bargain-
ing between the League and a negotiating committee, representing four local
labor organizations in Baltimore, called jointly the "joint union," had been con-
ducted, resulting in annual contracts covering the employees represented by
said labor organizations. One of these labor organizations was the Local in-
volved in this case, representing employees in the composing rooms ; the others
represented printing pressmen and assistants and bookbinders. Charles V.
Brannock, president of Local No. 12 for 13 years, has represented the said Local
No. 12 on the negotiating committee of the joint union and for the last 3 years
was chairman thereof. Since 1940, annual bargaining agreements between the
League and the joint union, including Local No. 12, were entered into, the latest
having begun on July 1, 1946, and expired on September 30, 1947.
These contracts provided that the jurisdiction of Local No. 12 should be :
"foremen, assistant foremen, proofreaders, stonemen, operators of type setting
machine devices, machine tenders, caretakers of type setting devices, and com-
positors, machine operators, machinists, copyholders and such other employees
doing work appertaining to printing and preparation of printing not herein
classified."
The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, became law vn June 23, 1947,
with the provisions involved in this case to become effective on August 22, 1947.
Before and upon its passage, the officers and members of the ITU were deeply
concerned by its probable impact upon the traditional policies and practices of
the ITU in its relations with employees.
Woodruff Randolph, president of the ITU since 1944 and secretary-treasurer
from 1928 to 1944, testified that the ITU and its subordinate locals both in the
commercial printing field and the newspaper printing field, had traditionally
operated under a collective bargaining policy and under annual contracts with
Employers, providing for the closed shop, the right to enforce the ITU's "laws"
as to conditions of employment, the right to determine the jurisdiction of
work to be clone by members of the Union, the right of employees under con-
tract to refuse to work on "nonunion" goods, and the right of employees to
refuse to work on type set in other plants unless such type was reset. He
testified that when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed the officers of the ITU gave
serious and sustained consideration to the effect of the new law upon the
policies of the Union which had been followed theretofore, and decided that
it might be possible to preserve the policies and practices theretofore followed
by adopting a policy-that no contracts would be entered into with Employers,
but that "conditions of employment" would be adopted under which members
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1231
of the ITU would be willing to work, and the members would be allowed "to
offer their services only under such conditions." Such conditions of employ-
ment had been used by the ITU in some States where anticlosed-shop laws had
been passed. The annual convention of the ITU at Cleveland in August 1947
adopted this policy. Randolph testified that the purpose was to induce Employers
to accept the posting of conditions of employment without entering into written
agreements.
In July 1947 Brannock, on behalf of the joint union, had discussed with F. D.
Street, the executive secretary of the League, the possibility of extending the
existing contract before August 22. There was discussion with respect to
making only changes with respect to wages. Brannock submitted a so-called
form "A" prepared by the ITU, providing for a 1-year extension of the existing
contract as to Local No. 12 and the composing-room employees, and containing a
60-day cancelation clause and other changes. On July 23 Brannock officially
notified Street that Local No. 12 would not thereafter bargain as a part of the
joint union. The Local on July 29 and the League on July 31 each served a
00-day notice of desire to terminate the agreement upon its expiration date of
September 30.
On August 25 Brannock came to the office of Mr. Street and handed him a
printed pamphlet containing the proceedings of the fourth day of the Cleveland
convention, pointed out particularly the final report of the committee on collec-
tive bargaining policy, and told him that this report contained the policy which
the Local would follow in its negotiations with the League. A negotiating
meeting was arranged for the following day.
At the meeting on August 26, Brannock, Henry Ritter, Peyton Fortson and
Walter Everson represented the Local and Street, William P. Gildea, Jr., and
Gerald L. Bray represented the League. Brannock acted as chairman and he
and Street led in the discussions. Minutes of this meeting and the subsequent
meetings between the negotiating committees were taken by Street's secretary.
They do not purport to be verbatim transcripts of all that was said, but they
contain the substance of the statements made by the various members of the
committees at such conferences. Although at this meeting of August 26, Bran-
nock said that the Local was not attempting to violate the Taft-Hartley Act,
he stated that the Local had adopted the policy of the ITU and would not sign
any agreement. He indicated that the Union reserved the right for its mem-
bers to quit work if an Employer should employ persons "undesirable or offen-
sive to the members of the union." Brannock read the introduction to the printed
form of "Conditions of Employment," which stated that it was "nowise a con-
tract nor is it an offer susceptible of acceptance by an employer in any manner
to infer that there has been any meeting of the minds in collective bargaining
to attain the results hereinafter prescribed solely by the union." This intro-
duction stated that the Local (the name to be filled in) "establishes the wages,
hours and conditions under which members . . . shall work, as stated in the
schedules and provisions herein, on and after , 194-," and further
contained the following :
The union promulgating these conditions of employment accepts no obliga-
tions as a collective bargaining agent as defined by the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947. Any act of members of the union to quit their em-
ployment is a matter of their individual rights and prerogatives.
Brannock stated that the conditions of employment had been prepared by
the ITU and adopted at the Cleveland convention, had been adopted by Local
No. 12 and applied to every ITU local. The printed form of conditions of
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment contained numerous blanks with respect to hours and pay and it
was understood that if any arrangement could be worked out, these blanks
would be filled in. As clearly indicated in the introduction to the conditions
of employment, the Local was not proposing any agreement. Brannock said
that the Local would not formally agree to anything; but that with respect to
wages and conditions of employment, the committee would discuss the items
with the League representatives, obtain approval from the local members and
then merely insert the items in the conditions of employment. It is thus ap-
parent that Brannock's proposals and the conditions of employment themselves
(lid not involve any contemplated contract whatsoever, but only an understand-
ing as to what would not be objectionable to either party and which neither
would be under the slightest legal obligation to continue for any length of
time. Brannock repeatedly indicated that the reason for the unwillingness of
the Local to assume any contractual obligations was disadvantages to the Unions
in being bound by a contract after the Taft-Hartley Act. Brannock at one
pointed stated that, "off the record," filled-in conditions would "in effect be a
contract for a year but that the union would not sign it." He further said that
the union representatives would not bargain with respect to the conditions of
employment. The representatives of the League, particularly Street, repeatedly
asked for an indication that the union representatives agree to bargain about
wages and conditions of employment and agree to put into a written contract
any agreement reached. Brannock and his committee definitely and consistently
refused.
Toward the latter part of this August 26 meeting the League submitted a coun-
terproposal in bilateral contract form to run 1 year from October 1, 1947, and
asked the union committee to bargain thereon. After going through the pro-
visions thereof, Brannock said that the Union would not agree to anything in the
counterproposal. Street asked the committee to submit a counterproposal and
Brannock said that they would not do so, that "we won't come to an agreement,
we will just discuss the wage rate and then insert a figure in the conditions of
employment that won't flabbergast League members"; but that if without dis-
cussion as to wage rates the Union should go ahead and insert an arbitrary figure
n.nd if the League would not pay such rate, "the men just won't show up for
work" on October 1.
Street a number of times indicated that the Employers would run risks of
violating the new law if they should comply with the conditions of employment pro-
posed by the Union. Brannock attempted to minimize such dangers but said that
the Union would expect "discretion on the part of employers in their employment
of non-union personnel." This last statement by Brannock was after he had
said that the Employer would not be prohibited from employing nonunion men and
Street had suggested that there seemed an implication that if nonunion men were
employed, the union men would quit. The attitude of the bargaining committee
of the Local at this August 26 meeting is well summed up at its end when
Brannock stated that so far as conditions of employment were concerned, the
League representatives would have to understand that they had been approved by
the ITU, that every Local Typographical Union had adopted them, and "it is
going to be these conditions of employment or nothing. There will be no signed
agreements"
The next meeting was held on September 5, 1947. Brannock continued to act
as chairman and with him as the committee representing the Local were Ritter,
Fortson, and Everson, as on August 26, and Gerome Janda and Melvin C. Otter.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1233
For the League were Street, Gildea, and Bray as before, George A. Evans, and its
attorneys, Joseph Bernstein and Earle K. Shawe. The minutes of the August 26
meeting were read. Brannock said that "some things may have been said that
shouldn't have been said at the last meeting . . . but we won't sign the minutes."
He said further that since the previous meeting, a proposal had been submitted
by the Union to the League, a typed form of conditions of employment with blanks
filled in. Brannock said that since the August 26 meeting lie had conferred
with the ITU and that the Local was now willing to sign a contract "if we reach
agreement on the entire document." He said that he was changing his position
from what it had been at the previous meeting when he had refused to agree on
anything and that he was now willing to negotiate on any clause. However, he
would not state that paragraph 1 of the Union's proposed conditions of employ-
ment could be eliminated, which specifically stated, as above set out, that the
conditions of employment were in no way a contract nor an offer susceptible of
acceptance by the Employer. Accordingly, he suggested that discussions be post-
poned as to the first four paragraphs of the proposed conditions of employment
and "go on to something that really means something." He said that he thought
the League was making too much of work conditions, and that the economic
questions were what should be discussed. Shawe, for the League, asked if
agreement was reached on the economic questions would the Union execute a
contract. Brannock replied that if agreement was reached on the entire docu-
ment, the contract would be signed. Brannock stated that the Unions did not
expect the Employers to sign a contract embodying the conditions of employ-
ment. Shawe, for the League, pointed out that the introductory fourth para-
graph of the proposed conditions of employment denied that the Local accepted
any "obligations as a collective bargaining agent as defined in the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947" and Ritter, of the union negotiating committee,
said that the Taft-Hartley Act has "imposed this onus." Brannock said that the
Local represented, the employees and wished to continue to represent them but
that the Local was unwilling to strike out the portion indicating that they would
not act as bargaining agent. He frequently repeated that the Local would sign
a contract if agreement was reached on a complete document, but admitted that
the ITU had not authorized the committee to deviate from the convention policy
to refrain from signing contracts.
Near the end of the September 5 meeting, Mr. Bernstein suggested that the
Local and the League enter into an agreement for a year on the economic condi-
tions and leave the remaining matters to be passed on by the National Labor
Relations Board. Brannock suggested that such a proposal be put in writing.
Such a proposed agreement called a stipulation was prepared and submitted to
Brannock before the next meeting on September 9. On the morning of Septem-
ber 9, Brannock saw Street and said that the ITU would not permit the execution
of such an agreement , and proposed that the Union make a unilateral wage in-
crease and "let the other economic conditions remain in state quo, and to retain
the legal issues in a state of negotiations."
At the September 9 meeting the same persons were present as at the meeting
of September 5. Bernstein referred to the proposed agreement or stipulation for
a year which had been submitted to Brannock. Brannock said that the Local
could not agree to the stipulation, disagreed with the whole document and was
not interested in preparing a different kind of agreement. He suggested that if
the League put in effect on October 1 a wage rate that the Local would consider
"equitable," the men would be willing to continue working. He said, however,
577359-50-vol. 87-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that there would be no written or verbal agreement and no time limit would be
fixed. Mr. Gildea asked what was the purpose, under those circumstances, "of
sitting there," and Brannock replied that he did not know. Brannock said that if
a complete document should be agreed on, the Union would sign it, but contended
that there was nothing illegal about the conditions of employment. An attempt
was made again to go over the proposal of the League. Brannock said he was
not willing to indicate what proposals were acceptable to the Local. He asked
that Section 1 be "held aside as a possibility" until an agreement on a complete
document. He took the same position as to Section 2, said that the proposed
wage rate of $1.50 per hour was unacceptable, stated that he had no particular
objection to Section 4 but would not agree to it, said that he did not know that
there was any section in the proposal that he would agree to, and definitely
stated that he was not going to agree to any particular section unless "we can
arrive at a complete document." He declined to indicate what sections he would
be willing to incorporate in a complete agreement and when Shawe asked how
they would ever get anywhere, said, "I don't know, but you know perfectly well
what we mean." Brannock said that he did not think the Local wanted a, "union
shop under the Taft-Hartley Law" but when asked whether they wanted any kind
of a union shop, he replied "we do, and we are going to have it."
The attitude of the committee of the Local is clearly indicated when Shawe
pointed out that under the Taft-Hartley Act, an Employer is not permitted to
discriminate in hiring between union and nonunion men and Brannock said,
"Supposing a non-union man comes to you for employment. You couldn't turn him
down because he is a non-union man, but you could turn him down because of the
color of his hair, or because of his race, etc."
The complaint was issued on September 23, 1947. On September 26, the Local
submitted to the League a proposed agreement, referred to as Form P-6A which
had been prepared by the ITU. Shortly after October 7, the ITU issued to its
locals a bulletin entitled "Explanation of Change in Strategy Because of an
Attack by NLRB counsel against our Collective Bargaining Policy," and re-
ferring to the new form of contract, Form P-6A. This bulletin quoted the
seventh paragraph of the ITU's collective bargaining policy that there would 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,"
and quoted the final paragraph of the said policy, providing that "the Executive
Council is hereby authorized to interpret, construe and enforce the above policy
from August 22, 1947." Reference was made to the claim of the General
Counsel of the NLRB that the Unions were not bargaining in "good faith," and
said, "We therefore can easily comply with even Denham's idea of `good faith'
by presenting a form of contract we will offer to sign if the employer will sign
it."' The bulletin also contains the following :
CONTRACT PROPOSAL ONLY FOR 60-DAY DURATION
The right to terminate on 60-day notice is absolutely essential because :
It puts the employer in position where he is likely not to have union em-
ployees working for him if he hires non-union men ; if he brings in non-union
matter for you to work on or if he tries to take away your jurisdiction.
The reason we adopted a "no contract" policy was to protect ourselves
against the above acts which the employer could perform to our destruction.
2 Emphasis in the exhibit.
IN'TERNA'TIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1235
NOW-with the 60-day notice requirement of the T-H-L, a local union
can ternbinate form P-6A on 60 clays' notice and begin "bargaining in good
faith ," again, even "Denham style ," and be free at the end of the 60 days.
OUR UNION'S LIFE AT STAKE
Every member MUST keep in mind the basic reason for our course of
action.
1. We want to preserve the right of our members individually or, as far
as we can collectively, to refuse to work with competing non-union men;:
the right to refuse to work on a competing non-union product and the right
to protect our jurisdiction over composing room work.
2. During the life of a contract you cannot successfully do so. The T-H-L
will stop you in several ways.
3. The employer is in position during the life of a contract to act either
way as to those important matters.
4. The 60-day termination of the form P-GA limits the time during which
you are in danger on those three above stated points.
5. The other paragraphs in form P-6A are carefully drawn to take care
of the other natters vital to us. You can "bargain in good faith" (even
"Denham style") but are not required to agree to a proposal or grant a
concession. We like our G0-day limitation. We like paragraphs (a) to (1)
inclusive. We want them as part of any contract we sign and the Executive
Council has approved them for offering to the employers. Do not change
them simply because the employer screams about them. We have plenty to
worry about ourselves.
It may be after the employer "bargains in good faith"-with its he will take
another look at our "Conditions of Employment" idea which was successful
and acceptable enough until the T-H-L and Denham.
The meetings of the representatives of the Local and the League's representa-
tives after the complaint was issued centered around the proposed Form P-GA.
Meetings were held on September 29, September,30, October 4, and October 8,
1947. Those on September 29 and October 4 were mainly with respect to
conditions of employment and those on September 30 and October S were mainly
with respect to the economic issues.
At the meeting on September 29', the Local was represented by Brannock,
Ritter, Fortson, Everson, Janda, and Otter, who had been present at previous
meetings, and Messrs. Edelman and Roman, attorneys for the Local, and Messrs.
Van Arkel and Kaiser, attorneys for the ITU. The League was represented
by Street, Gildea, Evans, Bray, and a Mr. Sheridan and by its attorneys, Messrs.
Bernstein and Shawe.
It was first agreed that the economic questions would be discussed on the
following day, September 30, without the presence of the attorneys. The dis-
cussion was protracted, as to the provisions in the Form P-GA, the League's
representatives taking the position that certain of them were in conflict with
the Taft-Hartley Act. The League particularly objected to the provision that
the contract should be of indefinite duration subject to cancellation by either
party upon 60 clays' notice, urging that such an arrangement would give in-
adequate stability to employer-employee relations. The previous contracts
between the parties had been for a period of 1 year and the League's representa-
tives urged that a new contract should contain similar stability. Van Arkel
indicated that the Unions would consider the question of a 1-year contract.
1236 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following day, September 30, the representatives of the Local and of
the League met without counsel to discuss the economic provisions in the Form
P-6A proposal. The Local indicated that their primary interest was in es-
tablishing interim arrangement as to wage rates since the contract was expiring
at midnight of that day and suggested that the League establish unilaterally
a wage rate to be arrived at by "common understanding." Brannock indicated
that the Local would not sign any agreement fixing any such wage rate for any
definite period. The League urged that a definite agreement be arrived at as
to economic provisions, proposing that a definite period be agreed to pending
the negotiations on disputed points, and that any wage rates agreed on be in-
corporated in the new contract if and when it should be executed. In addition,
the League urged that in any such interim agreement as to economic provisions
it should be mentioned that the closed-shop and struck-work provisions of the
previous contract should not be in effect. It is clear from the minutes that
the Local was unwilling to enter into any agreement as to the time during which
rates of pay should be in effect or to provide that the "struck work" and union
membership clauses not apply during the interim period.
The meeting of October 4 was attended by Brannock, Ritter, Fortson , Everson,
Janda, Otter, Edelman, Roman, Van Arkel, and Kaiser, on the one side, and by
Street, Evans, Bray, Bernstein and Shawe, for the League. Again Form P-6A
was discussed at length, particularly with reference to Sections 13 to 19 thereof
and their relation to the laws of the ITU. The League took the position that
a number of the clauses were in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act; the attorneys
for the Unions contended that the clauses were not illegal and, in most instances,
not important, since it was contended that they would affect only the internal
affairs of the Union. The League offered a counterproposal to Sections 15, 17,
and 18, whereby the parties would agree to no-strike, no-lock-out provisions,
with the Local liable for damages for strikes authorized, ratified, aided, assisted,
or participated in by the Local. The Union declined to agree to any no-strike
provision. In discussing Sections 13, 14, and 17, counsel for the Unions indicated
that the Unions would unilaterally determine whether the ITU's laws were
in conflict with the agreement,or the law. It was further stated by Mr. Kaiser
that, in his opinion, all local unions would be bound by the ITU' s policy if
they desired to remain affiliated, with the ITU. There was considerable dis-
cussion regarding the 60-day cancellation provision. The League protested the
change from the previous annual contracts to an indefinite contract with a
60-day cancellation period. The minutes reflect the following discussion in
this connection :
VAN ARKEL. This is probably for a year, Mr. Bernstein. I haven't the
slightest doubt that if you sign this agreement, it is, in fact, an agreement
for a year. Your relations are good. You don't intend to bust this agree-
ment. Your men don't expect to quit work or ask for increases in salary
every few months. You don't want to bust our Union.
BEnNSTEIN. Well, what is the objection to putting it in the contract?
VAN AsKEL. There are several: There is a national pattern, not only
a local pattern, involved, and relations everywhere else are not exactly as
good as they are in Baltimore. Second, T. H. L. . . . which means the
Union cannot have stability. The Union can't have the protection it used
to have, in that it had the power of the closed shop agreement. We don't
have that any more, so from a practical standpoint a year's contract . . .
menus that, in effect, we would be conceding to you the life of the Union . . .
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1237
these other matters are matters which the Union considers fundamental
to its continued existence as a decent honest labor organization. I know that
you are going to have a year's agreement if you sign this. .. .
SHAWE. The Union cannot give us a contract for more than sixty days?
VAN ARKEL. Not "cannot," but "will not."
Toward the end of the meeting, after a recess, the minutes indicate the fol-
lowing :
BRANNOCx. The local Union Committee has sat around here for a couple
of weeks listening to the pros and cons on the legality of certain clauses in
this agreement. Insofar as the Union is concerned, they are willing to modify
certain economic clauses in this agreement, provided we can get some security.
. . . The Local Union wants to go on record as stating that, if the League will
agree to all the economic clauses we have proposed in this agreement, that
we will eliminate the security clauses in here. If the League will accept
the entire economic aspects of our proposed agreement, without any changes
whatsoever, we will be willing to eliminate the security clauses.
EVANS. You mean in the new agreement?
BRANNOCK. I mean we will eliminate the clauses that are in our proposed
agreement that you have objected to.
KAISER. The offer is now being made to you by the Local that they are
prepared to sign an agreement that includes all of the economic demands-
wages, hours, overtime, paid vacation, paid holidays, disability insurance,
severance pay-they will sign such an agreement as it appears in our pres-
ent proposal and we will eliminate all of the clauses which you object to.
SHAWE. Will you make it a one-year contract?
BRANNOCK. NO.
SHAWE. HOW long?
BRANNOCK. I think it would be for sixty days.
SHAWE. Would it embrace a no-strike clause?
BRANNOCK. It is not going to embrace anything but what I have just said.
SHAWE. . . .
KAISER. What this offer means is that we will sign this agreement, without
the clauses you object to, if you will agree to all economic clauses. By this
offer, we mean we will be willing to sign an agreement if you accept all of our
economic clauses with the following specific clauses which appear in our
current proposal: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, eliminate 12,
eliminate 13, eliminate 14, eliminate 15, 1 think we will, but I'm not sure
about that, I think we will eliminate Section 16, eliminate 17, eliminate 18,
eliminate 19.
Mr. Shawe asked for a few minutes for a private session of the League
representatives. The union representatives agreed to this request.
(The recording secretary retired from the meeting at this time.) The
meeting was resumed and it was agreed by all present that the following
record of the remainder of the meeting, made by Mr. F. E. Street, be incor-
porated in these Minutes.
The League representatives stated as follows :
We are unable to agree to Mr. Brannock's proposal for the following
reasons:
This type of contract affords no stability since it can be terminated at
the end of sixty days ; it makes no provision for settlement of any type of
1238 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dispute that may arise ; it offers no protection against work stoppages of
any kind, although we only ask protection for work stoppages which are
approved, sponsored or instigated by the Union.
The meeting adjourned at 1: 50 P. M.
r * * r x s m
During the period in question, the ITU sent from the office of the secretary-
treasurer at headquarters in Indianapolis, numerous postcard bulletins to the
locals, including Local No. 12, which indicate the attitude of the ITU toward
collective bargaining by locals with Employers after the passage of the Taft-
Hartley Act.
Postcard bulletin No. 85 stated,
After August 22, 1947, you should not offer proposals. The points a union
would like to establish as conditions of employment can be made the subject
of bargaining, but all formal proposals should come from the employers and
be submitted to the I. T. U. before any commitment or acceptance of such
proposal is made. See Section 2, Article III, I. T. U. General Laws.
This bulletin further said,
... the hurdles and hazards of a contract with an employer under the
responsibilities, restraints, coercions and handicaps of the T-H-L appear to
make a contract entered into after August 22, 1947, wholly undesirable.
In postcard bulletin No. 89, the ITU instructed its locals as follows :
For the first time in our history labor union agreements are contracts
within the full meaning of that term. After August 22, 1947, many changes
must be made. You will be advised IF we can devise a contract we can
afford to write in view of the hazards of T-H-L labor relations.
If and when we give you specific clauses or contract sections do not agree
to any change therein.
Postcard bulletin No. 90 contained the following :
BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH
Our only guide for "good faith " is to remember there are some things
so basic that the only bargaining there can be is to insist that we want them.
The employer may offer something he wants in like manner . Disagreement
may be natural and final.
The "framers" of that despicable T-H-L definitely kept I . T. U. laws in
mind as something the I . T. U. will not "bargain" on . One "service bulletin"
notes that our refusal might be construed as a "refusal to bargain " within
the meaning of the law.
Therefore agree to no proposal offered but lay each aside as a possibility
IF and PROVIDED we can agree on a complete document meeting the test
of whether it is in compliance with I. T. U. Law and 0. K.'d as such by the
President of the I. T. U.
Postcard bulletin No. 93 gives instructions from the ITU to local unions with
reference to required provisions in any agreements reached before August 22,
1947 and directs that after August 22, locals should not verbally agree to or
sign anything without communicating with the president of the ITU. The pro-
visions required to be included in any agreement reached before August 22 read
as follows :
INTERNATIONAL- TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1239
(1) The parties hereto, -in mutual consideration of the execution of this
instrument, agree that it may be cancelled and terminated at any time here-
after by either party, upon sixty days' written notice of said termination
to the other.party and that neither party hereto shall bring any legal action
against the other party or be liable in damages for any breach or alleged
breach of the contract between them, or for any other matter growing out
of their relations one with the other.
(2) The parties further agree that : If any. part of this agreement is de-
clared illegal or. inoperative by any agency or court this entire agreement
shall thereupon become null and void.
(3) It is agreed that the union is the exclusive bargaining agent for all
composing-room employees and it is further agreed that the term composing-
room employees is subject to definition and limitation only by ______ ------
Typographical Union No. ____ and the International Typographical Union.
It is further agreed that. in the event of a difference of opinion between the
employer and said unions as to the desirability of the union's ruling defining
composing-room employees the employer may, on 10 days' notice to the
union. declare this contract null and void. It is further agreed that during
said 10 days or other period of time during which such a controversy may
exist the employer will not appeal to any agency whatsoever for a determi-
nation of that issue but that said issue is a matter for agreement or settle-
ment solely by the employer and the union.
(4) It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the only recourse
each may have against the other for any damages alleged to be due for any
breach of this contract shall be to the Joint Standing Committee provided
herein and that no award for damages shall in any event exceed the sum of
$25.00; provided, that said limitation of $25.00 shall not apply to claims
for wages.
(5) It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that while it is their
intention to preserve the historic and successful processes of collective bar-
gaining there is no intention to violate any Federal or State law. In the
event that any action is brought against either party to this agreement by
any person or agency whatsoever attacking the validity of this agreement or
seeking to prevent its terms being carried out, either party to this agreement
may thereupon declare this agreement null and void.
(6) It is further agreed that no member of the union, second party hereto,
shall be required or expected to cross a picket line established by a subordi-
nate union of the International Typographical Union.
Postcard bulletin No. 94 contains the following with reference to contract
extensions to be entered into before August 22:
We are compelled to stand unqualifiedly on the kind of contract exten-
sions provided for in "Form A" as sent to local unions and as printed in
Postcard Bulletin No. 93-T-H-L Point No. 12.
USE "FORM A" VERBATIM-NO CHANGES ACCEPTABLE
This is why : We have had competent legal advice in maintaining our rights.
If we change our policy, which is based on the advice.of our attorneys, chaos
will be the result . . .
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Postcard bulletin No. 95 contains the following :
WARNING !
After August 21, 1947, no union can protect itself in the essentials of
I. T. U. laws if it signs a contract with employers.
The T-H-L will prevent your 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.
Postcard bulletin No. 96 contains the following items :
1. Follow I. T. U. Policy no matter what happens !
2. If it becomes necessary to leave your job make no statement to em-
ployer, 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 ; you will be refraining from working because you want
to do so and for no other reason.
s a * o * * e
7. You can get all facts necessary from official communications and The
Typographical Journal. Read the proceedings of the convention and remem-
ber our Policy was unanimously adopted.
8. Follow the procedure of the T-H-L as outlined to you in our Collective
Bargaining Policy. Any proposal of an employer must be complete and re-
ferred to the President of the International Typographical Union before any
commitment of any kind is made by local committees or unions.
Postcard bulletin No. 98 is entitled, "Our Objective In Conferences With Em-
ployers" and reads as follows :
First.-Submit our offer consisting of two paragraphs as follows :
OUR OFFER IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
1. We propose that there be no signed, verbal or any other kind of a con-
tract.
2. We propose that the employer recognize that there is no obligation on
the part of the union or its individual members to do other than may be speci-
fied in the "Conditions of Employment" set by the union.
Second.-Try to determine, through discussion, a fair price for our labor,
giving due consideration to employers' arguments and'ability to meet condi-
tions which the union contemplates prescribing. Bear in mind that once
the union, with approval of the Executive Council of the I. T. U., promul-
gates "Conditions of Employment," failure on the part of the employer to
comply therewith will result in a declaration of a lockout. Such declara-
tion must also have the approval of the Executive Council.
N. B.-Use "Conditions of Employment" forms furnished by the I. T. U.
adding any necessary additional sections in the blank spaces on reverse side.
Postcard bulletin No. 99 instructs the locals of the ITU as to procedures by
locals in accordance with the collective bargaining policy of'the ITU, with re-
spect to negotiations after August 22. It reads as follows :
Our Collective Bargaining Policy unanimously adopted by the convention
went into effect August 22, 1947. It was also adopted as a part of our Gen-
eral Laws effective January 1, 1948. (See Convention Proceedings.)
That policy can be successful only so long as local unions and employers
fail to reach an agreement by the processes of collective bargaining.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1241
If the union and employers reach an agreement they may be compelled to
sign a written contract to that effect. (A Supreme Court decision in 1941
under the old Wagner Act compelled an employer to put in writing the terms
of a contract to which he had agreed.) The T-H-L specifically compels it
IF AGREEMENT IS REACHED. Sec. 8 (d).
The T-H-L adds a new provision to limit responsibility as follows: ". .
but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or
require the making of a concession."
Therefore take every offer of the employer under advisement. If the em-
ployer makes a complete proposal, receive it for consideration and forward
it to the I. T. U. as proyided by Section 2, Article III, General Laws. Noth-
ing but a complete proposal shall be so forwarded.
Ignore the propaganda in newspapers and magazines. No court can or
will write a contract for you. No court can or will compel you to agree
to anything. Even the T-H-L as above quoted prevents such compulsion.
Under the old Wagner Act real collective bargaining was encouraged
and the right to make a closed-shop agreement was protected.
Under the T-H-L collective bargaining is being made too difficult and
the making of contracts is now undesirable to organized labor.
Postcard bulletin No. 100 contains the following:
Not even the Supreme Court of the United States can or will order or
compel you to agree to anything.
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. There IS a limitation
which prevents bureaucratic effusion.
If by chance the NLRB or a court should say we have not bargained in
good faith, the Board or court would have to define it or leave it to our
own definition.
But suppose a court should order you to make specific proposals on
wages, hours, and working conditions. We have never been accused of a
Jack of imagination.
Shortly after September 15, the ITU distributed to its locals a bulletin en-
titled "Steps in Collective Bargaining." It contained instructions as to proced-
ures to be followed in collective bargaining. On the fourth page thereof, it
stated that,
No change will be made in our collective bargaining policy which was
unanimously adopted by our 89th Convention at Cleveland August 16-22,
1947.
Read and study that policy as printed above a and in the Daily Conven-
tion Proceedings, the Changes in Laws pamphlet, the Bulletin and the
Typographical Journal. Our "no-contract" policy was forced upon us by
the Taft-Hartley Law.
The 14 steps in collective bargaining are as follows :
1. Give 60-day notice of termination. See Postcard Bulletin No. 81.
2. Read Postcard Bulletin No. 86 T-H-L Point No. 5. The mere fact that
a union and employers have been under contract compels the parties to go
through procedure of T-H-L to "Bargain in good faith."
3 The collective . bargaining policy as . adopted at the convention is set out on said page
4 of the bulletin.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Read Postcard Bulletins No. 90, 91 and 92.
4. Meet with any specified representatives of employers and require a
statement as to who the representatives are. You are not required to meet
with any but such representatives-especially lawyers who are not included
in such a statement as collective bargaining representatives of the em-
ployer', or stenographers who are there to make records for ulterior
purposes.
5. If the employer's representatives press for statements on policy they
are fishing for admissions that you are not "bargaining."
6. Discuss only what pertains to wages, hours and working conditions
from the standpoint of their desirability and what might be good for both
parties.
7. When employers ask for proposals give them the "offer" on Postcard
Bulletin No. 98. Follow advice thereon. Do not argue the propriety or
legality of the "offer."
8. Read Postcard Bulletin No. 99, T-H-L Point No. 18. Study it care-
fully.
9. Write down many questions to ask in an effort to get the employer's
opinion and tolerance toward wages and conditions the union would like
to prescribe in "Conditions of Employment." Stay away from- questions
of policy. An employer who wants to get along will not ask them.
10. If an employer would rather establish "Conditions of Employment"
and does so, do not withdraw members until our laws as to strikes and
lockouts have been complied with. No "Conditions of Employment" are
acceptable that provide for operation for a definite period of time. Such
might be interpreted to be a contract.
11. If the employer posts or gives the union a statement of "Conditions
of Employment" prescribed by him, notify him that the matter is being
referred to the I. T. U. and that the continuation of our members to work
must not be construed as acceptance of those "Conditions of Employment"
but only as complying with our laws before other action is taken by the union.
12. Thirty days after the 60-day notice of termination send 30-day notice
as advised on Postcard Bulletin No. 97, T-H-L Point No. 16. When con-
ciliators come in show them our "offer" T-H-L Point No. 17. They know
all about our "no-contract" policy. If they want meetings between the
parties sit in and go all through the same procedures followed before they
came in. Be, patient, persistent and confident. Let employers. and concili-
ators come to you with suggestions. You must "bargain" but you cannot
be compelled to agree to anything.
13. If the employers hand you a complete proposal forward it to the Pres-
ident of the I. T. U. with a full explanation. Do NOT submit it to the local
union until it has been approved by the I. T. U. Do not be too brief in
your letter to headquarters. Write' on all pertinent activity during "nego-
tiations."
14. Use the "Conditions of Employment" form from Headquarters and
make as little change as possible to generally conform to the terms of an
approved expired contract. Do not change numbers of sections on the
form. Add subsections if necessary.
In his testimony President Randolph of the I. T. U. stated that in connection
with the change in strategy by the unions, a bulletin was sent to all subordinate
unions . This bulletin clearly indicates the instructions to local unions as to
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1243
the technique to be followed in negotiations with employers and involves the
attempted use of the "conditions of employment" form in the first instance when
meeting with an employer and the use of Form P-GA if the employer should
insist upon bargaining for a contract. It also provides for the use of a short
form "conditions of employment" to be used pending the conclusions of collective
bargaining with respect to a signed contract. It should be noted that it is
definitely stated that no termination date could be used for either of the forms
of "conditions of employment," and that 'the right to terminate upon GO days'
notice is required to be included in the Form P-GA. This bulletin reads as
follows :
TO THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF ALL SUBORDINATE UNIONS
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION:
Enclosed herewith are two new forms to be used in assisting local unions
where agreements have expired. They are the short form of "Conditions
of Employment" and Form I'-6A which is a proposed contract form.
First, of course the 60-day notice of termination must have been filed.
The 30-day notice to the Federal and State Conciliation or Mediation Services
must have been filed at least 30 days prior to the date of termination of
the agreement. (See postcard bulletins 81 and 97.)
Second, the union will have selected a scale negotiating committee to meet
and bargain with the employers.
Third, the union will have made some general expression for the guidance
of the committee as to what the members ought to receive for their services
to the employer.
AS TO "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" FORM
Fourth, the scale negotiating committee will bargain with the employer to
determine if the employer will meet the requirements of the union as ex-
pressed by the membership in general terms. (See postcard bulletin No.
98.) No definite commitment on any single provision or section of any pro-
posal of the employers or contained in any expired agreement should be made.
The negotiating procedure will be for the scale negotiating committee to
draw from the employer a figure and other conditions which will not be re-
sisted to the extent of a lockout. If such estimate by the committee is
agreeable to the union then the conditions and provisions in the "Conditions
of Employment" shall be filled in or pasted onto the printed form.
Fifth, this filled in form shall FIRST be sent to the President of the ITU
for review and approval. Give full description of all local efforts and atti-
tudes. When it is returned to the officers of the local union it will be pre-
sented to the union for final adoption and if adopted without change (if
any change is made return it to the ITU'President for approval) it will
be ready for presentation to the employer as the conditions under which
members of the union will accept employment.
Sixth, if the employer refuses to pay prescribed scales and /or refuses to
allow members to work under the "Conditions of Employment" adopted by
the union the local should notify the ITU President of such refusal. Refusal
does not mean any letter or statement from the employer that he does not
accept, or will not accept or abide by the "Conditions of Employment." It
means refusal to actually pay the wages or allow members to comply with
their adopted "Conditions of Employment." In other words, the employer
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
must commit an overt act by failing to meet the conditions. It is expected
that since he did not participate directly in their formation that he will deny
any intention or commitment to comply. He may do so because he thinks it
necessary for his own protection under the. Taft-Hartley law.
EMPLOYER DEMAND FOR CONTRACT
Seventh, now if the employer and his "legal advisers" insist on a contract
you are prepared for that by immediately agreeing to negotiate, bargain col-
lectively, for a contract that both parties will sign if agreed upon. The
Union can, in regular fashion, adopt proposals to be submitted to the em-
ployer on the enclosed form P-6A. When the employer displays a desire to
run to the National Labor Relations Board make it plain you are negotiating
for a contract and bargaining in good faith by offering to submit a formal
contract which will be signed if agreed to in full by both parties. The
form contract should take ample care of the wage question, sick leave, holi-
days, vacations, etc., to protect the union against inflation or other adverse
legislation which might be adopted, also to allow for possible bargaining
concessions on wages, hours or working conditions. The right to terminate
after 60-day notice is absolutely essential to the union when signed contracts
are made.
. SHORT FORM "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT"
Eighth, now, while trying to negotiate, through collective bargaining, a
contract which both sides will sign if fully agreed to, it may be necessary to
have some "stop gap" rules to bring wages up and keep the office operating
smoothly. The third form, or short form "Conditions of Employment," will
take care of this. Note the short form is reduced to a minimum and is sub-
ject to withdrawal at any time and is to be used pending the conclusions of
collective bargaining for a signed contract. No termination date can be
used in either the long or short form of "Conditions of Employment."
Bear in mind that the short form "Conditions of Employment" must be
referred to the President of the ITU in the same manner as the long form
described above.
Ninth, in the event agreement is reached, and contract (P-6A) signed,
and if later conditions are injected that are objectionable to the union,
T-H-L requires 60-day written notice to terminate the contract. ( See post-
card bulletins 81 and 97.)
BRIEFLY SUMMARIZING
(a) The long form of "Conditions of Employment" is still best for the
union and for the employers.
(b) If a contract is demanded by the employer submit contract form P-6A.
(c) If too much delay is involved by bargaining in good faith fill in the
short form of "Conditions of Employment" and send it to the President of
the ITU with full explanation of local negotiations.
(d) No work stoppage may be called until all ITU laws governing strikes
and lockouts have been followed.
(e) The reason the short form has been prepared for use is so that any
strike or lockout will be a purely economic affair uncomplicated by "Denham
stuff."
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1245
Randolph testified that there were three essential traditional "rights" of
ITU members which the Taft-Hartley Act threatened to destroy : first, only
union members to work in printing shops; second, the ITU to determine the
"jurisdiction" of work to be performed by ITU members ; and third, ITU members
to work only on composition or other work which had not been worked on and
would not be worked on "under substandard conditions." It is entirely clear
from the testimony that the Unions were attempting, throughout the entire period
of negotiations in this case, to retain these so-called "rights." Randolph testified
that the existence of nonunion foremen or the hiring of any nonunion men with
respect to work within the "jurisdiction" of the ITU, would destroy the local
and "within not-too-long a time" the ITU. He testified that the closed shop had
been a practice "for all time past" in the ITU.
Randolph testified that the Union has always determined the jurisdiction over
work ; that it is the desire of the Union to keep its members employed on the
type of work that has been clone by journeymen and apprentices and to prevent
employers from taking away classes of that work and giving it to other persons,
whether they are organized or not. The type of work involved is traditionally
that of the composing-room and the Union, he said, has always insisted that such
work be done by union members even if new machines or new processes call for
work on those machines or in those processes. In this connection, he testified
as follows :
The union has never-and I think never will-permitted the employers
or any outside agency whatever to prescribe the extent or the scope of the
jurisdiction over which the union will have its members employed. The
very essence of the stability of the union demands that course, because if
the'union loses portion after portion of composing-room work at the will of
some one else, it will not only result in a chaotic condition in the industry
but work toward the dissolution of the union.
We believe that the opportunity that is'presented through the Taft-Hartley
Law might encourage employers to take away some of the jurisdiction of the
union as of the past, or prevent the union from exercising jurisdiction on
new machinery.
He testified that historically the ITU has refused to work on unfair goods or
struck goods. He pointed out the possibility that an employer might have part
of his work done "by a non-union plant, by non-union workers who may be
getting substandard wages or working under substandard conditions, all of
which would be in competition with the members of our union." The Union
accordingly asks the employer not to require ITU members to work on such
"substandard production" or on goods produced by plants which were on strike.
He gave as the reason that otherwise the substandard conditions would become
the rule rather than the standard union conditions.
3. Refusal to bargain
(a) International Typographical Union
The complaint alleges refusal to bargain by both the ITU and the Local. The
question whether the ITU has refused to-bargain will be considered first. From
the above findings, it is apparent that the bargaining between the League and
the members of the ITU in Baltimore during the years before 1947 was conducted
by the Local as representative of the employees, and not by the ITU. In their
negotiating during those years, the parties did not expect to make and did not
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make the ITU a party to the contract, although it was understood that its approval
would be necessary and such approval was usually obtained before the contract
between the Local and the League was treated by the Local and the League
as being in effect. The same basic relationship existed in 1947. No representa-
tives of the ITU attended the earlier conferences and when they came in later,
the parties understood that the ITU attorneys were assisting the Local in the
negotiations. There was no bargaining committee except that of the Local. As
pointed out by counsel, no request was made by the League or its members to
the ITU to bargain.
The stipulation entered into by the parties on the first clay of the hearing
concerning representation of the employees is that "all of the employees em-
ployed by each of the companies named in the complaint in the unit set forth
and defined in paragraph 7 of the complaint in this matter, were members of the
International Typographical Union and Baltimore Typographical Union, Local
No. 12 and that at all times since August 26, 1947, all of the employees employed
by each of the companies named in the complaint, in the unit alleged and
defined and set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint, had been and continue to
be members of the International Typographical Union and Baltimore Typo-
graphical Union, Local No. 12." The General Counsel and counsel for the League
rely on such membership as evidence of selection of both the Local and the ITU
as the exclusive bargaining representative. The complaint alleges that the
employees in the appropriate unit "designated the respondents and each of them"
as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, and further that
"the respondents, and each of them" have been "the representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining" of the employees, and "by virtue of Section 9,
subsection (a) of the Act, have been and now are the exclusive representative"
of the employees. The Act, however, contemplates one exclusive representative
for bargaining purposes and not two. It is true that a committee could have
been designated consisting of persons from both the Local and the ITU, to act
as bargaining representative of the employees. There is no evidence in this
case of such an arrangement.
Article III of the General Laws of the ITU makes it clear that the Local is
the bargaining representative, conducts the negotiations, and is the contracting
party on the union side. In the absence of such laws, the membership in both
the ITU and the Local might indicate designation of one or the other. Here,
however, the past bargaining by the Local, the General Laws of the ITU, and
the membership in the Local, lead to the conclusion that the ITU was not selected
as, and did not act as bargaining representative. It is so found. It is further
contended that the subordinate nature of the Local to the ITU and the control
of the ITU over the Local make the ITU jointly responsible with the Local for
any refusal by the Local to bargain and cases are cited in which parent corpora-
tions controlling subsidiary corporations have been held liable for unfair labor
practices committed by the subordinate corporation. The undersigned does not
find such cases to be controlling on the question of refusal to bargain. Con-
trol or power over the bargaining representative cannot make a bargaining rep-
resentative out of the parent organization, although it may result in restraint
and coercion by the latter in directing or assisting the bargaining representative
in a refusal to bargain. The undersigned finds that the International Typograph-
ical Union has not refused to bargain as alleged in the complaint.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1247
(b) The appropriate unit
The complaint, as amended, alleges that "all proofreaders, stonemen, operators
of typesetting machine devices, machine tenders, caretakers of typesetting devices,
hand compositors, machine operators, machinists and other employees engaged
in the manufacture, setting or distribution of type, employed by the Companies,
members of Graphic Arts League, in the composing rooms at their Baltimore
Plants, excluding all clerical employees and all other employees and all super-
visors having authority, in the interest of the Companies, or any of them, to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay' off., recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or
discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust.their griev-
ances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the fore-
going the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical rriture,
but requires the use of independent judgment, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9, subsection (b)
of the Act." It is contended by the Respondents that the appropriate unit does
not consist of employees of members of the League. Collective bargaining,
however, has been conducted since 1940 between the League on behalf of its
members and the labor organizations in Baltimore known as the Joint Union.
As to the employees involved in this case, the Local had represented them in such
bargaining. Mr. Brannock, president of the Local, testified that the unit em-
braced in previous contracts had not been objected to and has been satisfactory
to the Local. The appropriate unit alleged in the complaint, however, excepts
supervisors, employees who in the past have been included in the contracts
between the League and the Local. Mr. Brannock in his testimony indicated
agreement with the classifications in the alleged appropriate unit. The under-
signed is of the opinion that the exclusion of supervisory employees from the
alleged unit, is not inappropriate since the Taft-Hartley Act provides that no
employer shall be compelled to deem individuals defined therein as supervisors
as employees for the purposes of any law relating to collective bargaining and
no discussion is shown to have occurred with reference to the inclusion or exclu-
sion of such supervisory employees during the attempted negotiations between
the parties in this case. It is, therefore, found that all proofreaders, stonemen,
operators of typesetting machine devices, machine tenders, caretakers of type-
setting devices, hand compositors, machine operators, machinists and other em-
ployees engaged in the manufacture, setting or distribution of type, employed by
the Companies, members of Graphic Arts League, in the composing rooms at their
Baltimore Plants, excluding all clerical employees and all other employees and all
supervisors having authority, in the interest of the Companies, or any of them,
to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or
discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their
grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the fore-
going the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature,
but requires the use of independent judgment, have constituted, at all times
since August 26, 1947, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9, subsection (b) of the Act.
(c) Representation of the employees in the appropriate unit
As found above, the history of collective bargaining between the Local and
the League before 1947 indicates that the Employers, the League, and the Local
considered that the Local was the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. As further already found, Article III of the
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Laws of the ITU sets up the Local as the negotiating and contracting
party in connection with local contracts. The proceedings in the negotiations in
Baltimore from July to October 1947, show that all parties recognized that the
Local was bargaining for the employees in the unit. No one at any time con-
tended or suggested that the Local was not the selected bargaining agent. There
is no question as to majority representation, since, as stipulated at the hearing, all
employees in the unit were members of the Local. The undersigned finds that a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as above found, had desig-
nated or selected the Local for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employ-
ment and the undersigned so finds.
(d) The refusal to bargain by Local No. 12
There is no contention that the League did not request the Local to bargain
collectively with it. The issue is whether the Local has refused to bargain
in good faith. There are two periods involved with respect to this issue, first,
before the complaint was issued, which period is also before the Respondents
made their "change in strategy," and second, the period of negotiations after
the complaint was issued and the change in strategy had been adopted.
On the record in this case and the findings heretofore made, the undersigned
is of the opinion that the Local clearly refused to bargain with the League
during the period before issuance of the complaint. The adoption of a "no-con-
tract" policy, the instructions to all locals not to enter into any contract,
written or verbal, but to insist on a unilateral set of "conditions of employment,"
which specifically stated that it was "in nowise a contract nor is it an offer sus-
ceptible of acceptance by an employer in any manner to infer that there
has been any meeting of the minds in collective bargaining to obtain the results
hereinafter prescribed solely by the union," and the carrying out by the bargain-
ing committee of the Local of these instructions, show unquestionably a refusal
to bargain by the Local. A willingness to discuss wage rates to be posted without
any contract binding on either party with respect to them cannot constitute col-
lective bargaining nor have any relation to the essential elements thereof. This
is true regardless of the legality or illegality of the specific conditions included in
the proposed "conditions of employment," or of fears held by the Local or the
ITU of effects on them from the Labor Management Relations Act in the event
collective bargaining should result in a contract. The testimony by President
Randolph of the ITU, the testimony of President Brannock of the Local, the
instructions from the ITU to the Local and the minutes of the meetings between
the bargaining committees convince the undersigned that until the change in
strategy, the bargaining committee of the Local, following the policy and in-
structions of the ITU, attended the bargaining conferences with a fixed deter-
mination to arrive at no contract whatsoever that would bind the Local in any
respect. It is so found.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that from August 26, 1947, to September
23, 1947, the Local failed and refused to bargain collectively in good faith with
the League.
The question whether the Local refused to bargain in good faith from the time
the complaint was issued and negotiations were resumed, is a more difficult one,
and must be judged upon a totality of the negotiations and the attitude of the
parties with respect thereto. The Local and its bargaining committee continued
to follow the instructions given by the ITU and the evidence shows that the ITU
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1249
did not change its policy adopted at the Cleveland convention nor its attitude
with respect to preservation of the asserted "rights" which - the ITU and the
Local felt were threatened by the Taft-Hartley Act. The change in strategy
adopted by the ITU and followed by the bargaining committee of the Local, was
not to state that the Local would refuse to sign "any kind of a contract ," but to
make "unusual contract provisions because of the unusual law ," in order to pro-
tect the Unions on the "three basic and fundamental policies and practices of the
1TU" which President Randolph testified were at stake. These were : "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."
The ITU prepared a new form of contract, Form P-6A, an explanation of
change in strategy dated October 7, 1947, and a bulletin addressed to the officers
and members of all local unions , also dated October 7 , 1947. The strategy adopted
is indicated in the two bulletins . The bulletin of explanation says that the Union
"can easily comply with even Denham 's idea of `good faith' by presenting a form
of contract we will offer to sign if the employer Will 8ign it ." 4 The bulletin
instructing the locals as to bargaining procedure upon expiration of contracts,
provides that the bargaining committee shall first attempt to obtain acceptance
by the employer of the long form of "conditions of employment ," the form which
had been in use as a proposal before the change in strategy . It has already been
pointed out that this form of conditions of employment specifically provides that
it is "in nowise a contract ." This bulletin of instructions then provides that if
the employer insist on a contract , "you are prepared for that by immediately
agreeing to negotiate , bargain collectively , for a contract that both parties will
sign if agreed upon, that is, if the employer insist on bargaining for a contract,
the local is to submit contract form P-6A." It is to be noted that these instruc-
tions are that the bargaining committee should make it clear to the employer that
it is bargaining in good faith "by offering to submit a formal contract which
will be signed if agreed to in full by both parties ." Both bulletins say that the
right to terminate after a 60-day notice is absolutely essential . The explanation
of change in strategy entitles the section on termination as "Contract Proposal
only for 60 days Duration ." The reasons given for this provision being absolutely
' essential are enlightening with respect to the question of good faith . It says,
"it puts the employer in position where 'he is likely not to have union employees
working for him if he hires non-union men ; if he brings in non -union matter for
you to work on or if he tries to take away your jurisdiction . The reason we
adapted a 'no contract ' policy was to protect ourselves against the above acts
which the employer could perform to our destruction . Now-with the 60-day
notice requirement of the T -H-L, a local union can terminate form P-6A on
60 days ' notice and begin `bargaining in good faith ,' again, even 'Denham's style'
and be free at the end of the 60 days."
The Form P-6A was submitted to the League on September 26, 1947, and
the negotiating committees thereafter discussed it. The miscellaneous provi-
sions in Form P-6A , being Sections 13 to 19, inclusive , were objected to by the
League as containing illegal conditions of employment under the Taft-Hartley
Act. While it is apparent that the League representatives in the discussions
objected to some provisions concerning which there may well be doubt as to the
legality or illegality under said Act, there are a number of provisions in said
sections which, in the opinion of the undersigned, are illegal under the Act
4 Italics in original bulletin.
877353-50-vol. 87-80
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and may not be required within the purview of good-faith collective bargaining,
even if a general exception is made of matters in conflict with law or the contract.
These miscellaneous provisions will now be considered.
Section 13 provided that the League recognizes the right of the Local to
formulate laws, rules and decisions for the conditions under which its
members may seek or accept employment and agrees that there shall be no
interference whatsoever by the League in the observance in such laws, rules
and decisions nor shall any issue be raised or complaint considered except
in event such laws, rules or decisions conflict with the terms of this
agreement.
It is understood and agreed that. the general laws of the International
Typographical Union in effect January 1, 1947, not in conflict with law
or this contract shall govern relations between the parties on conditions
not specifically enumerated herein.
The first paragraph of this section would give the Union the right to formulate
laws, rules, and decisions for the conditions under which employees would work
and would require the employer to comply therewith. In view of the definite
and expressed policy of the ITU and the Local, including President Randolph's
testimony at the hearing with respect to union members not working with
nonunion employees, the right of union employees not to work on nonunion
materials and the right of the Union to determine unilaterally the jurisdiction
of work, the undersigned is of the opinion that the insistence on such proposal
was a refusal to bargain. The offer by counsel for the ITU, assisting the Local
in the bargaining session, to rewrite certain of the provisions does not alter this
finding since the fundamental insistence on the right unilaterally to make laws,
rules, and decisions was unchanged. As to the second paragraph, the exception
"not in conflict with law or this contract" does not save the provision from its
illegality since the three "rights" insisted on by the Union were throughout the
negotiations and at the hearing stated to be rights which the Union would not
surrender.
Section 14 provided that the League would agree not to "assign any work
traditionally performed by journeymen and apprentices as defined by" the Union,
"except to. journeymen and apprentices," that upon any disagreement with such
determination by the Local, the employer upon 10 days' notice might declare
the agreement null and void, and that during such period, neither party would
seek assistance from the joint standing committee or any outside assistance
in the determination of the matter. This provision by its express language would
give the Union complete unilateral determination of thetypes of work permitted
to be done by employees who are members of the Local, and by others. Such
provision would make it possible for the Unions to require the employer to
discriminate against the employees not members of the Local, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Although President Randolph at one point testified
that this provision had no relation to union membership or the closed shop, he
later testified specifically that the clause related to the practical problem of
the Union in desiring to keep its members employed on the type of work which
had been done by journeymen and apprentices and to prevent employers from
taking away work of that sort and assigning it to other employees, whether
organized or not.
Section 15 provided that the League recognizes that the Local "cannot compel
members to work with non-union printers and apprentices, and therefore agrees
Ihat any refusal of its employees to work with non-union employees shall not
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1251
'constitute a breach of this agreement." The undersigned does not believe that
this provision is in conflict with the Taft-Hartley Act. Legally the Local was
under no obligation to assume responsibility for the acts of its members , if they
should cease work on account of unwillingness to work with nonunion printers
and apprentices . It is true that the Union might incur statutory or common-law
liability under some circumstances , but to propose as a matter of contract that
it not be liable for breach of contract is not a violation of the Act nor indicative
of bad faith.
Section 16 provided that interchanging of type or matrices between plants
not owned by the same individual should not be permitted unless reset by the
plant planning to use them. The bargaining committee of the Local conceded
that the problem did not arise as between the Union and the members of the
League but insisted on it because the contract being bargained about would
set a pattern for other contracts in Baltimore . It is contended that this section
is illegal under Section 8 ( b) (6) of the Act and also Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
There is considerable doubt whether Section 8 ( b) (6) would apply to cases
where services ,are actually to be performed . Under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) a
strike or concerted refusal by the Local to work on goods might be illegal under
certain circumstances , but the proposal does not purport to affect such illegality.
On the record the undersigned does not find that the proposing of Section 16
indicates bad faith.
Section 17 proposed an agreement that employees would not be required "to
perform work on composition or other work executed or to be further worked on
wholly or in part by employees working under substandard conditions as defined
by" the Local and that upon disagreement as to the determination by the Local
as to such substandard conditions , the employer could on 10 days' notice declare
the contract null and void . During such period, neither party would seek the
joint standing committee or outside assistance in the determination of such
matter. As is recognized in the brief of the ITU, this provision was directed to
the problem of "struck work" and 'unfair goods. The substandard conditions
mean substandard as defined by the Local. Although Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
makes it an unfair labor practice by a union or its agents to engage in a concerted
refusal to work on any goods where an object thereof is to force an employer to
cease working on the products of any other producer or to cease doing business
with any other person , it is not a violation of the Act for an employer not to use
such materials . The undersigned believes that it is likewise no violation of the
Act for an employer to agree with a union not to use such goods . The insistence
by the union , however, that it unilaterally . and finally determine the question
of whether in a particular situation the goods involved are unfair or "struck"
is indicative of the union ' s approach throughout these negotiations and the
undersigned finds that such insistence as to this section is evidence of the Local's
unwillingness to bargain with the League on conditions of work and employment.
Section 18 proposed that the procedures for the settlement of differences or
grievances arising under the contract are exclusive and that there shall be no
recourse to the courts and that no award for damages shall in any event exceed
$25. The propriety of limitation -of-liability clauses in contracts is well recog-
nized in law and the proposing of a limitation that may have seemed unrea-
sonably low to the bargaining eoimuittee across the table, does not in itself
indicate bad faith . The undersigned does not find that Section 18 contains illegal
conditions or that it was proposed in bad faith.
Section 19 provides that no member of the Union shall be required or expected
to cross a picket line established by any subordinate union of the ITU. The
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undersigned finds nothing in this proposal indicating an illegal condition or bad
faith by the Local.
Finally, this proposal stated that the contract should continue in effect unless
and until terminated by either party by written notice of 60 days. As heretofore
found, previous contracts have been for a period of 1 year. The proposed con-
tract was legally one of indefinite duration cancellable upon 60 days' notice by
either party. Contracts of indefinite duration with a cancellation clause are
ordinarily considered appropriate for employer-employee relations. In this
case, however, the insistence upon this provision has special meaning. It was
stated by the ITU in its instructions to officers and members of its locals and
in the bulletin explaining the change in strategy, that the right to terminate after
a 60-day notice was absolutely essential. Although counsel for the ITU state
in their brief that it is completely clear that what was proposed was an indefinite
agreement cancellable upon 60 days' notice, the bulletin explaining the change in
strategy has a bold-face heading called "Contract Proposal Only For 60 Days'
Duration." This bulletin of explanation says that the reason for the insistence
on the provision for 60 days' notice is the same as for the adoption of the "no-
contract" policy, that "it puts the employer'in position where he is likely not to
have union employees working for him if he hires non-union men ; if he brings in
non-union matter for you to work on or if he tries to take away your jurisdiction."
As was said in this bulletin, "Now-with the 60-day notice requirement 'a local
union' can terminate form P-6A on 60 days' notice and begin `bargaining in good
faith' again, even 'Denham's style,' and be free at the end of 60 days." It was
specifically testified by President Randolph that the only reason a notice of as
much as 60 days was included was the requirement of the Taft-Hartley Act that
a contract in force can be terminated only upon 60 days' notice, and that if it had
been possible to do so, the proposal would have been for notice of 10 days. It is
entirely clear that the ITU and the Local were attempting in this proposed
termination clause to provide a means of enforcing "rights" some of which the
Taft-Hartley Act made illegal. It was sought to make the contract, if any was
entered into, cancellable upon 60 days' notice in order that an employer would
be faced by a practical certainty that his union employees would quit work 60
days later, if, for example, he hired nonunion men or brought in nonunion
matter as unilaterally defined by the Union, to be worked on, or if he took away
any work jurisdiction contrary to the interpretation of the Union. Under such
circumstances an employer would inevitably be in a position of extreme insta-
bility operating under a contract only "for 60 days' duration." The undersigned
finds that the requirement by the Local of the 60 days' notice constituted, under
the circumstances, a refusal to bargain in good faith.
At the meeting of October 4, there was one proposal by Brannock which
should be particularly considered, since it purported to recede from insistence on
Sections 13 'to 19 of the Local's proposal. He stated that the Local "wants to go
on record as stating that if the League will agree to all the economic clauses we
have proposed in this agreement, that we will eliminate the security clauses
in here. If the League will accept the entire economic aspects of our proposed
agreement, without any changes whatsoever, we will be willing to eliminate the
security clauses. Mr. Kaiser restated the offer in more definite terms and
proposed to eliminate Sections 1.2, 13, 14, 1.5, 17, 18, and 19, and possibly Section
16. It was asked of the bargaining representatives as to the length of the con-
tract under such circumstances and Brannock said it would not be for I year
but that be thought that it would be for 60 days. This proposal was rejected by
the League representatives. Under the circumstances shown by the record in
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1253
this case and the insistence of the Local that the 60-day cancellation provision
would be required, the undersigned finds that such proposal on October 4 was
not advanced by the Local in good faith but, as indicated by Brannock, was going
"on record."
It is contended by the Respondents that the representatives of the League
throughout the conferences refused to bargain rather than the Local and that
the insistence by League representatives on certain inclusions and exclusions
created an impasse which absolved the Local from any refusal to bargain. The
undersigned finds no merit in this contention. As heretofore found, the Local,
as guided and directed by the ITU, throughout the bargaining conferences showed
a fixed determination not to arrive at any contract which would fix the rights
of the parties within the legal objectives of the Act for a period of substantial
duration.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12
at all times since August 26, 1947, although requested by Graphic Arts League
on behalf of its members, has refused and continues to refuse, to bargain col-
lectively in good faith with Graphic Arts League acting on behalf of its mem-
bers with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment of the employees in an appropriate unit.
4. Restraint and coercion of employees
The complaint alleges that the ITU and the Local have restrained and coerced
the employees of the printing companies involved by refusing to bargain, and by
attempting to impose and imposing upon such employees, conditions of employ-
ment requiring membership in said Unions, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
It has been found that the ITU did not refuse to bargain and it follows that
it has not restrained or coerced employees by refusing to bargain. Whether or
not a violation of Section 8 (b) (3) by the Local's refusal to bargain is per se re-
straint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1), the refusal
to bargain by the Local under the circumstances in this case amounted to
restraint and coercion. The refusal to bargain was grounded on con-
tentions and policies which inevitably affect the freedom of the employees in the
appropriate unit to exercise the rights accorded them by the Act. The policies
followed by the negotiating committee and the Local under instructions from
the ITU would have the natural effect upon the employees to retain membership in
the Local and the ITU, to refuse to work with nonunion employees if any such
should be hired, to refuse to work if the Local or the ITU should declare goods
unfair or jurisdiction interfered with, and to plan to quit work in the event any
contract entered into should be cancelled by the Local upon 60 days' notice. It is
entirely clear that both the ITU and the Local have, throughout the period in-
volved, by bulletins and otherwise, threatened their members (who were the
employees in the appropriate unit) with expulsion from membership in the event
of noncompliance with the laws of the ITU and the "no contract" policy. For
example, the threat of expulsion from membership on account of working with
nonunion employees, working upon "unfair" goods or working in violation of the
union's determination of work jurisdiction, would penalize any employee who
should continue to work after such a determination by the Respondents. The
undersigned accordingly finds that the Local by refusing to bargain has restrained
and coerced the employees in the appropriate unit, and that the ITU and the Local,
by attempting to impose and imposing upon such employees conditions of em-
ployment requiring them as a condition of employment to obtain or maintain
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership in the ITU and the Local, have restrained and coerced the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
5.. Restraint and coercion of employers
The'complaint alleges restraint and coercion by both Respondents of the mem-
bers of the League in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by threatening and warn-
ing said companies to refrain from employing foremen who are not or do not
become members of the Respondents. The undersigned does not find any sub-
stantial evidence of threats or warning to the printing companies involved or the
League with respect to employment of union or nonunion foremen. It is true
that the policy of the ITU and the Local and the attitude of the bargaining rep-
resentatives of the Local at the bargaining conferences indicated their desire
that foremen continue as in the past to be members of the Union and it is probable
that the attitude of the bargaining committee was the same with respect to union
membership of foremen as it expressly was with reference to employees in the
unit. This does not amount to threats or warnings to the companies to refrain
from employing nonunion foremen. The undersigned finds that the record does
not support the allegation of restraint or coercion of the employers to hire and
retain only union foremen.
6. Restraint and coercion by attempting to cause employers to discriminate
The amendment of the complaint to include an allegation that, since August
26, 1947, the Respondents have attempted to cause the employers to discriminate
against their employees by seeking to compel the employers to require employees
to be and-remain members of the Unions as a condition of employment, raises the
question of violation of Section S (b) (2) of the Act. The section involved makes
it an unfair labor practice for a union "to cause or attempt to cause an employer
to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3)," referring
to Section 8 of the Act. Section S (a) (3) makes it an unfair labor practice for
an employer "by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of any
term or condition of employment, to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization," except after procedure establishing a union shop. There is
no question of union shop involved in this case. There can be no question that
the laws and policies of the ITU and the Local, the instructions from the ITU to,
its membership and its locals, the insistence on the conditions of employment and
the fixed determination in the negotiating conferences to retain the traditional
"rights" of union members, all contain the purpose and attempt to prevent non-'
union employees working in the composing rooms of the employers. The law is
clearly settled under the comparable section in the National Labor Relations Act
before amendment that the employer, in the absence of a closed shop or union
shop agreement, would discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment if
he should refuse to hire employees because of nonmembership or should dis-
charge union members on account of ceasing to remain such. It is clear that
the policy of the ITU and the Local since August 26, 1947, has continuously
attempted to cause the employers to continue the practice, followed in the past, of
excluding nonunion men from consideration as employees in the appropriate
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1255
unit. The Respondents, and each of them, have attempted to cause the employers
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.`
IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents described in
Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes,
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that each of the Respondents has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that each cease and desist therefrom.
Since Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 has been found to have refused
to bargain, it will be recommended that it, upon request, bargain collectively
in good faith as exclusive representative of the employees in the unit with
Graphic Arts League as representative of the Employers, and if an understand-
ing is reached to embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Since it
has been found that the International Typographical Union has restrained and
coerced the employees in the appropriate unit by adoption of conditions of em-
ployment and requiring Local No. 12 and its members to follow such conditions
of employment in bargaining with the League, the recommendations will be set
out with greater specificity than is normally necessary. This is felt important
because of the numerous indications throughout the record that in the event
an order to bargain collectively is entered, the ITU will find methods to avoid
compliance. For example, postcard bulletin No. 100 states that "if by chance
the NLRB or a court should say we have not bargained in good faith, the Board
or court would have to define it or leave it to our own definition. But suppose
a court should order you to make specific proposals on wages, hours and work-
ing conditions. We have never been accused of a lack of imagination."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Typographical Union and Baltimore Typographical Union No..
12, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Graphic Arts League at all times material has been and is a nonprofit
association, existing for the purposes of bargaining collectively with labor or-
ganizations representing employees of its members. The Employers named in the
complaint, at all times material, have been and are members of the League and
the League has been and now is the agent of said Employers for the purposes of
bargaining collectively with Local No. 12 and other labor organizations, with.
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
3. All proofreaders, stonemen, operators of typesetting machine devices, ma-
chine tenders, caretakers of typesetting devices, hand compositors, machine
5 The undersigned finds no merit in Respondents ' contention that the Respondents are.
not subject to the provisions of the Act, nor to any remedy against them, for the reason
that they have failed to comply with Sections 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. This con-
tention is based on the argument that since neither could be certified as a bargaining
agent of employees without compliance with said sections , they may not be ordered to
bargain,an'order to.bargain being tantamount to certification.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operators, machinists and other employees engaged in the manufacture, setting
or distribution of type, employed by the Companies, members of Graphic Arts
League, in the composing rooms at their Baltimore Plants, excluding all clerical
employees and all other employees and all supervisors having authority, in
the interest of the Companies, or any of them, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recom-
mend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 was on August 26, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on August 26, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, with Graphic Arts League on behalf of its employer members,
the Respondent Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 has engaged in and is
-engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3)
of the Act.
6. By attempting to impose and imposing upon employees of the employer
members of Graphic Arts League conditions of employment requiring said em-
ployees, as a condition of employment, to maintain membership in the Respondent
Unions, the Respondents and each of them have restrained and coerced and are
restraining and coercing employees of the employer members of Graphic Arts
League in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
7. The Respondents have not restrained or coerced employer members of
Graphic Arts League in the selection of their representatives for the purposes
of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances by threatening and warn-
ing said employers to refrain from employing foremen who are not or do not
:become members of the Respondent Unions.
8. The Respondent International Typographical Union has not refused to bar-
gain as alleged in the complaint.
9. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Graphic Arts League
.on behalf of its employer members, Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 has
restrained and coerced and is restraining and coercing employees of the em-
ployer members of, Graphic Arts League in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
10. By attempting to cause employer members of Graphic Arts League to
require their employees to be and remain members of the Unions as a condition
.of employment, the Respondents have attempted to cause the Employers and are
attempting to cause the Employers to discriminate against their employees, in
violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
.commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
6 Respondent ITU submitted to the undersigned nine Proposed Findings of Fact and
eight Proposed Conclusions of Law. The undersigned hereby rules upon them as follows :
Proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 7 are granted and Proposed Findings of
Fact 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are denied ; Proposed Conclusions of Law 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8, are each denied.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1257
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends as follows :
1. That Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 and its officers, representatives,
and agents shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith as exclusive bargaining
representative of all proofreaders, stonemen, operators of typesetting machine
devices, machine tenders, caretakers of typesetting devices, hand compositors,
machine operators, machinists and other employees engaged in the manufac-
ture, setting or distribution of type, employed by the Companies, members of
Graphic Arts League, in the composing rooms at their Baltimore Plants, exclud-
ing all clerical employees and all other employees and all supervisors having
authority, in the interest of the Companies, or any of them, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or
effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the. foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment, with Graphic Arts League as the
representative of said employers with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment;
(2) Promulgating, observing, or giving effect to any policy, practice, or course
of conduct, which states or requires that the Local (a) shall refuse to bargain
or refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with employers or their
bargaining representatives with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, or (b) shall refuse or refrain from entering into or
signing collective bargaining contracts ;
(3) Requiring or instructing or inducing its representatives to require (a)
that the Employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of employment promul-
gated unilaterally by the Local, without bargaining thereon with the Employers,
or (b) that the Employers execute contracts which expressly or by implica-
tion make membership in or approval by the Local or the ITU a condition of
hiring or continued employment except in accordance with the provisos in,
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act;
(4) Requiring from or enforcing against the Employers any condition of
employment which requires or permits the Local to require that the Employers-
assign particular work to members of the Local or of the ITU rather than to.
employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class unless
the employer involved fails to conform to an order of certification of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, determining that the Local is the bargaining
representative for employees performing such work ;
(5) Requiring that the general laws, rules, and decisions of the ITU be adopted
by the Employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their
respective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect to them, or that
such general laws, rules, and decisions must be accepted by Employers without
bargaining with respect to them, or that no questions of the application of such;
general laws, rules, and decisions may be the subject of bargaining ;
(6) Requiring that the Employers agree, without bargaining thereon, that
the meaning, interpretation, or application of terms or conditions of employment,
whether named or referred to in any contract or not so named or referred to, be
unilaterally determined by the Local or the ITU;
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(7) Causing or attempting to cause the Employers to discriminate in any
manner against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and
particularly by requiring that the Employers, without bargaining thereon, adopt
or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated unilaterally
by the Local or the ITU ;
(8) Restraining or coercing employees of the Employers in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by attempting
to impose or by imposing upon employees of the Employers any conditions of
employment requiring said employees as a condition of employment to obtain
and maintain or to maintain membership in the Local or the ITU except in
accordance with the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate
the polices of the Act :
(1) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit set out above with Graphic Arts League,
representative of the Employers, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement ; ,
(2) Post immediately in conspicuous places at the meeting hall and office
of the Local and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A ;
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the Local has taken to comply therewith.
2. That International Typographical Union, its officers, representatives, and
agents shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Promulgating, observing, or giving effect to any policy which states or
requires that a subordinate union (a) shall refuse to bargain or refrain from
bargaining collectively in good faith with Employers or their bargaining repre-
sentative with respect to wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, or (b) shall refuse or refrain from entering into or signing collective
bargaining contracts;
(2) Requiring or instructing a subordinate union or its representatives to
require that Employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of employment,
promulgated unilaterally by the local or the ITU, without bargaining thereon
with the Employers, or that the Employers execute contracts which expressly or
by implication make membership in, or approval by the Local or the ITU, a con-
.dition of hiring or continued employment, except in accordance with the pro-
visos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act;
(3) Requiring from or enforcing against employers any condition of em-
ployment which requires or permits a subordinate union to require that the
Employers assign particular work to members of the Local or the ITU rather
than to employees in other labor organizations or in another trade, craft, or
-class unless the Employer involved fails to conform to an order of certification
of the National Labor Relations Board, determining that the Local is the bar-
gaining representative for employees performing such work ;
(4) Requiring or instructing its members or a subordinate union that the
general laws, rules, and decisions of the ITU must be adopted or accepted by
the Employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their re-
spective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect to them, or that
no questions of the application of such general laws, rules and decisions may
the the subject of collective bargaining;
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1259
(5) Requiring or instructing its members or a subordinate union to require
that Employers agree, without bargaining thereon, that the meaning, interpre-
tation, or application of terms or conditions of employment, whether named or
referred to in any contract or not so named or referred to, be unilaterally
determined by the Local or the ITU;
(6) Causing or attempting to cause or instructing its members or a subordi-
nate union to cause or attempt to cause Employers to discriminate in any manner
against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and par-
ticularly by requiring that the Employers without bargaining thereon adopt or
acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated unilaterally by
the Local or the ITU;
(7) Restraining or coercing or instructing its members or a subordinate union
to restrain or coerce employees of the Employer in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by attempting to impose or
by imposing upon employees of the Employers any conditions of employment re-
quiring said employees as a condition of employment to obtain and maintain or
to maintain membership in the Local or the ITU except in accordance with the
provisos in Section S (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(1) Publish in the Typographical Journal, official paper of the International
Typographical Union, and post or cause to be posted immediately in conspicuous
places at the meeting hall and office of Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix B;
(2) Rescind and cease to give effect to any provisions in its constitution, by-
laws, general laws, policies, rules, resolutions, decisions, instructions, or di-
rections, which are inconsistent with or in conflict with these recommendations;
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the Inter-
national Typographical Union has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that International Typographical Union has refused to bargain, and that the
Respondents have restrained and coerced Employers.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondents notify the
Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
Respondents to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to
the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions ) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in
support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and
six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the
filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by
Section 203 . 85. As further provided in said Section 203.56, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefore must be
made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to . the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.49 of said Rules
and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and "become its findings , conclusions,
and order , and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
WILLIAM R. RINGER.
Trial Exaviirler.
Dated April 20, 1948.
APPENDIX A
To ALL OFFICERS , REPRESENTATIVES , AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF BALTIII ORE
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 12
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board in Case No . 5-CB-1, and in order to effectuate the policies of
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 , we hereby notify you that :
1. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith as exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit found in
the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner in Case No . 5-CB-1 with
GRAPHIC ARTS LEAGUE as representative of the members of Graphic Arts
League with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment of the employees in such appropriate unit.
2. WE WILL NOT promulgate , observe, or give effect to any policy, practice,
or course of conduct which states or requires that we shall refuse to bargain
or refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with employers or their
bargaining representatives or that we shall refuse or refrain from entering
into or signing collective bargaining contracts.
3. WE WILL NOT require, or " instruct or induce our representatives to
require , that employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of employment
promulgated unilaterally by us or INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
without bargaining thereon with the employers , or that the employers
execute contracts which expressly or by implication make membership in
or approval by this Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION a
condition of hiring or continued employment , except in accordance with the
provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. WE WILL NOT require from or enforce against employers any conditions
of employment which require or permit this Local to require that the
employees assign particular work to members of this Local or INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION rather than to employees in another labor organiza-
tion or in another trade, craft , or class unless the employer involved'fails to
conform to an order of certification of the National Labor Relations Board
determining that this Local is the bargaining representative for employees
performing such work.
5. WE WILL NOT require that the general laws, rules, and decisions of the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION must be adopted or accepted by the
employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their respec-
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1261
tive composing rooms without bargaining with respect to them, or that no
questions of the application of such general laws, rules, and decisions may be
the subject of bargaining.
6. WE WILL NOT require that the employers agree, without bargaining
thereon, that the meaning, interpretation, or application of terms or condi-
tions of employment, whether named or referred to in any contract or not
so named or referred to, be unilaterally determined by the Local or the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
7. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the employers to discriminate
in any manner against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, and particularly by requiring that the employers, without bar-
gaining, adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promul-
gated unilaterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
8. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the employers in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by
attempting to impose or by imposing upon employees of the employers any
conditions of employment requiring said employees as a condition of em-
ployment to obtain and maintain or to maintain membership in the Local or
the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION ; except in accordance with the
provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
9. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the said unit with GRAPHIC ARTS
LEAGUE, representative of the employers, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.'
BALTIMORE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, No. 12,
By CHARLES V. BRANNOCK,
Dated ------------ -------
President.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, SUBORDINATE UNIONS, AND MEMBERS
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND To BALTIMORE TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION, No. 12, ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board in Case No. 5-CB-1, and in order to effectuate the policies of
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, we hereby notify you that :
1. WE WILL NOT promulgate, observe, or give effect to any policy which
states or requires that a subordinate union (a) shall refuse to bargain or
refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with the employers or their
bargaining representatives with respect to wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment or (b) shall refuse or refrain from entering into
or signing collective bargaining contracts. -
2. WE WILL NOT require or instruct any subordinate union or its representa-
tives to require that employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of em-
ployment, promulgated unilaterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPo-
GRAPHICAL UNION without bargaining thereon with the employers, or that the
employers execute contracts which expressly or by implication make mem-
1262 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bership in, or approval by, the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION, a condition of hiring or continued employment, except in accordance
with the provisos in Section S (a) (3) of the Act.
3. WE WILL NOT require from or enforce against an employer any condi-
tion of employment which requires or permits a subordinate union to require
that the employers assign particular work to members of the Local or the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION rather than to employees in other Labor
organizations or in another trade, craft, or class unless the employer involved
fails to conform to an order of certification of the National Labor Relations
Board, determining that the Local is the bargaining representative for
employees performing such work.
4. WE WILL NOT require or instruct our members or any subordinate union
to require that the general laws, rules and decisions of the INTERNATIONAL.
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION must be adopted or accepted by the employers as rules
and conditions of employment applicable to their respective composing rooms
without bargaining with respect to them, or that no questions of the applica-
tion of such general laws, rules and decisions may be the subject of collective
bargaining.
5. WE WILL NOT require or instruct our members or any subordinate union
to require that employers agree without bargaining thereon that the mean-
ing, interpretation, or application of terms or conditions of employment,
whether named or referred to in any contract or not so named or referred to,
be unilaterally determined by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION.
6. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause or instruct our members or any
local to cause or attempt to cause employers to discriminate in any manner
against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and
particularly by requiring that the employers without bargaining thereon
adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated
unilaterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
7. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce or instruct our members or any sub-
ordinate union to restrain or coerce employees of the employer in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by
attempting to impose or by imposing upon employees of the employers any
conditions of employment requiring said employees as a condition of employ-
ment to obtain and maintain or to maintain membership in the Local or the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPRICAL UNION ; except in accordance with the provisos
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
8. WE HAVE rescinded and will cease to give effect to any and all provisions
in the constitution, bylaws, general laws, policies of INTERNATIONAL Typo-
GRAPHICAL UNION and of any subordinate local which are inconsistent with
or in conflict with the foregoing statements.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
By WOODRUFF RANDOLPH,
Dated --------------------
President.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.