Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen Local 46

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1346 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instant case ), the Board affirmed the Trial Examiner without comment , 132 NLRB
1194.
As to the discriminatees , I recommend that Spicer be reinstated with backpay
in accordance with the formula approved in Chase National Bank, 65 NLRB 827 and
F. W. Woolworth , 90 NLRB 289 , 291-294 , and also that he be compensated for
loss suffered by him by reason of the failure .to permit him to work 4 hours on May
20.11 I further recommend that Carnes , English , and Gaines be made whole for
the discriminatory denial to each of them of overtime assignments between May
22, and August 5, 1961.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in activities affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By withholding assignments of overtime from John Carnes, Joel English, and
Pennington Gaines between May 22 and August 5, 1961, and by, refusing to permit
James Spicer to work on May 20, 1961, because Carnes, English , Gaines, and
Spicer participated in a strike on May 16, 1961, Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3)
and (I) of the Act.
4. By discharging James Spicer on April 12, 1962, because of his union activities,
Respondent further violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By instituting various changes in terms and conditions of employment in 1960
and 1961 without affording the Union a reasonable opportunity to bargain thereon,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
11I reject the General Counsel 's request that interest be added to the backpay awards
in this case. A change in the Board's policy on this subject should originate with the
Board and not with a Trial Examiner , Cf. Woolworth Co, supra.
121n working out the amount due English , allowance must be made for the 2 weeks he
was unavailable to work overtime because of absence.
Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen Local No . 46, a Subordinate
Local Union of International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union, AFL-CIO and Knight Newspapers, Inc. Case No.
7-CC-173. October 1, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 8, 1962, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent laird engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief and the Charging Party filed a brief in reply.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.
138 NLRB No. 137.
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 46 1347
In accord with the Trial Examiner, we find that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act by picketing Knight
Newspapers, Inc., at the Detroit Free Press in Detroit, Michigan, in
support of its economic strike against the Miami Herald, a separate
corporate entity.
The record shows the Detroit Free Press is owned and published
by Knight Newspapers, Inc., which is also the parent of the corpora-
tion owning and publishing the Miami Herald; that, notwithstanding
the fact of single ownership, and the existence of some common officers
and directors of the two corporations, they are operated in substance
as separate and autonomous corporations, publishing newspapers in
communities 800 miles apart. Thus, the two corporations do only
nominal business with each other. The Miami Herald is operated
under the control of its vice president, James Knight, who establishes
its labor policies, independently of the labor policies of the Detroit
Free Press or of other Knight Newspapers. The Detroit Free Press
is operated under policies established by Henry C. Weidler, its busi-
ness manager and top operating official. Though James Knight is
also a vice president of Knight Newspapers, Inc., the record shows
that he plays no active role in its operations.
John Knight, president of both corporations, may be consulted by
Weidler or James Knight in connection with problems concerning
the operations of their newspapers. Such consultation, however, ap-
pears to be in an advisory rather than an executive capacity.
As for the participation of Leslie Griner, who is a vice president
of Knight Newspapers, in the affairs of the Miami Herald, the record
shows that his special experience and knowledge concerning produc-
tion problems were utilized in connection with an expansion and
modernization program determined by James Knight, and that Griner
carried out, rather than shaped, policy in this regard. This appears
to be true also with respect to his participation in collective-
bargaining negotiations with the Respondent.
As to other matters relied upon by Respondent, the record shows
that three employees of the Miami Herald formerly worked for a
Knight newspaper in Charlotte, North Carolina; that the Miami
Herald credits such service in computing required service under its
pension plan ; and that the Miami Herald and the Detroit Free Press•
make approximately 2 percent of their purchases of supplies from a
wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Newspapers, Inc., These factors,
even if attributable solely to the effect of single ownership and coin-
mon officers and directors as described above, in our opinion are in-
sufficient to establish that the Detroit Free Press and the Miami
Herald are operated as a single integrated business operation. Rather
they disclose that, notwithstanding the closely held nature of the
two corporations and the potentiality of integrated operations under
6G2353-63-vol 138-86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
common control that does exist, the Detroit Free Press and the Miami
Herald are operated independently of each other , as separate autono-
mous newspaper enterprises.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Knight Newspapers,
Inc., was entitled to the protection of Section 8(b) (4) in connection
with Respondent 's labor dispute with the Miami Herald Publishing
Company. Accordingly, as Respondent picketed Knight, publisher
of the Detroit Free Press , with the object of forcing it to cease doing
business with its customers and suppliers , it engaged in unlawful
secondary activity.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the cease and desist and affirmative
action Recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been filed on August 21, 1961, by Knight Newspapers, Inc.
(hereinafter also referred to as the Charging Party) against Respondent (hereinafter
also referred to as the Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint herein
on August 29, 1961, alleging that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). Respondent, in its answer, denied the allegations in the
complaint imputing to its the commission of unfair labor practices and also ad-
vanced certain affirmative defenses.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on November 29 and 30 and December 1,
1961, at Miami, Florida, before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert. All parties were
represented at the hearing by counsel. All parties presented brief oral argument at
the close of the hearing and filed briefs within the time designated therefor.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses who
appeared before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANIES INVOLVED
Knight Newspapers, Inc., an Ohio corporation, maintains its principal office and a
place of business in Akron, Ohio, and is engaged in, among other things, the publish-
ing of the Detroit Free Press (hereinafter referred to as the Free Press) at Detroit,
Michigan. The Charging Party, in connection with its publication of said daily and
Sunday newspaper, subscribes to United Press and United Press International Wire
Services (interstate news services), has an annual gross volume of business in excess
of $800,000, and annually purchases goods and materials of a value in excess of
$500,000, which are shipped directly to the Free Press plant in Detroit from points
located outside the State of Michigan.
The Miami Herald Publishing Company (hereinafter referred to as the Miami
Herald) is a Florida corporation engaged in the publication of a daily and Sunday
newspaper at Miami, Florida, subscribes to the aforementioned wire services, has
an annual gross volume of business in excess of $500,000, and annually purchases
goods and material of a value in excess of $200,000 which are shipped directly to it
in Miami from points located outside the State of Florida.
Both the Charging Party and Miami Herald, as admitted by Respondent, are
employers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is, as admitted by it, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 46 1349
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The undisputed facts
On or about August 1, 1961, Respondent became involved in a labor dispute
-with the Miami Herald, engaged in a strike against said newspaper, and commenced
picketing the Miami Herald plant in Miami, Florida. From on or about August 19,
1961, to and including August 24, 1961, Respondent picketed the premises of the
Free Press in Detroit. On the latter date the picketing ceased because of an injunc-
tion issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Souhern Division. As a result of the picketing the employees of the Free Press
refused to perform services for the Free Press and it was not published during the
aforementioned period between August 19 and 24, 1961. Respondent is not a
bargaining representative of any of the Free Press employees.
The stock of the Charging Party is divided among Clara I. Knight, John S.
Knight, and James L. Knight. The Charging Party owns all of the outstanding shares
of stock of Miami Herald. Following is a list of names of those serving as officers
and directors of either or both corporations and the capacities in which they serve
with respect to each corporation:
Knight Newspapers, Inc Name Miami Herald
President; Director________________________ John S. Knight_________ President; Director.
Executive Vice President, Director-------- James L. Knight ________ Vice President ; Secretary and
Treasurer; Director.
Vice President; Director___________________ Clara I. Knight_________ Director.
Vice President and Treasurer; Director____ K. L. Milburn---------- Do.
Secretary; Director________________________ C. Blake McDowell_____ Assistant Secretary , Director.
Vice President; Director___________________ Lee Hills________________ Director.
Vice President (Production), Director_____ Leslie J. Griner _______-_ Neither officer nor director, but in
charge of construction of new
plant.
Assistant Secretary and Treasurer----------- Charles E. Clark -_______ (Blank.)
Director ----------------------------------- Arthur J. Gucker_______ Assistant Secretary and Treasurer;
Director.
Assistant Treasurer; Director______________ Henry C. Weidler_______ (Blank.)
Assistant Secretary________________________ Alva H. Chapman, Jr___ (Blank)
Director----------------------------------- John Waiters___________ Director.
Do------------------------------------ B. E. Maidenburg______ (Blank.)
Do------------------------------------ J. E. Dowd_____________ (Blank.)
Do------------------------------------ C. A. McKnight ________ (Blank.)
Do------------------------------------ Brodie Griffith__________ (Blank.)
B. The issues
Respondent contends that its picketing activities at the Free Press plant did not
constitute a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) I of the Act for the follow-
ing reasons: (a) Knight Newspapers, Inc., is not a "secondary" or "neutral" employer
because of the common ownership and control of Miami Herald and the Free Press;
(b) Knight Newspapers, Inc., is not a "secondary" or "neutral" employer because
Miami Herald is a wholly owned subsidiary; and (c) the business done between Free
Press and Miami Herald is de minimis and, therefore, the provision of Section
%(b) (4) (B) is not met .2
1. Common Ownership and Control
"Common ownership" being undisputed, Respondent contends that "control" of the
Miami Herald and the Free Press was also common by reason of the great similarity
IIt has been clearly established by the decisions of both the Board and the courts that
essentially the gravamen of the unfair labor practice is the attempt by a labor organiza-
tion to involve a "secondary" or "neutral" employer in a labor dispute the labor organiza-
tion has with another employer.
9 This essentially provides a condition that an object of the action by the labor organi-
zation be to force or require any person to cease handling the product of or doing busi-
ness with any other person.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the officers and directors of the two companies (as indicated in the above table)
and the existence of other facts which will be considered hereinbelow.
The record discloses that there are other newspapers making up the Knight chain
of newspapers and a newspaper products supply company commonly owned by
the Knights, all with more or less similar officers and directors. It does not appear
that the facts elicited with respect thereto are of sufficient materiality to require
consideration herein except as background information in evaluating the contentions
of the parties.
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that, despite the similarity in the
officers and directors of the two companies involved herem, they are independently
operated.
James Knight testified that he is, in effect, the publisher of the Miami Herald;
that he exercises the ultimate authority in the operations of the Miami Herald
and receives no orders with respect thereto. Although he is an officer and director
of Knight Newspapers, Inc., which publishes the Free Press, it appears from his.
testimony and that of Henry C. Weidler, business manager of the Free Press, that
he does not participate in the affairs of the Free Press. There is no showing in the
record of any operations of Knight Newspapers, Inc., other than the publication of
the Free Press. Weidler testified that he exercises the ultimate authority in the
business operations of the Free Press and neither receives orders from nor consults
with any "superior" in managing the Free Press. It appears from James Knight's
testimony that as a director of Knight Newspapers, Inc., he attends the annual meeting,
of its directors which is largely devoted to an exchange of information with respect
to the various components in the Knight chain. Although John Knight as president of
the two companies is the "superior" of James Knight and Weidler, it appears from
their testimony that neither James Knight nor Weidler consults him or each other
with regard to the "day-to-day" operations of their respective newspapers or their
labor policies. Although it is admitted that John Knight could override their-
decisions in managing the affairs of their respective newspapers, it appears from their
testimony that he has not exercised such authority. James Knight testified that he-
did consult with John Knight with respect to the "30 million dollar expansion
program" of the Miami Herald presently in the process of construction.
Respondent contends that common control is demonstrated in the record. It relies
on the testimony with respect to the activities of Leslie J. Griner which it claims
demonstrates that Griner established labor policies for Knight newspapers, and on
the testimony with respect to the operations of the two companies which it claims.
were shown as being integrated within the Knight chain of companies.
Griner, who is an officer and director of Knight Newspapers, Inc., is an expert
in the field of printing production and equipment and came to the Miami Herald
in January 1959 to take charge of the planning and construction of the new "30'
million dollar" plant and the procurement and installation of equipment therein.
Although he has no official title in the hierarchy of Miami Herald personnel, he is
apparently subject to the supervision of only James Knight in his management of
the expansion program. It is clear that he did not come to the Miami Herald for
the purpose of establishing its labor policies, since he arrived on the scene over 2
years prior Ito the start of the negotiations between the Miami Herald and Respondent
(early in 1961).
In 1961, in anticipation of the contract negotiations, James Knight, Arthur Gucker,
an officer and director of the Miami Herald, and Griner conferred as to the proposals
to be made to the Union. The Miami Herald negotiated jointly with the Miami,
News, at first, and individually after the Miami News entered into a contract with-
the Union. Gucker was .in charge of the Miami Herald delegation at the meetings
with the union representatives and, when Gucker left on his vacation, Griner assumed
charge. However, I am satisfied that the record does not demonstrate that Griner
formulated the Miami Herald's labor policies, but merely aided James Knight in
arriving at decisions with respect thereto and implemented such decisions at the,
meetings with the Union's representatives.
The Union elicited considerable testimony with respect to participation by Griner-
in labor negotiations of other Knight newspapers. He was employed by the Free
Press yin 1952 to take charge of the installation of a large amount of new equipment.
In 1956 he was transferred to the Chicago Daily News, then a "Knight newspaper,"-
in connection with extensive plant and equipment changes (where he stayed for 3
years). While there he was called to other Knight newspapers in Akron, Charlotte,
and Detroit to assist local management He testified that he neither carried with
him policy instructions nor formulated policy for the local management. In-
1957-58 he was called to the Free Press by Weidler to take care of plant problems in,
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 46 1351
anticipation of the possibility of a work stoppage. It appears that he attended two
or three of both the 1956-57 and 1958-59 labor negotiations meetings of the Free
Press. It further appears that there were about 40 such meetings in each of the
series of negotiations. It does not appear that he participated in the meetings.
Also, while he was in Chicago, it appears that at the request of James Knight he
"contacted" an international officer of the Pressmen's Union with respect to a labor
problem of the Miami Herald.
It is clear that Griner has been consulted from time to time by the management
of various Knight newspapers, including the Miami Herald and the Free Press, in
connection with their labor problems. However, I am of the opinion that he was
not consulted as the Knight official responsible for establishing labor policies. I
am convinced that local management and not Griner decided the labor policies of
the various Knight newspapers, particularly the policies of the Miami Herald and
the Free Press. There is no indication that the Knight newspapers had a common
labor policy or, for that matter, that the Miami Herald and the Free Press had the
same or similar policies. At the most, it can only be inferred from the record that
the management of each of several Knight newspapers consulted Griner to obtain
his device as a mechanical expert in formulating their respective policies. The record
will not support an inference that he established the labor policies for the various
Knight newspapers, particularly those of the Free Press and the Miami Herald.
Respondent contends that it has established that the Miami Herald and the Free
Press were part of an integrated operation of the Knight Companies. There is little
to support this contention. It cannot be said that there was centralized purchasing
merely because the Miami Herald purchased 1 to 2 percent of its supply require-
ments and the Free Press 1 to 11/z percent of its supply requirements from a sub-
isidiary of Knight Newspapers, Inc , on the same terms as other customers (including
45 other newspapers) which were not part of the Knight chain. There is no evidence
that any of the Knight papers were required to make purchases from this source.
It cannot be said there has been so much interchange of personnel that it would
be appropriate to infer an integrated operation. The record only discloses three
instances of the movement of production personnel from one Knight newspaper to
another. Of the 20 pressmen who were employed by the Miami Herald after the
strike commenced, 3 came from the Knight newspaper in Charlotte, none from the
Free Press or any other Knight newspaper. As to transfer of supervisory personnel,
aside from Griner, the record discloses only two instances of an editor of one of the
papers moving to a better job on the other.
There is little evidence of exchange of services and products between the two
companies. Even the Respondent, in its argument with respect to another of its
contentions, labeled the amount of their relationship in this respect as de minimis.
Testimony was introduced into the record with respect to legal counsel consulted
by the Miami Herald in connection with its 1961 negotiations with the Union, ap-
parently to establish common legal counsel in labor matters with the Free Press.
James Knight called an Akron, Ohio, law firm for assistance and a Charles Iden
of that firm came to Miami and joined local counsel in representing the Miami
Herald at some of the meetings with the Union. Even were it to be assumed that
retaining the same legal counsel is evidence of integrated operations or common
labor policy, it does not appear that such an assumption would support Respondent,
for Weidler (of the Free Press) testified credibly and without contradiction that he
has never consulted any attorneys from Akron and has never met Iden.
There is testimony with respect to a training school which the Miami Herald con-
ducted in 1960. The school gave a 1-week course. Of the 275 who attended, ap-
proximately 30 to 35 came from other Knight newspapers, including the Free Press,
and approximately 100 from newspapers unconnected to the Knight chain. I can-
not give any appreciable weight to the operation of the training school as proof of
the integrated operation of the Knight newspapers.
The record shows that the Miami Herald under certain conditions will give retire-
ment credit to its nonsupervisory employees for the time they worked on other
Knight newspapers. On the other hand the Free Press does not even have a retire-
ment program for its nonsupervisory personnel and there is no reciprocal provision
with respect to employees of Free Press who have worked on other Knight news-
papers.
The total of all of the testimony hereinabove considered does not, to my mind,
establish that the Miami Herald and the Free Press had a common labor policy
or were commonly controlled in their operations. Certainly there was a potential
common control, but it has not been demonstrated that it was actually or actively
exercised.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Effect of parent-subsidiary relationship
As an alternative defense, Respondent contends that , even if there were no com-
mon control established , it is sufficient to establish that the Free Press is not a "neu-
tral" employer within the purview of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), by showing
common ownership of the Miami Herald and the Free Press. The "common owner-
ship" is clearly established, since it is stipulated that Knight Newspapers, Inc., which
publishes the Free Press, owns all of the outstanding stock of the Miami Herald. Re-
spondent's position apparently is that a corporation cannot appropriately be said
to be "neutral" with respect to a labor dispute of a corporation which it wholly owns
and from whose operations, if profitable, it would gain.3 It can only be said to be
"neutral" based upon the legal fiction of corporate entity. It appears that the Board
has established a policy that it will not pierce the corporate veil and consider two
corporations which are commonly owned or which stand in a parent-subsidiary re-
lationship as being a single employer in the context of Section 8(b) (4), unless there
is evidence of actual or active common control. Apparently the potential control
arising out of common ownership and similarity in officers and directors is, of itself,
insufficient for the Board to consider the two as a single employer or as not "neutral"
in the other's labor dispute.
In Amalgamated Lithographers of America, et al., 130 NLRB 985, the Board,
in considering whether a clause in a contract permitting sympathy strikes was un-
lawful, stated:
. . . It not only permits a sympathy strike in one plant of an employer where
another plant of the same employer is struck, but also permits a strike in the
plant of the principal company where the plant of a subsidiary is struck or
vice versa, even though the principal and subsidiary do not constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act. The latter type of strike is unlawful
under Section 8(b) (4).12
12 J G. Roy and Sons v. N . L R.B., 251 F. 2d 771 ( C.A. 1) ; Bachman Machine
Company, a corporation v. N.L.R.B., 266 F. 2d 599 (C.A. 8).
Clearly, as a basis for finding the clause unlawful the Board determined that a
strike against a parent corporation over a dispute with its subsidiary would be un-
lawful under 8(b) (4) unless other facts existed which indicated that the two were
a "single employer ." By citing the court decisions in the Roy and Bachman cases,
the Board unambiguously indicated that it acquiesced in the principle enunciated by
the Circuit Courts of Appeals in said cases that in order to establish that two corpor-
ations are a single employer with respect to Section 8(b) (4), there must be common
ownership and active, not merely potential, common control. It is noted that in
the Bachman case, supra, the same person was president of both companies as is the
case in this proceeding.
While it is true that in a contemporaneous decision 4 the Board used language
which would indicate that common ownership or common control would be sufficient
to establish a single employer status, I am of the opinion that the use of "or" was
inadvertent, for neither in that case nor in any other that has come to my attention
was a "single employer" status found by the Board in the context of Section 8(b)(4)
based solely on common ownership. Respondent cites Milwaukee Plywood Com-
pany, 285 F. 2d 325 (C.A. 7) as a precedent for holding that parent and subsidiary
corporations are a single employer. However, in that case there was clearly an
integrated operation of the two companies and the court stated that in view of the
close interrelationship between the two, the question of whether the Board erred
in finding them to be a single employer was not even raised.
In its brief Respondent quotes Senator Taft on the congressional intent with respect
to Section 8(b)(4):
This provision makes it unlawful to resort to a secondary boycott to injure the
business of a third person who is wholly unconcerned in the disagreement between
employer and his employees . 93 Daily Cong Rec. 4322, April 29, 1947.
Also Respondent states in its brief:
Judge Learned Hand , speaking for the Second Circuit in I B E W vs. NLRB,
181 Fed 2d , 34, 37, affirmed 341 U S. 694 , pointed out that: "The gravamen of a
secondary boycott is that its sanction bears not upon the employer who alone is a
party to the dispute but upon some third party who has no concern in it."
4 Ada Transit Mice, 130 NLRB 788. See also Advance Trucking Corporation , 131 NLRB
59, Intermediate Report. On the other hand , in Iliann Post Company, 130 NLRB 969,
the Board uses the connective "and" rather than "or "
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 46 1353
In view of the foregoing I have no choice but to find that the record does not
establish a basis for concluding that the Miami Herald and the Free Press (or the
Charging Party) should be considered as a single employer in this proceeding.
The Board's position , enunciated in Amalgamated Lithographers, supra, would ap-
pear to be predicated on the rationale that it will not consider two corporate entities
as one, unless there is a showing that the operations of the two companies have been
conducted in such a maner as to indicate that to an appreciable degree the separate-
ness of the two entities has not been maintained. Thus, even though two corporations
may have substantially identical officers and directors and one may be wholly
owned by the other, if there is no showing that there was an appreciable amount of
common active control, I assume the Board would not consider the two as a single
employer. It does not appear that the record in this proceeding discloses such com-
mon active control.
3. "An object" of the Picketing (&(b) (4) (B) )
Respondent contends that since the volume of business between the Free Press
and Miami Herald is "infinitesimal," it cannot be said, that the provision of 8(b) (4) (B)
is met, i.e., an object of the picketing could not have been to force the Free Press to
cease doing business with Miami Herald. While it is true that the complaint recites
that an object of the "acts and conduct engaged in by Respondent" was to force
Knight Newspapers, Inc., "to cease doing business with the Miami Herald," the al-
legation continues, "and with other persons engaged in commerce or in industries
affecting commerce." It does not appear necessary to pass upon the question of
whether the amount of business between the two newspapers was or was not
de minimis for the purpose of satisfying the provision of 8(b)(4)(B). I believe it
sufficient to show, which the record clearly does, that an object was to force the Free
Press, which admittedly is engaged in comerce, to stop publication and thus "to
cease doing business with other persons engaged in commerce." It is obvious that
by so doing Respondent sought to force Knight Newspapers, Inc., or John Knight,
who does not participate in the active management of the Miami Herald, to assert
control and require the management of the Miami Herald to settle its dispute with
the Union. It is also possible that Respondent sought to force James Knight to settle
the dispute because of the effect the strike at the Free Press plant might have had on
his stock interest in Knight Newspapers, Inc.
Aside ,from assumptions that can be made as to the effect the cessation of pub-
lication of the Free Press must have had on that newspaper with respect to the
business it does with its advertisers and others, there is testimony that during the
strike its purchases were reduced by $25,000 a day. It is admitted that the Free
Press purchases annually over $500,000 from sources directly outside the State of
Michigan. I have no hesitation in assuming that the cessation of its publication re-
quired the Free Press (which I have found to be a secondary employer) to cease
doing business with other persons also engaged in commerce or industry affecting
commerce. I am of the opinion that the provision of 8(b) (4) (B) does not require
"an object" to be the cessation of business only between the secondary and
primary employer. United Marine Division, Local 333, etc., 107 NLRB 686, 709-711.
Certainly the language of the provision does not indicate such a limitation. There-
fore, I find no validity in this defense.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of the Respondent, described in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the employers described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend , in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, that Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Miami Herald Publishing Company and Knight Newspapers, Inc., are em-
ployers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and
(7) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
3. (a) By picketing the Detroit Free Press plant of Knight Newspapers, Inc., at
Detroit, Michigan, Respondent did induce and encourage the employees at said
plant to engage in a strike and to refuse to perform services for said company.
(b) By such conduct Respondent did restrain said company from carrying on
its normal business at said plant.
(c) Said conduct of Respondent had as an object forcing said company to cease
doing business with other persons in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the Act.
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 above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the
entire record in this proceeding, it is recommended that the Respondent, its repre-
sentatives , officers, successors , assigns, and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing the Detroit Free Press plant of Knight News-
papers, Inc., from, in any other manner, inducing and encouraging employees at
said plant to engage in a strike or to refuse to perform services for said Company,
and from threatening, coercing, or restraining Knight Newspapers, Inc., in violation
,of Section 8(b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at conspicuous places at its business office and customary meeting places
of its members, including all places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region of the
National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by it, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained for apenod of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that they are not altered, defaced, or
covered by an other material.
(b) Furnish to the said Regional Director for the Seventh Region, immediately
upon request, as many signed copies of said notice as he may require for posting by
Knight Newspapers, Inc., in its Detroit Free Press plant, if said company should
agree, where notices to the employees at said plant are customarily posted.
(c) Notify said Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6
5In the event that these Recommendations 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 "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
6In 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL No. 46,
A SUBORDINATE LOCAL UNION OF INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND
ASSISTANTS' UNION, AFL-CIO, AND TO EMPLOYEES OF THE DETROIT FREE PRESS
PLANT OF KNIGHT NEWSPAPERS, 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 the Detroit Free Press Plant of Knight Newspapers, Inc.,
or, in any other manner, induce or encourage employees at said plant to engage
in a strike or to refuse to perform services for said company in violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (B ) of the Act.
WINN-DIXIE STORES , INC. 1355
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Knight Newspapers , Inc. in violation,
of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act.
MIAMI NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL No. 46,
A SUBORDINATE LOCAL UNION OF INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS ' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organizer.
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 West Grand River, Detroit 26, Michigan, Telephone Number, Wood-
ward 2-3830 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Meat Cutters , Packinghouse and
Allied Food Workers Union , Local 433, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 1f-CA-9313. October 3, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 1962, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
i In the notice , the next to the last sentence is hereby amended to read : "This notice
must remain posted for GO consecutive days from the date of posting, . . ." instead of
"60 days from the date hereof. . . . .
138 NLRB No. 142.