Local Union 154, Int'l Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who were terminated by the reason of the closing of the plant . Copies
of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, shall,
after being duly, signed by Respondent Myron Warshaw and by an authorized repre-
sentative of Respondent Lori-Ann of Miami, Inc., be mailed immediately after receipt
thereof.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps Respondents
have taken to comply herewith a8
It is also recommended that the complaint , as amended , be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that Respondent Rose Uniforms, Inc., and Rose of Miami , Inc., have en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5)
of the Act.
Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
'e In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board , this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, if and when we resume operations , upon request , bargain collectively
with Local 419, International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of all the employees described in the unit below
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act, who were employed
at the Lori-Ann of Miami, Inc., plant prior to the closing of the said plant.
-----------------------
(MYRON WARSH:AW)
LORI-ANN OF MIAMI, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------- --------- 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Ross
Building, 112 East Cass Street , Tampa 2, Florida, Telephone Number, 2-4623 , if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local Union 154, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO
and Ypsilanti Press, Inc . Case No. 7-CP-16. June 929, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 28, 1962, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
137 NLRB No. 123.
LOCAL UNION 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1117
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the additions and exceptions noted
below.'
ORDER2
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.
1In addition to the facts reported in the Intermediate Report, the record contains un-
controverted evidence showing that Respondent ' s picketing was extended to entrances to
the Company 's premises and parking lot set aside for employee use. In view thereof
and upon the entire record , we agree with the Trial Examiner , but without relying upon
his reasons for holding the publicity proviso to Section 8 ( b)(7)(C) to be inapplicable
herein, that Respondent ' s picketing violated the aforementioned section of the Act See
Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance Workers' Union , Local 125 ( Atlantic
Maintenance Co.), 136 NLRB 1104 . Also see Local Union 154 , International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO, Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council ( Ypsilanti Press, Inc.),
135 NLRB 991 , where the Board found that the Respondents therein, including Local
Union 154, the Respondent in the instant case , during a period which covered the events
in the present case, picketed certain advertisers of the Ypsilanti Press with an object of
"forcing or requiring that company to recognize Local Union 154 . . ... in violation of
Section 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act.
Cases cited by the Trial Examiner In footnotes 7 and 8 were reconsidered in recently
Issued decisions . See International Typographical Union and Ansonia Typographical
Union, Local 285 (Charlton Press, Inc.), 135 NLRB 1178 ; International Hod Carriers'
Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local 840, AFL-CIO (Charles A:
Blinne, d/ b/a C. A. Blinne Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1153 ; Chefs, Cooks,
Pastry Cooks and Assistants, Local 89, Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFL-CIO,
et at (Stork Restaurant, Inc ), 135 NLRB 1173 . However, even under these decisions,
Respondent 's picketing for recognition in the circumstances of this case was not rendered
lawful by the fact that Respondent may have been majority representative of Ypsilanti
Press' employees , entitled to recognition by that Company.
2 Member Leedom concurs in the result See the concurring opinion in Atlantic Mainte-
nance Co , supra, and the dissenting opinion in Crown Cafeteria, a Co-partnership, 135
NLRB 1183.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint issued by the Regional Director in the present case 1 alleges that
the Respondent labor organization committed unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (7) (C) and 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151 , at seq., by picketing Ypsilanti
Press, Inc., at its principal office and place of business in Ypsilanti , Michigan, since
1 The complaint was issued on October 26, 1961 , upon the basis of charges filed by
Ypsilanti Press, Inc, on October 2, 1961. The charges and the complaint were served
upon the Respondent Union on October 3 and 27, 1961 , respectively
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 3, 1961 , with an object to force or require Ypsilanti Press, Inc., to recognize
or bargain with Respondent as collective -bargaining representative of employees of
Ypsilanti Press, Inc., and to force and require these employees to accept Respondent as
their collective -bargaining representative , although the Respondent was not then
certified as the representative of the employees and did not, within a reasonable time,
file a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act.
In its answer , the Respondent generally denies the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint . By way of further defense , it also affirma-
tively asserts that : (1) as Ypsilanti Press "was well aware," the Respondent rep-
resented a majority of the employees in the mechanical department of Ypsilanti
Press; ( 2) these employees engaged in the picketing to which the complaint refers;
(3) certification of the Respondent as the bargaining representative of these em-
ployees was made "impossible and legally unnecessary" by Ypsilanti Press' "unfair
labor practices . . in refusing to recognize" the Respondent as bargaining rep-
resentative and by its replacement of the striking employees with "strike breakers";
(4) the purpose of the picketing was to protest against Ypsilanti Press' unfair labor
practices and to truthfully inform the public that Ypsilanti Press did not employ mem-
bers of, or have a contract with, the Respondent ; and (5 ) the picketing did not have
the effect of inducing employees of another employer to refuse to make pickups or
deliveries or to refuse to perform any services.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Detroit , Michigan , on December 4,
1961, before Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow . The General Counsel and the
Respondent appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues. At the conclusion of the hearing , counsel submitted oral argument. On
January 29 , 1962, 1 also received briefs from the General Counsel and from counsel
for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF YPSILANTI PRESS, INC.
Ypsilanti Press, Inc ., a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Ypsilanti , Michigan , is engaged in the publication of a daily newspaper
and in other related operations . It holds membership in various interstate news
services and its newspaper carries advertisements of nationally sold products. Dur-
ing 1960, it purchased and received paper of a value of more than $20,000 directly
from suppliers in Canada and received gross i evenue of more than $400,000 from
its publishing operations . I find that Ypsilanti Press, Inc., is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act t-
entertain jurisdiction of the present case.
It. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent , Local Union 154 , International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
By letter dated July 6, 1958 , the Respondent notified Frank Handy, president and
publisher of Ypsilanti Press, that it had been designated as bargaining representative
by the employees in Ypsilanti Press' mechanical and production departments and
asked that meetings be arranged to negotiate a contract . Respondent repeated this
request in visits made by its representative to President Handy at his office the fol-
lowing day , July 7, 1958, and roughly at weekly intervals during the rest of that
summer up to and including September 16, 1958. But Handy then refused , and has
since continued to refuse , to recognize the Respondent as bargaining representative of
Ypsilanti Press' employees.2
2 There was contradictory testimony as to what , if any, reason Handy gave the Re-
spondent 's representatives for refusing to recognize the Respondent . According to Handy's
testimony, he told the Respondent ' s representatives at each of their meetings from July 7
to September 16, 1958 , inclusive , that he had a doubt as to whether the Respondent actu-
ally represented a majority of the employees , and asked them for "some kind of certifica-
tion that they did represent an uncoerced majority ." Handy also testified that during
this early period in 1958, he was called to a meeting at the office of the Michigan Labor
Mediation Board; that , although he was told "this case was not in their jurisdiction,"
he may also have been told that the mediation board would conduct an election if the
LOCAL UNION 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1119
On September 17, 1958, the day after Handy's rejection of the last of this early
series of the Respondent's bargaining requests, the Respondent called a strike of the
employees in Ypsilanti Press' mechanical department Of the 22 employees who
worked in the department, 18 or 19 went out on strike that day and began picketing
Ypsilanti Press' office and plant. Picketing by these employees and other representa-
tives of the Respondent continued for more than 3 years and was still going on at the
time of the hearing in the present case. In the meantime, having hired 15 or 16 new
employees as replacements when the strike began, Ypsilanti Press has conducted its
business operations without interruption. Apparently none of the strikers have re-
turned to work for Ypsilanti Press.
During its long period of picketing, the Respondent has twice changed the word-
ing on its picket signs. The original signs carried by the pickets from September 17,
1958, until December 23, 1958, bore the legend:
Ypsilanti Daily Press refuses to bargain; Union On Strike for Union Contract;
Ann Arbor Typographical Union .# 154.
From December 23, 1958, until July X11, 1961, the legends on two signs carried
by the pickets were changed to read:
Our demands are justified, not unreasonable.
Ypsilanti Daily Press unfair to Local Union 154 affiliated with ITU & AFL-CIO.
Finally, from July 11, 1,961, until the date of the hearing on December 4, 1961,
the pickets carried two signs, whose legends were the following-
Local 154, ITU, AFL-CIO, on strike against the Unfair Ypsilanti Daily Press.
Please . . . do not cross this picket line, it is our advertisement of an unfair
non-union paper.
During the 3-year period of picketing, the Respondent wrote Ypsilanti Press two
letters. The first of these letters, dated April 19, 1959, made the following overture
to President Handy for the settlement of the Respondent's "strike for recognition":
Early in February you were presented with a proposal which was approved
by your employees and the membership in general of Typographical Union
No. 154. It was our intention in presenting this proposal to you that it be used
as a basis for settlement of the strike for recognition which continues and will
enter its eighth month on April 18.
Officers of No. 154 have made several attempts, as have I, to meet with you
or your representatives to discuss the terms of the February proposal, and if
possible, reach an agreement that would terminate the recognition strike.
We believe it would be mutually advantageous to enter into such discussions.
Should you decide after discussion with interested businessmen, civic and re-
ligious leaders of the community that you desire to enter into talks leading to
settlement of the strike, would you supply us with your counterproposal for our
consideration, and a tentative date for our first meeting.
The second and last letter of the Respondent was written on June 14, 1961,
by Dennis Vaughn, who had recently been elected president of the Respondent's
local. Also addressed to Handy, the full text of this letter was the following:
As the newly installed president of the Ann Arbor Typographical Union, I
would welcome an opportunity to talk with you about our mutual problem-
the strike by our membership against the Daily Press.
Since I believe that the strike works a great hardship on all concerned-the
Daily Press, the merchants and people of the community, and our own mem-
bers, I am hopeful that a solution will be found that will restore the long-time
parties agreed; but that, if such a suggestion had been made, be could not recall his
answer. There was no other testimony as to what may have happened or may have been
said at such a meeting at the office of the Michigan Labor Mediation Board. Gerald
Brewer, one of the Respondent's representatives, testified, however, that at their meeting
with Handy at the latter's office on September 16, 1958, the Respondent's representatives
asked Handy if he wanted a State mediator to conduct an election or if he wanted to
inspect the employees' authorization cards but that Handy replied that neither would be
necessary because "he understood that [the Respondent] had a majority" According to
Brewer's further testimony when the Respondent's representatives returned to Handy's
office later that day, Handy refused to see them.
Upon my view of the issues in this case, it is unnecessary to resolve the conflicts in
this testimony or to make any findings as to what was said by Handy on these occasions
other than he consistently refused to recognize the Respondent as bargaining representa-
tive. And as to this single, material point, the witnesses were in agreement.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the newspaper .to their rightful jobs and enable the paper to regain
its former position in the community.
The International Typographical Union has had contracts with most of the
leading newspapers and publication plants in the country for many years, and
the arrangement has been mutually satisfactory. I am sure that a similar ar-
rangement could be worked out with your newspaper.
I would be happy to talk with you about the matter at your convenience.
Vaughn testified that he wrote this letter on June 14, 1961, to inform Handy that
he was the new president of the Respondent's local, supposing that, perhaps, "we
could set down and talk" about the situation, but without any real expectation that
Ypsilanti Press would recognize the Respondent as its employees' bargain representa-
tive since Ypsilanti Press had replaced all of the employees who bad been members
of the Respondent. According to Vaughn's further testimony, the Respondent con-
tinued its picketing thereafter, "mostly . to let the people know that we are still
on strike, and that the Ypsi Press is unfair," i.e., with respect to "wages" and its em-
ployment of "strikebreakers." Gerald Brewer, vice president of the Respondent's
local who had been among the Respondent's representatives when they requested
Handy to recognize the Respondent in 1958, also testified that from the beginning
of the strike, "one of the purposes" of the Respondent's picketing had been to pro-
test Ypsilanti Press' hiring "strike breakers" through a management consultant be-
lieved by the Respondent to have engaged elsewhere in such activities in the past.
In spite of his testimony of Vaughn and Brewer concerning the Respondent's
picketing objectives other than recognition, it appears from Brewer's explicit testi-
mony that the Respondent never made any demands or requests upon the Ypsilanti
Press which might be regarded as having been directed to the attainment of such
other objectives, and that the only requests actually made by the Respondent to
Ypsilanti Press at any time were for recognition and for the consideration of forms
of contracts proposed by the Respondent. Furthermore, in connection with the
suggestion in Vaughn's testimony that by June 14, 1961, the Respondent's picketing
had become informational picketing permissible under the proviso to Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the Act, it should be noted that the record shows one instance in
September 1961 in which a truckdriver employed by a freight company refused to
cross the picket line and make a delivery of paper to Ypsilanti Press.
Up to the time of the hearing in this case on December 4, 1961, the Respondent
had not filed a petition with the Board under Section 9(c) of the Act for certification
as the exclusive bargaining representative of Ypsilanti Press employees. Nor had
it filed unfair labor practice charges based upon any acts or omissions of Ypsilanti
Press.
Conclusions
The complaint alleges that since April 3, 1961, the Respondent's picketing of
Ypsilanti Press has been, and is, violative of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act which
makes it an unfair labor practice for an uncertified labor organization to picket an
employer for recognition for more than 30 days without filing a petition for certifi-
cation under Section 9(c) of the Act .3 Any finding of an unfair labor practice based
upon the Respondent's picketing before April 3, 1961, would, of course, be barred
by the 6-month limitation in Section 10(b) of the Act, since the charge in the present
sSection 8(b) reads as follows:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
t i O
* *
*
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed,
any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recog-
nize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or
forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor
organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organi-
zation is currently certified as the representative of such employees:
W t 4 t 9 S t
(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section
9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the
commencement of such picketing: Provided . . That nothing in this subparagraph
W) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of
truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not em-
ploy members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, unless an effect of
such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person in the course
of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform
any services.
LOCAL UNION 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1121
case was filed and served upon the Respondent only on October 3, 1961. Relying
upon the Board's decisions,4 however, the General Counsel asks the Board to con-
sider the full history of the Respondent's picketing from its beginning in 1958, be-
cause he contends it will clearly and properly show that an object of the picketing
has always been and still is, to force Ypsilanti Press to recognize the Respondent
as collective-bargaining representative.
The Respondent concedes in its answer and brief that it has not been the certified
representative of Ypsilanti Press' employees and that it did not file a petition for
certification. During the hearing, its counsel also admitted that the picketing began
on September 17, 1958, as recognitional picketing. Both in its answer and its brief,
however, the Respondent denies that its picketing since April 3, 1961, has been for
the purpose of forcing Ypsilanti Press to recognize it as collective-bargaining agent,
objects to the Board's consideration of its earlier picketing as having any proper
bearing upon this question, and advances a series of arguments in a general attempt
to justify and to support the legality of its picketing. In the first main branch of its
argument, the Respondent contends that, by April 3, 1961, it was no longer picketing
for recognition, but solely for the purposes of protesting, and giving the public
information concerning, "unfair labor practices" committed by Ypsilanti Press, the
replacement of the strikers by "strikebreakers," and the low, nonunion wages paid
by Ypsilanti Press to its employees. And in the second main branch of its argument,
the Respondent contends that, even assuming that recognition remained an object
of its picketing after April 3, 1961, the picketing must still be held to be protected
concerted activity and not an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b) (7),(C) of the
Act, because (1) the Respondent had in fact been chosen as bargaining representative
by a majority of Ypsilanti Press' employees and (according to the Respondent)
Section 8(b)(7)^(C) was inot intended to forbid picketing by a majority representa-
tive; (2) the picketing cannot be said to have had the tendency, nor an object, of
"forcing or requiring" Ypsilanti Press to recognize the Respondent in violation of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) since the Respondent was already obligated by the provisions
of the Act to bargain with the Respondent as the representative chosen by a majority
of its employees; (3) the purpose of the Respondent's picketing was to protest against
the Ypsilanti Press' unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with the Respondent
as the bargaining representative selected by a majority of the employees, and such
picketing is not forbidden by Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act; and (4) in any event,
the picketing was informational picketing protected by both the proviso to Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution
The Board's decisions suppor the General Counsel's request that the entire history
of the Respondent's continuous picketing of Ypsilanti Press be considered in deter-
mining the Respondent's picketing objectives from April 3, 1961, to the present time.5
Moreover, the evidence shows clearly, as the General Counsel contends it does, that
from the beginning in 1958, one of the Respondent's objects in picketing Ypsilanti
Press, if not the only object, has always been to force Ypsilanti Press to recognize
the Respondent as bargaining representative. Thus, as the Respondent concedes,
the strike was called and the picketing began on September 17, 1958, because
Ypsilanti Press had refused to bargain with the Respondent, and the first picket signs,
which were displayed until December 23, 1958, announced that the employer "refuses
to bargain" and that the employees were on strike for a "Union contract " There-
after until July 11, 1961, and thus well into the 6-month period preceding the filing
and service of the unfair labor practice charge in the present case, the picket signs
gave no indication that the Respondent had abandoned its attempt to secure recogni-
tion and to bargain with Ypsilanti Press. On the contrary, they simply referred to
"our demands" as being "justified, not unreasonable," and the Respondent's letter
to Ypsilanti Press on April 19, 1959, which was apparently the Respondent's only
direct communication to Ypsilanti Press during this time, left no doubt as to the pur-
pose of the picketing by referring to the strike as "strike for recognition." Nor has
any change in the Respondent's purpose in picketing been shown by the Respondent's
picket signs which were displayed from July 11, 1961, until the date of the hearing on
December 4, 1961, since these signs stated merely that there was a "strike against the
unfair Ypsilanti Daily Press" and that the picket line "is our advertisement of an
unfair nonunion paper." Indeed, in the Respondent's last letter to Ypsilanti Press on
June 14, 1961, and thus also within the 6-month period preceding the filing and serv-
ice of the unfair labor practice charge, the Respondent Local's president confirmed
4 Stan-Jay Auto Parts and Accessories Corporation, 127 NLRB 958, 962; General
Teamsters, Packers, Food Processors and Warehousemen Union Local No. 912, et at.
(H. A. Rider & Sons), 120 NLRB 1577, 1578-1579.
5 See cases cited in footnote 4, above.
6 4 9 8 56-6 3-v of . 13 7-7 2
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent's continuing desire to bargain with Ypsilanti Press by stating that
"The International Typographical Union has had contracts with most of the leading
newspapers and publication plants in the country for many years, and the arrange-
ment has been mutually satisfactory. I am sure that a similar arrangement could be
worked out with your newspaper. I would be happy to talk with you about the
matter at your convenience."
From all of this, it seems clear that the Respondent's conduct throughout the
entire 3-year period of its picketing was directed to the compulsion of its recognition
by Ypsilanti Press as collective-bargaining agent of the latter's employees. Indeed,
it appears to me from the evidence that this was, and has always been, the only actual
object of the Respondent's picketing of Ypsilanti Press. It is true that Vaughn and
Brewer, the Respondent local's president and vice president, testified that the Respond-
ent's most recent picketing was not for the purpose of obtaining recognition but
merely for the purposes of informing the public that Ypsilanti Press was "unfair" and
protesting "unfair labor practices" on the part of Ypsilanti Press, the hiring of strike-
breakers, and the low nonunion wage rates paid by Ypsilanti Press to its employees.
But in thus describing the recent picketing as being, in part at least, a protest against
the employer's "unfair labor practices," these two witnesses were obviously referring
to Ypsilanti Press' admitted refusal to bargain as the "unfair labor practice" against
which the Respondent was picketing. In effect, they thereby confirmed the fact
that compulsion of recognition was still one of the objects of the Respondent's most
recent picketing. Furthermore, as I have already noted in the course of my findings,
Brewer admitted that the Respondent never made any requests or demands upon
Ypsilanti Press except for recognition and the consideration of a form of contract
submitted by the Respondent. Upon this appraisal of the evidence, I cannot accept
Vaughn's and Brewer's testimony either that the Respondent did not picket for
recognition after April 3, 1961, or that there were other objects for the picketing.
Accordingly, I find upon the evidence that the only object the Respondent actually
had in mind during the entire course of the picketing including the period since
April 3, 1961, was to obtain recognition by, and a contract with, Ypsilanti Press as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Ypsilanti Press' employees. I conclude
that, since April 3, 1961, as well as before that date, the Respondent has picketed
Ypsilanti Press with "an object . .. [of] forcing or requiring [Ypsilanti Press] to
recognize or bargain with" the Respondent as the representative of Ypsilanti Press'
employees.
In my opinion, there is no merit to the various arguments made by the Respondent
that, under the circumstances of this case, such recognitional picketing by the Re-
spondent in the critical period since April 3, 1961, was protected concerted activity
under the broad provisions of the Act and not an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (7),(C). Certainly, the Board, as an administrative agency,
should not hold that the application of the plain language of Section 8(b)^(7) (C) to
the facts in the present case is unconstitutional .6 Nor can the Respondent claim the
benefit of the proviso in Section 8(b)(7)(C) permitting certain informational
picketing. For the Respondent's picketing did not advise the public clearly (as the
proviso would permit) that Ypsilanti Press did not employ members of, nor have a
contract with, the Respondent. And, in any event, as I have found, the picketing
induced a truckdriver for a freight company to refuse to make a delivery to Ypsilanti
Press and thus had the "effect" which in itself was sufficient to exclude the picketing
from the protection of the proviso even if the picketing were considered to be
informational picketing.
Finally, in my opinion, there is no merit to the Respondent's further arguments
that, even if partly recognitional in purpose, its picketing since April 3, 1961, was not,
and is not, forbidden by Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act. In essence, these arguments
are that the Respondent was in fact designated as bargaining representative by a
majority of Ypsilanti Press' employees, that Ypsilanti Press' refusal to bargain with
the Respondent has therefore been an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the
Act, that Respondent's picketing was conducted by, and on behalf of, the majority
of Ypsilanti Press' employees in protest against the unfair labor practices of the
employer, and that Section 8(b)(7)'(C) of the Act was not intended to forbid, and
should not be construed as forbidding, such "majority" or "unfair labor practice"
picketing. The short answer to these arguments is that the Board has already con-
sidered and rejected them in other cases. Thus, the Board has held that, in view of
the clear meaning of the language of Section 8(b)(7)(C), it is immaterial, and
therefore no defense, that in a particular case an uncertified union picketing for
recognition might, in fact, have been designated by a majority of the employees and
6 See Rite-Form Corset Company. Inc . 75 NLRB 174; Service Trade Chauffeurs, Sales-
men and Helpers, Local 145, etc. (The Howland Dry Goods Company), 85 NLRB 1037.
LOCAL UNION 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 1123
be picketing on their behalf in an attempt to serve them as their collective -bargaining
representative ? So also has the Board held that unfair labor practices by the picketed
employer do not constitute a defense for recognitional picketing by an uncertified
union.a
Upon the evidence , my findings of fact , and my foregoing consideration of the
.arguments of the parties , I conclude that the Respondent committed unfair labor
.practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7);(C) of the Act by picketing Ypsi-
lanti Press, Inc., since April 3, 1961 , with an object of forcing or requiring Ypsilanti
-Press, Inc., to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its
employees , and forcing or requiring the employees of Ypsilanti Press, Inc., to accept
or select it as their collective -bargaining representative, although the Respondent was
not then certified as the representative of any of these employees and did not file a
-petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within 30 days.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Ypsilanti Press, Inc., described in section I, above, have
.a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the
.several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
. and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
'I shall recommend that it cease and desist :therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ypsilanti Press, Inc., a Michigan corporation, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act by picketing Ypsilanti Press, Inc., since April 3, 1961,
with an object of forcing or requiring Ypsilanti Press, Inc., to recognize or bargain
with the Respondent as the representative of its employees, and forcing or requiring
the employees of Ypsilanti Press, Inc., to accept or select it as their collective-
bargaining representative, although the Respondent was not then certified as the
representative of any of these employees and did not file a petition under Section 9(c)
,of the Act within 30 days.
7International Typographical Union and Ansonia Typographical Union, Local 285
(Charlton Press, Inc.), 130 NLRB 727; International Hod Carriers' Building and Com-
m-on Laborers' Union of America, Local 840, AFL-CIO (Charles A. Blinne, d/b/a C. A.
Elinne Construction Company), 130 NLRP. 587. -
8 See the Bli.nne and Charlton cases above, and also Chefs, Cooks, Pastry Cooks d
Assistants, Local 89 Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFT-CIO, et at. (Stork
Restaurant, Inc.), 130 NLRB 543. The Respondent relies upon the Board's decision in
-the recent Bachman case (Teamsters "General" Local No. 200 etc. (Howard Bachman,
,et at ., d/b/a Bachman Furniture Company), 134 NLRB 670) as reaching a contrary con-
clusion. In that case, a majority of the Board affirmed Trial Examiner A. Norman
Somers' findings and dismissal of a complaint alleging an unfair labor practice by a
picketing union under Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act. The Board's decision was based
upon the Trial Examiner's factual findings that, In the critical period, the union had
abandoned Its earlier objective of forcing the picketed employer to recognize it as
'collective-bargaining agent of the employees and that the sole object of the picketing had
become that of protesting the employer's acts of unfair labor practice under Section
'8(a) (1) of the Act. In the Bachman case, the Board thus found (in contradistinction
to my findings in the present case) that the union's picketing was not recognitionai in
purpose during the critical period, and that Its object was not to protest a refusal to
'bargain by the employer but merely to protest the employer's acts of unfair labor prac-
tice other than a refusal to bargain. Contrary to the contention of the Respondent, the
Board's decision does not overrule, nor is it inconsistent with, the other decisions of the
Board cited at the beginning of this footnote. Nor Is It applicable to the situation
%which I have found has existed, and still exists, in the present case.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I rec-
ommend that the Respondent , Local Union 154, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed Ypsilanti Press, Inc.,.
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Ypsilanti Press, Inc., to recognize or
bargain with it as the representative of its employees in violation of Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the notice hereto
attached marked "Appendix A." 9 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall , after being duly signed by the
Respondent 's representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region signed copies of
said notice for posting at the offices of Ypsilanti Press, Inc., in places where notices
to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region , in writing , within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.1°
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the date of receipt of
this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director , in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to
take the aforesaid action.
O In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
10 In the event that this recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 154, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF YPSILANTI PRESS, INC.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket , or cause to be picketed , Ypsilanti Press , Inc., where an
object thereof is forcing or requiring said Company to recognize or bargain
with us as the representative of its employees, in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C)
of the Act.
LOCAL UNION 154, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated----------------------- 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Industrial
Building, 232 W. Grand River, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone Number, Woodward
2-3'830, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.