Lebanon News Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1941

37 N.L.R.B. 649 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY and LOCAL,
UNION # 107 OF INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS AND ELECTROTYPERS,
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-1963.-Decided December 16, 1941
Jurisdiction : newspaper publishing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements : inducing employees
to revoke union membership ; employer-conducted poll among employees
regarding union affiliation.
Collective Bargaining: union's majority established by signed authorizations-
refusal to bargain : by engaging in conduct calculated to destroy union's
majority representation ; and by conducting poll among employees to deter-
mine union representation.
Remedial 'Orders : employer ordered to, bargain with union upon request.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees in stereotype depart-
, ment, including foreman.
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cuniff, for the Board.
Becker and Elirgood, by Mr. Clarence D. Becker, of Lebanon, Pa.,
for the respondent.
Mr. George W. Davis, of Harrisburg, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended `charges duly filed by Local Union
#107, of International Stereotypers and Electrotype -s, affiliated
-with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania), issued its complaint dated July 2, 1941, against Lebanon
News Publishing Company, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
37 N L R. B., No. 106.
649
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance (1) that the respondent, on or about December 12, 1940,
January 14 and 28 and February 11 and'26, 1941, and at other times,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its stereotype-department employees who constituted
a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, although
the Union on or about December 10, 1940, became and at all times
thereafter has been the duly designated representative of a majority
of the employees in such unit; (2) that the respondent, on or about
December 10, 1940, questioned employees in the stereotype depart-
ment concerning their union membership, urged members to with-
draw from the Union and to cancel their designations of the Union
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining;
on or about February 6, 1941, prepared forms revoking the authority
previously given the Union by certain employees to bargain for
them and advised such employees that the respondent would bargain
with them individually if they signed the revocations ; and on or
about February 26, 1941, conducted an election by ballot in the plant
among certain employees to determine whether or not these em-
ployees desired to have the Union represent them; and (3) that by
the foregoing acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, * and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. -
On July 21 the respondent filed an answer to the complaint. The
answer admitted the operations descriptive of its business as alleged
in the complaint, but denied that the said operations were conducted
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, and denied
that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, and an order of the Regional Director granting
the respondent's request for postponement, a hearing was held on
July 21, 1941, at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, before Mortimer Riemer,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel
and the Union by its representative; all participated in the hearing.
Fullopportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved that
the complaint be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The Trial
Examiner at first reserved ruling on this motion, but denied it at the
conclusion of the hearing. At the close of the hearing the respondent
LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 651
moved that the complaint be dismissed for failure of proof. The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling on this motion at the hearing, but subse-
quently denied said motion in his Intermediate Report. At the end
of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be
conformed to the proof as regards insubstantial matters such as names
and dates. This motion was granted without objection. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings
on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
At the end of the hearing counsel for the respondent and counsel for
the Board engaged in oral argument before the Trial Examiner, and
on August 12, 1941, ,the respondent filed a brief with the Trial
Examiner.
On August 28, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from such practices and that, upon
request, it bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in its stereotype department.
On.September 25, 1941, the respondent filed its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and on October 14, 1941, a brief in support
of said exceptions. On October 16, 1941, pursuant to notice, a hearing
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of
oral argument. The respondent was represented by counsel who
participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the brief and
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, except as they are con-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds the ex-
ceptions to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Lebanon News Publishing Company, is a Pennsyl-
vania corporation, having its principal office and place of business in,
Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in publishing and print-
ing the Lebanon Daily News-Times, a daily newspaper, and the
Lebanon Semi-Weekly News, a semi-weekly newspaper. The respond-
ent is also engaged in commercial job printing, at its Lebanon plant.
In the publishing and printing of the aforesaid newspapers and
in its commercial job printing, the respondent purchases the following
raw materials: news print, ink, metal, type, mats, and jobbing paper.
(652 ,DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For the calendar year 1940, the respondent purchased raw materials
costing '$42,459.18, 60 per cent of which was purchased outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was transported into Pennsyl-
vania from States of the United States other than Pennsylvania.
The average circulation figures of the Daily News-Times and the
Semi-Weekly News are as follows:
Daily News-
Times
Semi-Weekly
News
For the calendar year 1940- 15,301 2,500
Of which the Pennsylvania distribution was in percent ------------------ 99 93
And the out of State distribution was in percent --_-____________________ 1 6y
The respondent uses the facilities of the Associated Press and for
this purpose has three receiving machines and one combination send-
ing and receiving machine at its Lebanon plant. In publishing and
printing the aforesaid newspapers the respondent uses syndicated mat-
'ter furnished by King Features Syndicate, United Features Syndi-
cate, McNaught Syndicate,- Western Newspaper Union, Associated
Press, and uses 11 syndicated comic strips, all of which syndicated
Inate'ial is received in Lebanon by the respondent from outside
Pennsylvania.
Both papers carry advertising material. For the year 1940, the
Lebanon Daily News-Times carried 4,465,552 advertising lines, with a
value of $185,409.76, and of these advertising lines, approximately 8
per cent was placed with the respondent by companies operating in
States of the United States other than Pennsylvania. The Lebanon
Semi-Weekly News carried 319,984 advertising lines, with a value of
'$6,703.98, and of these advertising lines approximately 1 per cent
originated in States of the United States other than Pennsylvania.
The respondent contends that it is not within the jurisdiction of
-the Act, particularly because of its small proportion of interstate busi-
ness. In view of the respondent's purchase and receipt in interstate
commerce of substantial quantities of materials, the regular circula-
tion of some of its newspapers out of the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania, its membership in and use of the facilities of the Associated
'Press, its use of syndicated material received from outside Pennsyl-
vania, and its carrying of advertisements placed by concerns operating
outside Pennsylvania, we find that the respondent is subject to the
Act.' -
'Associated Press V. N. L . R. B., 301 U S. 103 ; The Press Co., Ina v N L. R. B.,
118 F. (2d) 954, cert . den., 61 S Ct. 1118; N. L. R B v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601;
N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co, 308 U S. 241, aff'g as mod.
101 F. ( 2d) 841 (C. C. A. 4), and'aff 'g Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Co . and Industrial Union, etc., S N L R. B . 866; N L. R . B. v. Suburban Lumber
Company, 121 F. (2d) 829 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B v. Cowell Portland Cement Company,
108 F. (2d) 198 (C. C A. 9).
LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
659.
Local Union $107 of • International Stereotypers and Electro-
typers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor'
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent in,
its stereotype department.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain collectively; interference, restraint, and'
coercion
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent ill
its stereotype department constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. There are four employees in the de-
partment, including two apprentices, one journeyman, and a foreman,
all of whom are eligible to membership in the Union. In collective
bargaining with employers, the Union generally represents foremen of
stereotype departments. The respondent admits in its brief that these
four employees at all times pertinent in this case constituted the
appropriate unit.
We find that the employees in the respondent's stereotype depart-
ment, including the foreman, constituted at all times material herein,
and that they now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment, and that the said'
unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
George W. Davis, the president of the Union, started to organize
the employees in the respondent's stereotype department about De-
cember 7, 1140. On December 10, three of the four employees therein,
Richard W. Bentz, Paul Reed, and Richard N. Beard, executed a
document designating, the Union as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the respondent, and authorizing
the Union to negotiate with respect to working conditions, and other-
wise to represent them, said authorization to be irrevocable for a
period of 1 year. Moreover, Beard was a member of the Union.
Thus, on December 10, 1940, the Union represented a majority of the
employees in the stereotype department.2
2 While James F. Lowry, the foreman, had been a member of the Union for many years,
he was asked and refused to sign the above-mentioned authorization. We find it unneces.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that on December 10, 1940, and at all times thereafter,
the Union was, and that it is, the duly designated representative of
a majority of the employees In the appropriate unit and that, by
virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was and is, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining.3
3. The refusal to bargain ; interference, restraint, and coercion
Following the designation of the Union as their representative by
Bentz, Reed, and Beard, Davis conferred on December 10, 1940, with
Samuel Evans, the respondent's mechanical superintendent. Davis
informed Evans that he represented a majority of the employees
in the stereotype department, that he wanted to meet with Evans for
the purpose of negotiating a contract, and, when asked for proof that
he represented a majority of the employees, showed Evans the authori-
zation of Bentz, Reed, and Beard. Davis and Evans agreed to meet
again on December 12.
Conferences between representatives of the Union and of the re-
spondent took place on December 12, 1940, on January 2 and 14, and
on February 12, 20, and 26, 1941, but no satisfactory agreement be-
tween the parties was reached.,
During the period in which the conferences occurred, Evans en-
gaged in behavior calculated to destroy the Union's majority. Thus
at the December 12 and January 14 meetings Evans told Davis,
in substance, that he could see no reason why the employees needed
a union and that the respondent "could take care of their men with-
out having the union." Moreover, on or about December 12, Bentz,
Reed, and Lowry were called to Evans' office.4 According to the
uncontradicted testimony of Bentz, Evans inquired why the em-
ployees had authorized the Union to negotiate for them, and the
following conversation then ensued: "He (Evans) wanted to know
why I did it and we had told him that we wanted to join the
nary to decide whether, under these circumstances , his membership carried with it a grant
of authority to act in his behalf.
3 The respondent claims that by virtue of revocations of authority executed in February
1941 by two of the employees in the appropriate unit, and by virtue of the results of a
poll conducted by the respondent later in the same month , the Union's majority was dis-
sipated and the respondent 's obligation to bargain with it ceased . In view, however, of
our finding , below, that the revocations were induced by unfair labor practices and that
the conduct of the poll was an unfair labor practice , the revocations and the election were
inefrective to impair the Union 's status as statutory representative.
' Bentz testified as follows :
Q. How did you happen to go in together?
A. Well, it was after work and we just went in The way I understand , Mr. Evans
wanted to talk to us. I think that is the way it is, I would not swear to it
Although Bentz was not sure, it is evident from the nature of the conversation that
ensued, as set forth in the text below , that it was Evans who wished to see these men
rather than they who wished to see Evans.
LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 655
union and have a union card, and he says that he would like for us
to sign off, drop this man (Davis) from bargaining for us and he
would write the American Publishing Company and find out whether
we could not join the union through some other way ; . . . He says
that he could not tell us to drop this man, it would be unfair labor
practice, but that is what he would like for us to do, . . . And
he also mentioned that he could do as good as the-union." We find
that the respondent, by the foregoing acts of Evans, sought to inter-
fere with the union interests and activities of its employees, to
undermine the. Union's authority, and to destroy its majority repre-
sentation, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Although on the afternoon of February 6, Bentz and Reed met
with Evans and Sansone, another representative of the respondent.
The conversation with Evans, as related by Bentz without con-
tradiction, is as follows : _
Well, we went in there, after working hours, and we told him
we wanted to negotiate a contract for ourselves, that we were
not satisfied the way the union was going, they were going
too slow to suit us. We talked over a few matters there and
he says that-lie could not talk to us or give us any definite
answer unless we dropped the union, signed off from the union
and he pulled out two papers from his desk, his files, and asked
us whether we would sign them before he started to bargain
with us.
The papers handed to Bentz and Reed purported to revoke the
authority previously given by them to the Union to represent
them in collective bargaining. Bentz was reluctant to sign without
consulting Davis, but Evans insisted that the revocations be signed
that day. Bentz did sign the revocation the next morning before
a notary public employed by the respondent, paying him his notary
fee at Evans' suggestion because, "it would be better if we paid it,
that it would not look so good for the News." Reed also signed
,the revocation before the same notary on February 7, 1941.
The circumstances under which these revocations were executed
convince us, and we find, that they were the result of the respondent's
unfair' labor practices. The respondent's preparation, beforehand,
of revocation forms clearly evidences its plan to destroy the Union's
majority by inducing these employees to renounce it. In December
Evans had questioned Bentz and Reed about designating the Union'
as their representative and had clearly indicated to them his wish
that they withdraw from the Union and deal directly with the
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent. In December and again in January Evans had made
clear to Davis that the respondent was opposed to representation of
its employees by the Union. On February 6 Evans, as a condition
precedent to individual bargaining, repeated to Bentz and Reed
his desire that they abandon the Union. Upon all the evidence we
find that Bentz and Reed revoked their authorization of the Union
in response to Evans' desire that they do so, as expressed by him'
in December and repeated in February. We find, as did, the Trial
Examiner, that the respondent, by Evans' action in procuring the
revocations, interfered with, restrained, and coerced, its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The revocations executed by Bentz and Reed were received by
the "Union on February 8, 1941. Following their receipt, Davis
and Donmoyer, the secretary-treasurer of the Union, went to Lebanon
on February 12, 1941, to keep an appointment with Evans. Evans
refused to negotiate, basing his refusal upon the revocations, and
indicated that he would not confer further without advice of counsel.
On February 20, 1941, Davis came to Lebanon in response to a
call from Bentz. Bentz on that day again affixed his signature to the
original authorization document after Davis had written thereon,
"The above shall take effect Feb. 20, 1941, I hereby revoke the pre-
vious statement sent by & signed by me on Feb. 7, 1941." After
securing Bentz's signature, Davis at once sought a further conference
with Evans. Davis told Evans that Bentz had re-signed, showed
him the authorization document, and stated that he, Davis, repre-
sented three of the four men in the department, apparently referring
to representation of Foreman Lowry, Bentz, and Beard. Evans
replied that he would have to talk to Foreman Lowry about the
matter of the Union's representation of Lowry. Davis objected to
such conduct on the part of Evans, and proposed that they meet
again on February 26, 1941, which date was later confirmed by
Evans.
At the final conference, held in Lebanon on February 26, 4941, in
the office of Clarence Becker, the respondent's attorney' Becker was
told that the Union represented a majority of the men and was shown
the authorization statement. By the time of this meeting, the Union
and the respondent had reached an agreement on clauses of a con-
tract covering such matters, among others, as definition of parties,
the date of the contract, lunch period, and overtime, as well as other
matters, but there had been no satisfactory settlement of the ques-
tions relating to a closed shop, arbitration, wages, hours, holidays,
and "struck work." During the conference, Becker suggested that
the Union submit a revised contract embodying therein those clauses
upon which agreement had been reached and the respondent's coun-
LEBONAN NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 657
terproposals as to those matters affecting arbitration, wages, and
hours. Becker's proposal,' however, would cover only Beard and
Lowry, since the respondent questioned the Union right to represent
all the men. Davis apparently did not agree to Becker's proposal.
Becker further proposed that Evans conduct an inquiry the next
morning, February-27, to determine whether the four men in the
stereotype department wanted the Union, to represent them, and
that the following question in ballot form be submitted to each of
the men :
Do you wish to have Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union
#107 of, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to represent you as bar-
gaining agent with your employer, Lebanon News Publishing
Company, concerning wages, hours, and conditions of employ-
ment ?
Yes------
No ------ --------------------
Dayis. assented somewhat reluctantly to this procedure and, agreed
with Becker on the form of the ballot to be used. Becker, however,
made it clear that he would advise that this poll be conducted whether
or not Davis consented. Becker advised Evans that if the results of
the poll showed a majority in favor of the Union, the respondent
would bargain with it as the sole representative of the employees
but that if the poll showed a lack of majority the respondent would
bargain with Davis for the union members only.
On February 27 Davis, pursuant to advice of counsel, objected to the
conduct of this inquiry, and informed the respondent that if it per-
sisted in holding the inquiry, he would file charges. Before dis-
tribution of the ballots, one or more of the employees told Davis that
they would prefer, a secret ballot. In the presence of Davis and San-
sone,,Evans handed each of the four men a ballot in the,'form referred
to above. Evans had been advised the previous afternoon by Becker
that he was to refrain from ally anti-union conduct or statements and
was simply to submit the question to the men for their vote. After
the ballots had been distributed, Evans collected them and, after
counting, informed Davis that two were unmarked and two employees
had voted against union representation. Whereupon Davis and Evans
went to Becker's office, where the latter told Davis that, on the basis
of the election, he would advise the respondent that the Union did not
represent a majority of the employees. This was Davis' final meeting
with the respondent.
The vote held in the plant on February 27 was a violation of the Act.
An employer -conducted vote under the above circumstances, on the
,question of whether employees desire a union to represent them in
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining, is an act of interference with the Union's right
to bargain collectively.-' Regardless of the admonitions to Evans by
Becker on the afternoon of February 26, we cannot consider without
significance the presence of Sansone and Evans when the latter dis-
tributed the ballots on the morning of February 27. Evans, in prior
conversation with these employees, had indicated strongly his opposi-
tion to the Union's representation. Moreover, his conduct in securing
the revocations of union authorization clearly, indicated his prefer-
ence to have the men drop the Union and deal directly with him. Be-
cause of this prior conduct and the supervisory positions of Evans and
Sansone the effect upon the employees of their presence must have
been substantial, coming at a time when the Union was engaged in
efforts to preserve its majority and to bargain collectively with the
respondent. Evans' presence lent prestige to the suggestion inherent
in the ballot that a vote against the Union would meet with the re-
spondent's approval. The coercive effect of the election is further
shown in that space was left for the signatures of the employees. We
find that the respondent, by conducting the inquiry of February 27,
'interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. Concluding findings regarding the refusal to bargain
We have found that on and after December 10, 1940,' the Union
represented a majority of the respondent's employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit. While the respondent met with the Union on
and after this date, and came to an agreement with it on some of the
matters in the contract submitted by the Union, its negotiations in
these conferences were vitiated by the fact that it was at the same time
engaging in unfair labor practices calculated to destroy the majority
representation of the Union. These practices brought about the revo-
cations of February 7 and the respondent's destruction of the Union's
majority was as patently a refusal to bargain as would be a forthright
refusal to meet-and negotiate. Conduct so inconsistent with the re-
quirements of genuine collective bargaining constitutes a refusal to
bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.e
The respondent's conduct of the election in the plant on February
27, under the circumstances, also constituted a refusal to bargain
with the Union. Despite it's assertion to the contrary, it could have
had no honest doubt on February 26 of the Union's majority. The
6 See N. L. R B. V Remington Rand, Inc, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2), cert den., 304
U S 576; of Matter of J. Wiss & Sons Company and United Electrical , Radio & Machine
Workers of America, 12 N. L. R B 601 , and cases cited in footnote 1 thereof.
e Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation of Architects, Engineers,
Chemists and Technicians, Local 107, 12 N L. R. B. 1002, enf 'd in N. L. R. B v. Chicago
Apparatus Co., 116 F. ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A. 7).
9.a
LEBONAN . NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 659 ,
only basis upon which the respondent could assert such a doubt was
the revocations which resulted because of the respondent's own unfair
labor practices. Clearly, the respondent cannot advance the results,
of its unfair labor practices •as 'an excuse -for failing to bargain with
the Union.' Moreover, had the respondent any real doubt concerning
the Union's representation, it might have refused to bargain until
The Board had certified the Union. Instead, however, it conducted its
own election, which, as noted above, was necessarily coercive.
We find that on February 6, 1941, when Evans induced Bentz and
Reed to revoke their authorizations.. of the Union, and at all times
thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees within the
appropriate- unit, and that the respondent thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the•respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,'and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffice, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices by attempting to persuade its employees to abandon the
Union, by procuring revocations of its employees from the Union,
by conducting an inquiry in its plant as to whether its employees de-
sired the Union to represent it, and by refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union. The course of the respondent's conduct discloses a
purpose to defeat the self-organization of its employees. The unfair
labor practices found are closely related to the other unfair practices
proscribed by the Act and danger of their commission in the future
may be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in
the past. The preventive purposes of the Act would be thwarted
unless such order as is entered herein is coextensive with the threat."
We, therefore, shall order the respondent to cease and desist from
refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, to cease and desist
from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
7 N. L. R B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U. S. 318, reversing and remanding 106 F.
( 2d) 119 (C. C. A. 1), vacating in part, and failing to enforce 4 N. L. R . B. 604.
" See N. L. R. B. v . Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
(660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
,of the Akct, and to take certain affirmative action which we find Will
,effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
jecord mn the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union #107 of International Stereotypers and Electro-
ttypers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
,organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The employees of the respondent's stereotype department, in-
'cluding the foreman, constitute, and at all times material herein have
constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
lbargaiiling, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Local Union #107 of International Stereotypers and Electro-
typers was on December 10, 1940, and at all times thereafter has been,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a)
of the Aet.
4. By refusing, on February 6, 1941, and at all times thereafter, to
bargain collectively with Local Union #107 of International Stereo-
typers and Electrotypers as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 _(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c), of the National Labor Rela-
tions. Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
Lebanon News Publishing Company, Lebanon, Pennsylvania , and its
officers , agents , successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively With Local Union #107 of In-
ternational Stereotypers and Electrotypers , affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, as 'the exclusive representative of the
,employees of its stereotype department, including the foreman, in
LEBONAN NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 661
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7-of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union #107
of International Stereotypers and Electrotypers, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of the
employees of the respondent's stereotype department, including its
foreman, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment;
(b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places, throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, stating : (1) that the re-
spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in
paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c)' Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania), in writing, within ten (10) days from the
date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
433257-42-voL. 37-43