International Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1418 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND ITS SUB-
ORDINATE UNIONS7 INCLUDING CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No.
16; DETROIT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 18; DETROIT MAILERS UNION
No. 40; AND PITTSBURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 7 and UNION
EMPLOYERS' SECTION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA, INC., ON
BEHALF OF NEW YORK EMPLOYING PRINTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
(PRINTERS LEAGUE SECTION) ; FRANKLIN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO;
GRAPHIC ARTS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN, INC. (TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION EMPLOYERS' SECTION ; GRAPHIC ARTS ASSOCIATION OF MICH-
IGAN , INC. ( ROTARY NEWSPAPER EMPLOYERS DIVISION) ; AND PRINT-
ING INDUSTRY OF PITTSBURGH , INC. (UNION EMPLOYING PRINTERS'
SECTION)
In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND ITS
SUBORDINATE UNION, PHILADELPHIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 2
and ALLIED PRINTING EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION
In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AND ITS
SUBORDINATE UNIONS, INCLUDING NEWARK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
No. 103, AND ST. LOUIS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 8 and UNION
EMPLOYERS SECTION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA, INC., ON
BEHALF OF MASTER PRINTERS ASSOCIATION OF NEWARK AND VICINITY
( UNION SHOP COMMITTEE) AND MEN AND MANAGEMENT CONFER-
ENCE OF ST. LOUIS, GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRIES. (EMPLOYERS' DIVI-
SION
Cases Nos. 3-CB-30, 4-CB-12, and 2-CB-39.-Decided December 30,
1919
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 26, 1948, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report sustaining in full the allegations of the, complaint 1
and recommending that the Respondents and each of them cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices he found they had committed
' The complaint alleged that each of the Respondent local unions and the Respondent
ITU had committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and
8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act . In addition , the complaint charged each , of the Respondent
local unions with violations of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
87 NLRB No. 164.
1418
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1419
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
:Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, each of the Re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and all parties
filed supporting briefs.2
On various dates following the issuance of the Intermediate Re-
port, the Respondent ITU and the Respondent Locals immediately
involved in the Chicago (Illinois), Newark (New Jersey), and Phila-
delphia (Pennsylvania), phases of this consolidated proceeding, each
filed with this Board motions to reopen the record for the purpose
of adducing evidence that certain 1-year contracts were concluded in
those cities after the close of the hearing.3
In addition, each of the Respondents has moved the Board to dis-
miss each of the complaints, on the asserted ground that the General
'Counsel's action in issuing the complaint and litigating the allega-
tions thereof represented, under the circumstances more fully described
below, a denial of rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Con-
stitution.
For the reasons fully set forth hereafter,4 each of these motions is
hereby denied.,
On May 26, 1949, all parties participated in oral argument before
the Board.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the briefs and exceptions, the contentions advanced
at oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the additions, modifications, and explications indicated below.
2 Pursuant to the request of the New York Typographical Union No . 6, we have omitted
from the caption of the case the reference to it as a party to these proceedings . As appears
from the Intermediate Report, the allegations of the complaint in Case No . 2-CB-30 which
as originally framed charged this labor organization with the commission of unfair practices,
were stricken from the pleadings pursuant to motions made in the course of the hearing.
The recital of that fact in the Intermediate Report is , of course , necessary to explain the
-differences between the pleadings and the findings . Hence, we deny the union 's further
request to strike from the Intermediate Report all reference to it.
"The contracts referred to in these motions are substantially similar to the one executed
In Detroit , discussed in Section II below.
See Sections II and III of our decision , infra.
o Although by order dated July 22, 1948, we denied the motion of the Respondent ITU
.and the Respondent Chicago Local to reopen the Chicago phase of the proceedings, we
later indicated that we , would consider that motion as having been renewed and would
dispose of it finally at the same time as we would consider the motions to reopen other
;phases of these proceedings . See the Order to Show Cause served upon the parties
;September 24, 1948.
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I. THE CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT
Except for the inclusion in the record of this proceeding of evidence
relating to the activities of certain of the Respondent unions after
March 1948, the record here reflects a factual pattern of union-
employer dealings up to that time virtually identical in all material
respects to that considered in three cases heretofore decided.6 For,
as found by the Trial Examiner (and we agree), each of the seven
Respondent local unions here charged with unfair practices, acting
with the aid and participation of the International,? respectively ap-
plied and enforced against employers of its members, the terms of
the 1947 "ITU Collective Bargaining Policy"" which were effective
between August 22,1947, and March 1948. Although the Respondents
premise certain contentions upon the aspects of this case involving
the occurrences after that date, it is our opinion, for reasons indicated
below; that these later occurrences do not affect a determination of
whether the Respondents' conduct up to that time encompassed activi-
ties violative of the Act. Examination of the position of the parties
on this question raises no problems we have not already considered
and resolved in one or more of the three cases cited above 10 The
decisions in those cases are accordingly applicable and controlling in
the resolution of the issues here.
For the purpose of clarifying the basis of our orders herein, how-
ever, we make the following specific findings which are in accord with
those made in the previously decided cases and are premised on the
rationale stated at length therein 11
1. We find that, in each case, the application by the Respondent
local union and the Respondent ITU of the terms of the "Policy"
against the employers of the members of such organizations, encom-
American Newspaper Publishers ' Association, et al ., 86 NLRB 951 ; herein referred to
as the ANPA case ; Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association, et al., 86 NLRB 1041 ;
herein referred to as the Chicago Publishers case ; Graphic Art League, et al., 87 NLRB
1215, herein referred to as the Baltimore case.
T The Respondent International Typographical Union is variously referred to herein
as the "ITU" or the "International."
8 Herein called the "Policy."
9 See Section II, infra.
10 Although the complaints in these and the previously decided cases describe as violative
of the Act the execution by the Respondent unions of the "Policy" scheme of bargaining
which all mutually adopted , and the records in all duplicate substantial portion of the
documentary evidence tending to prove the nature of the "Policy," the relationship of the
International to its local unions, and its authority to participate in the local bargaining,
they do not all invoke the same statutory provisions . Thus in the instant case . the com-
plaints do not invoke the provisions of Section 8 (b) (3) against the Respondent Inter-
national (as did the Chicago Publishers and Baltimore cases ) ; or the provisions of Section
8 (b) (1) (B ) against any of the Respondent unions ( as did the ANPA and Baltimore
cases ) ; or the provisions of Section 8 (b) (6) (as did the ANPA case).
u See particularly the ANPA and Chicago Publishers case.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1421
passed an attempt proscribed by Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act to compel
such employers, under threat of strike action, to maintain, noncon-
tractually, "closed-shop" hiring practices. We shall accordingly
adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion (and such 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 employ-
ment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent
Local in each case, and the Respondent ITU, violated Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings which either ex-
pressly or by implication describe the gravamen of the 8 (b) (3)
violations to be the adamant insistence of the statutory representative
of the employees comprising the appropriate unit,12 in each case, that
the employers operate either under a working arrangement having
no contractual form, or one which, although cast in contract form,
would be cancellable at any time upon 60 days' notice. Accordingly,
we hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion (and such of the
reasoning upon which he based this conclusion as is in accord with
that adopted in the Chicago Publishers case) that by the conduct
described above, each of the Respondent local unions failed and
refused to bargain collectively in good faith, thereby violating Section
8 (b) (3) of the Act.
The omission of the International from the 8 (b) (3) findings in
this case is the necessary, result of the absence of allegations in the
charges and complaints charging the International with liability
under Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Finding the special concurring
opinion of Members Houston and Murdock to be an unnecessary re-
vival of an issue already decided, Chairman Herzog and Member
Reynolds can perceive no inconsistency between this result and that
reached by the majority in the Chicago Publishers and Baltimore
cases, where the complaints alleged that both the Locals and the Inter-
national had refused to bargain. The concern of the concurring
Members about the effectiveness of the instant bargaining order
against the Locals relates only to a matter of compliance; it has
nothing to do with the propriety of issuing a remedial order only
against the particular Respondents named in the 8 (b) (3) allega-
tions of the complaint. In any event, as recognized by the concurring
'a We shall not disturb the Trial Examiner ' s unit findings . For we are satisfied that the
units he found appropriate in each case are substantially the same as those for which the
parties to the collective relation had customarily contracted in the past and that, for
reasons , stated at some length in the Baltimore case , and cases there cited , there is no
sound reason to alter these now.
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Members themselves in their partial dissent in the Chicago Publishers
case, the instant order against the Locals can be protected against any
attempt by the International to defeat its remedial purpose.13
Accordingly, we shall order each of these Respondents, so long as
each is empowered to act as the representative of the employees com-
prising the appropriate unit, to bargain collectively upon request with
the respective employer association whose member companies employ
such employees 14
3. In resolving the unfair labor practice issues in the manner above
indicated, we have not considered the merits of the positions respec-
tively 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 reasons more fully set forth in the Chicago Pub-
lishers 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 Examiner's findings of fact or conclusions of law as are
predicated upon the proffer and negotiations of the "miscellaneous"
clauses of "P-6A." 15
4. We shall dismiss the 8 (b) (1) (A) allegations of the complaint
in their entirety. We are satisfied, from an independent examination
of the record, that none of the conduct relied upon by the Trial Ex-
aminer in sustaining this aspect of the complaints differs in character
from that which the parties to the Chicago Publishers and ANPA
cases claimed to be violative of the Act." As we said in the latter
case, such conduct cannot be reached by invocation of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act.
II. THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN UNION BAR-
GAINING STRATEGY IN AND AFTER NARCH 1948
As is set forth in some detail in the Intermediate Report, the record
here contains evidence tending to prove that at some time after March
19, 1948, the ITU modified the "Policy" terms to permit the proffer
11 See N. L. R . B. v. National Broadcasting , Co., Inc ., 150 F. 2d 895 ( C. A. 2), enfg. 61
NLRB 1 . 61; and Neptune Meter Company v. N. L. R. B ., 158 F. 2d 448 (C. A. 2), enfg. as
mod. 58 NLRB 1240 and 66 NLRB 292, cert. den . 333 U. S. 826. These cases were cited
by Members Houston and Murdock in their partial dissent in the Chicago Publishers case
at footnote 26.
14 Noncompliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act is not available to bar
an order to bargain . See the Chicago Publishers case.
11 Member Reynolds , who expressed a contrary opinion in the ANPA and Chicago Pub-
lishers case , considers himself bound in the instant case by the decision of the majority
in those cases.
16 The 8 ( b) (1) (A) allegations are before us on the exceptions of the Respondents.
The General Counsel and the charging parties filed no exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
findings.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1423
and execution by its Locals of certain 1-year contracts, and that pur-
suant to this modification, such a contract was in fact successfully
negotiated and executed in the Detroit, Michigan, area between the
Respondent Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 and the employers
of the employees it represented. Based upon this evidence, it was
and is the Respondents' contention that, at least in these instances
where the record established union-employer dealings on the basis of
this modified strategy, the complaint had.been rendered "moot," and,
that accordingly no order should issue. The Trial Examiner re-
jected this contention upon the ground, inter alia, that the willingness
of the unions to execute these contracts represented "a belated repent-
ance" after several months of illegal conduct which did not lessen
the need for a remedial order. For reasons appearing below, we
agree generally with the Trial Examiner on this issue 17
The record here and in other of the decided ITU cases shows that.
the "Collective Bargaining Policy" adopted at the 1947 Convention
was formulated to circumvent the obligations imposed upon unions by
Section 8 (b) (2) of the amended Act. As originally formulated,
the "Policy" provided for the use of a bargaining strategy, viz, the
"Conditions of Employment" or "no-contract" strategy, which apart
from the fact that it is designed to achieve an illegal objective, reflected
a complete negation of the fundamental principle of collective bar-
gaining. Thereafter, and apparently as an expedient means of de-
fending a, complaint (filed in Baltimore) charging that such tactics.
were violative of the Act,. the International modified the strategy to,
permit the execution of "P-6A" contracts. Later, when inj unction
proceedings were instituted as ancillary to the proceedings in the news-
paper publishing industry, and aimed at enjoining the International
from the pursuit of this "Policy," the International made the further
modification of the strategy reflected in the 1-year contract form. Be-
cause of this sequence of events, and the fact that the Respondent,
unions still insist that the "Policy" (as enforced before the last modi-
fication) is lawful, the latest modification is susceptible of the inter-
pretation that it amounted to no more than an expedient device, under-
17 The Trial Examiner also found that the contract contained illegal provisions. For
the reasons appearing below, and those set forth in the Chicago Publishers case with,
respect to our decision not to pass on the "P-6A" clauses, we deem it unnecessary to.
mako any determination on the legality of the substantive terms of the 1-year contracts.
Accordingly (1) we neither adopt nor pass upon the Trial Examiner's rulings on the
legality of the contract terms, as concluded in Detroit ; and (2) we find that no purpose
could be served by reopening the record to admit into evidence the terms of the contracts
respectively concluded in the Chicago, Newark, and Philadelphia areas and therefore
deny the Respondents' request for such reopening.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken under the pressure of the injunction proceedings 18 In any
event, we have found that the Respondents' enforcement of the 1947
"Collective Bargaining Policy," at least prior to the latest modifica-
tion, encompassed unfair labor practices of a character disclosing an
adamant opposition to, and disregard of, the scheme adopted by Con-
gress that year to regulate the activities of labor organizations. This
fact, together with the circumstance of the Respondents' continuing
attempt in the course of litigation here to maintain the legality of the
"Policy" as a whole, justifies our belief that, unless enjoined, the Re-
spondents may resume the pursuit of a course of conduct violative of
the Act. In such a situation we are convinced that the policies of
the Act can best be effectuated by issuing an order of the type cus-
tomarily issued in cases involving the unfair labor practices we have
found were here committedl9
III. THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM THAT THE MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS
CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
The Respondents here claim that the action of the General Counsel
in litigating the legality of the 1947 "Collective Bargaining Policy"
in several separate proceedings constituted "harassment" of the ITU
and its affiliates, and under the circumstances detailed below reflected
an attempt by the General Counsel to "break" the union treasuries.
It is their position that Respondents were clearly justified in with-
drawing from the hearing and that, accordingly, the Board should
regard the record here made in the same posture as a record made
under circumstances denying the Respondents a full opportunity to
be heard within the purview of the "due process" requirements of the
Constitution. They request that we dismiss the complaints. We
hereby deny that request.
Assuming, purely arguendo, that the Act vests us with power to
review the preliminary administrative action of the General Counsel
in deciding how many complaints to issue and whether to proceed to
15 Such an interpretation is consistent with the position taken by the ITU itself, and
upheld by the Board in the ANPA case. There, the ITU objected to the General Counsel's
attempt to obtain a determination of the legal effect of this 1-year contract strategy on the
ground, among others , that its use represented ambiguous conduct because undertaken
under pressure of the injunction.
We are aware that the injunction of the District Court did not specifically cover the
negotiations placed in issue by these proceedings . Nevertheless , a realistic view of the
Respondents ' general position here and in the other cases as to the need for Nation-wide
uniformity of bargaining relations in the organized portions of the industry , persuades us
that the injunction pressure was as effective a motivation for the utilization of the changed
strategy reflected here as it was for the utilization of the same strategy in the newspaper
industry.
19 Cf. Consolidated Edison Co . v. N. L. R. B ., 305 U. S. 197 ; N. L. R. B. v. Crompton
Highland Mills Co., Inc. , 337 U. S. 217 ; Pacific Moulded Products Co. et al ., 76 NLRB 1140;
. Eppinger and Russell, 56 NLRB 1259 ; Angelica Jacket Co., 59 NLRB 451.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1425-
hearing,20 we note that the Respondents' complaint against the Gen-
eral Counsel is based on the fact that he proceeded to hearing despite
an offer by Respondents "to be bound" by the final outcome in any of
the other proceedings then pending.21 We can discover no abuse of
discretion amounting to a denial of due process here. While the legal
issues were often the same in all these cases, different charging and
respondent parties were here involved who could not be bound by a
remedial order in any one or any combination of the other cases then
pending. Refusal to accept the Respondents' offer was therefore
hardly unreasonable when it did not embrace agreement for issuance
of effective orders by the Board and the entry of consent court decrees
enforcing such orders. Although, according to the undisputed asser-
tions of counsel for the charging parties, such a course was suggested
to the Respondents, they declined to explore it.
We do not believe that Respondents can rely on their own voluntary
election to withdraw from the hearing to establish any real or fanciful
prejudice which they claim to have suffered in defending themselves
against the allegations of the complaint. As to whether the Respond-
ents suffered any actual prejudice, there appears to be an inconsistency
between the Respondents' position that they did not have an oppor-
tunity to defend themselves at the hearing and their assertion, as
grounds for the General Counsel's not processing this case, that the
issues herein are identical to those in the other cases. We have fully
considered, in connection with this case, all defenses proffered by the
Respondents in the other cases. Likewise we have considered other
defenses made by the Respondents with reference only to this case,
and as to which the Respondents did in fact adduce or offer to adduce
evidence during the later stage of litigation.22
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, Detroit Typographical
Union No. 78, Detroit Mailers' Union No. 40, Pittsburgh Typograph-
20 Section 3 (d) of the Act nrodides that the General Counsel shall have "final authority,
on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of com-
plaints under Section 10, and in respect of the prosecution of such complaints before
the Board. . . .
21 At the time of this offer the Baltimore case trial had been concluded and was awaiting
Trial Examiner determination ; the ANPA, Chicago Publishers, and The Daily Review
Corporation (2-CB-14) cases were still in the process of trial.
22 As noted in the Intermediate Report, the Respondents actually participated in the
hearing following the Trial Examiner 's granting of their motion to reopen the trial (which
had then been concluded ) to permit introduction of evidence relating to the 1-year
contracts.
877359-50-vol. 87-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ical Union No. 7,, Newark Typographical Union No. 103, St. Louis
Typographical Union No. 8, and Philadelphia Typographical Union
No.'2 and their officers, representatives, and agents, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from refusing by specific refusal, or insistence
upon a 60-day cancellable contract, or any other means, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in their
respective appropriate units, so long as they are the representatives of
the employees in such units ;
(b) Take, respectively, the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act :
Upon request, bargain collectively as the exclusive representatives of
the employees in their respective appropriate units, with the em-
ployers of such employees or their representatives, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment having a reasonable duration.
2. Respondent International Typographical Union and each of the
Respondent Local unions named in the caption number "1" above,
shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Threatening to take strike action, or directing, instigating, or
encouraging employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in, strike
action, or approving or ratifying strike action taken by employees,
for the purpose of requiring employers, either noncontractually or as
a 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;
(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.
(b) Respectively post immediately copies of the notices attached
hereto bearing their names, and variously marked Appendices A
through H.23 Such notices shall be posted in conspicuous places at
the business offices of the respective Respondent Locals and at all other
places where notices or communications to members of such Respond-
ent Locals are customarily posted, and so maintained for a period of
60 days. In addition, the Respondent International Typographical
Union shall publish a copy of the notice marked Appendix A in the
Typographical Journal. Each of the notices herein referred to must
be signed by a duly authorized officer of the International Typograph-
23 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."
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1427
ical Union and by a duly authorized officer of the local union where
their names appear on the notices;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps they
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 or any of them
coerced and restrained employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
MEMBERS HousTON and MURDOCK concurring specially :
In the Chicago Publishers case,24 we dissented from the majority
finding that the International ITU, as well as its Local, was liable for
the violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, for we believed that the
Local alone was the statutory bargaining agent in that case, and the
only organization against which the Board's order to bargain should
be directed. In the present cases, where the evidence concerning the
ITU's relationship to its locals and its role in collective bargaining is
identical, we have joined in the findings. and order against the Locals,
for those findings and order reflect the views which we have previously
expressed. However, we believe that our two colleagues have now
placed themselves in a position which is at least difficult to reconcile
with the majority's position in the Chicago Publishers case, and in the
Baltimore. case 25 which followed it. Merely because the International
ITU is not a corespondent with its Locals here, insofar as the Section
8 (b) (3) allegation of the complaints are concerned, our colleagues
are willing to direct the bargaining order against the Locals alone.
We think that the dismissal of these allegations of the complaints on
the ground that the General Counsel neglected to proceed against a
necessary party, would be more consistent with the reasoning of the
majority in the two earlier cases.
Affirming the Trial Examiner's analysis of the pertinent intra-
union constitutional and legislative provisions which define the rela-.
tionshiii,s between the International ITU, its Locals, and their mem-
bers,16 the majority of the Board concluded in the Chicago Publishers
24 Cited in footnote 6, supra.
u Cited in footnote 6, supra.
26 Among other things , the Trial Exnminer in the Chicago Publishers case found :
the distribution of functions between the ITU and its locals . . . under its
complex organizational system is such as to integrate each local with the International
as a bargaining entity . Locals are vested with a limited area of bargaining autonomy
(confined for the most part to issues of wages and certain other economic terms ), while
control of a large range of bargainable matters is governed by ITU general laws and
policy as interpreted by the ITU Executive Council. The power of the ITU to shape
and control local bargaining actions was vastly extended by the adoption of the 1947
1428 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case that °ITU locals lack "the essential indicia of complete .. .
autonomy,' in collective bargaining. In the Baltimore case, the
majority restated and summarized this position in the following
language:
. e , it is our opinion that the intra-union rules and regulations
. o . establish a modus 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 participates in many, if not all, of the important stages
of negotiations at local levels so as to -insure achievement of a
collective bargain palatable to all members of the International.
Thus, as we pointed out in the Chicago Publishers case, the rela-
tionship between the Local, the International and the individual
members, as defined in the body of intra-union regulations, pro-
vides for International "control" of both the framework and the
substance of the employer-Local collective bargain and establishes
a step-by-step procedure for International maintenance of such
control. .. .
In these circumstances, we are entirely satisfied that by joining
both the ITU, and its Local, and remaining members, . . . the
employees subscribed to the bargaining procedure long estab-
lished 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 disagreed with these findings, and would have held that the.
ITU's relationship to its locals in collective bargaining is merely the
normal international-local relationship of coordinator, adviser, and
sometimes agent, which does not justify a conclusion that the Inter-
national is the members' designated statutory representative. How-
ever, the majority's opposing view, as we understand it, was that the
International ITU is inseverably joined with each of its locals in col-
lective bargaining, not merely as a corepresentative having equal
status, but as the dominant member of the pair, with the local reduced
to virtual nonentity. If we were to concede the accuracy of these
"collective bargaining policy" under which the membership designated the ITU
Executive Council to " interpret , construe and enforce" the bargaining policy appli-
cable to all locals. Although , under the "laws," locals alone are authorized to sign
contracts , locals may not, without risking invocation of the ITU sanctions , submit any
contract proposal to employers , or any tentative agreement to their membership for
ratification , unless they first submit it to the ITU and secure the latter 's approval.
Nor are locals free effectively to negotiate any variations from policy specifications
laid down by the ITU. . . . It is thus clear that at least for certain purposes and
.as to certain matters, the ITU does not merely assist and advise its locals, but, pur-
-suant, to the prior consent and authorization of the membership, actually shapes and
-controls bargaining on behalf of local members.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1429
conclusions, we should be unwilling in the present cases to order the
Locals, alone, to bargain with the respective employers. Any such
order should assume that the Respondents are capable of carrying out
the Board's mandate. °
APPENDIX A
Notice
° To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AND CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION No. 16,; DETROIT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 18; DETROIT
MAILERS UNION No. 40; PITTSBURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 7;
PHILADELPHIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 2; NEWARK TYPOGRAPH-
ICAL UNION No. 103; AND ST. LOUIS TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 8.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
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
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
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.
APPENDIX II
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF CHICAGO
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 16
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National tabor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strike action, or ratify strike action taken by employees, for the
purpose of requiring employers either noncontractually or as a
matter of contractual obligation to violate Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act by discriminating with respect to the employment or
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
,Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
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 Franklin Association of Chicago as the repre-
sentative of. its member-companies, with respect to rates of pay,
Wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, we will embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 16.
By --------------------------------------
(Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty ( 60) dayse from the date
hereof, and must not . be altered , defaced, or covered by other material.
APPENDIX C
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF DETROIT
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 18
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage
in, 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.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1431
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 Association of Michigan,
Inc. (Typographical Employers Section), as the representative
of its member-companies, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, we will embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
DETROIT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 18.
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.
APPENDIX D
To ALL OFFICERS , REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF DETROIT
MAILERS UNION No. 40
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
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, 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 Association of Michigan,
Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), as the represent-
ative of its member-companies, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, we will embody such
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
understanding in a signed agreement having a reasonable
duration.
DETROIT MAILERS UNION No. 40.
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.
APPENDIX E
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF PITTS-
BURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 7
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
strike action, or ratify strike action taken by employees, for the
purpose of requiring employers either noncontractually or as a
matter of contractual obligation to violate Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act by discriminating with respect to the employment or con-
ditions of employment of any employee.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause
employers to discriminate against employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith in our
capacity as exclusive representatives of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described in the Intermediate Report of the Trial
Examiner with Printing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Union
Employing Printers Section), as the representative of its mem-
ber-companies, 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.
PITTSBURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 7.
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 1433
APPENDIX F
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF PHILA-
DELPHIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 2
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
strike action, or ratify strike action taken by employees, for the
purpose of requiring employers either noncontractually or as a
matter of contractual obligation to violate Section 8 (a)- (3) of
the Act by discriminating with respect to the employment or con-
ditions of employment of any employee.
IVE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause em-
ployers to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
WVE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith in our
capacity as exclusive representatives of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described in the Intermediate Report of the Trial
Examiner with Allied Printing Employers Association as the rep-
resentative of its member-companies, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, we will embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
PHILADELPHIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 2.
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.
APPENDIX G
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF NEWARK
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 103
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor,
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
strike action, or ratify strike action taken by employees, for
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
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 Master Printers Association of Newark and Vi-
cinity (Union Shop Committee) as the representative of its mem-
ber-companies, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, we will embody such understanding in
a signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
NEWARK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 103.
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.
APPENDIX H
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF ST.
Lou-is TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 8
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT threaten to take strike action, or direct, instigate,
or encourage employees to engage in or to threaten to engage in,
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
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1435
'"TE 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 Men and Management Conference of St. Louis,
Graphic Arts Industries ( Employers ' Division ) as the represenita-
tive of its member-companies , with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached , we will embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement having a reasonable duration.
ST. Louis TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. S.
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome I. Macht and Miss Helen F. Humphrey , for the General Counsel.
Messrs . Gerard Reilly , Leonard A . Keller, Henry Cli fton, Jr ., J. Norman Geddes,
Harry A. Kalish , and Harold E. Kohn, for the charging parties.
Van Ar icel & Kaiser , by Messrs . Gerhard Van Arlcel , Alan F. Perl , and Jerome
Y. Sturn , appearing specially for the International Typographical Union, Chi-
cago Typographical Union No. 16 , Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 , Detroit
Mailers Union No. 40 , Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 , Newark Typo-
graphical Union No . 103, and St . Louis Typographical Union No. S.
Brenner , Butler & McVeigh, by Messrs . George A. Brenner and John J. Corrigan,
appearing specially for New York Typographical Union No. 6.
Mr. Benjamin R. Simmons , appearing specially for Philadelphia Typographi-
cal Union No. 2.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 5, 1947 (being Case No.
2-CB-30 ), by Union Employers ' Section of Printing Industry of America, Inc.,
herein called the Printing Industry of America, for and on behalf of New York
Employing Printers Association ( Printers League Section ), herein called the
Printers League , Franklin Association of Chicago, herein called the Franklin
Association , Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union
Employers ' Section and Rotary Newspaper Employers ' Division ), herein called
the Graphic Arts, and Printing Industry of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing
Printers ' Section ), herein called the Employing Printers , who, in turn , employ
members of the International Typographical Union and its subordinate local
unions , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called respectively the General Counsel and the Board , by the then acting Reg-
$onal Director for the Second Region ( New York, New York ), issued his com-
plaint on January 2, 1948, against International Typographical Union, New York
Typographical Union No. 6, Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 , Detroit Typo-
graphical Union No. 18 ; Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 , and Pittsburgh Typographi-
cal Union No. 7, herein called collectively Respondents , and respectively ITU,
1436 IiiCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 6, No. 16, No. 18, No . 40, and No. 7, alleging that the aforesaid Respondents
had engaged in, and were engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ), (b) (2), and ( b) (3), and
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( Public
Law 101, SOth Congress , Chapter 120 , First Session ), herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and the amended charge, together with notice of hear-
ing thereon , were duly served upon each of the aforesaid Respondents, the
Franklin Association , the Graphic Arts, the Printers League, Printing Industry
of America, and the Employing Printers.
Upon a charge duly filed on January 21, 1948 ( being Cases Nos. 4-CB-12
and 4-CC-3 ), by Allied Printing Employers ' Association , herein called the As-
sociation , the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region
(Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ), issued his complaint on January 21, 1948, against
the ITU and Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2, herein called No. 2,
alleging that ITU and No. 2, herein collectively called Respondents , had engaged
in, and were engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ), ( b) (2), and ( b) (3), and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act . Copies of the complaint and the charge, together with notice
of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the ITU, No. 2, and the Association.
On January 20, 1948, the General Counsel , acting pursuant to Section 203.33
of the Board ' s Wiles and Regulations-Series 5, ordered Cases Nos. 2-CB-30
and 4-CB-12 (Post 4-CC-3) consolidated for purposes of hearing . Copies of
the said order were duly served upon the parties in each case.
Upon a charge duly filed on December 12, 1947 (being Case No. 2-CB-39), by
Union Employers Section of Printing Industry of America , Inc., herein called
Union Employers Section, for and on behalf of Master Printers Association of
Newark and Vicinity ( Union Shop Committee ), herein called the Master Printers,
and Alen and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Em-
ployers ' Division ), herein called the Conference , who, in turn , employ members
of the ITU and its subordinate local unions , the General Counsel, by the Regional
Director for the Second Region, issued his complaint against ITU, Newark
Typographical Union No. 103, herein called No. 103, and St. Louis Typographical
Union No. S , herein called No. 8, alleging that ITU, No. 103, and No. 8, herein
collectively called Respondents , had engaged in, and were engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section S (b) (1) (A), (b)
(2), and .( b) (3), and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint
and the charge, together with notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon
ITU, No . 103, No . 8, Master Printers , and the Conference.
On February 10, 1948, the Regional Director for the Second Region issued
an order, pursuant to Section 203.33 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, that Cases Nos . 2-CB-30, 2-CB-39, and 4-CB-12 ( Post 4-CC-3) be con-
solidated . Copies of said order were duly served upon the parties in each case.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaints alleged in substance
that at all times since August 22, 1947 ( 1) each Respondent local union , although
duly requested, has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the duly
designated representatives of the respective members of the Franklin Association,
the Graphic Arts, the Employing Printers , the Association , the Master Printers,
and the Conference although the respective Respondent local unions had been,.
and still are, the duly designated collective bargaining representatives of a
majority of the employees of the respective Employers in certain appropriate
units ; ( 2) each Respondent has caused or has attempted to cause the Employers
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1437
to violate Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act by (a) insisting that the Employers adopt
or acquiesce in posted "Conditions of Employment ," promulgated unilaterally
by the Respondents , which would have the effect of ( 1) employing only members
of the Respondents , ( 2) refusing work from "struck plants ," and (3 ) prohibiting
the acceptance of type already set up by customers of the Employers ; ( b) coercing
or threatening the Employers with strikes or other concerted refusals to work
if the Employers refused to adopt or acquiesce in the posted "Conditions of Em-
ployment" or if they refused to enter into contracts submitted to the Employers
by the Respondent which contracts were on their face violative of the Act ; and
(3) each Respondent had engaged in certain other activities which restrained,
interfered with, and coerced the employees of the Employers in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Each Respondent appeared specially and contested the jurisdiction of the
Board . Without waiving its rights, with respect to its special appearance, each
Respondent filed a due and timely answer denying that it had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices.
. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in New York, New York ; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania ; Chicago, Illinois ; Detroit, Michigan ; Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania ;
and St. Louis , Missouri , and Washington , D. C., on various days between Feb-
ruary 3 and May 5 , 1948, before Howard Myers , the undersigned Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . Each party was repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing . The participation by the
Respondents was without prejudice to their special appearances . However, on
February 25, 1948, the fourth day of the hearing , counsel for No. 16, No. 18,
No. 40, No. 7, No. 8, and No . 103 withdrew from the hearing and did not there-
after participate therein . On the following day, February 26, counsel for No. 6
and No. 2 withdrew from the hearing and did not thereafter participate therein
except that counsel for No. 6 participated in the proceedings held in . New York,
New York, on April 6. On February 25, counsel for ITU withdrew from the
hearing. Upon application of ITU the undersigned , on April 29 , reopened the
hearing herein , which closed on April 6 , and thereafter counsel for ITU par-
ticipated in the hearing . Full opportunity to I e heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was
afforded all parties . On April 6 , the day the hearing was originally closed,
the General Counsel 's motion to strike from the complaint all references to
ITU and No . 6 with respect to the New York aspect of this proceeding was
granted without objection . The General Counsel then moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof . The motion was granted without objection . The parties
were granted leave to file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and con-
clusions of law with the undersigned oil or before May 17 , 1948. The Respondent
ITU (in letter form ) and the Employers have submitted briefs which have
been duly considered by the undersigned.
- Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation , of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The charges, herein were filed by the various named organizations for and on
behalf of their respective members, collectively called the Employers. Those
Employers whose plants are located in the Greater New York area belong to the
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
Printers League, a New York corporation , those located in the Chicago area be-
long to the Franklin Association , an Illinois corporation , those located in the
Detroit area belong to the Graphic Arts, a Michigan corporation , those located
in the Pittsburgh area belong to the Employing Printers , a Pennsylvania cor-
poration , those located in the Newark area belong to the Master Printers, a New
Jersey corporation , those located in the Philadelphia area belong to the Associ-
ation, an unincorporated association , and those located in the St . Louis area
belong to the Conference, an unincorporated association.
The aforesaid organizations are trade associations whose respective members
are engaged in the commercial printing industry and employ union labor. The
Employers are engaged in manufacture , sale, distribution , and processing of mag-
azines, stationery , books, pamphlets, advertising materials , periodicals , and all
other products requiring printing or pictorial representation . Some of the Em-
ployers operate completely integrated printing plants , doing a complete printing
operation from the setting of type through the binding of the finished product.
Others are engaged mainly in the setting of type. Those in the first category have
typesetting machines and handle almost exclusively their own composing room
work. The other buy much of their type or electrotyping forms or reproduction
proofs from the other typesetters . Virtually all the firms involved herein have
business transactions with the firms in the industry of their own cities.
During all the times material herein, the Employers have purchased many
million dollars worth of equipment , materials , supplies consisting mainly of paper,
ink, metal , and chemicals , for use in their respective plants and have trans-
ported a very substantial portion thereof from paints located in States other
than the State in which their respective plants are located . During the same
period , they have sold and shipped several million dollars worth of their finished
products to points located outside the States in which their respective plants
are located.
Some Employers print and deliver such nationally known magazines as Time,
Life, Saturday Evening Post , Colliers , Good Housekeeping , Cosmopolitan, Harp-
ers Bazaar , House Beautiful , and Field & Stream . Others are engaged in work
which directly or substantially , affects interstate commerce for they sell type
or do composing -room work for the larger plants which , in turn, ship the greater
portion of their products in interstate commerce. A work stoppage at one or
more of these typesetting plants would interfere with production in the other
plants. The Employers who employ members of Detroit Mailers Union No. 40
do an approximate annual business of $6,000,000 . These firms derive practically
all their raw materials from outside the State of Michigan and a substantial
proportion of their sales are shipped, directly or indirectly , to points located out-
side the State of Michigan.
Among the industries that are closely integrated with and vitally dependent
upon the Employers ' businesses , such . as the paper , ink, metal , and chemical
industries , are themselves engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. Cus-
tomers of the Employers are engaged in such diverse and far-flung enterprises
as, inter alia , shipping , steel, air lines, bus lines, railroads , meat packers , electri-
cal, oil, insurance , and public utilities . In addition to the above -described close
connection between the Employers ' operations and interstate industry , the na-
tional interest is concerned with the Employers ' operations in other respects.
The Employers also print school books and confidential material for the United
S tates Government.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1439
Upon the foregoing facts, the Employers are plainly engaged. in commerce,
within the meaning of the Act. The test of the Board's jurisdiction under the
Act is whether a stoppage of operations by industrial strife in the enterprise in-
volved would result in substantial interruption to or interference with the free
flow of commerce. The pertinent facts in the instant proceeding leave no doubt
of the crippling effects upon interstate commerce that a cessation of the Em-
ployers' operations by industrial strife would inevitably entail.' The power of
Congress, moreover, extends to the protection of interstate commerce from in-
terference or injury due to activities which are wholly intrastate?
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Typographical Union, New York Typographical Union No. 6,
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, De-
troit Mailers Union No. 40 (affiliated with ITU), Pittsburgh Typographical Union
No. 7, Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2, Newark Typographical Union
No. 103, and St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 are labor organizations admit-
ting to membership employees of the Employers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The ITU and its relationship with the subordinate unions and the members
thereof
By the terms of its constitution, the ITU has assumed jurisdiction over all
branches of the printing and kindred trades, except those trades where it, by
agreement, has conceded jurisdiction, ITU alone is vested with the power to
establish subordinate local unions and its "mandates," according to the consti-
tution, "must be obeyed at all times and under all circumstances. To the Inter-
national Typographical Union of North America is reserved the right to fix, regu-
late, and determine all matters pertaining to fellowship in its branches of the
printing and kindred trades; while to subordinate unions is conceded the right
to make all necessary laws for local government which do not conflict with the
laws" of the ITU.
The charter which the ITU grants to local unions states "the conditions of this
charter are such, That said union forever and under any and all circumstances
shall be subordinate to and comply with all requirements of the constitution,
by-laws and general laws or other laws of the International Typographical Union
as they may from time to time be altered or amended: That said union shall
for all time, be guided and controlled by all acts and decisions of the International
Typographical Union as they may from time to time be enacted. . . . So long as
1 See N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1; Santa Cruz Fruit Packing
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 303 U. S. 453; Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197;
N. L. It. B. v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601 ; N. L. It. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n., 310 U. S. 318.
s N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, et al., 306 U. S. 601; Congress may prohibit wholly intrastate
activities which, if permitted, would result in restraint of interstate commerce. Coro-
nado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 268'U. S. 295. It may regulate the activities of a
local grain exchange shown to have an injurious effect on interstate commerce. Chicago
Board of Trade V. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1. It may regulate intrastate rates of interstate carriers
where the effect of the rates is to burden interstate commerce. Houston, E. & W. Texas
Ry. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342. It may compel the adoption of safety appliances
on rolling stock moving intrastate because of the relation to and effect of such appliances
upon interstate traffic moving over the same railroad. Southern By. Co. v. United States,
222 U. S. 20.
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the said union adheres to these conditions , this charter to remain in full force ;
but upon any infraction thereof, the International Typographical Union may re-
voke this charter, thereby annulling all privileges secured hereunder." The con-
stitution further states that the ITU "shall exercise complete and unrestricted
authority to define its jurisdiction, enact, enforce and amend ... all laws for
the government of the International Union, its subordinate unions and its officers
and members throughout its entire jurisdiction."
The constitution and the by-laws provide for an annual convention of the
membership at which general laws and by-laws may be enacted not in conflict
with the constitution, and for an executive council, consisting of the president,
the three vice presidents, and the Secretary-treasurer, to which is delegated,
among other things, general supervision of the International Union and subordi-
nate unions; sole authority (1) to interpret and enforce contracts and agreements,
(2) to interpret and construe the laws of the ITU and of the subordinate
unions, (3) to enforce such interpretation and construction unless and until
reversed on appeal, (4) to grant to or to withhold from the subordinate unions
permission to strike, (5) to suspend its charter if the subordinate union neglects
or refuses to obey any law or legal mandate of the ITU or of the Executive Coun-
cil, (6) to summarily expel any subordinate union, member, or members refusing
to accept and observe a decision or action of the Executive Council pending ap-
peal to a convention, and (7) to impeach any officer of the ITU, and if the charges
are proven, to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.
The general laws of the ITU, which, together with its constitution, by-laws,
and convention laws, comprise the regulations by which the International Union
and the subordinate unions are governed, prohibits a subordinate union from
submitting to the employer any proposal for a new contract, alteration, amend-
ment, or extension of an existing contract before presenting the proposal to the
ITU president for review and approval and prohibits the local union from signing
a collective bargaining contract with an employer unless the contract had
received the prior approval of the ITU president. The general laws further
restrict and control the subordinate unions in their collective bargaining
dealings because all contracts must provide that the ITU general laws, not in
conflict with law or the contract, shall govern the relations between the con-
tracting parties on conditions not specifically enumerated in the contract.
A member of a subordinate union is admittedly a member of ITU and is
subject to all the rules, regulations, and laws of the ITU. The oath of member-
ship requires the support of the regulations, decisions, and laws of ITU. The
withdrawal card, which is signed by officers of the subordinate union and
countersigned by an officer of the ITU states, in part, that the holder thereof
was, on the date appa wring thereon, a member in good standing in the ITU.
The ITU issues the stamps which are placed on the working cards of members
attesting that the member's current clues have been paid. On the fly leaf of the
"Book of Laws" of the ITU the following appears:
PROTECT YOUR MEMBERSHIP .AND BENEFITS
Every member is required to pay clues and assessments for any given
month on or before the tenth day of the next succeeding month. (Section
1, article vii, by-laws.) The member who does not comply with this provi-
sion of the by-laws is delinquent. Delinquent members may be prevented
from working in union offices and are not eligible for any of the benefits of
the International Typographical Union, except that the mortuary benefit
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1441
may be paid where death occurs within the thirty-day period following
expiration of a current working card.
A member becomes suspended for non-payment of dues when be is four
months in arrears. Suspension does not await or depend upon action by
the local union. Suspension is automatic, and results simply from the mem-
ber's failure to pay dues and assessments as required by law. It occurs on
the tenth day of the month in which the member becomes four months in
arrears.
Suspended members may be reinstated as provided in sections 12-15,
article xvi, by-laws. The suspended member who works at the trade within
the jurisdiction of a local union while under suspension is not eligible for
reinstatement and can only regain membership by making new application.
A suspended member who reinstates as provided in the by-laws restores
his continuous membership as of the date of his last initiation, but he is not
eligible to apply for admission to the Union Printers Home or for the old
age pension within a period of one year after date of reinstatement; and
if death occurs within ninety days after reinstatement, the mortuary bene-
fit can not be paid.
B. The bargaining relationships prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Law
For many years prior to June 23, 1947, the date when the Taft-Hartley Bill
became law, it had been the practice of the Employers to designate their respec-
tive trade associations as their representatives for the purposes of bargaining
collectively with the appropriate subordinate local of the ITU for the Employers'
respective composing-room employees. Likewise, prior to the above date, it had
been the practice of the Employers, who employed mailing room help, to designate
the same associations to represent them in their dealings with the appropriate
ITU Mailers local. This procedure always had been acceptable to ITU, for
shortly before the expiration date of a contract between a trade association and
a subordinate union, the latter would request the companies, through their
respective associations, to fix a date for negotiating a new contract and at the
same time submitted demands it desired included in the new contract. The
association would then designate a specified number of its officers to act for it
and the local would select a number of its officers or members to represent it.
The committee, known in'the printing trade as the "scales committee," would
then negotiate a single collective bargaining contract covering all the employees
of all the companies for whom such association acted as the bargaining repre-
sentative. In other words, collective bargaining was on a multiple-employer basis
on a local subordinate union level. The ITU did not interfere with the negotia-
tions unless called in by the local and that took place only when an impasse
arose. The agreements negotiated were for terms of one or more years ; were
reduced to writing; submitted to the membership of the subordinate union and
also to the members of the association for ratification; and if the agreements
were ratified and received the approval of the ITU president, the agreements
then would be signed by the parties thereto.
C. Bargaining relationships since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Law
Following the passage of the Act, ITU abandoned its policy of allowing the
subordinate unions to negotiate contracts on the local level, but instead adopted
877359-50-vol. 87-92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a policy to contravene the provisions of the Act. Thus, under date of July 1,
1947, ITU sent the following communication to its subordinate unions:
AS REGARDS CONTRACTS
We are studying the affect of new laws on our relations with employers
and doing so in conjunction with the A. F. of L. No hasty or ill-considered
action will be taken.
NOTICES OF TERMINATION
Sixty days prior to expiration, serve the following notice of termination
of any contracts which expire AFTER August 22, 1947;
This is to serve you with 60-day notice of termination of the contract here-
tofore in effect between your company and -------------------- Union No.
____ a subordinate union of the International Typographical Union.
To the extent. required by Section 8 (b) (3) of the LMRA this is to offer
to meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of employ-
ment but reserving all rights provided by said LMRA, Section 8 (d) that
such obligation does not compel this union to agree to a proposal or require
the making of a concession.
It does not appear at this time that we will want any collective bargaining
agreements under the new law.
If the employer makes any changes in established working conditions,
notify the President of the I. T. U.
Under date of July 15, 1947, the ITU informed the subordinate unions "the
hurdles and hazards of a contract with an employer under the responsibilities,
restraints, coercion and handicaps of the [Act] appear to make a contract entered
into after August 22, 1947 (the effective date of the Act) wholly undesirable."
The communication sent to the subordinate union under date of July 17, 1947,
reads as follows :
A rock-bottom foundation must be built upon which our relations with
employers must rest. In order to do so, we must have a clear understanding
of our fundamental rights which remain inviolate under T-H-L or any
state law.
THIS IS IT-MBBMORIZE IT!
We cannot be compelled to make contracts with employers.
We cannot be compelled to work against our will or under conditions
unsatisfactory to its.
We CAN collectively promulgate the specific conditions under which our
members will work after expiration of existing agreements.
We CAN collectively refuse to work for any employer refusing to meet
union-promulgated conditions of employment.
We CAN issue "We Do Not Patronize Lists!"
If you read it in these Bulletins it is so, BUT only exactly what you
read. There are a lot of restraints on what a union may do as to strikes
and picketing.
In its communication to its subordinate unions dated July 23, ITU stated,
among other things, "You will be advised IF we can devise a contract we can
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1443
afford to write in view of the hazards of" (the) Act. . . . If and when we
give you specific clauses or contract do not agree to any change therein."
The following communication under date of July 24, 1947, was sent to the
subordinate union reading :
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 dispicable T-H-L definitely kept ITU laws in
mind as something the ITU 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 ITU Law and O.K.'d as such by the
President of the ITU.
Most of our employers do not know of the ramifications of the law nor its
unfair provisions. They too will be receiving advice from employer agencies.
Your patience and persistence are necessary and will be rewarded.
The following communication was sent by ITU to its subordinate unions under
date of July 25:
A so-called "union shop" contract may be legal under the T-H-L. BUT-
the so-called "union shop" is actually a government-established and pro-
tected "open shop" which may employ either union or non-union people.
Under such a contract an employer is free to hire whomever he pleases regard-
less of whether or not the person may be a competent workman and eligible
for membership in the union.
Employees so hired may object to the initiation fees and dues ( Pension
and Mortuary assessment of Home Fund) of the I. T. U. and the local union
and then the NLRB may determine that our dues and initiation fees are
excessive and set a lower schedule.
You will then be faced with two alternatives : (1) accept the new employee.
at the rates stipulated by the Board, or (2) continue to work with the non-
member who may be utterly repugnant and antagonistic to your union.
If you sign the kind of "union shop" contract permitted by the T-H-L you
may find yourself working for a foreman who is not a member of the union.
For 95 years members of the I. T. U. have considered the designation
"union shop" and "closed shop" as synonymous but these words can no longer
be considered as being synonymous. A so-called "union shop" under the
T-H-L is simply a government-sponsored OPEN SHOP.
Under date of July 29, the subordinate unions received a communication from
ITU containing certain proposed clauses' which should be included in all collec-
The provisions are as follows :
(1) The parties hereto, in mutual consideration of the execution of this instru-
ment, agree that it may be cancelled and terminated at any time hereafter 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
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive bargaining contracts entered into before August 22, and that after that date
the subordinate unions were not to "verbally agree to or sign anything without
communicating with the President of the ITU."
On August 6, the subordinate unions were told, "We are compelled to stand
unqualifiedly" on the provisions suggested in the communication of July 29, and.
that "no changes [are] acceptable" to ITU.
In a communication dated August 7, the-subordinate unions were told by ITU
"no union can protect itself in the essentials of I. T. U. laws if it signs a contract
with employers" because the Act will prevent "your securing a closed shop con-
Iract," will "prevent you from excluding non-union men," "will prevent your
refusing to handle struck work," and "will interfere with your jurisdiction over
work." The communication then repeated "the rock-bottom, foundation" doc-
trine contained in the communication of July 17, quoted above.
Under date of August 25, the following communication was sent by ITU to
the subordinate unions:
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.
3. If an employer indulges in practices that make you unhappy he is
lowering efficiency. He ought to know that a union man with worries is less
efficient than a stenographer in love.
4. The Executive Council will advise you as to the course to follow in
any trouble that arises. Our laws are clear and must be followed as regards
strikes and lockouts.
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 declared 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 determination of that issue but that said issue is a matter for agreement or
settlement 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 suns of $25.00 ; provided,. that said limita-
tion 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 bargaining 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 subordinate union of the
International Typographical Union.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1445
5. Patience, confidence and determination under any and all circumstances
must be your guide in thinking and acting.
6. Despise the rumor monger and discuss facts only.
7. You can get all facts necessary from official communications and the
Typographical Journal. Read the proceedings of the convention and re-
member 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
referred to the President of The International Typographical Union before
any commitment of any kind is made by local committees or unions.
9. A FAIR employer is an asset. An employer who tries to take advantage
of the weapons of the T-H-L is your enemy.
10. We are not violating any valid law by following our Collective Bar-
gaining Policy.
At its annual convention held in Cleveland, Ohio, in August 1947, the following
policy, generally characterized as the "no contract" policy, was adopted as
an amendment to the general laws:
It is our policy that we continue to maintain our long standing repu-
tation for integrity in performing our contracts and carrying out our union
commitments.
It is our policy that we maintain our historic rights and prerogatives,
to which we are entitled and which we have enjoyed for nearly a century.
We believe that the harmony of our relations which has prevailed, almost
without interruption, for many decades between our members, our local
unions and their employees, can continue in the future, as in the past, and
it is our policy to try to continue it.
We express this belief despite the fact that ill-considered legislation has
recently been enacted, the effect of which ' might easily be disastrous to
labor-management relations.
We confidently assert that there are certain provisions in the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947 that are unconstitutional and invalid, that
certain provisions of it are impracticable and unworkable and that a great
deal of it is inequitable and unjust to organized labor.
We believe that as the provisions of this act become generally known,
the law will in time be amended to eliminate its defects and inequities.
While there should not be, and will not be, any attempt on the part of the
international or subordinate unions to violate any valid provisions of this
law, or of any law, federal or state, yet there should be, and will be, earnest
endeavors on the part of these unions to avoid any condition that will re-
sult in their being penalized by these laws and to avoid the sacrifice of rights
and prerogatives which may be lost by the signing of contracts as heretofore.
The Labor Management Relations Act does not compel the signing of
contracts, and refraining from doing so is not a violation or evasion of the
law. It will be our policy to refrain from signing contracts in order that
we avoid agreeing, or seeming to agree, or voluntarily accepting the con-
ditions created by such a relationship under the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act of 1947.
Even the Taft-Hartley Law provides that : "Nothing in this Act shall be
so construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service
without his consent, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to make the
quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act."
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the expiration of existing contracts, and until the laws above referredi
to are amended and free collective bargaining is again recognized, our mem-
bers may accept employment only from employers who are willing to employ-
them under the "Conditions of Employment" which the several unions adopt,.
after approval by the Executive Council of the ITU.
Our unions will give sixty days' notice before an existing contract be-
changed or terminated.
They will notify state and federal conciliation agencies simultaneously
thirty days after the original notice.
They will engage in collective bargaining to the extent required by law,.
bearing in mind that the legal obligation of a "labor organization" under
the LMRA to "bargain collectively" meet and confer in good faith with'
reference to wages, hours, etc., expressly provides as follows : "but such
obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require-
the making of a concession."
A "Conditions of Employment" form, which must be used by all unions,
and which is uniform except for local scales and practices. has been printed
for the convenience and use of all subordinate unions. The form sets out:
the conditions under which our members offer their services-so long as.
they are individually able and willing to work.
It is our policy that local unions do not seek to qualify as representatives.
under the Labor' Management 'Relations Act, except in special cases, after-
careful analysis and approval by the Executive Council, and that they do,
not seek to execute so-called "union shop" contracts. The process provided
by the Labor Management Relations Act for that type of contract is too.
lengthy and cumbersome and there are features of such a "union shop" that
are unacceptable to our members. Neither may our unions enter into "no^
strike" agreements or contracts of any kind without approval of the Execu-
tive Council.
The International Typographical Union and its local unions and their
officers will file any financial reports and affidavits required by law.
Local unions should not file any unfair labor practice charges or petition-
for investigation or representation, without first consulting the President
of the International Typographical Union and obtaining approval of the
Executive Council.
We realize that this policy may bring some disappointment to our.em-
ployers because it provides for unilateral action. It may be possible for
those employers who do not approve the policy to prepare unilaterally a set
of conditions of employment that would be satisfactory.
The Executive Council is hereby authorized to interpret, construe and'
enforce the above policy from August 22, 1947.
The above policy reaffirmed the "no contract" position of 1TU and set up the
form of relationship which ITU would seek to attain, based upon, as more
fully discussed below, "Conditions of Employment." The convention at the
same time implemented its policy by amending its by-laws to provide that any
subordinate union or member refusing to accept or follow decisions of the Execu-
tive Council, pending appeal, would be summarily expelled by the Executive
Council. The adoption of this amendment provided an effective means of en-
forcing the decisions of the Executive Council.'
4 Prior to the amendment the Executive Council had only the power to suspend a
subordinate union or a member, pending appeal, for failure to abide by a decision of the
Executive Council . .,.v.1
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1447
By communication dated September 3, 1947, the subordinate unions were in-
formed by the ITU of the latter's "objective in Conferences with Employers" 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
contract.
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
specified 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 con-
ditions 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 declaration
must also have the approval of the Executive Council.
N. B.-Use "Conditions of Employment" form furnished by the I. T. U.
adding any necessary additional sections in the blank spaces on reverse
side.
Numerous and diverse other communications, both oral and written, were sent
by the ITU to the subordinate unions between July 1, 1947, and the date of
the reopened hearing herein, but it would serve no useful purpose to set them
out at length here. Suffice it to say, the communications were of the same tenure
and of substantially the same theme as those set out above and were calculated
to, and in fact did, instruct the subordinate unions not to enter into any col-
lective bargaining agreement which did not conform to the policy of ITU as set
forth in the said communications.
D. Refusal to bargain collectively
The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area
1. The appropriate unit and representation by Philadelphia Typographical Local
No. 2 of a majority therein
The Allied Printing Employers' Association, herein called the Association, a
.division of the Printing Industries of Philadelphia, is a trade association com-
posed of approximately 250 firms in the commercial or job printing industry
located in the Philadelphia area. Since about 1933, the Association has been
handling exclusively the collective bargaining negotiations for its members with
the various labor organizations in the printing industry in that area and prose-
cuting and handling the grievances arising thereunder. Prior to August 22,
1947, each member of the Association orally had designated the Association as
its exclusive collective bargaining representative in its dealings with the said
unions. Between August 22 and October 1, 1947, the 26 firms 6 comprising the
Association, either orally or in writing, had authorized it to bargain collectively
on their behalf with No. 2 looking toward a contract to replace the one expiring
on December 31, 1947.
Listed on Appendix A hereto annexed.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Covering the period from January 1, 1933, to January 1, 1948, the Associa-
tion and No. 2 have had continuous collective bargaining relations and during
that period had entered into six or seven closed-shop contracts of 1 year or more
duration for the compositors, proofreaders, linotype machine operators, linotype
machinist-operators, linotype machinists, monotype keyboard operators, mono-
type casting machine operators, monotype combination and apprentices, excluding
helpers, office boys, and utility helpers operators, employed by the members of
the Association.
The complaint, with respect to the Philadelphia area, alleged that all com-
positors, proofreaders, linotype machine operators, linotype machinist-operators,
linotype machinists, monotype keyboard operators, monotype casting machine
operators, monotype combination operators, and apprentices, excluding helpers,
office boys, utility, and all other employees, and all supervisors having authority,
in the interest of the firms, 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,
employed in the respective composing rooms of 26 firms listed on Appendix A
hereof, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. With the exception of the
exclusion of foremen and certain other supervisory employees, the contracts
from 1933 to the end of 1947 covered the persons classified in the alleged ap-
propriate unit. The answers of No. 2 and ITU denied the appropriateness of
the alleged unit. The evidence adduced at the hearing, with respect to this issue,
affirmatively shows that the unit alleged in the complaint is in all respects
similar, except certain supervisory employees, to the units contained in the'
6 or 7 contracts between the Association and No. 2. During the bargaining
conferences held in the fail and winter of 1947-48, the parties raised no objec-
tions to the alleged unit, but proceeded to bargain for the persons covered by
the prior contracts, excepting for supervisors. Under the circumstances, the
undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the employees here involved will
receive the full benefit of the right to self-organization by the adoption, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, of the unit alleged in the complaint. Accord-
ingly, the undersigned finds that all the, employees in the respective composing
rooms of the firms listed on Appendix A hereof, including all compositors, proof-
readers, linotype machine operators, linotype machinist-operators, linotype ma-
chinists, monotype keyboard operators, monotype casting machine operators,
monotype combination operators, and apprentices, excluding helpers, office boys,
and all other employees, and all supervisors having authority, in the interest
of the firms listed on Appendix A hereof, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, re-
call, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or re-
sponsibility 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, and during all times material herein did con-
stitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. This finding is buttressed by the fact
that there is no showing in the record that collective bargaining has been carried
on at any. time, at least since 1933, between No. 2 and any individual company
involved herein. This established history of adherence to a uniform labor agree-
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1449
ment arrived at between the Association and No. 2 demonstrates clearly that
the companies have acted as a group and have been bound as a group rather
than by individual action. Moreover, the authority of the Association so to act
was never questioned by No. 2.6
No. 2's representation of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit,
during all times material herein, is established by (1) the admissions contained
in the respective answer of No. 2 and ITU, (2) the closed-shop contracts be-
tween No. 2 and the Association covering this unit from 1933, to the expiration
date of the last contract, December 31, 1947, and (3) the evidence adduced at
the hearing which clearly shows that all the composing -room. employees in
the appropriate unit are, and were during all times material herein, members
of No. 2. Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that on August 22,
19,17, and at all times thereafter, No. 2 was, and now is, the duly designated
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,. and that, by virtue of
Section 9 (a) of the Act, No. 2 was, and now is, the representative of all the
employees in the unit found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
2. The negotiations
In June 1947 the Association, through John Seybold, its Industrial Relations
Director, suggested to Sinclair Muir, president of No. 2, that because the Taft-
Hartley Act permitted the retention of a closed-shop provision in any collective
bargaining contracts entered into prior to August 22, 1947, No. 2 might be in-
terested in reopening the then existing contract which by its terms was to ex-
pire on December 31, 1947, in order to obtain a new closed-shop contract. Muir
replied that since he was not too familiar with the new Act and that No. 2
was not planning to have any meetings during the summer, it would be im-
possible for No. 2 to formulate any proposals to submit to the Association and
therefore he did not think it feasible to attempt to reach any agreement prior
to August 22.
On August 12, Seybold telephoned to Muir and told him that the Association
had completed negotiations with the Pressmen's union for a 1-year extension
of the contract then existing between the Association and that union and that
the new contract provided for an immediate wage increase and an additional
wage increase to be given at the time the then existing contract normally would
have expired. Seybold added that the Association was engaged in negotiations
with the Bookbinders' union and that the Association was willing to discuss
at that time a new contract with No. 2. Seybold further said that if the
parties could come to an agreement prior to August 22, the effect of the Taft-
Hartley Act upon the collective bargaining relationships between the Association
and No. 2 might be minimized. Muir replied that No. 2 was in the same position
as it was in June in that it would not be possible for it to submit any specific
proposal, but he would meet with-the Association if the Association had any
proposals to make. Seybold responded that the Association had no specific pro-
posals to make, that the Pressmen's union and the Bookbinders' union had made
proposals which were acceptable to the Association, that the Association would
discuss any proposal that Muir submitted, and that if Muir wanted some indica-
6 See Rayonier, Inc., Grays Harbor Division, 52 NLRB 1269; Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 59
NLRB 706; Advance Tannin! Co., 60 NLRB 923; California Metal Trades Ass'n, 72
NLRB 624; California State Brewers Institute , 72 NLRB 665.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion as to Association's position, he should examine the agreement reached with
the Pressmen's union. Muir said that he would let the matter "ride" until the
time for the normal reopening of the contract arrived and then he would com-
municate with the Association.
It would be recalled that between July 1 and August 12, the date of the above
telephone conversation, ITU sent communications, some of which are quoted
above, to its subordinate unions instructing the locals to refrain from submit-
ting proposals to any employer. Other instructions stated that ITU did not
want subordinate unions to enter into any new collective bargaining contracts,
nor to vary the collective bargaining policy set by ITU.
By letter, dated October 1, 1947, Muir informed the Association that No. 2
had elected to terminate the contract which was to expire on December 31, 1947.'
The letter concluded,
To the extent required by Section 8 (b) 3 of the Labor Management Re-
lations Act this is to offer to meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiat-
ing" conditions of employment, but reserving all rights provided by said
LMRA, Section 8 (d), that such obligation does not compel this union to
agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.
On the same day, October 1, Seybold wrote Muir acknowledging receipt of
Muir's letter and calling his attention to the provision of the then existing
contract which provided for the submission, by the party desiring a new contract,
of proposals to the other party 60 days prior to the termination date of the
contract. Seybold added that the Association would submit its proposals to No. 2
on November 1, and will expect to receive the latter's proposals on or before
that date.
On October 20, Muir wrote Seybold as follows :
This will acknowledge your letter of October 1, 1947.
We call your attention to our Agreement of January 1, 1946, Section 2
of which provides as follows :
"This Agreement and scale of wages shall be effective on January 1, 1946,
and shall terminate on December 31, 1947; provided, that wages shall be
open for adjustment on written notice by either party 30 days prior to
December 31, 1946. If no agreement is reached by December 31, 1946, then
the subject of wages only may be handled as a dispute in accordance with
Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13."
The underscoring is ours.
We are of the opinion the Union's proposal is contained in the third para-
graph of our letter of October 1, 1947.
We will, therefore, await receipt of any proposal the Association may
wish to submit and will be pleased to meet with the representatives of the
Association at an early date.
Seybold replied on October 24 as follows:
This is to acknowledge your letter of October 20, 1947.
You call our attention to Section 2 of the Agreement of January 1, 1946,
and underscore the provision contained therein to the effect that the Agree-
ment shall terminate on December 31, 1947. You will recall, however, that
Section 8 of the said Agreement provides as follows :
"If no notice by either party is given in writing as stipulated in the
preceding paragraph, the existing provisions of this Agreement shall
7 The letter is almost a verbatim transcription of the language contained in the July 1
communication sent by ITU to the subordinate unions.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1451
continue in full force and effect for another year, and thereafter be
subject to the stipulation as set forth in the preceding paragraph prior
to each, succeeding annual expiration date."
The preceding paragraph referred to is Section 7, which was quoted in our
letter of October 1, and which establishes the procedure for modifying or
amending the Agreement. There is no provision for automatic termination
of the Agreement which relieves either party of the obligation to bargain as
to the terms of a new contract, which bargaining under Section 7 must be
preceded by proposals setting forth the amendments or the new agreement
desired by the party giving notice.
1 rankly, we are also unable to understand your reference in your letter
of October 20 to the third paragraph of your letter of October first, as a pro-
posal within the meaning of our Agreement. You offer to meet and confer
for the purposes of "negotiating" conditions of employment. What are the
specific conditions of employment which you propose?
It has been the custom in prior years, as we understand it, for your Union
to inform the Association of the exact nature of the changes desired, and
this procedure has facilitated our negotiations.
We should therefore appreciate your list of specific proposals.
In reply to the above-quoted letter of Seybold, Muir, on October 25, wrote as
follows :
Our proposals in collective bargaining are :
1. We propose that there be no signed, verbal or any other kind of a
contract.
2. We propose that the employers recognize there is no obligation on the
part of the Union or its individual members to do other than may be
specified in the "conditions of employment" set by the Union.
The letter concluded with a request that the Association submit its proposals
so that an early date may be set for a bargaining conference.
On October 31, Seybold wrote Muir that the Association proposed "the exist-
ing Agreement be the basis for the negotiations of a new contract to be effective
January 1, 1948, and which, as in the past, shall run for a definite and reason-
able duration" and that "any provision' in said [then existing] Agreement which
are contrary to the requirements of the National Labor Management Rela-
tions Act shall be brought into conformity with that Act." The letter con-
cluded with the suggestion that the committees representing the parties meet
on November 6.
The scales committee of No. 2 and the scales committee of the Association
met on November 6. The chairman and spokesman of the Association's com-
mittee, Joseph Schwartz, opened the meeting by stating that contrary to past
practices, the Association had received no proposals from No. 2 and therefore
he was "at a loss to know just what the Union had in mind." Muir, the spokes-
man for No. 2, replied that No. 2 "did not want a contract, verbal, written or
otherwise." Muir added that he "felt that both parties would be better off
without a contract." Schwartz then said that the Association, as in the past,
wanted a contract, but Muir reiterated that No. 2 did not desire one. When
asked for his proposals, Muir stated "this year the Union was not going to
make any proposals." Again Muir was asked why No. 2 did not want 'a con-
tract and again Muir replied that he felt that both parties would be "better
off" without a contract. When Schwartz stated that it was essential to have
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a written contract for a definite period so as to have "mutual responsibility"
Muir replied that the Association's members "were dealing with a responsible
organization and the men were a guarantee of responsibility .. " Muir then.
suggested that the parties negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions and
leave in abeyance the form the agreement, if reached, would take. The meeting
concluded with no agreement reached as to any matter.
The parties met again on November 12. The meeting opened with a request
by Schwartz that Muir clarify the position of No. 2. Muir stated that No. 2,
did not want a contract because of the Act and that its members would not work
with nonunion employees. In reply to a question as to what would happen if a
nonunion man applied for a job, Muir stated that the employees would have no.
trouble in that. respect as long as the. foreman did the hiring, since the foreman
was a member of No. 2. After a lengthy discussion regarding a written contract
the meeting concluded with the understanding, that the parties would meet again
on November 14.
At the opening of the November 14 meeting, Seybold, a member of the Associa-
tion's negotiating committee and who attended all the 1947-48 conferences be-
tween No. 2 and the Association, asked Muir whether
the Union's position was that it did not want a contract, verbal, written or
otherwise, that it wanted to negotiate wages and other economic conditions
with the Employers, and then discuss after these discussions had taken place,.
what form of understanding would be reached in connection with that form
of understanding, that the Union preferred to incorporate those conditions in
a form known as Conditions of Employment, which it would then post.
Muir said that it was. Then Schwartz asked Muir if No. 2 would agree to a
contract, and Muir replied "a contract was. possible, that perhaps the Union
would enter into a contract." When asked if No. 2 would enter into a contract
for a definite period, Muir replied that it was "possible." At one point in the
meeting, Schwartz suggested that the parties use the then existing contract as
a basis for negotiations. Muir agreed. however, instead of proceeding as agreed,
Muir handed the Association's committee a document headed "Conditions of
Employment," and requested copies thereof be posted in the respective plants of
the employers after agreement had been reached on wages and other incidental
matters.
The first four paragraphs of the document read as follows :
This schedule of the Conditions of Employment, as hereinafter stated, is in
no wise a contract 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 policy of prescribing conditions of employment by union action only
is for the purpose of retaining all legal rights of the union and its individual
members.
________________________ Union No. ____, a subordinate union of the Inter-
national Typographical Union and subject to all the consent and support of
the International Typographical Union, establishes the wages, hours and
conditions under which members of -------------------- Union No. ____
shall work, as stated in the schedules and provisions herein, on and after
____________________, 19____, subject only to such alteration, amendment or
withdrawal as may be authorized by a vote of the membership as prescribed
by local laws and approved by the International Typographical Union.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1453
No local union officer, chapel chairman, or other member of the union,
shall be authorized to act as an "agent" of the union for any purpose or act
prohibited by state or federal laws. The union promulgating these condi-
tions of employment accepts no obligations 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 employment is a matter of their indi-
vidual rights and prerogatives..
Failure on the part of any employer of members of the union, to provide
employment at the standards set forth in these conditions will be evidence
that such employer has locked out members of our union and with the consent
of the International Typographical Union such members may be classified
as locked out and other union members may be notified of such lockout.
Then follows provisions and schedules pertaining to wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment. The amount of wages to be paid
and details with respect to certain other items were left blank. The document
concludes with the following provisions :
This schedule of the Conditions of Employment, as hereinafter stated, is
in nowise a contract nor is it an offer susceptible of acceptance by an em-
ployer 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 policy of prescribing conditions of employment by union action only
is for the purpose of retaining all legal rights of the union and. its individual
members.
_____________________ Union No. ____, a subordinate union of the Interna-
tional Typographical Union and subject to all of its laws, regulations and
decisions, hereby, and with the consent and support of the International
Typographical Union establishes the wages, hours and conditions under
which members of ------------------ Union No. ____ shall work, as stated in
the schedules and provisions herein, on and after ______________________,
19____, subject only to such alteration, amendment or withdrawal as may
be authorized by a vote of the membership as prescribed by local laws and
approved by the International Typographical Union.
No local union officer, chapel chairman, or other member of the union shall
be authorized to act as an "agent" of the union for any purpose or act
prohibited by state or federal laws. The union promulgating these condi-
tions of employment accepts no obligations 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 employment is a matter of their indi-
vidual rights and prerogatives.
Failure on the part of any employer of members of the union, to provide
employment at the standards set forth in these conditions will be evidence
such employer has locked out members of our union and with the consent of
the International Typographical Union such members may be classified as
locked out and other union members may be notified of such lockout.
Section 32. Members working before or in excess of the regular hours
established for the day's or night's work or at the end of a week's work
must receive the overtime rate, which shall be not less than price and one-half
based on the hourly wage paid.
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
Section 33. No member shall be required or permitted to hold a situation
of more than five days or five nights or a combination of days and nights
equivalent to five in one financial week. When any member is required
to work on a regular off day or off night, or a sixth or seventh shift in any
financial week, he shall receive overtime for such work.
Section 34. A lunch period of at least thirty minutes and not more than
one hour shall be allowed for each shift, such time not to be included in the
number of hours specified for a day's or night's work.
Section 35. In no case shall a member receive pay for less than a full
shift except when discharged for cause or excused at his own request.
Section 36. The union prescribes no obligation or duty for, or on behalf
of, its members to work on any particular product not wholly produced in
the shop in which they work. The union hereby reserves to each member
the right to exercise any legal prerogative he may have to act individually
in the quitting of his employment or to work only when he considers. himself
able to do so. The union accepts no obligation as regards the number of
men needed to do the volume of work required by the office. It shall be the
duty of union members to produce as original matter, and to the same effect
and standards, all matter inserted in the paper meeting the following
description :
Any advertisement originally set within the jurisdiction of aforesaid
union; any advertisement, wherever set, advertising the business of any
concern that is in the local field.
The foreman of the composing room shall make such matter available
to be produced within ____ days.
The union considers it an unfair labor practice for an office to deprive
union members of work by requiring or permitting advertisers to supply
mats or plates of local advertising. Union members are not required to
be a party to such practices.
Section 37: The foreman may discharge (1) for incompetency; ( 2) for
neglect of duty; (3) for violation of office rules; which shall be kept con-
spicuously posted, and which in no way abridge the civil rights of members,
or their rights under International Typographical Union laws. A discharged
member shall have the right to challenge the fairness of any office rule
which is applied to bring about his discharge.
Section 38. When it becomes necessary to decrease the force such decrease
shall be accomplished by discharging first the member or members last
employed either as regular employes or as extra employes, as the exigencies
of the matter may require. Should there be an increase in the force the
members displaced through such cause shall be reinstated in reverse order
in which they were discharged before others may be employed. Upon de-
mand, the foreman shall give the reason for discharge in writing. Mem-
bers considered capable as substitutes by the foreman shall be deemed
competent to fill regular situations, and the substitute oldest in continuous
service shall have prior right in the filling of the first vacancy. This
section shall apply to incoming as well as outgoing foremen. Demand for
written reason for discharge shall be made within seventy-two hours after
member is informed of discharge.
Section 39. Any member who has been discharged and believes the dis-
charge unjustified shall have the right- to appeal to the chapel. The dis-
charged member or the foreman may appeal -from•the decision of the chapel
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1455
to the local union. From the decision of the local union ' appeal may be
made by either to the Executive Council of the International Union and a
convention as provided by I. T. U. laws.
Section 40. The union reserves to its members the right to seek employ-
ment elsewhere when any condition in the office where they are working
becomes unsatisfactory, and to refuse to work when they consider themselves
unable or unwilling to perform the duties imposed by the office.
Section 41. Sanitary Regulations. The office must be a clean, healthful,
sufficiently ventilated, properly heated and lighted place for the performance
of all work of the composing room ; and all machines or apparatus operated
in the composing room or in the rooms adjacent thereto from which dust,
gases or other impurities are produced or generated shall be equipped in
such manner as to protect the health of members.
Section 42. A superannuated member may be permitted to work at a
rate of not less than ---------- of the regular scale of wages provided for
journeymen; provided, that not more than one superannuated member shall
be employed in any office at any one time, and no superannuated member
will be allowed to work in any office where there are no other journeymen
members employed.
Section 43. Learners on machines shall be journeymen or apprentices in
the final year of their apprenticeship.
Section 44. Members called back after having left the office shall receive
$__________ for such callback and overtime rates for all time worked.
Section 45. Members may claim new shifts, new starting times, new
slide days and have choice of vacation schedule in accordance with their
priority standing.
The meeting concluded upon the Association's Committee's request for time to
study the "Conditions of Employment" and upon the parties agreeing to meet
again on November.20.
At the opening of the November 20 meeting, Muir was informed that the Asso-
ciation's members would not permit the "Conditions of Employment" to be posted
in their plants as requested by Muir at the November 14 meeting, because the
employers believed the document to be illegal. In reply to Muir's request to
point out to him the illegal provisions in the document, Merrill Knapp, who acted
at this meeting as chairman of the Association's committee in the absence of
Schwartz, said that the very first sentence of the document, without even taking
into consideration its other clauses, took the document outside the pale of the
Act. Knapp then told Muir that the document was also objectionable because
it contained a clause forbidding the employers from hiring nonunion composing
room employees and that the Association's members specifically objected to the
language of Section 36. Muir then said that the document was perfectly legal,
but agreed to set it aside for a time and to use the then existing contract as a
basis of negotiations. Muir then asked if the Association would agree to a
closed-shop contract. Knapp replied that the Association could no lpnger agree
to a closed-shop contract, but was willing to enter into a union-shop contract.
Muir's response was that a "union shop was no better than an open shop." Muir
also said, "Our men will not work with non-union men and you can put that
down in the record too."
At Muir's request, the parties then proceeded to discuss the first 1.4 sections
of the then existing contract. The Association's committeemen expressed their
willingness to agree to those sections provided they were rewritten to conform
to the Act, stating that most of those sections, as they then stood, concerned
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
closed-shop provisions and other provisions repugnant to the Act. The Asso-
ciation then handed Muir its revision of the first 14 sections of the said con-
tract. After discussing the clauses with the other members of the committee
representing No. 2, Muir asked for an opportunity to consider the proposed
clauses. The meeting then recessed with the understanding that the parties
would meet again on November 26.
The November 26 meeting was opened by Schwartz who asked Muir whether
he was prepared to submit proposals. Muir then handed Schwartz a document
and asked whether the contents thereof reflected the Association's position with
respect to the re-wording of the first 14 sections of the then existing contract.
After a perusal of the document by the committee members, Muir was told that
the document truly reflected the Association's proposals. Muir then said No. 2
would not agree to the Association's proposals and, although Schwartz asked
him several times why the proposals were unacceptable, Muir refused to state
the reasons. A census was then taken by the Association committee. When
the meeting- reconvened, Schwartz said that the Association's members felt
that the parties were not getting anywhere with their negotiations due to the
fact that Muir refused to state the position of No. 2 as to whether or not a
contract could be reached ; that to all questions concerning that issue Muir
would reply "perhaps," "maybe," ."there is a possibility," and the like ; and
that No. 2 refused to submit any proposals, although in past years the nego-
tiations centered around the demands submitted by No. 2. Schwartz then
asked Muir if No. 2 would enter into a contract if agreement was reached.
Muir replied that he did not know. Schwartz then asked Muir,
(1) Would the Union give us-that is, give the employees-a contract
which would not compel the employers to recognize and accept the laws of the
International Union which were contrary to law? (2) Would the Union
give the employers a contract in which the Union did not reserve the right
to define its own jurisdiction? (3) Would the Union give the employers
a contract in which the Union would not reserve for its members the right
to refuse to execute struck work . . . ?
Muir refused to answer the questions, but submitted to Schwartz a proposed
agreement, containing, among others, the following clauses :
5." The party of the first part agrees that it will not assign work tradi-
tionally performed by journeymen and apprentice printers to any employee
other than journeymen and apprentice printers, as defined by the party of
the second part. It is further agreed that in the event of a difference of
opinion between the parties to this agreement as to the correctness or
desirability of the party of the second part's determination as to what
work has been traditionally performed by journeymen and apprentice print-
ers, the party of the first part may, on 10 days' notice to the party of the
second part, declare this agreement null and void. During said period of
10 days, it is mutually agreed that neither party hereto will seek Joint
Standing Committee or outside assistance in the determination of such mat-
ters, but that said 10-day period shall be used entirely in efforts to com-
pose the matter solely between the parties to this agreement.
6. The party of the first part recognizes that the party of the second part
cannot compel members to work with non-union printers, and apprentices
and therefore agrees that any refusal by its workers to work with non-union
employees shall not constitute a breach of this agreement.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1457
8. The party of the first part agrees not to require its employees to
.perform 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 party of the second part.
It is further agreed that in the event of a difference of opinion between
the parties to this agreement as to the correctness or desirability of the
party of the second part's determination as to what work has been produced
under substandard conditions, the party of the first part may on 10 days'
notice to the party of the second part, declare this agreement null and
void. During said period of 10 days, it is .mutually agreed that neither
party hereto will seek Joint Standing Committee or outside assistance in
the determination of such matters, but that said 10-day period shall be de-
voted entirely to efforts to compose the matter solely between the parties to
this agreement.
9. A standing committee of two representatives appointed by the party of
the first part and a like committee of two representatives appointed by the
party of the second part, shall be maintained; and in case of a vacancy,
absence or refusal of either of such representatives to act, another shall be
appointed in his place. To this joint standing committee shall be referred'
all disputes which may arise as to the. construction to be placed upon, any
clause of the agreement, except as provided otherwise herein, or alleged
violations thereof, which cannot be settled otherwise, and such joint stand-
ing committee shall meet when any question of difference shall have been
referred to it for decision by the executive officers of either party to this
agreement. Should the joint standing committee be unable to agree, then
it shall refer the matter to a board of arbitration, the representatives of
each party to this agreement to appoint two arbiters, and the four to agree
upon a fifth. The decision of this board shall be final and binding upon both
parties : Provided: That local union laws not affecting wages, hours or work-
ing conditions and the general laws of the International Typographical
Union shall not be subject to arbitration. The conditions prevailing prior
to any such dispute shall be maintained until decided as above provided.
10. It is agreed that the procedures for the settlement of any differences
or grievances arising under this contract are exclusive, and. in considera-
tion of the mutual undertaking herein contained, 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; provided that such limi-
tation of $25 shall not apply to claims for wages.
When asked by Seybold' whether' the' document 'referred to immediately above
was an answer to the three questions posed to Muir by Schwartz, Muir replied "it
was an affirmative answer insofar as the document itself indicated the.position
of the union in these matters." After considering the document, Schwartz said
that the proposals were not acceptable to the Association because they were no
better. than the "Conditions of Employment" previously' submitted by' No. 2.
Schwartz further stated that paragraphs numbered 5, 6, 8, S, and 10 were espe=
cially objectionable to the Association because they were repugnant to the,Act.
When asked whether No. 2 would execute a written contract for a fixed term if
the parties came to an agreement as to the terms, Muir replied "he didn't know,
he couldn't be sure. He didn't think so."
877$59-50-vol. 87-93
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bluir then submitted to the Association's Committee a proposed agreement,
referred to in therecord as form P-6A, stating, that ITU had authorized its, sub-
mission and,-if the agreement was, acceptable. to-.the employers,-No. 2 was em-
powered to execute it s
Form P-6A contains, among others, the following provisions :
(a) Party of the first part (employer) hereby recognizes the party of
the second part (Union) as the excursive bargaining representative of all
employees subject to the latter's jurisdiction.
(b) The party of the first part recognizes the right of the party of the
second part to formulate laws, rules and decisions for conditions under which
its members may seek or accept employment and agrees there shall be
no interference whatsoever by the party of the first part in the observance
of such laws, rules and decisions, nor shall any issue be raised or complaint
considered except in the event such laws, rules or decisions conflict with the
terms of this agreement.
' 8 On October 7, ITU authorized the subordinate union to execute form P-6A when and
"if the employer and his `legal advisers ' insist on a contract ." The subordinate unions
were instructed not to deviate from its provisions and particularly from the paragraph
containing the 60 -day cancellation clause. With respect to P-6A, Woodruff Randolph, the
president of ITU, issued the following letter on October 6
To the officers and scale committee of all subordinate unions:
CONFIDENTIAL NOT TO BE PRINTED OR POSTED.
The contract form P-6 (a) prepared for submission when employers insist on a
contract contains ample reason for rejection by employers in the first paragraph which
provides for 60 days ' termination . DO NOT CHANGE THAT LIMIT.
The other sections on the first page ( a) to (i ) inclusive are absolutely necessary.
DO NOT CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY.
This contract offer makes our "Conditions of Employment" form much more desirable
by employers.
Fraternally,
WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, President.
On October 7, the following circular was sent by ITU to all the subordinate unions:
EXPLANATION OF CHANGE IN STRATEGY BECAUSE OF ATTACK BY NLRB COUNCIL AGAINST
OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POLICY
Our Collective Bargaining Policy provides in the seventh paragraph :
"While there should not be, and will not be, any attempt on the part of the inter-
national or subordinate unions to violate any valid provisions of this law , or of any
law, federal or state , yet there should . be, and will be, earnest endeavors on the part
of these unions to avoid any condition that will result in their being penalized by these
laws and to avoid the sacrifice of rights and prerogatives which may be lost by the
signing of contracts as heretofore."
The final paragraph provides :
"The Executive Council is hereby authorized to interpret , construe and enforce the
above policy from August 22 , 1947."
The attack by the NLRB General Counsel immediately after our convention and the
grouping around him of our employers was highly significant . We regard it as an
obvious conspiracy against us . Counsel Denham ' s only leg to stand on was his claim,
that we were not bargaining "in good faith " in spite of the new language in the T-H-L.
A quick decision by the NLRB and perhaps a quick injunction to be in effect until
reversed by a higher court would have been extensively used as anti-I. T. U . publicity-
and would have given Mr. Denham enough prestige to get his appointment confirmed
when Congress meets in January.
We therefore can easily comply-with even Denham ' s idea of "good faith " by present-
ing a form of contract we will offer to sign if the employer will sign it. ,_
In the new form of contract ( P-6A) we protect ourselves as well as we can by the
paragraphs at the beginning , set in 10 pt . boldface type . The first paragraph, and_
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1459
(c) It is understood and agreed that the General Laws of the Interna-
tional Typographical Union, in effect January 1, 1947, not in conflict with
law or this contract, shall govern relations between the parties on condi-
tions it specifically enumerated herein.
(d) The party of the first part agrees that it will not assign any work
traditionally performed by journeymen and apprentice printers to any
employee other than journeymen and apprentice printers, as defined by the
party of the second part. It is further agreed that in the event of a differ-
ence of opinion between the parties to this agreement as to the correctness
or desirability of the party of the second part's determination as to what
work has been traditionally performed by journeymen and apprentice,
printers, the party of the first part may, on 10 days' notice to the party of
the second part, declare this agreement null and void. During said period.
of 10 days, it is mutually agreed that neither party hereto will seek Joint:
Standing Committee or outside assistance in the determination of suchi
the paragraphs that follow , lettered ( a) to (i ) both inclusive are the ONLY protection
you can write into a contract on matters of utmost importance to us.
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 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 adopted 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 " against
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-6A limits the time during which you are
in danger on those three above stated points.
5. The other paragraphs iIi form P-6A are carefully drawn to take care of the
other matters vital to us . You can ' t "bargain in good faith" ( even "Denham style")
but are not required to agree to a proposal or grant a concession . We like our 60-day
limitation . We like paragraphs (a) to (i ) 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 acs lie will take another
look at our "Conditions of Employment" idea which was successful and acceptable
enough until the T -H-L and Denham.
By Order of the Executive Council,
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, President.
LARRY TAYLOR , First Vice President.
ELMER BROWN , Second Vice President.
DON HURD, Secretary Treasurer.
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matters, but that said 10-day period shall be used entirely in efforts to
compose the matter solely between the parties to this agreement.
(e) The party of the first part recognizes that the party of the second part
cannot compel members to work with non-union printers and apprentices and
therefore agrees that any refusal by its workers to work with non-union
employees shall not constitute a breach of this agreement.
(f) The parties further agree that: No member of the union, second party
hereto, shall be required or expected to cross a picket line established by
any subordinate union of the International Typographical Union.
(g) The party of the first part agrees not to require its employees to per-
form 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 party of the second part. It is further agreed that in the event of
a difference of opinion between the parties to this agreement as to the
correctness or desirability of the party of the second part's determination
as to what work has been produced under substandard conditions , the party
of the first part may on 10 days' notice to the party of the second part,
declare this agreement null and void . During said period of 10 days, it
is mutually agreed that neither party hereto will seek Joint Standing Com-
mittee or outside assistance in the determination of such matter , but that
said 10-day period shall be devoted entirely to efforts to compose the matter
solely between the parties to this agreement.
(h) A standing committee of two representatives appointed by the party
of the first part, and a like committee of two representatives appointed by
the party of the second part, shall be maintained ; and in case of a vacancy,
absence or refusal of either of such representatives to act, another shall be
appointed in his place . To this joint standing committee shall be referred
all disputes which may arise as to the construction to be placed upon any
clause of the agreement , except as provided otherwise herein, or alleged vio-
lations thereof , which can not be settled otherwise , and such joint standing
committee shall meet when any question of difference shall have been re-
ferred to it for decision by the executive officers of either party to this agree-
ment. Should the joint standing committee be unable to agree, then it shall
refer the matter to a board of arbitration , the representatives of each party
to this agreement to appoint two arbiters , and the four to agree upon a fifth.
The decision of this board shall be final and binding upon both parties:
Provided : That local union laws not affecting wages, hours or working condi-
tions and the general laws of the International Typographical Union shall not
be subject to arbitration . The conditions prevailing prior to any such dispute
shall be maintained until decided as above provided.
(i) It is agreed that the procedures for the settlement of any differences
or grievances arising under this contract are exclusive , and in consideration
of the mutual undertaking herein contained, 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 ; provided that such limita-
tion of $25 shall not apply to claims for wages.
After consulting among themselves , the members of the Association ' s committee
told Muir that form P-GA was unacceptable to them because it contained some
illegal provisions . The Association then proposed that foremen with exclusive
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1461
hiring and firing powers, who were. members of ITU to be hired exclusive, if
No. 2 would accept a "union shop" for the nonsupervisory employees. Muir stated
that he did not think that proposal would be acceptable because some "rats"
might not hire ITU members. The meeting concluded with no agreement reached.
On November 28, Seybold sent the following letter to Muir :
We have had five meetings in an effort to reach agreement with you as to
the terms of the contract under which your Union members would be em-
ployed after December 31, 1947.
It has been our position throughout these meetings that we were willing
to negotiate a wage adjustment and other changes to be incorporated, as in
the past, in a written contract in conformity with the law.
This year, for the first time, your Committee has taken the position, and
it has been reiterated at each of our meetings, that you do not want a con-
tract, verbal, written or otherwise, and that both parties would be "better
off" without a contract. It has been your proposal that we acquiesce to cer-
tain "Conditions of Employment," promulgated by Mr. Randolph. These
"Conditions" are notoriously illegal.
You then offered us the provisions of your International Union's "Form
P-6A." These provisions are just as illegal as the "Conditions of Employ-
ment." As a matter of fact, Mr. Randolph has testified, in effect, that the
provisions of "Form P-6A" would be effective only so long as the employer
violated the law.
We have made every effort to discover some manner in which we could
enter into a contract with your Union which would not place us in violation
of the law. We are now convinced that your hands are tied by Mr. Ran-
dolph's "no-contract" policy, the announced purpose of which is to evade the
laws of the United States. We are neither defending nor attacking these
laws, but we state to you that we have no choice but to insist that we must
abide by them.
Accordingly, we regret to advise you that we must proceed to request the
National Labor Relations Board to investigate the matter.
On December 3, Muir replied stating that it was his understanding that the Asso-
ciation would fix a date for another meeting and that he trusted the Association
would do so immediately.
The following letter was sent to Muir by Seybold on December 5:
I am replying to your letter of December 3, 1947.
On receipt of your letter I called you on the telephone. I first stated to
you that I had understood that we had left the matter at the last meeting
that I was to get in touch with you, and that I considered I had done so by
my letter of November 28. :[ further stated that there had been no under-
standing that I was to notify you for the purpose of arranging another
meeting. You and I then discussed together the question of a future meet-
ing between our committees and I suggested in this connection that our
attorneys should be present at such a meeting.
You replied that you would take the matter up with your Committee and
advise me the next day.
When you called this morning you stated that you had consulted with your
Committee and that they felt the attorneys should not be present in negotia-
tions, but that you were agreeable to a meeting between the attorneys. You
informed me that your attorney was Ben Simon , and I advised you that I
would ask our attorneys to contact him to arrange for such a meeting.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I have just 'phoned our attorneys and asked them to contact Mr. Simon for
this purpose. He will no doubt get in touch with you.
On December 19, Seybold wrote Muir a letter in which he stated that the
Association was "convinced that Mr. Randolph's policies are still being pursued
by your local union and that therefore under the circumstances an agreement
cannot be effectuated in accordance with the law." To this letter, Muir replied
on the 20th as follows :
When we last met on November 26th the meeting ended with the under-
standing that you were to call us and advise the date for the next conference.
Instead of setting a date for a meeting you filed charges against the Union.
I do not intend in this letter to argue this matter with the Association. I
wrote you on behalf of the Union on December 3d, asking that you, set
another date for a meeting with your negotiating committee. Such a meeting
has as yet not been held.
May I direct your attention to the fact that you refused to complete the
discussions of all the terms during our negotiations. Your Association has
repeatedly refused to discuss the question of wages. You, of course, realize
that the matter of the wage scale is probably one of the most important items
in any negotiations. We have urged a discussion on this issue and to date
you have refused to consider this problem.
We are ready to meet with you at any time that you will set for a con-
ference. May we suggest Wednesday, December 24, at 10 a. in. at any place
that you may suggest. Please call our office and advise.
On December 23, Seybold replied to Muir's letter of the 20th as follows :
In your letter of December 20, you request that a meeting be held to
discuss the question of wages. I feel sure that you are fully acquainted
with our position, which has been consistent throughout, and which is that
we are fully prepared to negotiate on wages and any other item, if the
purpose of such negotiations is to arrive at a complete agreement which
shall be in conformity with the law.
When you are able and willing to meet with us for this purpose, un-
fettered by your International Union's illegal "no-contract" policy, we
.will be only too happy to meet with you.
As we have already informed you, we are prepared, as a part of such
a contract, to agree to a substantial wage adjustment.
An exchange of letters between Seybold and Muir took place between December
24 and January 19. Muir's letters demanding further meetings between the
parties and Seybold's demanding assurances from Muir that if the parties did
meet and did arrive at agreeable terms, would No. 2 execute a written 1-year or
longer contract . Muir refused the requested assurances and the parties did not
meet until February 23.
On January 27, 1948, Seybold wrote Muir as, follows :
Beginning Monday, January 20, a bail on all overtime was put into
effect in the various shops of members of this Association.
Despite your specific denial during our conversation today that you knew
anything whatsoever about the refusal to work overtime or that you had
given instructions to this effect, there is incontrovertible evidence that this
ban has been instigated by the Union and that instructions to institute
this ban were communicated by you to the various chapel chairmen.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1463
You are no doubt aware of the significance of your action and the action
of your union, particularly in view of the fact that one of the objects of
this refusal to work overtime is to coerce employers into abandoning their
designated bargaining agency. We have positive proof that this program
is part of a pre-conceived strategy on the part of your Union to accomplish
this illegal purpose. A second object of this refusal to work overtime is
the institution of an illegal secondary boycott against the work sent out
by certain of our members as a. result of the refusal of their employees
to work overtime. Finally, and conclusively, this action is part and
parcel of the conspiracy of your local Union and your International Uniorl
to coerce our employers into an acceptance of your illegal "no-contract"
policy.
There can be no question but that the refusal of your members to work
overtime is in express violation of the obligation of your members to cover
their situations at all times. You, as President of the Union, and your
executive committee, as recently as last year, set forth in writing your
official view of the obligation of your members in this respect.
We should like to point out to you that the program you have embarked
upon exposes your union and its agents to very substantial liabilities as
a result of the damages suffered by our employers and it is our intention
to secure full recovery of such losses.
We should also like to point out that this program of your Union's is an
unfriendly act, and one which will make it impossible for us to preserve the
privileges and benefits which your members now enjoy.
Unless this situation immediately terminates we also indicate our inten-
tion to take the necessary legal steps against the Union, its officers, and
the chapel chairmen, to recover our losses and to bring an end to this
condition.
Accordingly, we call upon you to take the necessary steps to issue an order
abrogating this overtime ban and expressly conveying to your members their
continuing obligation to cover their situations at all times. We further
call upon you to enforce this order by all the power and authority at the
command of your Union.
On the following day, January 28, Seybold wrote Muir demanding an explana-
tion as to why in addition to Muir's ban on overtime, he had refused to permit
certain of members of No. 2 to transfer from one shift to another, although the
employees had been requested to do so by their respective employers. Seybold's
letter then stated that if Muir did not immediately rescind the orders complained
of, the Association would seek legal redress.
On February 19, Seybold wrote Muir informing him that the members of No. 2
had struck. The letter requested Muir to take all steps necessary to call off the
strike.
On February 20, Muir informed Seybold that Larry Taylor, an ITU vice
president, would be in Philadelphia the following day and that Taylor would
like to meet on February 23 with the negotiating committee of No. 2 and the
Association's negotiating committee.
The parties met on February 23. Taylor opened the meeting by reading to
those present the section of PTU laws pertaining to strikes. Taylor then pro-
ceeded to state that he was representing the ITU president ; that he had talked
with representatives of No. 2 regarding the matters in controversy; that he would
like to ascertain the Association's position ; and that the members of the Associ-
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ation could speedily settle the matter by accepting one of three choices given to
their No. 12; viz, (1) the "Conditions of Employment," (2) form P--OA, or (3) to
grant a voluntary wage increase and continue to negotiate on the other items.
Taylor then stated that in his opinion the acceptance of the "Conditions of Em-
ployment" was best for all concerned and if the employers refused to accept the
"Conditions of Employment" or to grant a voluntary wage increase he didn't know
how much longer the men were going to sit idly by and work at the present wage
scale. Taylor also stated that the companies "have got to get one thing through
[their] heads. This Union is not going to assist the employers in operating an
open shop." Seybold replied that the Association was primarily interested in
settling the matter amicably and had always been anxious to sit down with No. 2
and endeavor to reach an agreement and that "what we wanted was an indication
from the Union that it was willing to enter into some kind of commitment which
would bind both parties to operate in conformity with the law for a definite
period of time of at least one year," but that No. 2 always refused to make such
a commitment. Taylor replied that if Seybold's remarks reflected the attitude
of the Association he could not see any point in discussing the matter further.
The meeting then adjourned. No further meetings were had between the parties.
. On February 26, Seybold wrote Muir that no, member of No. 2 reported for
work that day at any plant of the members of the Association and again
requested Muir to call off the strike. No reply to this letter was received.
Although Randolph testified that the Executive Council had authorized the
,strike because it was a strike for higher wages and that strike benefits are
being paid to the strikers out of the ITU treasury, it is significant to note that
no wage proposal was made by No. 12 prior to the strike.
The Chicago, Illinois, area .
1. The appropriate unit and representation by Chicago Typographical Union
No. 16 therein
Franklin Association of Chicago, herein called the Franklin Association, is
a trade association, established in or about 1921, of the commercial printing
employers in the Chicago area employing members of the printing trade unions.
Eighty-one' of a total of approximately 100 members thereof employ members of
No. 16. Each of the said 81 members had duly designated the Franklin Association
to act as its representative for the purposes of bargaining collectively with No.
16. The function of the Franklin Association is to negotiate collective bargaining
contracts on behalf of its members with the various labor organizations in the
commercial printing industry and to handle and prosecute grievances arising
thereunder. Since 1921, the Franklin Association has had continuous con-
tractual relations with No. 1.6 and from that year to the end of 1947, they have
bad approximately 12 closed-shop collective bargaining contracts, varying in
duration from 1 to 5 years. The last contract became effective on September 4,
1946, and expired on December 31, 1947. It provided, like the previous contracts,
for a closed shop, for the approval by the ITU Executive Council, and for the
inclusion, by reference, of the ITU General Laws as part and parcel of the
agreement. The approval of the ITU appearing at the foot of the last contract
reads as follows :
This agreement is approved as being in compliance with the laws of the
International Typographical Union and the undersigned, on behalf of the
9 Listed on Appendix B annexed hereto. .
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1465
Executive Council of the International Typographical Union, hereby pledges
its full authority to the fulfillment thereof.
WOODRUFF RANDOLPH,
President of International Typographical Union.
After the contract had been reduced to writing and signed by the members of
the Franklin Association's negotiating committee it was sent to the ITU Execu-
tive Council for its approval. The contracts between the parties covered persons
employed generally as hand-compositors, lock-up monotype operators, stone
men who prepare the form for type, Linotype and intertype operators and
machinists, proofreaders, apprentices, casting machine operators, and those who
prepare metal and other materials used in making type.
The complaint, with respect to the Chicago area, alleged that all employees in
the composing room of each of the aforesaid 81 members of the Franklin Asso-
ciation, including hand-compositors, tank men, lock-up and line-up and stone
men, linotype and inter-type operators, linotype and inter-type machinists, proof-
readers, apprentices, ludlow operators, monotype caster men, material makers,
and saw men, excluding janitors, maintenance men, metal porters, and all other
composing room employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b), of the Act. With
the exception of the exclusion of foremen and other supervisory employees, the
contracts from 1921 to 1948 covered the persons classified in the unit alleged in
,the complaint. The joint answer of ITU No. 16 denied the appropriateness of
the alleged unit. The record shows that the alleged unit is in all respects simi-
lar to the units in the approximately 12 contracts between the parties from 1921
to 1948, with the exception that foremen and other supervisory employees were
covered by the said contracts. During the bargaining conferences looking
toward the execution of a new contract to become effective at the expiration of
the 1945-47 contract, no objection was raised to the unit and the parties proceeded
to bargain, as in the past, for the men covered by the prior contracts, excepting
for supervisors. Under the circumstances, the undersigned is convinced, and
finds, that the employees of the firm listed on Appendix B hereto annexed will
receive the full benefit of the right of self-organization by the adoption, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, of the unit alleged in the complaint as being
appropriate. Therefore, the undersigned finds that all employees in the com-
posing room of each of the firms listed on Appendix B hereto annexed, includ-
ing hand-compositors, tank men, lock-up and line-up and stone men, Linotype and
inter-type operators, linotype and inter-type machinists, proofreaders, appren-
tices, ludlow operators, monotype caster men, material makers, and saw men,
excluding janitors, maintenance men, metal porters, and all other persons
employed in the said composing rooms, and all supervisors having authority in
the interest of the firms listed in Appendix B hereto annexed, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively 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, constitutes, and at all times material herein did constitute, a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.10
10 See cases cited in footnote No. 6.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 16's representation of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit,
during all the times material herein, is established by (1) the admissions in the
joint answer of ITU and No. 16; ( 2) the facts contained in the 16 contracts be-
tween No . 16 and the Franklin Association from 1921 to 1 .948; and ( 3) the facts
adduced at the hearing which clearly show that all the composing room. em-
ployees in the appropriate unit are and were during all times material herein,
members of No. 2. Under the circumstances , the undersigned finds that on
August 22, 1947, and at all times thereafter , No. 16 was , and still is, the duly
designated representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and that,
by virtue .of Section 9 (a) of the Act , No. 2 was , and now is , the representative
of all the employees in the unit found to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to pay , wages, hours of employment ,. or other
conditions of employment.
2. The negotiations
On September 29, 1947, 0. L. MacKinnon, the general manager of the Franklin
Association, wrote No. 16 requesting a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a
contract to become effective immediately upon the expiration of the then existing
contract between the parties. On the following day, John Pilch, the president
of No. •16, replied that No. 16 was "ready to meet for the purpose of discussing
the possibilities of the situation" and requested the Franklin Association to set
a date for a conference.
On October 15, the Franklin Association's negotiating committee met with the
negotiating committee of No. 16. Pilch opened the meeting by stating, to quote
the credited testimony of MacKinnon, "We should all know about the new collec-
tive bargaining policy of the ITU, which [binds] the local union and which [per-
mits] no agreement or commitment, either written or verbal." Pilch also said,
to further quote MacKinnon, "the union [intends] to maintain the traditional
-prerogatives of the Union upon which it was dependent for survival, including
the right to establish its own jurisdiction without interference from government
agencies, the right not to work on struck work and the closed shop. . . . " Pilch
added that No. 16 could maintain "these needs of the Union without breaking the
Taft-Hartley law, but no matter. what position the employers or the Association
[take] under the law [the members of No. 16 will] work only under conditions
which permit the closed shop. . . . the right to refuse struck work and the right
to determine [No. 16's] jurisdiction. . . . We are going to hold this position."
Pilch continued by saying that at the 1947 convention, ITU had adopted a policy
of prohibiting any subordinate union from entering into any agreement, written
or oral, and of insisting that the employer post in his plant the "Conditions of
Employment" prepared by ITU. Pilch added that the policy adopted at the con-
vention restrained the local unions from bargaining with employers with respect
to the terms set out in the "Conditions of Employment," for those were the only
terms under which ITU members would work. When asked how the procedure
as outlined would work, Pilch replied that No. 16 did not intend to enter into
any contract because by doing so, the members would be prevented, whenever they
thought their rights were being invaded, from striking.
James Girard, a vice president of No. 16 and a member of the negotiating com-
mittee, stated that No. 16 could make no new wage demands as it had done in the
past, nor could there be any discussion of wages ending up in an agreement,
since such an agreement might be binding upon No. 16, and then suggested that
the employers make the wage proposals which No. 16 would consider along with
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1467
other items of collective bargaining. Girard also stated that the employers
should post in their respective composing rooms "Conditions of Employment"
relating to wages, hours, and working conditions, which "type of arrangement
could be expected to go for a year but there could be no guarantees."
Pilch then asked MacKinnon if he had seen a copy of "Conditions of Employ-
ment" and MacKinnon replied in the affirmative. Regarding the "Conditions of
opinion the rights of No. 16 could be as well protected under a union-shop contract
ourselves, this `Condition of Employment' can't be an agreement, in regard to
discussing wages, it can't appear to be an agreement; don't nail us down to it."
A member of the Franklin Association's committee then stated that in his
opinion the rights of No. 16 could be as well protected under a union-shop contract
as under a closed-shop contract. Girard replied that the employers, under a
union-shop contract, "could select the members [for] the Union, which [proce-
dure] was inconsistent with the discipline of a responsible union such as the
ITU."
During the course of the meeting, Pilch said, in reply to a question put to him
with respect to working without a contract, that this "no-contract" policy will
keep his organization together since the members thereof would not work with
nonunion men. Pilch added that his union had been built upon the principle of
the closed shop and that it intended to continue that policy.
The two committees met again on October 29. No agreement was reached.
No. 16 remained in its stand that the employers submit a proposal for a wage
increase and if an agreement could be reached, to insert the new wage scale in
the "Conditions of Employment" and then post copies thereof in the various
shops. Pilch and several other members of the committee representing No. 16.
said that the employers should accede to the ITU policy and not insist upon a
signed written agreement. The committee representing the Franklin Associa-
tion, however, insisted that because it would be most difficult to operate a printing
plant without the traditional stability conferred by a written agreement of at
least a year's duration. 1?ilch reminded the conferees that the subordinate unions
were bound by the ITU policies and that under them no contract could be entered
into which was in contravention of "specific, mandatory provisions of [the ITU]
laws."
Under date of October 31, Pilch sent to the Franklin Association a written
notice of termination of the contract expiring on December 31, 1947. The last
paragraph of the letter reads as follows :
To the extent required by Section 8 (b) 3 of the LMRA this is to offer
to meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of. employment
but reserving all rights provided by said LMRA, Section 8 (d), that such
obligation does not compel this Union to agree to a proposed or require the
making of a concession.
The Franklin Association replied that it would meet with the representatives
of No. 16 on November 10.
The November 10 meeting was opened with a discussion with respect to the
refusal of No. 16 to sign a written agreement for a reasonable duration and
the Franklin Association's unwillingness to submit a wage increase proposal
before it received assurances from No. 16 that it would sign a written contract
for a definite period, preferably for 1 year. When it became evident that neither
side would recede from its previously announced position, Pilch said that No. 16
could sign a form P-6A contract, provided an agreement could be reached with
respect to wages.
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the course of the discussion of the various provisions of form P-6A,
a member of the Franklin Association's committee stated that the provisions
of P-6A which prohibited members of No. 16 from working with nonunion mem-
bers was illegal and that that provision would get the employer, as well as the
Union, into trouble. Girard replied that the employer had no cause to worry
because an employer had the right to hire whomever he pleased, and thereby
could arrange to hire only union members.
When it was pointed out by a member of the Franklin Association's committee,
that form P-GA was a departure from the ITU's previous stand of "no signed
contract," Pilch stated that form P-6A was the only contract ITU would permit
any subordinate union to sign and that the terms set out in that form could
not be varied by any local.
The parties met again on December 19, and a further discussion was had re-
garding certain terms of form P-6A which the Franklin Association considered
illegal and also regarding certain proposals made to No. 16 by the Franklin
Association. The Franklin Association insisted that a contract of at least a
year's duration be agreed to, but Pilch stated that he could not enter into any
agreement other than form P-6A. He further stated that if No. 16 entered into
a 1-year agreement it would compel members of No. 16 to work with nonunion
men and to perform work on material he considered "scab work," both of which
conditions, he added, were violative of the policy of ITU. No agreement was
reached at this meeting.
At. the next meeting of the parties, held on December 31, a conciliator opened
the meeting. After the conciliator had discussed the basic over-all issues with
the parties, he withdrew. A further discussion was then had between the
parties, during which Pilch submitted to the Franklin Association's committee
an amended "Conditions of Employment." The Franklin Association's committee
stated that this new proposal was, in effect, nothing more than a combination
form P-6A and the original "Conditions of Employment," minus the first four
paragraphs of the latter document. The parties were unable to come to any
agreement with respect to the amended "Conditions of Employment." The Frank-
lin Association insisting upon a contract for a year or longer and No. 16 in-
sisting that it could not enter into any agreement which did not contain a 60-
day cancellation clause.
The parties met again on January 2, 1948. But nothing concrete was settled,
for each party refused to recede from their respective previously announced
position.
Under date of January 5, the Franklin Association addressed a letter to Pilch
reading as follows :
At our last meeting (Friday, January 2nd),, it became apparent that
there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a satisfactory basis
for negotiation. We have proposed a contract for one year, (1) either by
way of extension of the present contract until December 31, 1945, modified
as required by law, or (2)'by the execution of a new contract for one year.
On the other hand, you have offered to negotiate a contract along the lines
of P-6A or to enter into a contract arrangement terminable on sixty (60)
days notice.
In an effort to resolve these differences, we outlined two plans which
we now present in detail, for consideration and negotiation :
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1469
I
The agreement which expired on December 31, 1947 would be modified
to the extent required by law, incorporating a negotiated wage increase,
and would be effective until December 31, 1948. This agreement would be
subject to opening on a sixty (60) day written notice by either party, under
the following conditions :
(a) The notice shall specify the section of the agreement which the
moving party wishes to amend. It shall contain the text of the proposed
amendment, which shall be in accordance with the existing State and
Federal law.
(b) No notice shall be served under this section seeking to amend pro-
visions of the agreement which relate directly or indirectly to any of the
following matters :
(1) Wage scale rates and differentials for all employees subject to the
agreement.
(2) Vacations, vacation credits, and all matters relating thereto.
(3) Hours, work schedules, overtime rates and scheduling, and rights,
and privileges of all parties thereto.
(4) Holidays.
(5) Authority of foremen.
(6) Duties and qualifications of machine operators and machines.
(7) Apprenticeship (in all respects including training program, com-
pensation, selection, and qualification).
(8) Term of the agreement and provision for reopening.
(9) And, in general, any provision which may, directly or indirectly,
change the compensation in any respect of any employee who is subject to
the agreement, or which may, directly or indirectly, increase the cost of
production of any employer who is subject to the agreement.
(c) Upon receipt of notice, the other party shall, within thirty (30) days
thereof, notify the moving party, in writing, of its acceptance or rejection
of the proposed agreement. If it accepts, the agreement shall thereupon be
modified in accordance with the proposed amendment. If it rejects the
parties shall proceed to negotiate the proposed amendment, and if agree-
ment results from such negotiations, the agreement shall be amended
accordingly.
(d) There shall be no limitation upon the number of notices which may
be served by either party, except that no notice may be served as long as a
proposed amendment is pending and undetermined under the procedure
established under this Section.
II
The parties would execute a formal document containing the following
provisions:
(a) The wage rates negotiated by the parties shall remain in effect as
long as the parties negotiate, or are required to negotiate all other issues
of the proposed agreement.
(b) The parties shall continue to negotiate all other issues, and for that
purpose, shall meet as frequently as the situation requires. If and when
agreement is attained on all other issues, the parties shall enter into a
written agreement expiring December 31, 1948. If it appears to either
party that further negotiations will be unavailing, it may terminate nego-
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tiations by serving a sixty (60) day written notice on the party, provided that
under no circumstances, shall notice of termination of negotiations be
served by either party prior to October 31, 1948, nor shall any notice served
prior to said date be effective in any respect to modify the right or obliga-
tions of the parties in any respect whatsoever.
Some arrangement should be established for the continuation of our joint
activities in supervising training of apprentices.
At a meeting of the parties held on January 7, and after a full discussion, No. 16
rejected the Franklin Association's proposals of January 5. The meeting con-
cluded with Pilch stating that it was evident to him that the committees had
reached an impasse and that he would so advise ITU headquarters.
The next and final meeting of the parties took place on February 18. Wood-
ruff Randolph, ITU president, opened the meeting with the statement that he
was attending the meeting pursuant to ITU laws in order to bring the parties
together. He then stated that any contract No. 16 entered into must contain
a 60-day cancellation clause ; that if the contract did not contain such a clause,
the employers could compel ITU members to work with nonunion help, compel
the members to work on material received from "struck" plants, and deny to
ITU its right to decide its own jurisdiction. The meeting adjourned when
Randolph requested and was granted permission to address the full membership
of the Franklin Association:
Randolph addressed the membership on February 25, stating among things
that ITU, despite the Act, would not give up its right to determine its own
jurisdiction ; would not permit its members to work on substandard work,
struck work, or on work coming from a nonunion shop; or permit its members
to work with nonunion men. He also said that ITU would not go beyond the
policy adopted in form P-6A, and if the employers did not accept that form of
contract, the subordinate unions would not be permitted to enter into any con-
tract. He added that the employer may, if he so desired, post the "Conditions
of Employment" in lieu of signing form P-6A, but ITU would agree to nothing
else. He concluded his address, to quote MacKinnon, as follows :
If we can't do business with the Franklin Association, then we will do
business with employers, individually and the result will be assorted chaos
for the industry.
"We can deal with one employer and give one set of terms and with
another employer on entirely different terms." "That is," he said "We can
set different wage rates for different plants, for five or six plants in one sec-
tion, than exist in other sections of the industry. We can make you wish
you never had anything to do with the Franklin Association or the Taft-
Hartley Act." He repeated, "We will give you an assorted chaos which you
will never believe."
Prior to, and after, Randolph's threat that if ITU could not obtain the terms
it demanded, "We will do business" with the individual employers, members of
the negotiating committee of No. 16 called on some of the members of the Frank-
lin Association. Thus, during the last week in January 1948, James Cain, a
member of the negotiating committee of No. 16, accompanied by Michael Hallinan,
a member of No. 16, called at the plant of the M. & L. Typesetting & Electrotyping
Company, a member of the Franklin Association, and suggested that the company
bypass the Franklin Association and grant a voluntary $14.89 per, week wage
increase to each composing room employee. Upon the company's. refusal, Cain
0
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1471
and Hallinan went into the company's composing room, held a 15-minute meet-
ing with the members of No. 16 employed by that concern, and told them of the
company's refusal of a wage increase, and then suggested that the union members
decrease the amount of their production. As a result of the suggestion of Cain
and Hallinan, the company's composing room production has decreased about
30 or 33 percent.
About the middle of February 1948, Cain and Hallinan called upon Monsen-
Chicago, Inc., a member of the Franklin Association, and upon being refused a
$14.89 per week wage increase for the composing room employees of that firm held
a union meeting in that plant, explained to those present the company's refusal
of a wage increase, and then suggested a slow-down in production. As a result
of such suggestion, the company's composing room production has decreased
about 33 percent. Moreover, on January 17, No. 16 issued an order that in the
future, members of its union were not to work more than 361/t hours per week,
the workweek fixed by the expired contract. This resulted in a substantial cur-
tailment of production, since the Chicago printers had been working a sub-
stantial amount of overtime. In many plants the employees in the composing
rooms were working 48 hours per, week, while in practically every plant the
composing room employees worked on an average of 43 hours per week.
The record reveals credited evidence of visits by other members and other
officials of No. 16 to other plants of Franklin Association's members throughout
January and February 1948; of demands by these visitors and of refusal by the
companies of wage increases ; of :holding of union meetings in the plants ; and the
subsequent slow-down to a very appreciable extent in each of the visited plants.
Furthermore, in the composing room of the plant of Western Newspaper Union,
a newspaper syndicate with 44 branch offices throughout the United States and
engaged in the syndication of newspaper features to approximately 8,500 weekly
newspapers and to approximately 1,600 daily newspapers, there has been since
March 2, 1948, and up to the day of the hearing in this proceeding in Chicago on
March 4, a continuous meeting of the members of No. 16 in the Chicago plant of
that company. Continuous union meetings have been in progress in other Chi-
cago plants of members of the Franklin Association from March 2 until at least
the date of the hearing herein on March 4. These meetings were called by No. 16
after slow-downs in production in the composing rooms of these plants had been
in progress for approximately 1 month. Moreover, in February 1948, two assistant
organizers of No. 16 visited the plant of Henry J. Wolf, and told the composing
room employees, approximately 20 in number, that if they did not cease setting
type for newspaper advertisements," they, the two assistant organizers, would
bring 150 men to the plant and hold a continuous meeting in the plant.
The Detroit, Michigan, area
1. The appropriate unit with respect to composing room employees and repre-
sentation by ITU and Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 of a majority
therein.
The Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc., herein called Graphic Arts, a
trade association composed of firms engaged in, or in supplying, the graphic arts
industry in the Detroit area. Graphic Arts is divided into various sections.
Each section thereof is composed of members engaged in specific types of business,
11 The composing room employees of most of the Chicago daily newspapers were then
on strike.
a
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since about 1917, Graphic Arts, or its predecessor, Typothelae -Franklin, ,has
been handling exclusively the collective bargaining.'negotiations for its mem-
berswith the various printing trade unions in, the Detroit'area. The members of
Graphic. Arts, and those of its predecessor, have been bound by the collective
bargaining contracts entered into by Graphic Arts and each member has desig-
nated collectively with No. 18 and No. 40.
Before proceeding with the facts 'pertaining to No. 40, we will discuss the
facts regarding No. 18.
Since at least 1935, Graphic Arts and No. 18 have had continuous closed=shop
contracts. , The last four contracts, from July 1944 to December 14, 1947, were
of 10 months or longer duration and covered persons employed in the composing
rooms of the respective members of Graphic Arts who employed members of
No. 18.'
The complaint, with respect to the Detroit area, alleged that all persons em-
ployed in the composing rooms of the-firms listed on Appendix C hereto annexed
who employed members of No. 18 performing composing room work, such as
copy-holding, sorting cases, sortilig and putting 'away leads and slugs, breaking-
up and distributing materials or (lead forms, operating strip and material-
making machines, locking and unlocking forms, mounting cuts, and setting type,
excluding all other employees and all supervisors having authority in the in-
terest of the firms listed on Appendix C hereto annexed, 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, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. With the exception of the exclusion of foremen and other supervisory
employees the aforesaid 1944-47 contracts between Graphic Arts and No. 18
covered the persons classified in the alleged appropriate unit. The joint answer
of ITU and No. 18 denied the appropriateness of the alleged unit. -No evidence
was introduced as to this issue, except that which shows that the alleged unit
is in all respects similar to the units contained in the aforesaid 1944-47
contracts except for the present exclusion of foremen and other supervisors.
During the bargaining negotiations from October 1947, and the opening of the
bearing in Detroit, March 10, 1948, the parties raised no objection to the alleged
unit, but proceeded to bargain, as in 'the past, for the persons covered by the
prior contracts, except for present exclusion .of foremen and other supervisors..
Under the circumstances, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the'
employees of the firms listed on Appendix, C hereto annexed will receive the
full benefit of the right of self-organization by the adoption, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, of the unit alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the under-
signed finds that all the persons employed in the composing rooms of the firms
listed on Appendix C hereto annexed, employing members of No. 18, performing
composing room work such as copy holding, sorting cases, sorting and putting
away leads and slugs, breaking-up and distributing materials or dead forms,.,
operating strip and material-making machines, locking and unlocking forms,.
mounting cuts, and setting type, excluding all other employees and all super-
visors having authority in the interest of the firms listed in Appendix C
32 The navies of these firms are listed on Appendix C hereto annexed.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1473
hereto. annexed, 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, con-
stitute, and at all times material herein did constitute, a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act."
The record clearly shows that during all the times material herein No. 18
represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. 'Tile under-
signed therefore finds that No. 1S now represents and during all the times ma-
terial herein did represent, a majority of the employees in the afore-mentioned
appropriate unit, and that, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, No. is
was, and now is, the representative of all the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
2. The appropriate unit with respect to mail-room work and representation
therein by Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 therein
There are 12 members 14 of Graphic Arts who employ members of No. 40, a sub-
ordinate union of ITU. For some years prior to the effective date of the last
contract, November 1, 1946, Graphic Arts, acting on behalf of the members
thereof employing members of No. 40, had closed-shop contracts with that organi-
zation for 1-year duration or longer. The last contract, which also contained
a, closed-shop clause, expired on October 31, 1947, covered persons employed
in the mailing rooms of the aforesaid 12 members of Graphic Arts.
The complaint with respect to No. 40, alleged that all persons employed by the
firms listed on Appendix D hereto annexed engaged in addressing, tagging, stamp-
ing, labeling, bundling, or wrapping, cutting lists, preparing lists or wrappers,
operating stencil machines, filing or correcting stencils, sorting, routing, dis-
secting or marking wrappers, taking bundles or papers from conveyors or
escalators, stacking, jogging, folding, handling of bundles or mail sacks, dis-
tributing or counting papers, typing by hand or power machines, stocking or
delivering papers to mailers, carrier agents or newsboys, inserting or dispatch-
ing papers, envelopes, magazines, or circulars constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act. The joint answer of ITU and No. 40 denied the appropriateness
of the unit. No evidence was introduced with respect to this issue except
that the alleged unit is in all respects similar to the unit contained in the
previous contracts between the parties, except for the present exclusion of
foremen and other supervisors. No question was raised during the 1947-48
negotiations by either party with respect to the appropriateness of the unit
contained in the previous contracts, except for the present exclusion of fore-
men and other supervisory employees. Under the circumstances, the under-
signed is convinced, and finds, that the employees here involved will receive
the full benefit of the right to self-organization by the adoption, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining,. of the alleged unit. Therefore the undersigned
finds that all persons engaged by firms listed on Appendix D hereto annexed
13 See cases cited in footnote No. 0.
19 Listed on Appendix D hereto annexed.
877359-50-vol. 87-94
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, or wrapping, cutting lists,
preparing lists or wrappers, operating stencil machines, filing or correcting stencils,
sorting, routing, dissecting, or marking wrappers, taking bundles or papers from
conveyors or escalators, stacking, jogging, folding, handling of bundles or mail
sacks, distributing or counting papers, typing by hand or power machines,
stacking or delivering papers to mailers, carrier agents or newsboys, inserting
or dispatching papers, envelopes, magazines, or circulars, excluding all other
employees and all foremen and other supervisors having authority, in the
interest of the firms listed on Appendix D hereto annexed, 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 effec-
tively 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, constitutes, and at all times material herein did
constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 16
The record clearly establishes that No. 40 was on August 22, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been, the duly designated representative of the employees
here involved in appropriate unit and that, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the
Act, No. 40 was, and now is, the representative of all the employees in the unit
found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
3. The negotiations with No. 18.
On or about October 10, 1947, Graphic Arts received from No. 18 a notice that
the then existing contract between them would terminate on its expiration date,
December 14, 1947. This notice also stated that No. 18 was willing to confer
for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of employment. Similar notices were
served on or about October 13 upon those members of Graphic Arts employing
members of No. 18. Graphic Arts replied on October 15, offering to meet and
proposed that the employers and No. 18 negotiate a contract for 1 year.
The negotiating committee representing No. 18 and the negotiating committee
representing Graphic Arts met on October 30. This was the first of a series of 13
committee meetings. Hyman Safran, the chairman of the Graphic Arts commit-
tee, acted as its spokesman, and Clifford Sparkman, president of No. 18, was its
spokesman. Safran opened the meeting by stating that the employers would
prepare a revised contract deleting from the then existing contract those clauses
which were made illegal by the passage of the Taft-Hartley Law. Sparkman
then proposed three different types of working agreements between the employers
and No. 18. One was the making of a voluntary wage increase. The second was
the proposal of posting "Conditions of Employment." The third proposal was the
execution of form P-6A. When asked if No. 18 would be able to execute a contract
for 1 year, Sparkman replied in the negative. Sparkman added that if the com-
posing room employees were given a wage increase on the expiration of the con-
tract the employers would not have to worry about anything. Safran replied
that if No. 18 would enter into a 1-year contract, the employers would grant a
substantial wage increase. Sparkman stated that No. 18 could not agree to any
contract that (lid not contain a 60-day cancellation clause. Sparkman made it
clear that the objection to a contract for a definite term was based upon the limita-
tion it might impose upon the wholesale quitting of union members if a non-
11 See cases cited in footnote No. 6. t
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1475
union man was hired in the composing rooms, or if an employer accepted "struck
work."
Sparkman also made it clear, through the negotiations, that members of his
local would not work with nonunion men because it was against ITU policy to
do so. In short, the tactics of No. 18 despite the concession made, from time to
time, by Graphic Arts, were in every respect almost identical to those, as found
above, of No. 2 and No. 16. These tactics by necessity had to be similar because
the subordinate unions were compelled to follow the negotiating pattern laid down
by ITU. All authority to negotiate a contract, or to agree to any term of a pro-
posed agreement, were withdrawn from the subordinate union by ITU and given
to the Executive Council of IT1T.
On October 31, Graphic Arts received from No. 18 a copy of form P-6A enclosed
in a letter stating :
Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 herewith submits the following two
proposals for your consideration as our present offer in collective bargaining:
1. That there be no signed, verbal or any other kind of contract.
2. 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 specified in
the "Conditions of Employment" set by the union..
It is our understanding that you will reply in writing to our proposals.
We shall be glad to receive any counterproposals the employers care to
offer.
Safran replied to the above-quoted letter on November 3, stating :
This is to acknowledge your letter of October 30th to the Employers'
Negotiating Committee, and to give you the Committee's reaction to the
two proposals given in that letter as your present offer in collective bar-
gaining.
The Committee is of the opinion, on the basis of competent counsel, that
acquiescence to the Union proposals would place the Employers as well as
the Union in a position where they would be liable to charges of unfair
labor practices and suits for damages on the part of interested third parties
under the new Labor-Management Relations Act, and that the Employers
would be, in effect, parties to a course of action clearly intended to avoid,
if not intended to violate, the law. The Committee feels that to pursue the
course of action set forth in your proposal would be detrimental to the Union
as well as to the Employers and to the good bargaining relationships we have
enjoyed in the past.
The Committee is of the opinion that the Union would not be bargaining
in good faith under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 if it were
to insist upon the proposals made in its letter of October 30th. In view
of the past bargaining and contractual relationships between the Closed
Shop Employers of the Graphic,Arts Association of Michigan and Detroit
Typographical Union No. 18, the Coinniittee is of the opinion that bargaining
in good faith would require an initial understanding between the parties
that the new contract will be in conformity with the Labor-Management
Relations Act, 1947, that the contract when agreed upon will cover a period
of a year or some other definite and substantial term to be agreed to by
the parties, and that the contract will be incorporated into a written agree-
ment between the parties when all matters are settled.
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At our meeting on October 30th, you stated , that you would make a.
second, or alternative proposal which would be, in effect, the same as the-
so-called "P6A" contract proposal made by you to the Detroit newspapers.
We should like you to submit this proposal as soon as possible in order to,
have it for discussion at our meeting of November 11, 1947.
On November 13, Graphic Arts sent to No. 18 a formal proposal for a
new contract.
On November 18, the parties met. The Graphic Arts Committee again pro-
posed a 1-year contract . Sparkman insisted that no contract could be entered.
into unless there was incorporated therein a 60-day cancellation clause . Safran
stated that if a 1 -year contract - could be entered into , the employers would grant
a substantial increase in wages . No. 18 replied , "We are not going to sign any
contract which would make it imperative that our employees have to work with
a non -union man or have to perform struck work . We would rather have no.
contract and have the men in there more free individually to quit the job rather
than to perform objectionable operations or work with people that they termed
objectionable."
At the December 30 meeting , Sparkman stated that if the employers did not
grant a wage increase within the very near future, No. 18 members may not re-
port for work ' 0 A strike vote was subsequently taken. The members voted to.
strike . Notice thereof was sent to the Labor Mediation Board of Michigan, pur-
suant to that State's statutes , and request for strike sanction was made to ITU..
All these steps were taken despite Graphic Arts' willingness to agree to any legal
written contract for a reasonable duration, plus its willingness to grant an imme-
diate . wage increase provided the wage question would not be reopened for a
period of 1 year.
On February 12, a meeting was held with . representatives of the Michigan.
Labor Mediation Board, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, No . 18, and
Graphic Arts , at which Sparkman asked that a strike election be taken in accord-
ance with the Michigan law in the plants of the various employers . A suggestion
was then made by Graphic Arts that the employers place funds in escrow to
assure No . 18 that any retroactive wage increase which might ultimately be
agreed upon would be paid . Sparkman agreed that if this was done he would
withdraw his strike notices. The proposal was. later reduced to writing and
delivered to No. 18 . As a result of this escrow fund proposal , the members of
No. 18 instructed their negotiating committee to request ITU to defer action on
strike sanction.
On February 18, Larry Taylor , vice president of ITU, met with the Graphic
Arts and the committee from No. 18 . Taylor stated that he was there because
No. 18 had requested strike sanction . He again proposed that the employers
accept "Conditions of Employment" and grant voluntary wage increases to the
men for an indefinite period. As the second choice, he proposed the execution of
form P-6A. Finally , he suggested that the employers could simply make a wage
increase and keep talking about the rest of the contract . Taylor then stated
that the Act was a vicious law that could smash the ITU ; that signing a contract
under the present Act would be putting ITU in a "bear trap ." The employers
again stated that they would grant a substantial wage increase if they were
assured that they could sign a contract with No. 18 in legal form for 1 year, giv-
ing No . 18 all the union security it could possibly obtain under the Act. Through-
16 Similar threats were at previous and later conferences.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1477
-nit the conference No. 18 and Taylor insisted upon the right to cancel any ar-
i angement upon 60 days' notice.
On March 2, Sparkman addressed a meeting of the membership of Graphic
Arts. In his speech, Sparkman stated that No. 40 could not and would not sign
a contract for 1 year for the reason that No. 18 would be laid open to possible
damage suits which .could ruin it financially ; that No. 18 felt very keenly about
working with nonunion men, or working on struck work, or giving up any part
-of No. 18's jurisdiction; and that by signing a contract No. 18 might lose some of
its jurisdiction and its right to strike. He then stated that if a wage increase
was not immediately forthcoming the peaceful relationships that had been en-
joyed in Detroit for so long a time would be broken.
On or about April 12, a contract was entered into between Graphic Arts and
No. 18.17 This contract contains, among others, the following clauses :
Statement of Intent
In concluding this agreement with Typographical Union No. 18 it is
the purpose and intent of the Typographical Union Employers' Section of
the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc., and its individual members
to continue the cooperative and mutual relations with the Union. It will
be the Employers' Section's purpose to maintain all prior practices in the
operations of its composing rooms to the fullest extent permitted by the law,
and to provide the maximum possible union security. The Employers'
Section and its members will not undertake any activity which will in
any sense undermine or jeopardize the Union's strength or security or the
well being of its members. It is the intent of the Employers' Section and
its members to limit composing room work to jobs obtained on a normal
account basis. It is agreed periodically and on specific request to review
procedures and developments in the industry in the light of the above
pledge and undertaking. It is understood and agreed moreover that if any
provision of the previous contract, excluded from this contract solely
because of the restrictions of the law, is determined either by a legislative
enactment or by a decision of the court of highest recourse to be legal or
permissible then the parties shall immediately enter into discussions with
a view to the restoration of such clause.
It is understood and agreed that the General Laws of the International
Typographical Union, in effect January 1, 1948, not in conflict with law or
this contract, shall govern relations between the parties on conditions not
specifically enumerated herein.
Applications for work by others than those holding priority rights in
the composing room must be made only to the foreman, who is the only
person having authority to employ and assign journeymen in the composing
room. Provided, that nothing in this section, etc.
* * * * * * *
The work of the composing room shall be performed only by apprentices
and journeymen. Apprentices may be employed only in accordance with
the ratio of apprentices to journeymen provided in the Apprentice Provisions
17 Similar proposed contracts were submitted by the subordinate union involved to the
Philadelphia and Chicago employers.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this contract. Since it is the desire and intent of the parties to assure in
so far as possible the continued maintenance of a high degree of skill in
the journeyman classifications and a correspondingly high degree of quality
and quantity of production it is mutually agreed that journeymen are de-
fined as : (1) employees who have completed approved apprentice training
as provided in this contract; (2) journeymen members of the Union; or (3)
applicants for work in a composing room who, upon reference to the Joint
Examining Board by a member of the Typographical Union Employers'
Section, secure a certificate of competency duly issued under procedures
established by the Joint Examining Board.
4. The negotiations with No. 40
On August 22, 1947, Max Burns, president of No. 2, served notice on the
12 employers here involved that the then existing contract between Graphic
Arts and No. 40 would terminate on October 31, 1947, the expiration date of
the contract. The notice concludes with the identical paragraph contained in
the notices sent by No. 2, No. 16, and No. 18; to wit, the Union offers to meet
and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" "Conditions of Employment."
Under date of September 18, Burns wrote a letter to Graphic Arts, sending
copies thereof to each employer involved, proposing that no contract, either writ-
ten or oral, be entered into but, instead, the employers should "recognize that
there is no obligation on the part of the union or its individual members to do
other than may be specified in the `Conditions of Employment' set by the union."
Graphic Arts notified Burns on September 29 that the employers rejected his
proposals because they believe them violative of the Act and requested an early
date for the purposes of negotiating a new contract.
The parties, through their respective negotiating committees, met on October
9. At this meeting, Burns requested Graphic Arts to submit a proposal since
his proposal that the employers post "Conditions of Employment" was rejected.
This Graphic Arts said it would do.
At the next meeting, held on October 16, the parties discussed the proposal
Graphic Arts had submitted to Burns on October 15, but no agreement was
reached. The proposal was, in effect, that the contract then in force, with
certain deletions made necessary by the amended Act, be the contract for an-
other year. Neither was anything definitely agreed to at the next meetings,
held on October 21 and February 6, 1948. On October 22, Burns sent Graphic
Arts an amended form P-6A, as No. 40's contract proposal. Graphic Arts in-
formed Burns that his proposal was unacceptable. On October 31, Graphic
Arts wrote No. 40 that it would agree to a "proper basic contract for a year
within the limits allowed under the Act," the employers would agree to the
payment of retroactive wages for a period of not more than 60 clays from the
time when wages were finally agreed upon.
The impasse was reached because of the insistence of No. 2 that Graphic
Arts accede to the ITU policy of either "no contract," "Conditions of Employ-
ment," or to the execution of form P-6A. Graphic Arts refused to accept any one
of the above demands and insisted that No. 40 enter into a legal, written contract
for at least 1-year duration. This No. 40 refused to do. The parties did not
confer after February 6, 1948, but there was an exchange of correspondence
wherein proposals and counterproposals were submitted to each other. It would
serve no useful purpose to set forth here at length the contents of those letters.
Although on several occasions No. 40 threatened to strike if the employers
did not grant an immediate wage increase, no strike was called. Graphic Arts
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1479
at each meeting indicated that a substantial wage increase would be granted
if No. 40 would agree to enter into a 1-year written contract not violative of
the Act.
Throughout the entire negotiations, No. 40 took the same position that No. 2,
No. 16, and No. 1S had taken; that is to say, it insisted that Graphic Arts
accept the collective bargaining policy of ITU.
The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area
1. The appropriate unit and representation by Typographical Local No. 7 of
a majority therein
Printing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc., herein called Printing Industry, an
affiliate of The Printing Industry of America, Inc., is a trade association,
incorporated in 1945, composed of firms engaged in the printing and allied fields
in the Pittsburgh area. Union Employing Printers' Section, a division of
Printing Industry, has been duly designated by the members of Printing Industry
to handle the labor relations problems, including the negotiation and execution
of collective bargaining contracts with labor organizations in the printing
industry in the Pittsburgh area for the 16 members 18 of Printing Industry who
are members of this section. For a period of approximately 30 years, Printing
Industry, or its predecessor, Union Printers' Association of Pittsburgh, handled
the labor relation problems for the printing industry of the Pittsburgh area.
During this 30-year period, Printing Industry or its predecessor had continuous
collective bargaining contracts with No. 7 covering the employees of its members
employing members of No. 7. During the period May 1, 1944, to December 31,
1947, Printing Industry or its predecessor had entered into with No. 7 three
closed-shop contracts of 1 year or longer duration covering generally compositors,
stonemen, keyboard operators„ monotyper, caster operators, linotype operators,
proofreaders, copyholders, superannuated journeymen, and apprentices.
The complaint with respect to the Pittsburgh area alleged that all compositors,
stonemen, monotype keyboard operators, monotype caster operators, linotype
operators and machinists, proofreaders, copyholders, superannuated journey-
men compositors, composing room apprentices, excluding all other employees
and all supervisors having authority, in the interest of the firms listed on
Appendix E hereto annexed, 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 employed by the firms listed on Appendix E hereto annexed constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act. With the exception of the exclusion of foremen
and other supervisory employees, the last three contracts between No. 7 and
Printing Industry covered the persons classified in the alleged appropriate unit.
The joint answer of No. 7 and ITU denied the appropriateness of the alleged
unit. No evidence was adduced with respect to this issue except that which
affirmatively shows that the unit alleged in the complaint is similar in all
respects to the units in the last three contracts between No. 7 and Printing
Industry. During the bargaining conferences held in the fall and winter of
1947-48 looking toward a new contract to commence on or about January 1, 1948,
11 The names of these firms are listed on Appendix E hereto annexed.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the parties raised no objections to the continuance of the unit incorporated in the
former three contracts, except for the inclusion of foremen and other supervisory
employees. Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the employees
herein involved will receive the full benefit of the right to self-organization by
the adoption, for the purposes of collective bargaining, of the unit alleged in the
complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that all compositors, stonemen,
monotype keyboard operators, monotype caster operators, linotype operators
and machinists, proofreaders, copyholders, superannuated journeymen compos-
itors, composing room apprentices, excluding all other employees and all super-
visory employees having authority, in the interest of the firms listed on Appendix
E hereto annexed, 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 employed
by the firms listed on Appendix E hereto annexed constitute, and at all times
material herein did constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The record clearly indicates that No. 7 represented a majority of the.employees
in the appropriate unit during all the times material herein. Therefore, the
undersigned finds that on August 22, 1947, and at all times thereafter, No. 7
was, and now is, the duly designated representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit and that,-byvirtue-of Section 9• (a) of the Act, No. 7 was, and
now is , the representative of all the employees in the unit found to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
2. The negotiations
On October 17, 1947, Printing Industry handed John Feigel, president of No. 7,
a letter stating that Printing Industry would like to enter into negotiations for
a contract to commence on December 31, 1947, the expiration date of the then
existing contract. . Enclosed in the letter was a proposed contract which was
substantially the same as the agreement which was to expire, except for the
deletion of the clauses which the Printing Industry deemed illegal under the Act.
On the same day, October 17, a notice of termination was received by Printing
Industry from No. 7. The latter's letter contained notice of termination, an
offer to meet and-confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of employ-
ment. No. 7 also proposed (1) that there "be no signed, verbal or any other
kind of a contract" and (2) 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 specified in the `Conditions of Employment' set by the union."
On November 7, the negotiating committee of No. 7 and the negotiating com-
mittee of Printing Industry met. Feigel opened the meeting by stating that No.
7 would not discuss the proposed contract of Printing Industry. He then stated
that he would like Printing Industry to accept the "Conditions of Employment"
and not to request No. 7 to change the terms of the first four paragraphs thereof
because ITU would not permit any subordinate union to make any change.
When asked if No. 7 would sign a contract, Feigel replied that the only contract
it could sign was form P-6A and the ITU forbid altering in any respects para-
graphs A through I thereof because `they were endeavoring to avoid the Taft-
Hartley Law and that they could not agree to a Taft-Hartley contract under
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1481
any circumstances." Feigel added that No. 7 was bound by the policy adopted
by ITU at its 1947 Cleveland convention.
There were 13 additional collective bargaining meetings, but no agreement
was reached. When Printing Industry suggested a possible solution to the prob-
lem, Feigel would reply that he would have to submit the proposal to ITU
before he could discuss it. Feigel gave the same reply when Printing Industry
on November 17, handed him the following proposal :
An agreement in writing shall be signed by the parties covering wages,
premium pay, and holidays for a one-year period. The terms of the agree-
ment shall be incorporated in a full length contract when, as, and if, agreed to.
Negotiations shall continue on other subjects. During the negotiation
period, both parties shall comply with the Labor-Management Act.
On November 24, Feigel told Printing Industry that lie had submitted the above-
.quoted proposal to ITU and received word that No. 7 might not agree to the -
proposal.
Throughout the entire course of negotiations, No. 7 would not recede from
the ITU policy of either (1) "no contract," (2) posting of "Conditions of Em-
ployment," or (3) execution of'form P-GA. The basis of No. 7's stand was that
subordinate unions were forbidden by ITU to follow any course of action that
was not dictated by ITU. Feigel made it clear to the members of the Printing
Industry's committee that 1TU was determined to follow the plan of not per-
mitting its members to work with nonunion men and that the foremen of the
composing room had to be members and have control over the hiring and dis-
charging employees of the composing room. Printing Industry, on the other
hand, demanded that No. 7 enter into a signed written agreement, not violative
of the.Act, fora reasonable duration. In fact, as shown above, Printing Indus-
try was willing to grant an increase in wages, provided No. 7 would agree in
writing that the increases would remain in effect for 1 year.
To quote the credited testimony of Robert Caffee, chairman of Printing
Industry's committee, Feigel said at one of the negotiating conferences, if anyone
"could find any kind of a contract, other than form PGA which the ITU would
accept or approve, that [that person] would be a hero." Despite this statement,
Printing Industry, did submit' to No. 7 on January 8; 1948, proposed notices to
be signed by the parties and be posted in the plants of the employers. The
notices announced an immediate wage increase, continuation of negotiations on
other subjects, and a plan for training apprentices. Feigel stated that this pro-
posal would also be unsatisfactory to ITU because it contemplated signing an
agreement fixing wages for a period of more than 60 days.
The parties met again on January 30, at which time Caffee informed Feigel
that the employers had unanimously decided to refrain from any agreement on
wages unless it was reduced to writing and was at least for a period of 1 year.
Feigel again urged Printing Industry to accept a verbal agreement covering
wages and retroactive pay. The procedure that he suggested was for either No.
7 or the employers to announce a new scale of wages and to continue negotia-
tions on other working conditions. This proposal was rejected, Caffee insisting
that it was the will of the employers to secure a definite written contract for a
year which would be legal.
.Several meetings were held between January 30 and March 10. At the meet-
ing held on the latter date, Printing Industry's committee informed No. 7 that
the employers had agreed to the wage increase but had voted down the pro-
posal that it be announced as paid on a voluntary basis. Feigel doubted that
there was a possibility of working it out by any other method, stating that if a
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice was posted it would be necessary for him to send a copy of it to ITU
which might mean that he would have to send a 60-day cancellation notice to
employers. He said that if an individual employer who posted a notice would
take struck work, that he would not reopen the wage, question at all, but would
confine the letter reopening the question of wages to that one employer. Feigel
was unwilling at any time to agree to any agreement except form P-6A. At this
meeting a copy of the employer proposal was given to Feigel. Feigel said that
he and his committee was going to the ITU's headquarters in Indianapolis that
night and he would take it along with him.
The parties met for the last time on March 13 at which time Feigel informed
Printing Industry the ITU's officials had rejected all the proposals because they
contained termination dates. He said that the employers would be within their
rights if they wished to post a notice announcing a wage increase for 1 year, but
that it would probably bring a letter from No. 7 in accordance with instruc-
tions from ITU. He again urged a voluntary wage increase, stating that if the
men had to wait longer they would become. dissatisfied.
The Newark, New Jersey, area
1. The appropriate unit and representation by Philadelphia Typographical Local
No. 103 of a majority therein
Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity, herein called Master
Printers, is a trade association whose membership is composed of firms in the
commercial or job printing industry located in the Newark area. Since about
1938, Master Printers by designation has been handling exclusively the collec-
tive bargaining negotiations for its members with the various labor organiza-
tions in the printing industry in that area and the prosecuting and handling the
grievances arising under the contracts entered into by Master Printers and those
unions. Prior to the fall of 1947, each of the 20 firms 39 involved in this proceed-
ing had designated Master Printers its exclusive collective bargaining repre-
sentative in its dealings with labor organizations in the printing industry. Since
about 1938, Master Printers has had continuous contractual relations with No.
103 covering generally all persons employed by the said 20 firms as linotype
operators, monotype operators, monotype keyboard operators, hand compositors,
stonemen, distributors, make-up men.
The complaint with respect to the Newark area alleged that all employees in
the respective composing rooms of the firms listed on Appendix F annexed hereto,
including linotype operators, monotype operators, monotype keyboard operators,
hand compositors, stonemen, distributors, make-up men, excluding all other em-
ployees and all supervisory employees with authority, in the interest of the firms
listed on Appendix F annexed hereto, 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 judg-
ment constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. With the exception of the ex-
clusion of foremen and certain other supervisory employees, the contracts from
about 1938 to the end of 1947 covered the persons classified in the alleged appro-
is The names of these firms are listed on Appendix F hereto annexed.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1483
priate unit. The joint answer filed by ITU and No. 103 denied the appropriate-
ness of the alleged unit. The only evidence adduced at the hearing, with respect
to this issue, affirmatively shows that the alleged unit is in all respects similar
to the units in the contracts from 1938 to the end of 1947, exclusive of certain
supervisory employees. During the bargaining conferences between the fall
of 1947 and the opening of the hearing regarding the Newark aspect of this pro-
ceeding, the parties raised no objection to the alleged unit, and did, in fact, bar-
gain for the persons covered by the prior contracts, excepting certain supervisory
employees. Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the employees
here involved will receive the full benefit of the right to self-organization by the
:adoption of the alleged unit. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that all the
employees in the respective composing rooms of the firms listed on Appendix F
hereto annexed, including linotype operators, monotype operators, monotype key-
board operators, hand compositors, stonemen, distributors, make-up 'men, but
excluding all other employees and all supervisory employees with authority, in
the interest of the firms listed on Appendix F annexed hereto, 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 effec-
tively to recommend such action, if not of a merely routine or clerical nature but
requires the use of independent judgment constitutes, and at all times material
herein did constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Sectibri 9 (b) of the Act.
The representation by No. 103 of a majority of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, during all the times material herein, is clearly indicated by the
record and the undersigned so finds. The undersigned further finds that No. 103
on August 22, 1947, and at all times thereafter did represent a majority of the
employees in the afore-mentioned appropriate unit, and that, by virtue of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act, No. 103 was during all the times material herein, and now
is, the representative of all the employees in the unit found appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
2. The negotiations
Under date of October 28, 1947, No. 103 notified Master Printers that the then
existing contract would terminate on its expiration date, December 31, 1947, and
that No. 103 offers to meet and confer with Master Printers for the purpose of
negotiating conditions of employment.
On November 25, the negotiating committee of No. 103 and the negotiating
committee of Master Printers met. When asked by a representative of Master
Printers whether No. 103 would execute a contract if, and when, the terms were
agreed upon, the representatives of No. 103 replied in the negative and stated that
all No. 103 was permitted to do, under the policy of ITU, was to request the
employers to post in their representative plants "Conditions of Employment."
This Master Printers refused to do and insisted that No. 103 enter into negotia-
tions for a signed written contract for a reasonable duration. A member of the
committee of No. 103 then read aloud the policy adopted by 1947 convention
which prohibited a subordinate union to agree to nothing except the posting of
"Conditions of Employment."
The parties met on five other occasions, the last meeting being on March 19,
1948, but no agreement was reached because No. 103 refused to recede from the
ITU policy of either (1) "no contract," (2) posting of "Conditions of Employ-
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment," or (3) execution of form P-GA. On the other hand, Master Printers re-
mained intransigent that No. 103 had to comply with the Act and execute a
written agreement for a fixed, reasonable duration, if, and when, terms thereof
were agreed upon. In short, No. 103 assumed the same tactics that the several
other subordinate unions, discussed above, used in their negotiations with the
employers. In fact, according to the credited testimony of Gustave Wolher,
the spokesman of Master Printers' committee, Donald MacPherson, president of
No. 103, said at one of the bargaining conferences that No. 103 would not sign
any agreement for a definite term until the Supreme Court of the United States
ordered it to do so. Moreover, No. 103 took the position, the Act notwithstanding,
that under no circumstances would its members work with nonunion men.
The St. Louis, Missouri, area
1. The appropriate unit and representation by St. Louis Typographical Local No. 8
of a majority therein
Men and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries, herein
called the Conference, is a trade association Whose, membership is composed of
firms in the commercial or job printing industry located in the St. Louis area.
Since about 1922, the Conference has been handling the collective bargaining
negotiations of its members with the various labor organizations in the printing
industry in that area and the prosecuting and handling of grievances arising
under the contracts entered into by the Conference and those unions. On October
31, 1947, the members of the Conference R0 designated the Conference, as in the
past; the exclusive collective bargaining representative with respect to their
dealings with the unions. Since at least 1922, the Conference and No. 8 have
had continuous contractual relations with each other covering generally all
persons employed by the members of the Conference as typesetters, make-up men,
lock-up men, proofreaders, and apprentices.
The complaint alleged, with respect to the St. Louis area, that all persons em-
ployed in the respective composing rooms of the firms listed on Appendix G
annexed hereto, including typesetters, make-up men, lock-up men, proofreaders,
and apprentices but excluding all supervisory employees having authority, in
the interest of the firms listed on Appendix G annexed hereto, 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 effec-
tively 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, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. With the
exception of the present exclusion of foremen and certain other supervisory
employees, the contracts in the past covered the persons classified in the alleged
unit. The joint answer filed by ITU and No. 8 denied the appropriateness of
the alleged unit. The only evidence adduced at the hearing, with respect to this
issue, affirmatively shows that the alleged unit is in all respects similar to the
units in the past contracts, except that foremen and certain other supervisory
employees were covered by the prior contracts. During the bargaining con-
ferences of the fall and winter of 1947-48, no objections were raised to the
alleged unit and the parties did, in fact, bargain for the persons covered by the
prior contracts, excepting certain supervisory employees. Under the circum-
20 The names of these firms are listed on Appendix G annexed hereto.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1485
stances, the undersigned finds that the employees here involved will receive
the full benefit of the right to self-organization by the adoption of the alleged
unit. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that all the employees in the respective
composing rooms of the firms listed on Appendix G annexed hereto, including
typesetters, make-up men, lock-up men, proofreaders, and apprentices but ex-
cluding all supervisory employees having authority, in the interest of the firms
listed on Appendix G annexed hereto, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
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, constitute, and at all times
material herein did constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The representation by No. 8 of a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit, during all the times material herein, is amply supported by the record and
the undersigned so finds. The undersigned further finds that No. 8 did on August
22, 1947, and at all times thereafter did represent, now represents a majority
of the employees in the unit found appropriate, and that, by virtue of Section
9 (a) of the Act, No. 8 was, and now is, the representative of all the employees
in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
2. The negotiations
Under (late of October 20, 1947, William Gibbons, president of No. 8, served
the Conference with a notice that the then existing contract would terminate on
its expiration date, December 31, 1947. The notice also stated that No. 8 offers
to meet and confer with the Conference for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions
of employment. On October 31, the Conference acknowledged receipt of the above
notification and suggested that the parties confer for the purpose of negotiating
a new contract to become effective on January 1, 1948.
In prior years the Conference and the five unions of the printing industry
in the St. Louis area had entered into one signed joint written contract of 1-year
duration or longer. The notice of'No. 8 of October 20 specifically requested that
the Conference confer separately with No. 8. Pursuant to that request the parties
met separately on five occasions between November 17, 1947, and January 3,
1948.
At the opening of the first meeting, held on November 17, the committee rep-
resenting No. 8 expressed its willingness to discuss wages and hours but stated
that if an agreement be reached, they be embodied in "Conditions of Employ-
ment," not in a form of written contract. The Conference's committee objected
to this suggestion and stated that the employers wanted a written, signed agree-
ment for 1 year or longer. Gibbons then said that No. 8 could make. no com-
mitments because it was restricted,to a discussion of the issues. He added that
if the Conference submitted any favorable proposals regarding wages and hours
lie would submit them to the ITU Executive Council for approval. The meeting
ended with no agreement being reached.
The parties met again on November 21. Irving Alderson, the spokesman for
the Conference's committee, opened the meeting by stating that the committee
had, since the last meeting, canvassed the employers hiring members of No. 8
as whether they would accept the proffered "Conditions of Employment" and
that they said that they would not accept it but wanted a signed, written
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
contract for a stated period of time. The Conference committee then submitted
to No. S the following:
The parties agree to the extension of the terms of their existing contract
for a period of one year, beginning Jan. 1, 1948.
The new wage scale shall be as follows, etc.
It is understood and agreed that in the event any terms of this memo-
randum or the existing agreement between the parties hereto are, or shall
be judicially determined to be, illegal or invalid, by federal or state law, the
remaining provisions of this memorandum and•said existing agreement shall
remain in full force and effect and binding upon both parties hereto.
No. 8 stated the proposal was not in accord with ITU policy and hence No. 8•
would not submit it to the Executive Council for approval. The meeting then
concluded.
The parties met again on November 25, and agreement was reached on the
issues of a shorter workweek, paid holidays for 1948, and vacation pay. There
was no discussion or agreement reached with respect to reducing the agreement
to writing.
The final meeting between the parties was held on January 3, 1948, at which
agreement was reached with respect to increasing wages. When a member of
the Conference committee asked how long the new wage scale would remain in
effect, a representative of No. 8 replied that it would remain in effect until there
was a drastic rise in the cost of living, at which time the wage scale would have
to. be adjusted.
At no time was any offer made by the committee representing No. 8 to enter
into a contract of more than 60 days' duration. The only understanding of
the parties was that the employer group would prepare a bulletin which would
be circularized to the employer members of the Conference and the members
of No. 8, which would set out the new workweek schedule, the new wage scales,
and the list of paid holidays, with the notation that this bulletin had been ap-
proved by No. 8. It was not to be signed by No. 8, however, although the changes
had been approved by ITU according to Gibbons.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Unions, set forth in Section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the employers described in Section
1, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States , and tend to lead, and have led , to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce,
V. ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND REMEDY
The testimony and the voluminous exhibits making up this record disclose
a concerted effort on the part of ITU and the seven subordinate unions" in-
volved in this proceeding to defeat the fundamental purposes of the Act.
The Act now obligates the chosen representative of a majority of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit to bargain in good faith with the employer with
respect to all matters which affect employees' wages, hours of employment, and
working conditions. Collective bargaining process is initially one of give and
21 For the sake of brevity , subordinate unions Nos, 2, 16, 18 , 7, 103, 8, and Detroit
Mailers No . 40, will be referred to in this section of the Report as the seven subordinate
unions.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1487
take in which normally each party yields on certain demands and positions in
order to gain assent on others, thereby achieving a satisfactory compromise. The
adamant positions, however, taken by the seven subordinate unions here in-
volved at their conferences with the various trade associations representing the
employers did not evidence a bona fide attempt to come to any agreement but,
on the contrary, evidenced a fixed intention not to yield and was well calculated
to prevent agreements from being reached. The evidence clearly shows that
this case falls within the familiar pattern of those cases under the Wagner
Act in which an employer has entered into negotiations with a mind closed to
persuasion or has insisted upon a union's compliance with conditions precedent
to bargaining.
The seven subordinate unions exhibited their initial bad faith in dealing with
the employers by insisting upon following the dictates of ITU with respect to
"Conditions of Employment." At its 1947 convention, ITU adopted a new col-
lective bargaining policy which introduced "Conditions of Employment" to the
labor field. This new policy rejects the traditional practice of bargaining to reach
a contract. Instead, it prescribes by unilateral action the conditions under which
members of the Union will work, subject to the laws, regulations, and decisions
of ITU which contain numerous provisions repugnant to the Act 22 The preamble
of the "Conditions of Employment" states that it is "in nowise a contract nor is it.
an offer susceptible of acceptance by 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. . . . The Union in promulgating these
conditions of employment accepts no obligations as a collective bargaining agent
as defined by the . . . Act. Any act of members of the union to quit their em-
ployment is a matter of their individual rights and prerogatives."
The convention also adopted an amendment to the bylaws which gave to the
Executive Council the authority to summarily expel subordinate unions or in-
dividual members who deviate from the directions of the Executive Council
pending appeal from its directions to the convention. Despite the fact that a
number of clauses of the ITU constitution and laws were in conflict with the
Act, as amended, the convention made no attempt to revise the laws and con-
stitution to conform to the statute nor did anyone in an official capacity make any
recommendation for such revision, although the officers of the ITU who addressed
the convention made statements which clearly indicated that they were fully
aware of the illegal character of some of the provisions in the ITU constitution
and laws.
In his speech to the convention, Randolph stated :
If you do not sign a contract, if you do not agree to the proposal of the
employer, the law protects us. If you have no agreement and no contract in
effect, you can strike.
. . . There is no law that. specifies that you must tell an employer why
you are striking or why you are quitting your job. Without any obligation
toward the employer by way of what is now a legal contract, you can strike
for no reason at all.
The subordinate unions were almost continuously instructed to follow ITU
policy of collective bargaining "no matter what happens" and were ordered to
forward to the ITU president for his approval all employer-proposals before any
commitment with respect thereto was made by any subordinate union. The
12 A summary of these provisions is set out in Appendix H.
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subordinate unions were also told that the ITU policy of collective bargaining
could be successful only if the subordinate unions and employers failed to reach
an agreement. This idea as rationalized in a communication sent by ITU to its
subordinate unions on or about September 24, 1947, and reads in part as fol-
lows :
The only compulsion of the T-H-L is that you "bargain in good faith", but
there is no legal definition thereof in law. There is a limitation which pre-
vents bureaucratic effusion.
If by chance the NLRB or court should say we have not bargained in good
faith, the Board or court would have to define it or leave it to our 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 lack of
imagination.
In Randolph's testimony in Case 5-CB-1 (referred to herein as the Baltimore,
case ), a transcript of which was received in evidence in this proceeding, he stated,
that the purpose of instructing the subordinate unions to use "Conditions of,
Employment" was to retain the three essential prerogatives of ITU which the,
Act threatened to destroy. These prerogatives were, he explained, (1) the right,
of only union members to work in printing, shops ; (2) the right of ITU to de-
termine the "jurisdiction" over work to be.performed by ITU members; and;
(3) the right of ITU members to work only on composition-or other work.which,
had not been worked on and would not be produced under substandard con-,
ditions. .
Randolph also testified in the Baltimore case that the existence of nonunion
foremen or the hiring of any nonunion men with respect to work within the
jurisdiction of ITU would destroy the local and eventually ITU ; that the closed
shop had been a "practice for all time past" in ITU ; that ITU was always de-
termined to retain the, right to fix its own jurisdiction; and that historically,
ITU has refused to work on unfair or struck goods. He pointed out the possi-
bility that an employer might have part of his work done "by non-union workers
who may be getting sub-standard wages or working under sub-standard con-,
ditions."
The seven subordinate unions' insistence upon unilateral promulgation of the
unsigned "Conditions of Employment," despite the employers' request for nego-,
tiation and execution of written contracts governing wages, hours, and working
conditions, fails to meet the requirement of Section 8 (d) of the Act which de-
fines the process of collective bargaining to include "the execution of a written
contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party."
The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that each subordinate union was requested
to enter into a written agreement and that each of them, except No. 18, refused
to do so.2J Under the Wagner Act it was settled law that the question of a
signed agreement had been removed from the category of bargainable issues
between the employer and the statutory representative of his employees. ' Al-
though, under the Wagner Act, the employer was not compelled to enter into an
agreement, his freedom to refuse to make an agreement related to its terms
in matters of substance and not, once it was reached, to its expression in a signed,
contract, the absence of which tends to frustrate the end sought by the require-
ment for collective bargaining.24 Under Section 8 (d) of the present Act, all
23 The contract between No. 1S and Graphic Arts will be discussed fully below.
24 See H. J. Heinz v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1489
,agreements must be reduced to writing and signed, if request therefor is made
by either party. This provision of the Act merely legislates the rule of decision
previously established by the courts and the Board under Section 8 (5) of the
Wagner Act. It is equally well settled that where, as here, one of the parties
announces in advance of any agreement upon substantive matters that he will
never sign a contract with the other party, his conduct is as unlawful as it would
have been had he refused to sign a contract after all substantive matters had
been agreed upon. In N. L. R. B. v. Register Publishing Co., 141 F. 2d 156
(C. A. 9), a case in which a subordinate union was the charging party, the
Court said that an employer by "refusing to sign any agreement . . . in effect
refused to bargain collectively with the union as the representative of its em-
ployees and this is true despite the fact that, at the time of the refusal, no
agreement had been reached." Since labor organizations are now under the
same duty to bargain as-are employers, the language of the Court in the Register
Publishing case is wholly applicable to the seven subordinate unions' conduct in
the present case.
Moreover, under the Wagner Act, the Board and the courts had on a number
of occasions stated that the insistence upon a clause in a contract which reserved
to an employer unilateral right to determine particular terms and conditions
constituted bad faith and a refusal to bargain.26 By the third paragraph of
"Conditions of Employment" each subordinate union establishes the wages,
hours, and conditions under which its members shall work "subject only to such
alteration, amendment, or withdrawal as may be authorized by a vote of the
membership as prescribed by local laws and approved by" ITU. This reservation
to the subordinate unions of the right to effect unilateral changes in all condi-
tions of employment obviously fails to meet A he standards of good faith
J n collective bargaining. The insistence upon the imposition of "Conditions of
Employment" in the face of requests by employers to bargain collectively is
plainly contrary to all standards of good-faith bargaining required by the legal
authorities (May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376).
Under the circumstances, the undersigned finds that by insisting that the
employers accept or adopt "Conditions of Employment" in lieu of a written,
signed agreement the seven subordinate unions violated Section 8 (b) (3) of
the Act. The undersigned further finds that ITU promulgated "Conditions of
Employment" in order to perpetuate the three essential "prerogatives" which
Randolph testified in the Baltimore case had to be retained if ITU was not to
be destroyed by the Act. The undersigned also finds that the seven subordinate
unions had to follow the dictates of ITU and refuse to enter into signed written
agreements with the employers and' that the seven subordinate unions were
ordered by ITU to insist upon "Conditions of Employment" through the fear of
being summarily expelled from ITU.
The alternative given the subordinate unions by ITU when the employers
rejected "Conditions of Employment" was form P-6A. Although it has been
called and referred to as a contract at the various conferences between employers
and subordinate unions, it is evident, even if agreed to by an employer, it would
not constitute a contract creating enforceable legal rights between the parties
23 Art Metals Construction Co. v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. 2d 148 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Brozen, 166 F. 2d 812 (C. A. 2). . . .
2° Aluminum Ore Co. v. N. L. R. B., 131 F. 2d 485 (C. A. 7) ; Singer Manufacturing Co.
v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. 2d 131 (C. A. 7) ; cert. denied, 313 U. S; 595 ; N. L. R. B. v. West-
inghouse Air Brake Co., 120 F. 2d 1004 (C. A. 3).
877359-50-vol. 87-95
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because it provides merely for a series of undertakings by the employer and a
series of reservations by the subordinate union. At most, form P-6A establishes
conditions of employment so long as they are observed by either party. The
document therefore does not conform to the requirements of Section 8 (d).
Furthermore, some of the provisions of form P-6A conflict with the general
policies underlying the Act while others would expressly compel employers to
violate the Act. Thus, form P-6A provides that the ITU laws 27 shall be control-
ling, upon subjects which, by statutory definition, are within the area of collec-
tive bargaining. Nonetheless, the subordinate unions have insisted that the
ITU laws .be made part of form P-6A, and have refused to bargain with respect
to those laws, despite the fact that under the Act it is obligatory upon the statu-
tory representative of the employees to bargain collectively with the employer
concerning wages, hours, and working conditions.
Article II, 2 (C) of the ITU constitution provides that the "general laws
shall contain only any and all laws relating to contracts and scales of prices;
conditions of employment and the relation of subordinate unions and individual
members to the employer." The subordinate unions, although they are the con-
tracting parties, are not permitted by Article III, Section 2, of the general laws
to sign a contract "guaranteeing its members to work for any proprietor, firm
or corporation unless such contract is in accordance with [ITU] law and approved
by the [ITU] President." Thus, by the insertion of a clause in a contract, such
as contained in form P-6A, providing that the ITU laws shall be controlling in
certain instances, there is removed from the area of collective bargaining such
subjects which the Act was designed to make bargainable. The subordinate
unions are powerless to act contrary to the decisions, rules, and laws of ITU
Without jeopardizing their status as subordinates of ITU, even though the
-subordinate unions are the designated statutory representatives of the employees.
Yet under the constitution and general laws the authority of the subordinate
unions is limited. The contract they make will not be approved unless it con-
forms to the laws of ITU. Since it is manifestly clear that the questions of
wages, hours, and working conditions can not be arbitrarily and unilaterally
withdrawn from the area of collective bargaining, it follows that the seven
subordinate unions here involved, by insisting that the employers adopt or
accept the decisions, rules, and laws of ITU without bargaining with respect
to them, violated Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act and the said subordinate unions
should be ordered to bargain, if requested to do so by the employers, concerning
the subject matters embraced within the laws, rules, and decisions of ITU
and should be further ordered to cease and desist from insisting upon the
adoption or acceptance by the employers of such laws, rules, and regulations
without bargaining with respect to them.
The propriety of the conclusion that by the insistence that the employers
execute P-6A, the seven subordinate unions violated the Act is further em-
phasized in the fact that form P-6A also contains other provisions repugnant
of the Act. Thus, paragraph (d) states that the employer "will not assign
any work traditionally performed by journeymen and apprentice printers, as
defined by" the subordinate union. Paragraph (e) states that the employer
recognizes that the subordinate union "cannot compel members to work with
non-union printers . . . and agrees that any refusal by its workers to work
with non-union employees-shall not constitute a breach of this agreement."
Paragraph (g).states that the employer "agrees not to require its employees
n The laws consist of the ITU constitution, bylaws, general laws, and convention laws.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1491
to perform work on composition or other work executed or to be further worked
on wholly or in part by employees working under sub-standard conditions as
defined by the" subordinate union. Paragraph (i) limits liability for breaches
of form P-6A to $25. When read in conjunction with the various sections of
the general laws, as summarized in Appendix H hereto annexed, paragraphs (d),
(e), (g), and (i) clearly shows that if an employer would sign form P-6A he
would violate Section 8 (a) (3), (b) (1) (A), (2), and (3) of the Act28 Para-
graph (g) is when read in conjunction with the general laws, repugnant to
Section 8 (1) (1) (A), and (a) and (3) of the Act because it is in reality
nothing more than a "struck work" clause. Coupled with the other clauses
that are in conflict with the Act, the insistence upon the clause that liability
for breaches of form P-6A be limited to $25, which limitation is so plainly con-
trary to the intent and purposes of the Congress, as disclosed by the legislative
history of the Act, amounts to a refusal to bargain in good faith and thereby in
conflict with Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
Assuming, arguendo, that the parties may bargain away certain rights and
privileges granted to employees and employers under the Act, such agreements,
arising as they do out of the "give and take" of collective bargaining, may, for
aught that appears in the present proceeding, represent concessions made by
one of the parties in exchange for an agreement on other vital terms of the
contract. Moreover, the right to require employees to perform any reasonable
task and to require union men to work with nonunion men, all other things being
equal, is not derived from contracts. It is a public right established by the
Act. To condone a contractual restriction of that right would be to defeat one
of the very purposes for which the Wagner Act was amended. Obviously, neither
employers nor labor organizations can set at naught the Act by coercion, as a
price of a contract in disregard of the statutory rights guaranteed to employees.
The insistence by ITU and the seven subordinate unions that the employers
surrender such matters as their right to bargain with respect to certain matters
pertaining to their employees' wages, hours, and working conditions as embraced
in the ITU laws, their right to hire and fire whomever they please, their right to
assign work to any employee they deem competent, and the right to accept busi-
ness from whomever they please as a condition precedent to negotiation of an
agreement can not be considered, on the part of the seven subordinate unions,
bona ride collective bargaining as contemplated by the Act. Furthermore, the
insistence on the 60-day cancellation clause in form P-6A is further evidence of
bad faith when that clause is viewed with the past history of collective bar-
gaining between the parties here involved. In the past, contracts were entered
into for a fixed term whereas form P-6A has no definite termination date and
can be canceled upon 60-day notice. The main purpose for the insertion of
this clause in form P-GA, according to the record, was to enable members of
ITU to strike whenever a nonunion man was hired or whenever a dispute arose
over struck work. The undersigned therefore finds that by the aforesaid actions
of the seven subordinate unions, they, and each of them, violated Section 8 (b)
(3) of the Act. The undersigned further finds that the aforesaid actions reflect a
determination generally to restrain and coerce the employees, and the prospective
employees of the employers herein in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
28 Paragraphs (d) and (e) read in conjunction with Sections 10 and 11 of Article V, of
the general laws, Section 8, Article VIII of the bylaws, Section 42, Article IV of the
bylaws, Section 5, Article VII of the general laws, make paragraphs (d) and (3) closed-shop
clauses.
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 7 of the Act and consequently each of the seven subordinate unions by
such actions also violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The undersigned also finds that each of the seven subordinate unions and
ITU violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by insisting upon retaining for them-
selves unilateral determination of "jurisdiction" because by such action the
employers are forced to assign work to ITU members at the command of ITU
or a subordinate union rather than to assign it to nonunion men. The insistence
upon the struck-work clause, the undersigned finds, also violates Section 8 (b)
(2) for the refusal of union miembers to execute work from an "unfair" or non-
union shop would be a potent factor in forcing employees of these nonunion or
"unfair" shops into membership in ITU by causing the employees herein to dis-
criminate against these employees. One of the main purposes for amending the
Wagner Act would be frustrated if unions were allowed to compel employers in
advance not to accept work from other employers whose employees are non-
union men.
The Respondents point to the fact that Detroit Typographical Union No. 18
and the Graphic Arts entered into a contract on April 12, 1948, and argue that
the complaint herein as to ITU and No. 18 should be dismissed because the
Detroit aspect of this proceeding has become moot.
An analysis of the Detroit contract shows that it contains four clauses repug-
nant to the Act, viz, (1) a statement of intent clause (normal account basis) ;
(2) a "laws" clause; (3) a competency clause; and (4) a hiring clause!'
These clauses were the product of ITU and were devised by it as a means to
contravene the Act. It therefore demonstrates that ITU is still pursuing its
illegal objectives with respect to the preservation of the closed shop and a
secondary boycott. The "normal account basis" clause is an attempt to make
employers capitulate to, and participate in, secondary boycotts against nonunion
plants or customers on the ITU's unfair list because that clause restrains the
employer in accepting work from a struck plant provided the employer had not
performed any work for that plant prior to the strike. In common verbiage
"normal account basis" means to continue to do business only with firms with
whom the employer normally did.
Furthermore, the "laws," competency, and hiring clauses in the Detroit con-
tract, when coupled together, form a device to defeat the intent and purposes of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act for that section of the Act not only prohibits a
closed shop but prohibits any discrimination which encourages membership in a
union unless the terms of the provisos are complied with. The competency
clause permits examination of applicants for composing-room jobs by ITU
and the subordinate union in conjunction with the employers, thereby giving a
veto power to ITU and the subordinate union. It also provides that ITU journey-
men are eligible for employment without examination, thereby discriminating
in favor of ITU members. Union membership and experience would be relevant
in judging competency, though clearly unioh membership alone could not be
made the basis for decision. These facts are especially true because the contract
requires that all foremen be ITU members in good standing and that the foremen
be the only persons having authority to hire and fire journeymen. Hence a
foreman could reject nonunion applicants even though they had secured cer-
tificates of competency because ITU foremen, like all ITU members, are bound
by the oath prescribed in the ITU constitution to "use all honorable means . . .
to procure employment for, members of the International Typographical Union
21 These clauses are set out above in detail under the section relating to the bargaining
conferences between Graphic Arts and No. 18.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1493
in preference to others." In sum, the four discussed clauses are but a revision
of some of the objectionable terms and conditions insisted upon by No. 18 and
the six other subordinate unions throughout their negotiations with the employers
and by entering into a contract containing those clauses the parties thereto have
attempted to contravene the Act. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend
that No. 18 and Graphic Arts be ordered to cease and desist from giving effect
to above four clauses and also cease and desist from giving effect to the clause
which provides that the only recourse the parties may have "for any damages
alleged to be due for any breach . .. shall be to the joint standing commit-
tee . . . that no award for damages shall in any extent exceed the sum of
$25 . . ." This clause appears in form P-6A and, as found above, its adoption
is but a scheme to set at naught the intent and purpose of the Congress.
In recommending that No. 18 and Graphic Arts be ordered to give no effect
to the five clauses found to be repugnant to the Act, the undersigned is not
unmindful of the fact that under certain circumstances the parties may bargain
away their rights under the Act. The fact that the evidence does not reveal
that the employees of the members of Graphic Arts were, or any one of them
was, restrained or coerced in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, is not material to the issue. Nor is it material that all the em-
ployees involved are ITU members. The Act was not designed to protect a
private right nor to protect a named employee from restraint or coercion. The
Act was designed to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. More-
over, Section 8 (b) (1) (A) is not limited in its application to designated em-
ployees or to a particular employer. The word "employees" as used in that
section has a broad meaning given to it in Section 2 (3) of the Act 80 Thus, when
a union and a group of employers representing the bulk of the commercial print-
ing industry in a given metropolitan area enter into a contract which contemplates
a local boycd'tt on the placing of orders and the like, the propriety of that agree-
ment should be looked into very carefully, especially since the employers signing
that agreement had, through their trade association, filed a charge upon which
the complaint herein had been issued. If the employer-members of Graphic
Arts entered into the contract because it feared that by refusing to do so they
would be visited with economic loss or that they entered into the contract
through bona fide bargaining, is immaterial. The fact remains that the Act
imposes certain duties upon unions and employers alike. These duties required
each of them to protect the rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7.
These duties were ignored.
In cases under the Wagner Act with respect to contracts between an em-
ployer and a union existing in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act the Board
has consistently ordered the employer to give no effect to the contract, except as
to certain economic provisions. Under that Act, the Board was vigilant in
seeing that the rights guaranteed employees were not thwarted by contractual
arrangements and it will be equally vigilant in protecting the rights of all parties
under the present Act.
The record discloses that early in April 1948, ITU had authorized the submis-
sion of proposals similar to the Detroit contract to the associations representing
the members of Franklin Association (Chicago) and Allied Printing Employers'
Association (Philadelphia). No agreements, however, have been reached with
80 "This broad definition covers, in addition to employees of a particular employer, also
employees of another employer or former employees of a particular employer or even
applicants for employment ." Briggs Mfg. Co., 75 NLRB 569.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to these proposals. Randolph testified that ITU had approved the sub-
mission of a similar proposal by No. 103 to the Master Printers (Newark).
The record is barren as to whether No. 103 submitted the proposal to Master
Printers. As found above, certain clauses of the Detroit are repugnant to the
Act and therefore ITU and the subordinate unions which submitted the pro-
posals to the three named associations are continuing to violate the act. Even
assuming that the said contract proposals conformed to the requirements of the
Act and establish that ITU was permitting its subordinate unions to bargain in
good faith, such action would hardly constitute a defense in view of the long
continued course of law violations by the ITU and the seven subordinate unions,
They sought for many months to impose upon the employers either "Conditions of
Employment" or form P-6A. The asserted change of policy did not occur until
5 months after the termination notices served by the seven subordinate unions,
during which period ITU did not permit any of the subordinate unions here
involved to bargain. As a result there were strikes and slow-downs in Phila-
delphia and in Chicago and threats of strike action in Detroit. Surely a belated
repentance after 5 months of illegal conduct is not a ground which would justify
a, refusal to issue a remedial order." Wholly apart from these considerations,
an analysis of the new contract proposals reveals that the revised verbiage is
merely a cloak for ITV's tireless pursuit of its 1947 convention program.
The credited evidence clearly indicates that insistence upon the right to re-
tain the three essential "prerogatives" "no matter what happens," constitutes
restraint and coercion both by the subordinate unions and ITU. The imposition
by ITU upon the subordinate unions of the ITU laws is the principal stumbling
block to successful collective bargaining. This usurpation of the rights of the
subordinate union, the designated bargaining `representative of the employees
involved, divest those employees of their freedom to exercise the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the undersigned will° recommend
that ITU cease and desist from interfering with the bargaining negotiations of
the subordinate unions here involved with the employers so that the rights
guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act may be preserved and protected.
Upon the entire record as epitomized above, the undersigned is convinced, and
finds, that Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 refused to bargain collectively
with Allied Printing Employers' Association on November 6, 1947, and at all
times thereafter ; that Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 refused to bargain
collectively with Franklin Association of Chicago on October 15, 1947, and at
all times thereafter ; that Detroit Typographical Union No..18 refused to bargain
collectively with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical
Union Employers' Section) on October 30, 1947, and at all times thereafter; that
Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 refused to bargain collectively with Graphic Arts
Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers Division) on
October 9, 1947, and at all times thereafter ; that Newark Typographical Union
No. 103 refused to bargain collectively with Master Printers Association of
Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee) on November 25, 1947, and at all
times thereafter; that Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 refused to bargain
collectively with Printing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Union Employing
Printers' Section) on November 7, 1947, and at all times thereafter ; and that
St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 refused to bargain collectively with Men
and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industry (Employers'
Division) on November 17, 1947, and at all times thereafter. The above refusals
81 See Augusta Broadcasting Co., 58 NLRB 1493 ; Delaware-New Jersey Ferry Co., 30
NLRB 820.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1495
to bargain collectively occurred although the said subordinate unions were re-
quested. to bargain collectively by the said trade associations. The undersigned
further finds that the said subordinate unions by refusing to bargain collectively,
as aforesaid, restrained and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, the em-
ployees in the respective appropriate units in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act thereby violating Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. The
undersigned further finds that ITU and the said seven subordinate unions by
their acts and conducts, as revealed by the entire record and as summarized
herein, violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
. Upon 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, Chicago Typographical Union No. 16,
Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Detroit Mailers Union No. 40, Pittsburgh
Typographical Union No. 7, Newark Typographical Union No. 103, St. Louis
Typographical Union No. 8, and Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Allied Printing Employers' Association, Franklin Association of Chicago,
Men and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Em-
ployers' Section), Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union
Shop Committee) ; Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical
Union Employers' Section and Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), Print-
ing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Union Employing Printers' Section), at all
times material herein have been, and are, nonprofit associations, existing for
the purposes of collective bargaining with labor organizations representing em-
ployees of their respective members. The employers whose names are listed
upon Appendices A through and including G, annexed hereto, at all times
material have been, and are, members of one of the above-named associations
and the associations have been, and now are, the agents of the said employers
for the purposes of collective bargaining with the appropriate subordinate unions
of ITU and other labor organizations with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. All compositors, proofreaders, linotype machine operators, linotype ma-
chinist-operators, linotype machinists, monotype keyboard operators, monotype
casting machine operators, monotype combination operators, and apprentices,
employed by firms listed on Appendix A, annexed hereto, excluding helpers, office
boys, and all other employees, and all supervisors having authority, in the interest
of the firms listed on Appendix A, annexed hereto, 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 recom-
mend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such author-
ity is not of a merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of independ-
ent judgment, employed by the firms listed on Appendix A, hereto annexed,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 was on August 22, 1947, and at
all times thereafter has been, and now is, 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 November 6, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
.collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
1496 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit with Allied Printing Employers' Association on behalf of its
employer-members the Respondent Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 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 the employees of the employer-
members of Allied Printing Employers' Association "Conditions of Employment"
and form P-6A, requiring the said employees, as a condition of employment, to
maintain membership in the Respondent ITU, the Respondent Philadelphia Typo-
graphical Union No. 2 and Respondent ITU have restrained and coerced, and are
restraining and coercing, employees of the employer-members of Allied Printing
Employers' Association in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
7. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Allied Printing Em-
ployers' Association on behalf of its employer-members Philadelphia Typo-
graphical Union No. 2 has restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing,
employees of the employer-members of the Association in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
8. By attempting to cause employer-members of Allied Printing Employers'
Association to require their employees to be and remain members of the ITU
as a condition of employment the Respondent ITU and Philadelphia Typographi-
cal Union No. 2 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
9. All employees in the composing room of each of the firms listed on Appendix
B, annexed hereto, including band-compositors, tank men, lock-up and line-up and
stonemen, linotype and intertype operators, linotype and intertype machinists,
proofreaders, apprentices, ludlow operators, monotype caster men, material
makers, and saw men, excluding janitors, maintenance men, metal porters, and
all other persons employed in the said composing rooms, and all supervisors
having authority, in the interest of the firms listed on Appendix B, annexed
hereto, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, or discipline
other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or
effectively recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exer-
cise 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 collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
10. Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 was on August 22, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of the
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
11. By refusing on October 15, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in theaforesaid
appropriate unit with Franklin Association of Chicago on behalf of its employer-
members the Respondent Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3)
of the Act.
12. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the employer-
members of Franklin Association of Chicago "Conditions of Employment" and,
form P-6A requiring said employees, as a condition of employment, to maintain
membership in ITU, the Respondents ITU and Chicago Typographical Union No.
16 have restrained and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, the employees
0
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1497
of the employer-members of the Franklin Association of Chicago in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
13. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Franklin Asso-
ciation of Chicago on behalf of its employer-members, Chicago Typographical
Union No. 16 has restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the.
employees of the employer-members of Franklin Association of Chicago in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
14. By attempting to cause employer-members of Franklin Association of
Chicago to require their employees to be and remain members of ITU, as a
condition of employment, the Respondents ITU and Chicago Typographical
Union No. 16 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
15. All persons employed in the composing rooms of the firms listed on Appendix
C, hereto annexed, performing composing-room work such as copy holding,
sorting cases, sorting out and putting away leads and slugs, breaking-up and
distributing materials on dead forms, operating strip and material-making ma-
chines, locking and unlocking forms, mounting cuts, and setting type, excluding
all other employees and all supervisors having authority, in the interest of the
firms listed on Appendix C, 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,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of section 9 (b) of the Act.
16. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 was on August 22, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
17. By refusing on October 30, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical
Union Employers' Section), on behalf of its employer-members, the Respondent
Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
18. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the employer-
members of Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union
Employers' Section), "Conditions of Employment" and form P=6A requiring
said employees, as a condition of employment, to maintain membership in ITU,
the Respondents ITU and Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 have restrained
and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, the employees of the employer-
members of the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union
Employer's Section), in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
19. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Graphic Arts
Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union Employers' Section) on
behalf of its employer-members, Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 has re-
strained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the employer-members of
Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union Employers'
Section), in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
20. By attempting to cause employer-members of the Graphic Arts Association
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Union Employdrs' Section), to require their
employees to be and remain members of ITU as a condition of employment, the
Respondents ITU and Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act.
21. All persons engaged in each of the plants of the firms listed on Appendix D,
annexed hereto, in addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling or wrapping,
cutting lists, preparing lists or wrappers, operating stencil machines, filing or
correcting stencils, sorting, routing, dissecting or marking wrappers, taking
bundles or papers from conveyors or escalators, stacking, jogging, folding, han-
dling of bundles or mail sacks, distributing or counting papers, typing by hand
or power machines, stocking or delivering papers to mailers, carrier agents or
newsboys, inserting or dispatching papers, envelopes, magazines or circulars, ex-
cluding all other employees and all foremen and other supervisors having au-
thority, in the interest of the firms listed on Appendix D, to hire, transfer, sus-
pend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effec-
tively 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, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
22. Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 was on August 22, 1947, and at all times there-
after has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of the employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 of the Act.
23. By refusing on October 9, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary News-
paper Employers Division), on behalf of its employer-members, the Respondent
Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
24. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the employer-
members of Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper
Employers Division), "Conditions of Employment" and form P-6A requiring
said employees, as a condition of employment, to maintain membership in ITU,
the Respondents ITU and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 have restrained and
coerced and are restraining and coercing the employees of the employer-members
of Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers
Division) in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
25. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with fhe Graphic Arts
Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), on behalf
of its employer-members, Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 has restrained and
coerced and is restraining and coercing the employees of the employer-members
of Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers
Division) in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
26. By attempting to cause employer-members of Graphic Arts Association of
Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), to require their em-
ployees to be and remain members of ITU as a condition of employment the
Respondents ITU and Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1499
27. All compositors , stonemen , monotype keyboard operators , monotype caster
operators ,, linotype operators and machinists, proofreaders , copy holders , super-
annuated journeymen compositors, composing -room apprentices , employed in the
composing rooms of the firms listed in Appendix E, hereto annexed , excluding all
other employees and all supervisory employees having authority , in the interest
of the firms listed in Appendix E, hereto annexed , 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 au-
thority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of in-
dependent judgment, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
28. Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 was on Auugst 22, 1947, and at
all times thereafter has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
29. By refusing on November 7, 1947, and at all times thereafter , to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
unit with Printing Industry of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing Printers
Section ), on behalf of its employer -members, the Respondent Pittsburgh Typo-
graphical Union No. 7 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (3) of the Act.
30. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the employer-
members of Printing Industry of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing Printers
Section ), "Conditions of Employment" and form P-6A requiring said employees,
as a condition of employment , to maintain membership in ITU, the Respondents
ITU and Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 have restrained and coerced, and
are restraining and coercing , the employees of the employer -members of the
Printing Industry of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section) in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
31. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Printing Industry
of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section ), on behalf of the em-
ployer-members , Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 has restrained and co-
erced, and is restraining and coercing , the employees of the employer-members of
Printing Industry of Pittsburgh , Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section) in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
32. By attempting to cause employer-members of Printing Industry of Pitts-
burgh, Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section ) to require their employees to
be and remain members of ITU, as a condition of employment , the Respondents
ITU and Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 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 and 8 ( b) (1) (A) of the Act.
33. All the employees in the respective composing rooms of the firms listed on
Appendix F, annexed hereto, including linotype operators , monotype operators,
monotype keyboard operators , hand compositors, stonemen, distributors , make-up
men, but excluding all other employees and all supervisory employees with author-
ity, in the interest of the firms listed on Appendix F, annexed hereto, 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 re-
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quires the use of independent judgment, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
34. Newark Typographical Union No. 103 was on August 22, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of the employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
35. By refusing on November 25, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity
(Union Shop Committee) on behalf of the employer-members, Newark Typo-
graphical Union No. 103 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
36. By attempting to impose and imposing upon employees of the employer-
members of Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop
Committee) "Conditions of Employment" and form P-6A requiring said employ-
ees, as a condition of employment, to maintain membership in ITU, the Respond-
ents ITU and Newark Typographical Union No. 103 have restrained and coerced,
and are restraining and coercing, the employees of the employer-members of
the Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee)
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
37. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Master Printers
Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee) on behalf of its
employer-members, Newark Typographical Union No. 103 has restrained and
coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the employees of the employer-members
of Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee)
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
38. By attempting to cause employer-members of the Master Printers Associa-
tion of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee) to require their em-
ployees to be and remain members of the ITU as a condition of employment, the
Respondents ITU and Newark Typographical Union No. 103 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act.
39. All the employees in the respective composing rooms of the firms listed on
Appendix G, annexed hereto, including typesetters, make-up men, lock-up men,
proofreaders, and apprentices, but excluding all supervisory employees having
authority, in the interest of the firms listed on Appendix G, hereto annexed,
to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discipline other employees, or respon-
sibly 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, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
40. St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 was on August 22, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
41. By refusing on November 17, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with Men and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic
Arts Industries (Employers Division) on behalf of its employer-members, the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1501
Respondent St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
42. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the employer-
members of the Men and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts
Industries (Employers Division) "Conditions of Employment" and Form P-6A
requiring said employees, as a condition of employment, to maintain membership
in ITU, the Respondents ITU and St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 have
restrained and coerced, and are restraining and coercing, the employees of the
employer-members of the Men and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic
Arts Industries (Employers Division) in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
43. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Men and Manage-
ment Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers Division)
on behalf of its employer-members, St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 has
restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the employees of the
employer-members of the Alen and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic
Arts Industries (Employers Division) in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
44. By attempting to cause employer-members of the Men and Management
Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers Division) to require
their employees to be and remain members of ITU, 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) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
45. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
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 the following:
1. That the Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, Detroit Typographical
Union No. 18, Detroit Mailers' Union No. 40, Pittsburgh Typographical Union
No. 7, Newark Typographical Union No. 103, St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8,
and Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 and their officers, representatives,
and agents , shall:
(a) Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith, as
follows :
(1) Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 and its officers, representatives, and
agents, (aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees in the
composing rooms of all members of the Franklin Association of Chicago which
firms are listed on Appendix B annexed hereto, including hand compositors,
tank men, lock-up and line-up and stonemen, linotype and intertype operators,
linotype and intertype machinists, proofreaders, apprentices, ludlow operators,
monotype caster men, material makers and saw men, excluding janitors,
maintenance men, metal porters and all other men employed in said composing
room and also excluding all other employees and all supervisors having authority,
in the interests of the said firms, 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
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of independent
judgment, with the Franklin Association of Chicago as the representative of
said employers with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment; (bb) from refusing to execute or refraining
from executing upon request a written contract incorporating any agreement
reached; ( cc) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith with said Franklin Association of Chicago for collective bargaining
contracts for a definite term in accordance with the practices and custom
established by Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 in its bargaining with
Franklin Association of Chicago in the past ; and (dd) from requiring that the
laws, rules, and decisions of the International Typographical Union be adopted
by the employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their
respective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect to the subject matter
thereof, and from requiring that the employers accept without bargaining in
respect to the subject matter thereof, the interpretations and applications of
such laws, rules, and decisions by the International Typographical Union or
Chicago Typographical Union No. 16;
(2) Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 and its officers, representatives, and
agents, ( aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees in the
composing rooms of all members of the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan,
Inc. (Typographical Employers Section ), which firms are listed on Appendix 0
annexed hereto, including all employees who perform composing-room work such
as copy holding , sorting cases , sorting and putting away leads and slugs, break-
ing up and distributing material or dead forms , operation of all strip and material
making machines , locking and unlocking all forms , mounting of all cuts and the
setting of type, but excluding all other employees and all supervisors having
authority , in the interests of the said firms, 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 , with the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc.
(Typographical Employers Section ), as the representative of said employers
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment ; ( bb) from refusing to execute or refraining from executing upon
request a written contract incorporating any agreement reached; ( cc) from
refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively in good faith with
said Graphic Arts Association of Michigan , Inc. (Typographical Employers Sec-
tion ), for collective bargaining contracts for a definite term in accordance with
the practices and custom established by Detroit Typographical Union No. 18
in its bargaining with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical
Employers Section) in the past; and (dd) from requiring that the laws, rules,
and decisions of the International Typographical Union be adopted by the em-
ployers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their respective com-
posing rooms , without bargaining with respect to the subject matter thereof,
and from requiring that the employers accept without bargaining in respect to
the subject matter thereof , the interpretations and applications of such laws,
rules, and decisions by the International Typographical or Detroit Typographical
Union No. 18; (ee) from giving effect to those provisions of the contract entered
into with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Typographical Employers
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL -UNION 1503
Section), on or about April 12, 1948, which the undersigned found to be re-
pugnant to the Act ;
(3) Detroit Mailers Union No. 40 and its officers, representatives, and agents,
(aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively in good
faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees in the composing
rooms of all members of the Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary
Newspaper Employers Division), which firms are listed on Appendix D annexed
hereto, including all employees engaged in performing mailing work, such as
addressing, tagging, stamping, labeling, bundling, wrapping, cutting lists, pre-
paring lists or wrappers, operating stencil machines, filing or correcting stencils,
sorting, routing, dissecting or marking wrappers, taking bundles or papers from
conveyors or escalators, stacking, jogging, folding, handling of bundles or mail
sacks, distributing, counting of papers, tying by hand or power machine, stacking,
delivering papers to mailers, carriers, agents, newsboys, inserting or dispatching
papers, envelopes, magazines or circulars and excluding all other employees and
all supervisors having authority, in the interests of the said firms, to hire, trans-
fer, 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 the Graphic Arts Association
of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), as the representative
of said employers with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment; (bb) from refusing to execute or refraining
from executing upon request a written contract incorporating any agreement
reached ; (cc) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith with said Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc. (Rotary
Newspaper Employers Division), for collective bargaining contracts for a definite
term in accordance with the practices and custom established by Detroit Mailers
Union No. 40 in its bargaining with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan, Inc.
(Rotary Newspaper Employers Division), in the past; and (dd) from requiring
that the laws, rules, and decisions of the International Typographical Union be
adopted by the employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to
their respective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect to the subject
matter thereof, and from requiring that the employers accept without bargaining
in respect to the subject matter thereof the interpretations and applications of
such laws, rules, and decisions by the International Typographical Union or
Detroit Mailers Union No. 40;
(4) Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7 and its officers, representatives,
and agents, (aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining col-
lectively in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees
in the composing rooms of all members of the Printing Industry of Pittsburgh,
Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section), which firms are listed on Appendix
E attached to the complaint herein in Case No. 2-CB-30, including all com-
positors, stonemen, monotype keyboard operators, monotype caster operators,
linotype operators and machinists, proofreaders, copy holders, superannuated
journeymen compositors, and composing room apprentices ; excluding all other
employees and all supervisors having authority, in the interests of said firms, 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
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nature but requires the use of independent judgment, with the Printing Industry
of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Union Employing Printers Section), as the representative of
said employers, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment; (bb) from refusing to execute or refraining
from executing upon request a written contract incorporating any agreement
reached; (cc) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith with said Printing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Union Employing
Printers Section), for collective bargaining contracts for a definite term in
accordance with the practices and custom established by Pittsburgh Typographi-
cal Union No. 7 in its bargaining with Printing Industry of Pittsburgh, Inc.
(Union Employing Printers Section) in the past; and (dd) from requiring
that the laws, rules, and decisions of the International Typographical Union
be adopted by the employers as rules and conditions of employment applicable
to their respective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect to the
subject matter thereof, and from requiring that the employers accept without
bargaining in respect to the subject matter thereof, the interpretations and ap-
plications of such laws, rules, and decisions by the International Typographical
Union or Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7;
(5) Newark Typographical Union No. 103 and its officers, representatives, and
agents, (aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees in the
composing rooms of all members of the Master Printers Association of Newark
and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee), which firms are listed on Appendix F
annexed hereto, including linotype operators, monotype operators, monotype
keyboard operators, hand compositors, stonemen, distributors, make-up men,
and excluding all other employees and all supervisors having authority in the
interests of the said firms 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 the Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop
Committee) as the representative of said employers, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; (bb)
from refusing to execute or refraining from executing upon request a written
contract incorporating any agreement reached; (cc) from refusing to bargain
or refraining from bargaining collectively in good faith with said Master Printers
Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Committee) for collective
bargaining contracts for a definite term in accordance with the practices and
custom established by Newark Typographical Union No. 103 in its bargaining
with Master Printers Association of Newark and Vicinity (Union Shop Com-
mittee) 'in the past; and (dd) from requiring that the laws, rules, and decisions
of the International Typographical Union be adopted by the employers as rules
and conditions of employment applicable subject matter thereof, and from re-
quiring that the employers accept without bargaining in respect to the subject
matter thereof, the interpretations and applications of such laws, rules, and de-
cisions by the International Typographical Union or Newark Typographical
Union No. 103;
(6) St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 and its officers, representatives, and
agents, (aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining collectively
in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees in the
composing rooms of all members of the Men and Management Conference of
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1505
St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers' Division) which firms are listed
on Appendix G annexed hereto, including type setters, make-up men, lock-up
men, proofreaders and apprentices, and excluding all other employees and all
supervisors having authority, in the interests of the said firms, 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 the Men and Management Con-
ference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers' Division) as the
representative of said employers with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment; (bb) from refusing to execute
or refraining from executing upon request a written contract incorporating any
agreement reached; (cc) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining
collectively in good faith with said Men and Management Conference of St.
Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers' Division) for collective bargaining
contracts for a definite term in accordance with the practices and custom
established by St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 in its bargaining with Men
and Management Conference of St. Louis, Graphic Arts Industries (Employers'
Division) in the past; and (dd) from requiring that the laws, rules, and de-
cisions of the International Typographical Union be adopted by the employers
as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their respective composing
rooms, without bargaining with respect to the subject matter thereof, and from
requiring that the employers accept without bargaining in respect to the subject
matter thereof, the interpretations and applications of such laws, rules, and
decisions by the International Typographical Union or St. Louis Typographical
Union No. 8;
(7) Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 and its officers, representatives,
and agents, (aa) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bargaining col-
lectively in good faith as exclusive bargaining representatives of all employees
in the composing rooms of all members of the Allied Printing Employers Asso-
ciation, which firms are listed on Appendix A annexed hereto, including com-
positors, proofreaders, linotype machine operators, linotype machinists-operators,
linotype machinists, monotype keyboard operators, monotype casting machine
operators, monotype combination operators, and apprentices and excluding
helpers, office boys, utility employees and all other employees and all super-
visors having authority, in the interests of the firms, 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 the Allied Printing Employers Association as the
representative of said employers with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment; (bb) from refusing to execute or
refraining from executing upon request a written contract incorporating any
agreement reached; (cc) from refusing to bargain or refraining from bar-
gaining collectively in good faith with said Allied Printing Employers Associa-
tion for collective bargaining contracts for a definite term in accordance with
the practices and custom established by Philadelphia Typographical Union
No. 2 in its bargaining with Allied Printing Employers Association in the past;
and (dd) from requiring that the laws, rules, and decisions of the International
877359-50-vol. 87-96
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Typographical Union be adopted by the employers as rules and conditions of
employment applicable to their respective composing rooms, without bargaining
with respect to the subject matter thereof, and from requiring that the em-
ployers accept without bargaining in respect to the subject matter thereof, the
interpretations and applications of such laws, rules, and decisions by the Inter-
national Typographical Union or Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2.
(b) Cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause the employers
named above in Paragraph 1 (a), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) hereof,
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
or restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by :
(1) Insisting or instructing, or inducing their representatives to insist, that the
said employers adopt or acquiesce in conditions of employment or execute con-
tract which directly or by implication, including reference to the laws, rules and
decisions of the International Typographical Union :
(aa) Compel the said employers to employ only members of the said sub-
ordinate unions or persons approved by the said local unions or induce or
encourage members of the said subordinate unions to refuse to work with non-
member employees or otherwise to cause or attempt to cause the said employers
to discriminate against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment except in accordance with the provisos
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act;
(bb) Compel or require the said employer, or to induce or encourage employ-
ees of any of the employers, to engage in strikes, or concerted refusals, to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar-
ticles, materials or commodities where an object thereof is to compel or require
the said employers to cease using, selling, handling, transporting or otherwise
dealing in the products of other producers, processors or manufacturers, or
to cease doing business with other persons, and specifically, to cease doing busi-
ness with, or handling the products of, firms whose employees are not members of
the said subordinate unions or any other subordinate union of International
Typographical Union or who otherwise are characterized by the said subordinate
unions as being "unfair' or "sub-standard" regardless of whether or not any such
producer, processor, manufacturer, person, or firm is a normal and regular sup-
plier to or customer of or otherwise normally and regularly does business with
any such employer ;
(cc) Force and require any of the employers to assign particular work such
as composing room and mailing room work and work related thereto only to
members of said subordinate unions or to persons approved by the said sub-
ordinate unions as journeymen or apprentice compositors or mailers rather
than to employees in other labor organizations or any other trades, crafts or
classes unless the employer involved fails to conform to an order or certifi-
cation of the National Labor Relations Board determining the bargaining
representative for employees performing such work ;
(c) Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate
the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith as the exclusive repre-
sentatives of the employees in the units set up above with the representatives
of the employers as set out above under and in accordance with the provisions
of Paragraph 1 (a). (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) hereof.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1507
(2) Post immediately in conspicuous places at the offices of the subordinate
unions named above and maintain for a period of at least sixty consecutive
days copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix I ; 32
(3) Notify the Regional Directors for the Second and Fourth Regions in
writing within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Re-
port what steps each subordinate union has taken to comply herewith.
2. That International Typographical Union, its officers, representatives, and
agents and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, Detroit Typographical Union
No. 18, Detroit Mailers Union No. 40, Pittsburgh Typographical Union No. 7,
Newark Typographical Union No. 103, St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8, and
Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2 and their officers, representatives, and
agents shall :
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) In any manner promulgating , disseminating , pursuing , observing, or in
any wise giving effect to or ordering , instructing , requiring, recommending, in-
ducing, encouraging or in any wise causing any of the subordinate unions named
above and their members or any of them to promulgate , disseminate, pursue, ob-
serve or in any wise give effect to, any policy, practice , or course of conduct in-
cluding without limitation (a) "Conditions of Employment," (b) form P-6A
contracts or modifications thereof, ( c) provisions which impair the term or obli-
gation of a collective bargaining agreement , including clauses providing for
termination at any time upon 60 days ' notice, clauses restricting the financial
liability of any party for breaches thereof to amounts unrelated to actual
damages caused thereby, and clauses suspending the operation of a contract in
whole or in part upon the happening of an event within the control of Re-
spondent ITU, (d) laws, rules, and decisions of International Typographical
Union, or (e) any form of contract, or contract clauses or provisions, which
in any manner requires , induces, encourages or causes the said local unions to
fail or refuse to bargain collectively in good faith as set forth in Paragraph 1
( a), (1), (2), (3 ), (4), (5), (6) and ( 7) hereof or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause employers to discriminate against employees in regard to hire
or tenure of employment , or any term or 'condition of employment except in
accordance with the provisos of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act or in any manner
restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the Act, all as set forth in Paragraph 1 (b) (1) (aa), (bb) and (cc)
hereof ;
(2) In any manner continuing in effect, or permitting to continue in effect,
any of the acts and conduct specified in subparagraph ( 1) above;
(3) In any manner supporting , authorizing , sanctioning , recognizing , insti-
gating, inducing or encouraging the said subordinate unions and members
thereof or any of them to engage in, or to continue to engage in, any strikes,
slow-downs , walk-outs, or other disruptions of any kind to the business opera-
tions of the Employers which are in furtherance of, attributable to, arising out
of, or caused solely or in part by, the acts and conduct specified in subparagraphs
(1) and ( 2) above.
(b) And ITU, its officers , representatives , and agents shall take the following
affirmative action which it is found will effgctuate the policies of the Act :
"The notice to be posted by Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 shall contain a pro-
vision that it will seek to give effect to those provisions of the contract entered on or
about April 12, 1948, with Graphic Arts Association of Michigan , Inc. (Typographical
Employers Section), which the Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report to be
repugnant to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Rescind the instructions, postcard bulletins, forms and other documents by
which the Executive Council has given effect to, construed and enforced the col-
lective bargaining policy adopted at the Cleveland Convention of August 1947
now embodied in Section 1, Article III, of the General ITU Laws, and notify all
officers, agents, and members of Respondent ITU, or its subordinate unions to
whom such documents have been sent, that the advice, instructions, and directions
contained therein should be wholly disregarded ;
(2) 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 halls and offices of the Respondent subordinate unions and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked Appendix J;
(3) Rescind and cease to give effect to any provisions in its constitution, by-
laws, general laws, policies, rules, resolutions, decisions, instructions, or directions,
which are inconsistent with or in conflict with this order ;
(4) Notify the Regional Director for the Second and Fourth Regions in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the International Typographical Union has taken to comply therewith.
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
(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,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a state-
ment 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
objections) 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 parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required
by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
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.
Dated May 26, 1948. HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Emaminer.
APPENDIX A
Millard M. Katz, individually and trading as the Advertisers Press.
Allen, Lane & Scott, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1509
The Beck Engraving Company, Inc.
Chilton Co.
The Cuneo Eastern Press, Inc ., of Pa.
Mary Dornan DeVaux , individually and trading as William J. Dornan.
A. R. Tannenbaum, Howard B. Miller and Robert Bernstein , individually and
trading as The Drake Press.
Dunlap Printing Co.
George Fein & Company, Inc.
William Young Weisel, individually and trading as Franklin Composition Co.
Franklin Printing Company.
Gragor-Counery Co.
Horting & Snader Printers, Inc.
Frank D. Jacobs Company, Inc.
Lanston Monotype Machine Company, Inc.
Jacob Green and Louis Green, individually trading as The Majestic Press.
Arthur J. Meyer, individually and trading as John C. Meyer & Son.
Julius L. Gross and Harry Feldman , individually and trading as Mid-City Press.
National Typesetting Corp.
'Periodical Press Corp.
D. Edward McAllister , individually and trading as Progressive Composition Co.
Royal Typographers , a division of Royal Electrotype Co.
Ituttle, Shaw & Wetherill, Inc.
Edward Stern & Company, Inc.
Typekrafters, Inc.
Westcott and Thomson, Inc.
APPENDIX B
A-1 Composition Co., The Adcrafters , Advertising Typographers , Inc., Amerl-
tan Colortype Co., American Medical Assn ., American Typesetting Corp., John
Anderson Pub. Co., Bentley, Murray & Co., Blakely -Oswald Printing Co., Blakely
Printing Co., Buckley-Dement Adv . Corp., J. M. Bundscho , Inc., Cahill Printing
Co., The Calumet Index, Central Printing & Litho. Co., Central Type. & Electr.
Co., Chicago Globe Printing Co., Church Publishing House, Clarke -McElroy Pub.
Co., Columbia Printing Co., W. B . Conkey Co ., Drovers Journal Pub. Co., Empire
Poster Print Co., The Faithorn Corporation , Garfieldian , The General Print-
ing Co., Globe Poster Corp. of Chicago , Carl Gorr Printing Co., Gunthorp-
Warren Printing Co., Hayes-Lochner, Inc., Hedstrom -Barry Co., Herman Ty-
pographers , Hillison & Etten Co., The Inland Press, Keystone Typesetting Co.,
Lolgore Linotyping Co., The Kirchner-Merkel Co., Robert O. Law, G. R. Leon-
ard & Co., R. A. Levin & Co., Lincoln Printing Co., Live Stock Press, Logan
Square Typesetting Co., Loyola University Press, M & L Type. & Electr. Co.,
Magill-Weinsheimer Co., John Maher Printing Co., Manz Corporation, Mercury
Press, Monsen -Chicago, Munroe & Southworth , Inc., Myers Publishing Co., Na-
tional Printing & Pub. Co., Neely Printing Co ., Ogden Printing Co., O. K. Type-
setting Co., P. F. Pettibone & Co., Wm. H. Pool, Inc., Printing Products Corp.,
Regensteiner Corp., Geo. G. Rennecker , Richards Type. & Printing Co., F. J.
Riley Printing Co., The Fred J. Ringley Co., H. L. Ruggles & Co., Runkle , Thomp-
son, Kovats , Inc., Tyan & Hart Co., Service Typographers , Simplex Printing
Co., Slavik Printing Co., Sleepeck-Helman Printing Co., Smith Typesetting Co.,
South End Reporter , Southown Economist , Inc., Max Stern 's Sons Co., Tall-
man, Robbins & Co., Western Newspaper Union , and Workman Mfg. Co.
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
Abbe Press, Inc., American Publishing Corp., Detroit Post Printing Co., High-
land Parker Printers, Inc., Michigan Rotary Printing Co., Redford Printing
Company, Safran Printing Company, The Unique Press, Inc., Unity Press, Wyan-
dotte News Company, State Typesetting, Acme Typesetting Company, Arnold-
Powers, Inc., Horace E. Bean, Earl L. Bezenah, Central Typesetting Company,
Detroit Typesetting Company, Detroit Typographic Service, Eclipse Composition
Company, E. K. Typesetting Company, Federal Composition Company, Hansen
Typesetting, Thomas P. Henry Company, Interstate Brief & Record Co., Inc.,
Linotype Products Company, McEwen Typesetting Company, Michigan Typeset-
ting, Inc., Fred C. Morneau, Otto Mount, Padberg Linotyping Company, Peerless
Typesetting Company, Redford Typesetting Company, J. Montgomery Co., George
Willens & Company, Kaytype, Monocast Strip Material, Ace Press, Acme Letter
Service, Adair Press, American Bindery Corporation, American Printing Com-
pany, Amsterdam Press, Automotive News, Azad Printing Company, Business
News Publishing, Bare Brothers Co-Operative Prts., Baring Press, Inc., Barlow
Printing Company, Becker Brothers, Berk Printing Company, Berkley Printers,
Birmingham Eccentric, Bland Printing, Bonnie Press, B. W. Printing Co., Cadillac
Press, Inc., Capitol Printing Company, Chope-Thomas Printing Company, Colonial
Printing Company, Courier Press, Inc., Conventual Press, Calvert Lithograph,
Dearborn Independent, Dearborn Press, Dietz Printing Company, Economy Print-
ing Company, Ecorse Advertiser, Elton Printing Company, Embassy Press, L. B.
Emery, Inc., Esterling Printing Company, Evans-Winter-Hebb, Inc., Fireside
Printing & Publishing, Fosdick Printing Company, Franklin Printing Company,
Fenkill Press, G & G Printers, J. S. Gagnier, Gale Printing Company, Gelb Printing
Company, General Printing Company, Glengary Press, Goodwill Printing Com-
pany, Great Lakes Printing Company, Gregory, Mayer & Thom Company, Grosse
Pointe Printing Company, Gustafson-Engel, Hanshaw Printing Company, Heit-
man-Garand Company, Herold Printing Company, Hodges-Newman-Conover Press,
Howe Printing Company, Inland Press, Patrick G. Jeakle Company, Jewish
Chronicle, Keystone Press, Korect Line Press, William Kuttkuhn, LaSalle Press,
LaTour Printing Company, Lender Printing Company, Lincoln Printing Company,
Louise Press, Lyncraft Press, Langer Printing, Maccabees Print Shop, Mellus
Printing Company, Metropolitan Printing Company, Moers, Inc.° Metschall Com-
pany, Mulford Company, National Detroit Publishers, Inc., National Press
Printers, Northern Printers, Inc., Northwestern Printing Company, Ockford
Printing Company, O'Neil Printing Company, Palos Printing & Publishing Co.,
Paramount Press, Park Print Shop, Peerless Printing Company, Pereira Printing
Company, Phenix Press, Pollak Printing Company, Prince & Company, Inc.,
Prompt Press, Pryor Printing Company, Quality Commercial Printers, Rainbow
Press, Ralston, Brookes & Clark, Inc., Rapid Printing Company, Reardon-Parshall
Company, Reserve Printing & Litho. Company, Richmond & Backus Company,
Royal Oak Printing Company, Sanders Press, Saturday Night Press, Inc., Schober
Printing Company, Siggins & King, Sislen Printing Company, Speaker-Hines
Printing Company, Stilwell Press, Stroup Printing Company, Styler Press, Suss-
man Print Shop, Theatrical Advertising Company, Trenton Times , Typecraft
Company, Union Printing Company, Uridge Printing, Victory Printing Company,
Wainscott Printing Company, Wassmus Printing House, Inc., West Printing
Company, Western Newspaper Union, White Eagle Press, Whitsel & Company,
Louis E. Haselhuhn, Printer, Arthur J. Wiltse Company, Wilshire Printing
Company, Wimmer Printing Company, Wing Printing Company, and Wolfe, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1511
APPENDIX D
Michigan Rotary Printing Co., Detroit Post Printing Co., Unique Press, Inc.,
American Publishing Corp., Highland Parker Printers , Michigan Catholic Press,
Safran Printing Company , Cerre, Inc ., Saturday Night Press , Jourdan Company,
American Advertising Mailers, and Reliable Mailing Service.
APPENDIX E
Colonial Press, Inc., Smith Bros. Co. Inc ., Herbick & Held Printing Co., West-
ern Newspaper Union , Davis & Warde , Inc., Jos. C. Franz Sons, Black Hawk
Press, Liberty Printing & Litho. Co., Caslon Press, Inc ., William G . Johnson Co.,
Commercial Press, Mono -Lino Typesetting Co., James L. Stewart Company,
Bremer Typographical Studios, Edwin H. Stuart, Inc., Braddock Free Press.
APPENDIX F
Baker Printing Co., Barton Press Inc., Branford Press, Colyer Printing Co.,
Arthur W. Cross, Inc., Eagle Printing Co., Geiger Bros, Alex G . Highton, Inc.,
The Kenny Press Inc., Kilpatrick & Clarkson , Inc., Lackawanna Press Inc.,
Harry F. Murphy, National Printing Co., Newark Printing Co., Wm. Patrick
Co., Inc., Premier Print Shop , Prudential Insurance Co., Scott Typesetting Co.,
Trade Typesetters , C. Wolber Co.
APPENDIX G
Adams & Bartlett Prtg. Co., Advocate Press, Inc ., Alpha Printing Co., Bard-
gett Printing Co,, The Geo . D. Barnard Co., Britt Printing Co., Buxton & Skinner
Prtg. & Stat. Co,, Champion Printing Co., H. S. Collins Prtg. Co., Con P. Curran
Prtg. Co., Frederick Printing Co., A. R. Fleming Prtg. Co., Garrison -Wagner
Prtg. Co., Goodwin Bros. Prtg. Co., R. E . Goodwin & Co ., Hart Printing Co.,
Wm. A. Hellmich Co., Hilton Prtg. Co., Jefferson Prtg. Co., Knight Prtg. Co., Inc.,
Krawll Printing Co., Mason Printing Co., McMullen Prtg. Co., Mendle Prtg. Co.,
Mernagh Prtg . Co., Inc., Missouri Prtg. & Engr. Co., Model Prtg. Co., Monarch
Prtg. Co., Jas. Mulligan Prtg. & Publ . Co., National Prtg. Co., Nies-Kaiser Prtg.
Co., Roling Prtg. Co., Nordmann Prtg. Co., San -Del Prtg. Co., Simmons-Sisler
Co., Inc., Sisson Press, Trio Printing Co., Universal Prtg. Co., Van Hoffman
Press., Strickland Prtg. Co., Lou Waldman Prtg . Co., Wellington Prtg. Co., A. S.
Werremeyer Prtg. & Stat . Co., Western Newspaper.Union , Wiese Prtg . Co., Wolff
Prtg. Co., Woodward & Tiernan Prtg . Co., World Color Prtg. Co.
APPENDIX H
Provisions of the "General Laws" regulating the conditions under which mem-
bers may work , and, in some cases, are required to bo inserted in contracts of
employers . A number of these provisions are in conflict with the provision of
the Act.
Article I, Sec . 17: Local unions shall incorporate in their contracts with em-
ployers a section containing the necessary requirements to carry out the appren-
ticeship laws of the International Typographical Union.
Article II , See. 2: It is imperatively ordered that the executive officers of the
International Typographical Union shall not submit any of its laws to arbitra-
tion.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Article II, Sec. 4: Where vacations have been established by contract, the
elimination of such provisions shall not be submitted to arbitration.
Article III, Sec. 1: . . . Where the local union has by contract prescribed
a method of determining differences between the employer and the local union as
to interpretation and enforcement, such method shall be followed : Provided, The
laws of the local union not affecting wages, hours or working conditions and the
laws of the International Typographical Union shall not be submitted to
arbitration.
Article III, Sec. 2: No local union shall sign a contract guaranteeing its
members to work for any proprietor, firm or corporation unless such contract is
in accordance with International law and approved by the International
President.
Article III, Sec. 4: Subordinate unions are required to submit to the Inter-
national President for review and approval, as complying with requirements of
International Union laws, all proposals for a new contract, alteration, amendment
or extension of an existing contract before presentation to the employer. No
contract shall provide for automatic renewal on failure to notify either party
thereto of desire to change or terminate the contract.
Article III, Sec. 5: Subordinate unions at all times have the right to define
as struck work composition executed wholly or in part by non-members, and
composition or other work coming from or destined for printing concerns which
have been declared by the union to be unfair, after which union members may
refuse to handle the work classified as struck work.
Article III, Sec. 11: Local unions must incorporate in contracts a provision
that all composing room work appertaining to printing and the preparations
therefor, shall be done by journeymen or apprentices, and must further provide
for the elimination of all so-called miscellaneous or composing room helpers by
agreement that as vacancies occur they shall be filled (if needed) by journeymen
or apprentices.
Article III, Sec. 12: It is the unalterable policy of the International Typo-
graphical Union that all composing room work or any machinery or process
appertaining to printing and the preparations therefor belongs to and is under
the jurisdiction of the International Typographical Union. Subordinate unions
are hereby directed to reclaim jurisdiction over and control of all composing
room work or any machinery or process appertaining to printing and the prep-
arations thereof now being performed by non-members.
Article V, Sec. 2: The foreman may discharge (1) for incompetency; (2) for
neglect of duty ; (3) for violation of office rules which shall be kept conspicuously
posted, and which shall in no way abridge the civil rights of employes, or their
rights under accepted International Typographical Union laws. A discharged
member shall have the right to appeal in accordance with the laws of the
International Union as provided in the contract, and shall have the right to
challenge the fairness of any office rule which is applied to bring about his
discharge.
Article V, Sec. 10: All persons performing the work of foremen or journey-
men, at any branch of the printing trade, in offices under the jurisdiction of
the International Typographical Union, must be active members of the local
union of their craft and entitled to all the privileges and benefits of membership.
Article VII, Sec. 1: None but members of the International Typographical
Union shall be permitted to operate typesetting, typecasting or material making
machines. The International Typographical Union also claims jurisdiction over
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1513
all duplicating machines, such as typewriters and varitypers, etc., the product
of which is actually used in offset printing.
Article VII, Sec. 5: It is the unalterable policy of the International Typo-
graphical Union that only members in good standing shall be employed in
installing, operating and maintaining all mechanical devices which cast, com-
pose or impose type or slugs ; perforate tape for use in composing or producing
type or slugs ; operated manually or automatically and wherever located.
Article VIII, Sec. 1: All machine tenders shall be members of the International
Typographical Union, and the local unions shall provide and maintain a scale
covering such positions, and they shall at all times be under the control and
amenable to all laws and regulations of said local unions. Porters shall only
be allowed to melt metal and put metal around machines. They shall not be
allowed to start, repair, oil, clean, change or adjust machines, or clean space
bands and plungers. All work pertaining to maintenance and care of machines
to be performed exclusively by machine tenders who are journeymen or appren-
tice members of the International Typographical Union.
Article IX, Sec. 2: The interchanging, exchanging, borrowing, lending, or
buying of matter, either in the form of types of matrices, between newspapers,
between job offices, or between newspapers and job offices, or vice versa, not
owned by the same individual, firm or corporation, and published in the same
establishment, is unlawful and shall not be allowed, unless such type or matrices
are reset as nearly like the original as possible, made up, read and corrected
and a proof submitted to the chairman of the office. Transfer of matter between
a newspaper office and a job office, or a job office and a newspaper office, where
conducted as separate institutions, and from separate composing rooms, owned
by the same individual, firm or corporation,' is not permissible unless such
matter is reset as nearly like the original as possible, made up, read and cor-
rected and a proof submitted to the chairman of the office; Provided, That where
an interchange of matter from an English publication to a foreign language
publication, or vice versa, is desired, under the provisions of this section, such
exchange shall be regulated by agreement between the employer and the local
unions interested. The time limit within which borrowed or purchased matter,
or matrices, are to be reset shall also be regulated by agreement between the
employers and local unions. This section shall not apply to original com-
mercial composition purchased from union commercial trade composition plants
or other union composing rooms when such composition is an integral part of
production of a particular commercial job.
APPENDIX I
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND MEMBERS OF TYPOGRAPICAL
UNION NO. -
Pursuant to the recommendations of a-Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment 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 Cases Nos. 2-CB-30,
2-CB-39, and 4-CB-12 with [the appropriate trade association] as repre-
sentative of the members of [the appropriate trade association] with
1514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
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 for a definite term
in accordance with the customs established in prior contracts with this
local union ; or that we shall refuse or refrain from entering into or signing
collective bargaining contracts not containing provisions which impair the
term or obligations thereof by the inclusion of clauses providing for termi-
nation at any time upon 60 days' notice, clauses restricting the financial
liability of any party for breaches thereof to amounts unrelated to actual
damages caused thereby, and clauses suspending the operation of a contract
in whole or in part upon the happening of an event within the control of
Respondent ITU.
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 with-
out 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 em-
ployers assign particular work to members of this Local or International
Typographical Union 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 National Labor Relations Board
determining that this Local is the bargaining representative for employees
performing such work.
5. WE WILL NOT require from or enforce against employers any contract
clauses or conditions of employment which require such employers, or induce
or encourage employees of any of the employers, to engage in strikes, or con-
certed refusals to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities where an object
thereof is to compel or require the said employers to cease using, selling,
handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in the products of other pro-
ducers, processors or manufacturers, or to cease doing business with other
persons, and specifically, to cease doing business with, or handling the prod-
ucts of, firms whose employees are not members of this local union or any
other subordinate local union of International Typographical Union or who
otherwise are characterized by such unions as being "unfair " of "sub-
standard" regardless of whether or not any such producer, processor, manu-
facturer, person, or firm is a normal and regular supplier to or customer of
or otherwise normally and regularly does business with any such employer.
6. WE WILL NOT require that the general laws, rules, and decisions of the
International Typographical Union must be adopted or accepted by the em-
ployers as rules and conditions of employment applicable to their respective
composing rooms without bargaining with respect to them, or that no ques-
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1515
tions of the application of such general laws, rules, and decisions may be the
subject of bargaining.
7. 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 Inter-
national Typographical Union.
8. 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 bargaining,
adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated uni-
laterally by the Local or the International Typographical Union.
9. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the employers in the ex-
ercise 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 Typographical Union; except in accordance with the provisos
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
10. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the said unit with the representatives
of the employers, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
Dated -------------------
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. -.
By ------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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 J
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, SUBORDINATE UNIONS, AND MEMBERS
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND TO THE SUBORDINATE UNIONS,
THEIR OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, 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
encourages or requires that a subordinate union (a) shall refuse to bar-
gain 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 for a definite term
in accordance with the customs established in prior contracts with this
subordinate union; or that we shall refuse or refrain from entering into
or signing collective bargaining contracts not containing provisions which
impair the term or obligations thereof by the inclusion of clauses providing
for termination at any time upon 60 days' notice, clauses restricting the
financial liability of any party for breaches thereof to amounts unrelated
1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to actual damages caused thereby, and clauses suspending the operation:
of a contract in whole or in part upon the happening of an event within
the control of Respondent ITU.
2._WE WILL NOT require or instruct any subordinate union or its repre-
sentatives to. require that employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions-
of employment , promulgated unilaterally by the subordinate union or the
International Typographical Union without bargaining thereon with the
employers , or that the employers execute contracts which expressly or by im-
plication make membership 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 8 (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 subordinate
union 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 subordinate union is the bar-
gaining 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 room&
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 col-
lective bargaining.
5. WE WILL NOT promulgate , observe, or give effect to any policy which
causes or encourages a subordinate union to require from or enforce against
employers any contract clauses or conditions of employment which require
such employers , or induce or encourage employees of any of the employers,
to engage in strikes , or concerted refusals to use, manufacture , process,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials or
commodities where an object thereof is to compel or require the said em-
ployers to cease using , selling, handling, transporting or otherwise dealing:
in the products of other producers, processors or manufacturers , or to cease
doing business with other persons, and specifically , to cease doing business
with, or handling the products of, firms whose employees are not members
of this subordinate union or. any other subordinate union of International
Typographical Union or who otherwise are characterized by such unions as
being "unfair" or "sub-standard" regardless of whether or not any such
producer , processor , manufacturer , person, or firm is a normal and regular
supplier to or customer of or otherwise normally and regularly does business
with any such employer.
6. 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 subordinate union or the International
Typographical Union.
7. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause or instruct our members or any
subordinate 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
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1517'
Act, and particularly by requiring that the employers without bargaining
thereon adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promul-
gated unilaterally by the subordinate union or the International Typograph-
ical Union.
8. 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 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 to obtain and maintain or to maintain membership
in the subordinate union or the International Typographical Union ; except
in accordance with the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
9. WE HAVE rescinded and will cease to give effect to any and all provi-
sions in the constitution , by-laws, general laws, policies of International
Typographical Union and of any subordinate union which are inconsistent
with or in conflict with the foregoing statements.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.