181 N.L.R.B. 384 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

Los Angeles Typographical Union 174

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 27, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 384 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Los Angeles Typographical Union No. 174; Los Angeles Stereotypers ' Union No. 58 ; Los Angeles Web Pressmen 's Union No . 18; Los Angeles Paper Handlers' Union No. 3; Los Angeles Newspaper Guild ; Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9; International ' Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 94; Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local No. 399 ; and Herald -Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council and White Front Stores, Inc. and Los Angeles Herald-Examiner , Division of the Hearst Corporation . Cases 21-CC-1116-1 and 21-CC-1116-2 February 27, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On July 25, 1969, Trial Examiner James B. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents and the Charging Parties each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The Respondents also filed a brief in opposition to the Charging Parties' exceptions. Whereupon, the General Counsel filed a brief answering the Respondents' exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and their supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The National Labor Relations 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 exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondents, Los Angeles Typographical Union 'We agree with , and the record supports, the Trial Examiner 's finding and conclusion that the Respondent Herald -Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council is an agent of the Respondent Unions Having so found , we deem it unnecessary to find further , as did the Trial Examiner , that said Council is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act No. 174; Los Angeles Stereotypers ' Union No. 58; Los Angeles Web Pressmen ' s Union No . 18; Los Angeles Paper Handlers' Union No . 3; Los Angeles Newspaper Guild ; Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 94; Service and Maintenance Employees Union , Local No. 399, their officers , agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order , as so modified: Footnote 2, second sentence should be amended to read as follows: "In the further event this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." MEMBER JENKINS , dissenting: As the Trial Examiner observed, the Herald - Examiner , as an advertiser , participated in the production of White Front products which it advertised , and the Respondents , engaged in a dispute with the newspaper , were permitted to picket those products at the White Front establishments. However , the Examiner found that the Respondents' picketing appeal was not confined to the products advertised and failed to inform customers specifically which White Front products they were being asked not to purchase, and, in sum, constituted an invitation to the public to participate in a total boycott of White Front products in a manner somehow violative of Section 8(b)(4), even though White Front obviously chose to advertise all of its wares and thereby invited a total boycott. Moreover , the Examiner suggested that to avoid the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4), product picketing must specifically identify all' of the products being picketed although , as he admitted, in the circumstances of this case, "any effort at specificity of products boycotted by Respondents would have been nigh impossible due to the contents of the advertisements." The weakness of such a mechanistic approach is manifest for reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Honolulu Typographical Union No. 37, 167 NLRB No. 150, enfd . 401 F.2d 952 (C.A.D.C.); that is, product picketing of all of the secondary employer ' s wares if, indeed , all of his wares are advertised through the medium involved in the labor dispute is no more violative of Section 8(b)(4) than picketing directed at only that portion of the products which the secondary employer chose to' advertise . Analytically , there is no distinction in the above situations for the scope of Section 8(b)(4) is limited to preventing picketing which would spread the dispute beyond the struck product or which would enmesh the secondary employer in a dispute beyond his involvement with distributing the struck products to the public . The White Front chain was 181 NLRB No. 61 LOS ANGELES TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 174 in sole control of its choice of advertising medium and advertising copy and, exercising that prerogative, chose to advertise in the Herald-Examiner not only several dozen specifically-named products but also unnamed, countless others "in all 100 departments.'; (Emphasis supplied.) The Respondents accepted this invitation by appealing to customers not to purchase products advertised by White Front in the Herald-Examiner. That the tendency of the picketing was to cause a total boycott because all of White Front's products were advertised did not change the fact that the Respondents attempted to reach no more than these advertised products, whatever their number or kind, and in so doing, acted within permissible bounds. 11 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R WEBSTER, Trial Examiner This case, with all parties represented, was heard in Los Angeles, California, on April 29, 1969, on a complaint of General Counsel and answers of Respondents. Charges were filed herein on January 22, 1969, and complaint issued on February 18, 1969, alleging that Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by picketing at White Front Stores in the Los Angeles area in connection with a dispute that Respondents have with the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner newspaper General Counsel, Respondents and the Charging Party have filed briefs herein and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: 385 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents, Los Angeles Typographical Union No. 174, Los Angeles Stereotypers' Union No. 58; Los Angeles Web Pressmen's Union No. 18; Los Angeles Paper Handlers' Union No. 3; Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Los Angeles Mailers Union No 9; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No 94; and Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local No. 399 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Respondents contend that Respondent Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines a labor organization as "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exist for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work." Respondents publish and distribute a publication entitled "ON THE LINE," in which the strike activities of the locals and of the Council are reported. The headquarters for the Council serves as a place where literature for distribution is picked up by picket captains. On behalf of the locals and the members thereof the Council has organized a committee of wives for supplementary strike-lockout duties It recruited pickets for informational duty in San Francisco. It has sent out appeals to about 700 central labor councils in the United States seeking support in its labor dispute with the Herald-Examiner. It has prepared a mimeographed list of instructions for strikers seeking longshoremen's work. Jerome Gordon, manpower coordinator for the Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council, has prepared memoranda setting out picket assignments and duties and schedules. I find that the Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council is an "agency" of the 8 unions involved herein and is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.' FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS The Los Angeles Herald-Examiner , a daily and a Sunday newspaper , is published in Los Angeles, California . It subscribes to several interstate news services and does an annual gross volume of business in excess of $1,000,000 ; it receives goods and material annually valued in excess of $100 ,000 shipped from points located outside the State of California. White Front is a California corporation with its principal office located in Commerce , California , and it is engaged in the operation of discount department stores in various cities in the State of California , including the cities of Covina , East Los Angeles, Downey, West Los Angeles, and Pacoima , California , which are the stores involved in this proceedings . White Front annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and annually purchases and receives directly from points outside the State of California goods, products , and merchandise of a substantial value. I find that the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and White Front Stores , Inc , are employers engaged in commerce and in business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act IiI. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issue Whether Respondent's picketing at White Front stores is a limited products picketing or a total boycott of White Front stores B. Statement of Facts At all times material herein Respondents have been engaged in a labor dispute with the Herald-Examiner, and in furtherance and support of such labor dispute Respondents have since on or about December 15, 1967, picketed the plant and premises of the Herald-Examiner. Commencing in December 1968 and continuing until January 16, 1969, White Front placed a number of advertisements in the Herald-Examiner. At about noon on Thursday, January 16, 1969, Respondents commenced picketing at the drive-in entrance and customer entrances to the West Los Angeles White Front store. About 1 p.m on Friday, January 17, 1969, four men with sandwich-type picket signs stationed themselves in front of the entrances 'Goebel Brewery Company, 105 NLRB 698; Anheuser-Bush , Inc. 102 NLRB 800 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the parking lot of the East Los Angeles White Front store, and at about 7:15 p.m . Respondents commenced picketing at the Downey White Front store. On Monday, January 20 , 1969, Respondents commenced picketing at the Covina White Front store, and on Tuesday, January 21, 1969 , Respondents commenced picketing at Pacoima White Front store. Each of the pickets had sandwich-type picket signs, which read , "HELP YOUR NEIGHBOR! DON'T BUY GOODS ADVERTISED BY WHITE FRONT IN THE HERALD EXAMINER ." Picketing at all of these locations continued until February 6, 1969, when White Front informed Respondents that it was no longer advertising in the Herald Examiner. On about January 21 , 1969, the operations manager of the Pacoima White Front store asked one of the pickets what was going on, and the picket replied that they were picketing because White Front was advertising in the Herald Examiner. Picketing at these stores occurred only during hours in which the stores were open to the public. The picketing, hand-billing and other activities of Respondents were confined to customer entrances and exits and other areas outside the stores frequented by customers; no picketing, handbilling or other activities occurred at areas reserved for employees or at general office entrances , loading docks, delivery entrances or service entrances However, at the East Los Angeles and West Los Angeles stores, the customer entrances to the parking lots are also used by delivery men. The pickets and handbillers did not stop or interfere with any delivery truck or delivery person or any employee of White Front . The pickets and handbillers directed their appeals only to customers entering and leaving the White Front stores and made no attempt to prevent any deliverymen from making deliveries to White Front or any attempt to prevent any employee of White Front from reporting to work ; and they were so instructed by their picket captains. Between December 1, 1968, and January 16, 1969, White Front periodically advertised in the Los Angeles Herald - Examiner . The advertisements , placed by White Front from January 1 to January 16, 1969 , were the following: On January 1, 1969, White Front placed a two-page advertisement of a "WHITE SALE" in the Herald -Examiner listing approximately 14 separate items and listing several kinds and qualities of some of the items. The ad also listed the 12 stores of White Front in the Los Angeles area. In addition to the items enumerated , there was also this statement in the top center of the two-page ad : "OUR MOST EAGERLY AWAITED SALE OF THE YEAR IS HERE! FANTASTIC SAVINGS IN ALL DEPTS. THRU-OUT OUR STORES ! SHOP EARLY FOR BEST SELECTION!" Also, on the same date a one -column ad appeared advertising cameras, films, and photographic finishing services. On January 2, 1969 , a half-page ad appeared listing approximately six items and several kinds and qualities of several of the items. It was headed , "JANUARY SALES AND CLEARANCE" On January 9, White Front placed three ads, one of which was a two-page ad with a heading "JANUARY SALES AND CLEARANCE." It listed approximately 22 separate items, and under several of the items separate brands and qualities were shown The ad also stated: "SENSATIONAL VALUES IN ALL 100 COMPLETE DEPARTMENTS ," and listed the 12 stores of White Front in the Los Angeles area. On the same date White Front ran a half-page ad , headed "JANUARY WHITE SALE?" and listing approximately eight items Another ad on the same date listed several brands of electric razors, and advertised White Front' s complete shaver overhaul services On January 16, White Front ran an ad covering two-thirds of a page listing approximately 15 items with several brands and qualities of several of the items. The ad also stated : "PRICES SLASHED IN ALL 100 DEPTS. DON'T MISS OUR SUPER BIG DOLLAR SALE! ADDITIONAL SAVINGS CAN STILL BE YOURS!" At the Covina and Downey White Front stores reproductions of White Front' s advertisements in the Herald-Examiner and in other newspapers were posted at the entrances to these stores and were visible to customers entering the respective stores. None of these reproductions bore the name of any newspaper. At each of the White Front stores involved herein reproductions ' of advertisements were maintained at each checkout stand for use by White Front personnel. In some cases these reproductions were visible to customers and in some cases they were not. During the period January 1 to 16, 1969, White Front placed advertisements in the Herald - Examiner which were identical to advertisements placed in other newspapers. White Front also placed some advertisements in the Los Angeles Herald -Examiner which did not appear in other newspapers , and White Front placed some advertisements in other newspapers which it did not place in the Herald -Examiner In connection with the picketing at the five White Front stores involved herein , Respondents ' pickets distributed a packet of literature consisting of four items: one, a single sheet with the heading "WHITE FRONT SUPPORTS PROFESSIONAL STRIKE-BREAKERS BY ADVERTISING IN THE UNFAIR LOS ANGELES HERALD-EXAMINER." The source of this item was shown to be "The 2,000 Members of 11 Unions Whose Jobs Are Being Done By Strikebreakers." Another one-page leaflet had the heading "THESE MERCHANTS SUPPORT US. . . PLEASE SUPPORT THEM." Among other things, this leaflet stated. We are asking for public support of our campaign to discourage purchase of goods advertised in the Herald -Examiner . Many, many retailers have decided that working men and women and their families are more important than giant , heartless corporations. We urge you to shop at these retail outlets. They have supported us and they deserve your support. We hope you will patronize them and also tell them why - you are shopping in their stores because they have refused to subsidize George Hearst Jr.'s attempt to break us. There follows a list of over 300 business establishments listed by types, such as drugstores , department and furniture stores, cafes , men's and women ' s clothing and accessories and others. The next item was a four-page newspaper-type publication published by the Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council and contains news articles and other articles pertaining to the labor dispute with the Herald-Examiner On the bottom of the front page there is an article entitled , "THE DIRTY DOZEN." This article lists 12 companies , not including White Front, and states- LOS ANGELES TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 174 387 The following national advertisers have been consistent supporters of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner with their regular ads despite the fact that 2,000 members of 11 unions have been forced out of their jobs there by the strike-lockout since December 15, 1967. These union members and their families urge you to stop patronizing these firms , and to tell their representatives in your area - WHY . We have dubbed these "The Dirty Dozen." When they stopped supporting a newspaper produced by professional strikebreakers, we'll be happy to erase their names from this list. The fourth item included in the packet was a single sheet headed "Why You Should Care." This document contains no reference to White Front or to any particular advertiser of the Herald-Examiner, but sets forth information and arguments seeking to solicit support for the Union in its dispute with the Herald-Examiner. This document was included in packets distributed by pickets at the premises of other companies advertising in the Herald-Examiner prior to the time that picketing began at White Front. Prior to December 1, 1968, this leaflet contained the following language: "Please don't buy the Herald-Examiner. Don't patronize its advertisers." About the latter part of November or first of December 1968, picket captains of Respondents were instructed to return this leaflet to the office of the Strike-Lockout Council. There was another printing of this leaflet deleting the phrase , "Don't patronize its advertisers"; and it appears to have been the intent of the Council to include the revised leaflet in the packets in future picketing of advertisers in the Herald-Examiner . In spite of this, however, some copies of the old printing of this leaflet did appear on some occasions at some of the White Front stores. On the first day of picketing at the Covina store, Store Manager Emanuel Harnick was informed by one of his employees that pickets were outside the store. He went out and one of the pickets handed him a packet of literature. The "Why You Should Care" document handed to him contained the sentence, "Don't patronize its advertisers." Store Manager Harnick turned this item of literature over to the National Labor Relations Board when his affidavit was taken on January 20, 1969. I do not credit the testimony of Respondents picket captain at the Covina store that the packets of literature distributed at that store did not contain the old printing of the "Why You Should Care" leaflet with the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence and that only the revised printing of this leaflet was distributed at this store. When picket captain Abraham LaGarde picked up the packets, they were already prepared and folded. He checked only to see if the packets were for White Front. Meyer Mayerson, manager of White Front's store at Pacoima , picked up in the store from a shopping basket where it had been left, items from Respondents' packet, one of which items was a copy of the "Why You Should Care" leaflet with the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence contained therein I do not credit the testimony of Respondents' picket captain at this store to the effect that the literature distributed at the store did not contain this sentence. He, like picket captain LaGarde, had been instructed to turn in all copies of the "Why You Should Care" leaflets containing the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence. When the picket captain at the Pacoima store picked up the packets from the Council headquarters for use at the White Front store, he checked to see that it was for the White Front store. During the picketing at the West Los Angeles White Front store, Store Manager Harold Levy was handed a packet of literature by a picket as he left the store for lunch. The "Why You Should Care" leaflet that he received contained the "Don ' t patronize its advertisers" sentence. This store was picketed from January 16 to February 6, 1969, and the picket captain was Jack Woodruff. I do not credit the testimony of the picket captain at this store that none of the "Why You Should Care" leaflets passed out by his group contained the phrase, "Don't patronize its advertisers." He, like the other picket captains, testified that in the latter part of November or early part of December 1968, he was instructed to turn in these leaflets, which at that time did contain the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence. When he picked up literature for distribution at White Front, the packets were in bundles of approximately 50 packets each He checked the packets to see that they were for distribution at White Front and that the packets were complete. He testified that the packets he examined had the new printing of the "Why You Should Care" leaflet deleting the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence. The packets for picketing at the various White Front stores were assembled by other persons than the picket captains. The picket captains did not examine each packet. Apparently, some portion of these packets contained the old printing of the "Why You Should Care" leaflets with the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence in spite of Respondents' intent to discontinue the use of this leaflet and to substitute a new printing of the leaflet deleting this sentence. In connection with its labor dispute with the Herald-Examiner, Respondents published and distributed a publication entitled "ON THE LINE." The issue dated February 9, 1969, contains the following reference to White Front: White Front has quietly announced that it is not advertising in the Scab Herald-Examiner and further that it does not plan to advertise in the Horror that Hearst built. . . Good. But not good enough. Last time we put White Front on the good guy list we had barely completed printing of the list when they went back into the paper without a word of warning So the pickets are off - pending a satisfactory agreement. And meanwhile White Front ain't a good guy again - yet. We'll negotiate with the chain. And let's hope they know more about compromise than Hearst does. C Conclusions The principal cases governing disposition of this case are N.L.R B v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, 377 U.S. 58, 55 LRRM 2961, and Honolulu Typographical Union No. 37, AFL-CIO (Hawaii Press Newspapers, Inc ), 167 NLRB No. 150, 66 LRRM 1194, enfd. 401 F.2d 952, 68 LRRM 3004 (C.A.D.C ). A significant related case is Great Western Broadcasting Corp. v. N L.R B, 356 F.2d 434, 61 LRRM 2364 (C A. 9). The first two deal with picketing, and the latter case deals with handbilling but is quite similar to the instant case in that it involves the role of an advertiser as a producer of products advertised. The Fruit Packers case, commonly referred to as the Tree Fruits case, stands for the proposition that picketing at neutral stores to persuade customers thereof to cease buying products (apples) of a struck primary employer does not violate the Act, even though such picketing may cause economic loss 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the neutral stores. The court draws a distinction between product picketing and total boycott as follows: When consumer picketing is employed only to persuade customers not to buy the struck product, the union's appeal is closely confined to the primary dispute. The site of the appeal is expanded to include the premises of the secondary employer, but if the appeal succeeds, the secondary employer's purchases from the struck firms are decreased only because the public has diminished its purchases of the struck product. On the other hand, when customer picketing is employed to persuade customers not to trade at all with the secondary employer, the latter stops buying the struck product, not because of a falling demand, but in response to pressure designed to inflict injury on his business generally. In such case, the union does more than merely follow the struck product; it creates a separate dispute with the secondary employer In the Great Western Broadcasting case, both the Board and the Ninth Circuit hold that one who is engaged in the business of advertising tangible articles manufactured by another is likewise a producer of such products, and that a union may, pursuant to the "publicity" proviso to Section 8(b)(4), handbill a neutral employer who thereafter handles or offers for sale the advertised products; that the term "producer" encompasses anyone who enhances the economic value of the product ultimately sold or consumed; that the television station , the primary employer, by adding its services (advertising) to the products involved, became a producer of such products. But, in the Honolulu Typographical case, the Board and Ninth Circuit, referring to the Tree Fruits decision on the matter of the publicity proviso, hold that by handbilling, or by publicity other than picketing, a union may stop all trade with a neutral employer, but that product picketing violates Section 8(b)(4) if its objective is to stop all trade with a neutral employer. Thus, I find that the Herald-Examiner is a "producer" of products advertised in its newspaper, and that Respondents could, with the immunity granted by the publicity provision, handbill White Front with truthful information to persuade its customers to stop all trading with it. But, as to picketing, Respondents are limited to product picketing that will not "of necessity encompass the entire business of the secondary employer." This frames the issue in the instant case. I find that Respondents' picketing of White Front stores herein was not confined to products advertised by White Front in the Herald-Examiner but was aimed at inducing customers to cease all trade at White Front - that is, a total boycott - in an effort to cause White Front to cease doing business with the Herald-Examiner. I base this conclusion and finding on the following considerations. The picket signs at all locations bore the legend "HELP YOUR NEIGHBOR! DON'T BUY GOODS ADVERTISED BY WHITE FRONT IN THE HERALD-EXAMINER." Respondents made no effort to advise the customers as to what products they were not to buy. Furthermore, the picket signs did not distinguish as to whether the Respondents had a dispute with one or the other or both of the two employees named . Handbills distributed by Respondents and other actions by them, as will be discussed hereinafter, indicate that a total boycott of White Front was intended. As a matter of fact, any effort at specificity of products boycotted by Respondents would have been nigh impossible due to the contents of the advertisements, and this point makes the picketing of White Front comparable to the picketing of the restaurants in the Honolulu Typographical case. In January 1969, White Front ran advertisements in the Herald-Examiner on 4 different days On 3 of those days, not only did it advertise from 14 to 22 different items and several kinds of many of the items, but also customers were advised, "PRICES SLASHED IN ALL 100 DEPTS. DON'T MISS OUR SUPER BIG DOLLAR SALE! ADDITIONAL SAVINGS CAN STILL BE YOURS" (January 16, 1969), "SENSATIONAL VALUES IN ALL 100 COMPLETE DEPARTMENTS" (January 9, 1969), and "FANTASTIC SAVINGS IN ALL DEPTS. THRU-OUT OUR STORES!" (January 1, 1969). Thus, the advertisements covered all items offered for sale at reduced prices, which may have included all items in the stores. Although the publicity proviso has been interpreted to sanction handbilling to stop all trading; yet, where handbilling and literature distribution accompany picketing, and particularly picketing with signs that lack clarity and specificity as exists in the instant case, the intent and purpose of the picketing can be and must be interpreted by statements that accompany it. On February 9, 1969, Respondents published and distributed in their "ON THE LINE" leaflet a report to the effect that White Front was not on the "good guy list," and that "We'll negotiate with the chain. And let's hope they know more about compromise than Hearst does." Among the leaflets distributed by the pickets at the White Front stores was one with the heading "THESE MERCHANTS SUPPORT US . . PLEASE SUPPORT THEM." In this leaflet Respondents urged persons to shop at the listed retail outlets. Thus, as White Front was not on this list and as this leaflet was distributed at White Front stores, the inference was that the customers should do business with a listed store and not White Front. Another leaflet had in very .large and bold print the words "WHITE FRONT" and "UNFAIR", thus, unless one took the time to read the printing between and following these words that "White Front supports professional strikebreakers by advertising in the unfair Los Angeles Herald-Examiner," one would be misled. Also, although Respondents called in all of their "Why You Should Care" leaflets to be substituted by a new printing deleting one sentence - "Don't patronize its advertisers"; nevertheless some of the leaflets with the "Don't patronize its advertisers" sentence were distributed at some of the White Front stores in January 1969. IV THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent Unions, set forth in section III, occurring in connection with the business operations of the employers as set forth in section 1, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: LOS ANGELES TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 174 389 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and White Front are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Los Angeles Typographical Union No. 174; Los Angeles Stereotypers' Union No. 58; Los Angeles Web Pressmen's Union No. 18; Los Angeles Paper Handlers' Union No. 3; Los Angeles Newspaper Guild; Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 94; Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local No. 399; and Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Ey picketing of White Front stores as found herein, for an object of forcing or requiring said employer to cease doing business with the Herald-Examiner, Respondents have engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that each take certain affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board issue the following- (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to White Front for information and for posting, if willing. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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, restrain, or coerce White Front, or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require White Front, or any other person, to cease doing business with the Herald- Examiner ORDER Los Angeles Typographical Union No. 174; Los Angeles Stereotypers' Union No. 58; Los Angeles Web Pressmen's Union No. 18, Los Angeles Paper Handlers' Union No. 3; Los Angeles Newspaper Guild; Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 94; Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local No. 399; and Herald-Examiner Joint Strike Lockout Council, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing or restraining White Front, or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer or person to cease doing business with the Herald-Examiner 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act- (a) Post in conspicuous places in the offices and meeting places of each Respondent, and in all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after having been duly signed by authorized representatives of each Respondent, be posted by each Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by each for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Los ANGELES TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 174 (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Dated By Dated By Dated By Los ANGELES STEREOTYPERS' UNION No. 58 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) Los ANGELES WEB PRESSMEN 'S UNION No. 18 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) Los ANGELES PAPER HANDLERS' UNION No. 3 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) 390 Dated Dated By By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Los ANGELES NEWSPAPER GUILD (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) Los ANGELES MAILERS UNION No. 9 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) Dated By SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 399 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) HERALD-EXAMINER JOINT STRIKE LOCKOUT COUNCIL (Labor Organization) Dated By Dated By INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, DISTRICT LODGE No 94 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5229.