N. A.Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 219 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 219
and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All composing room employees excluding proof boys and supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
Employer.
Dated ------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive clays from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any ocher material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor , Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York , Telephone No.
751-5500, if they have any questions with this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc. and United Papermakers
and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-3049-2. Decem-
ber 17, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 7, 1965, Trial Examiner Herman Tocker issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respodent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommend-
ing that is cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
with a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed an answering
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings., conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
1 The Trial Examiner concluded , and we agree , that Respondent discharged Alberta G.
High because of her union activities In reaching this conclusion , he rejected , primarily
on credibility grounds , Respondent 's defense that it had discharged High for cause.
Thus, the Trial Examiner discredited the testimony of Respondent's president , Sweren,
and cutter operator , Caldwell , that High was responsible for the improper stapling of
approximately 1350 booklets , based upon his observation of their demeanor , certain in-
consistencies and evasions which he found in their testimony , and the fact that they
were less competent to provide the pertinent evidence than other identified individuals
whom Respondent did not call to testify . Respondent excepts to these credibility findings.
We will not overturn the credibility findings of a Trial Examiner unless the party
excepting to them demonstrates by a clear preponderance of the relevant evidence that the
findings are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.
2d 362 ( C.A. 3). Respondent , in our opinion, has not sustained that burden here.
Accordingly , we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent discharged High
in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
156 NLRB No. 31.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modification : Substitute the following for para-
graphs 1(a) and (b) :
["(a) Discouraging membership in United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
[" (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959."]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Herman Tocker , in Baltimore , Maryland , on June 3 and 4, 1965, on the complaint
of the General Counsel and the answer of N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc.,
the Respondent . On February 18, 1965, United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, the Union , filed the charge . The complaint alleged that Section 8 (a) (1)
(3) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, were violated by the dis-
criminatory discharge , on or about February 17, 1965, of one Alberta G. High.
During the hearing, over objection on the part of the Respondent , it was amended
to include ' an additional Section 8(a)(1) charge to the effect that the Respondent,
by its president , unlawfully interrogated an employee , in his office, concerning the
Union.
The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged and the Position of the Respondent
It is alleged that the Respondent discharged High and "failed and refused to rein-
state [her] to her former or substantially equivalent position because of her member-
ship in , assistance to, or activity on behalf of the union or because she engaged in
concerted activities with other employees ... for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection ." The amendment , as already stated , was to the
effect that the Respondent "did on or about November 15, 1964 , interfere with, and
coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by
Rude Sweren , President of Respondent , questioning an employee in his office concern-
ing the Union."
Respondent admits all jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. It denies that High 's discharge was because of her union activities and it denies
also the alleged unlawful interrogation brought into the case by the amendment. It
denies also all the conclusionary allegations as to the commission of unfair labor
practices . During the hearing it became clear that the denial of that portion of the
complaint having to do with High's discharge was limited to the alleged unlawful
aspects and that she , actually had been discharged on February 17, 1965. The
Respondent contends that she was discharged because of her failure to detect and
separate as many as 1,350 booklets which had been stapled defectively by a stapling
(or stitching ) machine.
N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 221
Her duties were to observe the booklets as they came through the stapling operation,
stack them in piles of 15, and set these piles on a skid in crisscross arrangement, at=
the same time separating and removing those which had not been stapled properly.
An improperly stapled booklet was one which did not have two staples about 43/4
inches apart, through its middle fold, along the left side. (The staples did not go'
through all the pages at some flat portion; they went through at the fold of the middle
page creating a booklet which required no other binding. A properly stitched book-
let would have the closed length of each staple easily visible when the booklets were
stacked one on top of the other with the folded sides facing the viewer. The bent or
clamped prongs would be inside at the middle page.)
The operation was such that the stapling machine could become jammed so that
either or both staples might not be properly tacked into the booklet or either or both
of them might miss so that only one instead of two was tacked into it.
An operator such as Miss High had the obligation to detect defectively stapled
booklets. She was required not only to separate them from the properly stapled
booklets but also promptly to stop the machine and report its defective operation so
that it could be corrected.
Respondent's defense and its reason for High's discharge was that, while it would
be normal and excusable for a number of improperly stapled booklets to come through
without detection, perhaps 15 or 30, only gross negligence and inattention on the
part of an operator or deliberate and malicious misconduct could permit as many as
1350 defectively stapled booklets to accumulate without having the machine stopped
and corrected. Respondent's president, Rube Sweren, stressed his assumption that
High intentionally had allowed that great quantity of defective booklets to pass
through her machine.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is engaged in the business of finishing and binding books. The allega-
tions as to the extent of business done in interstate commerce and its participation
therein are admitted. ' It is admitted also that the Respondent is an employer as
defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) of the Act. The National Labor Rela=
tions Board has jurisdiction over it in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL=CIO, is and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act:
III. THE CHRONOLOGY OF UNION ACTIVITIES
On November 27, 1964, the Union filed a petition that it be certified as a collective-
bargaining agent on behalf of Respondent's employees. A hearing was held on
December 29, 1964, and on January 11, 1965, an election was directed. The election
was held on January 22, 1965. A total of 94 ballots were cast, 46 for the Union, 45
for "no labor organization," and 3 being challenged. On January 29, 1965, the
Employer filed objections to the election. On February 17, 1965, High was dis-
charged. On April 22, 1965, it became known that the Union had lost the election
and the official certification of this result was issued April 28, 1965.
A. High's activities on behalf of the Union
It is quite clear that High was the primary protagonist of the Union. Respondent
admits it knew of her activity.' She started working for the Respondent in April 1964
and started her activities on behalf of the Union "about the last of October" 1964.
She, in fact, initiated the Union's organizational activities at Respondent's plant. This
came about because of what might have been a chance meeting with representatives of
the Union at a time when she was visiting a girl friend with whom she had been
employed in another establishment. She took it upon herself to obtain from the
1 Transcript references and exhibit references are intended mainly to be illustrative and
the fact that any such reference is made anywhere in this decision should not be regarded
as making it all inclusive. All findings are made on the whole record.
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union "a pile of mailbacks" (not more particularly described but obviously union
authorization cards of one kind or another), distributed them among the girls at the
plant, got them back signed or got the girls to mail them back directly. She was able
to get "between 15 and 20 back." She was active in talking to the employees to induce
them to join the Union or authorize it to act on their behalf. She attended all the
union meetings in November and December 1964 and in January 1965. Her activi-
ties included plant solicitation, telephone solicitation, visits to employees' homes, and
arranging of rides for them to union meetings. Respondent's president made a point
of emphasizing his knowledge of her union activity. For example: On the day before
the election, when he was distributing sample ballots to the employees, he taunted her
by offering her one. He blamed her for starting the union activities after he had
denied her a wage increase. He regarded her activity on behalf of the Union as an
evidence of personal animosity to him for he admitted that he had told another
employee that he thought she hated him. Sometime before the election, when he
observed another employee talking to her, he interrogated this other employee in a
manner, suggesting his assumption that the conversation had been about the Union.
When another girl was having difficulty with coemployees, he injected High's name
into his investigation as the possible cause of her trouble and, by a subsequent ques-
tion, suggested the possibility that the Union was the cause of the trouble.
Considering High's numerous activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent's
president's conduct toward her and the admission of Respondent's awareness of her
union activities, I have come to the conclusion that, regardless of what shortcomings
she might have had as an employee, a substantial proportion of Respondent's presi-
dent's contacts with her were conditioned by his preoccupation or obsession about
her union activities.
B. High's work record and conduct or attitude as an employee
High, as an employee, left very much to be desired. She was shifted from job to
job because of her lack of proficiency, or her failure to observe rules, or her excessive
trips to the ladies' room despite the fact that there were morning and afternoon rest
periods in addition to the lunch period. She impressed me as very likely having been
a more or less "smart-alacky" employee even to the extent that during or at the
conclusion of a meeting of employees addressed by Respondent's president, she
openly snickered or laughed in his face. While it may be that more than one occasion
presented itself when High might and should have been discharged, we are concerned
here only with her discharge on February 17, 1965.
C. The issue arising from. High's discharge
If High did, in fact, allow as many as 1,350 improperly stapled booklets to accum-
ulate and then placed them on the skid for further processing without stopping the
machine to have its operation corrected, she was either grossly negligent or delib-
erately and, as Respondent says, maliciously passing defective work, and she deserved
to be discharged. If, on the other hand, as she says, a relatively small number of
defective booklets were piled on the skid,, this was nothing unusual, was something
which could and did happen during normal operations, was not regarded by the
Respondent 'ordinarily as cause or reason for discharge, and she should not have
been discharged. Her discharge under such circumstances, bearing in mind that all
her other deficiencies had been borne patiently by the Respondent and are not claimed
as the reason for the discharge, can be attributed only to the Respondent's effort to
get rid of her because of her union activities.
Respondent's version of the manner in which it became aware of the alleged
misconduct and made the decision to discharge her is: At 3:15 p.m., which'is just
before the end of the day shift, Danny Moneth, the operator of the stapling machine,
reported to President Sweren that there were a lot of booklets on the skid that did
not have staples in them. He did not report the precise quantity. Because Sweren
was busy doing something else, he casually directed Danny to pull them out and
restaple them. Just before the beginning of the night shift, at about 3:30 p.m. the
night operator came to him and reported that there were booklets on the skid without
staples. His reaction was to dismiss it lightly because there were enough properly
stapled booklets without including those which might have been stapled improperly.
The night operator persisted however in telling Sweren that the quantity was much
greater than he thought and said, "You got half a skid." It was only then that
Sweren went to inspect the skid and found that fully one-third of the booklets on
the skid, as many as 1,350 had only one staple instead of two. He pointed this out
to High and asked her whether she had seen the booklets coming out without staples.
N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 223
He says , that she replied that it was not her job , she was just supposed to count them
and put them on the skid and had been too busy counting them. He says this was
untrue because the machine had its own counter and she was supposed to inspect
the work. He concluded-that she intentionally had allowed the booklets to go by.
He then directed his son to get her check and he discharged her.
Sweren then testified that, following the discharge, he took the skid over to the
cutter for trimming, that the cutter pulled out 1,350 booklets without staples, and
that those without staples were then handstitched that night by another girl.
The Respondent failed to call in support of its claim that there were as many as
1,350 improperly stapled booklets either Danny Moneth, the day operator or George
Taylor, the night operator. Its failure to call either of these two individuals (the
ones who reported the alleged excess of defective booklets), without explanation for
such failure, is surprising indeed. Obviously they would have been the best witnesses
to corroborate the claim that such a large quantity had been stapled improperly.
Instead, the Respondent called the cutter whose job was to trim the booklets. He,
contrary, to President Sweren's testimony, testified that with a full awareness of the
date of Miss High's. discharge he came to work the following morning and that it
was on the following morning that he saw from 1,200 to 1,500 booklets improperly
stapled out of a total of about 3,000 on the skid.
Apart from Respondent's failure to call either the day operator or the night
operator, it failed also to produce any work records showing who had handstitched
the allegedly defective booklets, and when they had been handstitched; and how
long it had taken. It is possible, of course that this has little significance because
such records may not have been maintained but, in any event, it failed also to call
the girl who had done the handstitching.
In view of the Respondent's failure to call the day operator, the night operator,
and the handstitcher to testify as to the number of booklets improperly stapled, its
failure to produce any record of the handstitching of the improperly stapled booklets
(which last is not too significant ), and the striking conflict in testimony of the only
two witnesses , its president and the cutter , as to the time when the defective booklets
were separated and handstitched , I just do - not believe any of the Respondent's evi-
dence as to the quantity of defectively stapled booklets..
Additional reason for discarding the testimony to the effect that there were as
many as 1,350 booklets improperly stapled; is the fact that, after first evading an
answer to a question concerning an alleged statement two days after the discharge
that only two hundred booklets had been misstapled, Sweren finally took the position
that he did not "think that (he) did (state a figure as to the number of improperly
stapled booklets) because (he didn't) think that (he) knew then how many there
were involved." If the improperly stapled booklets had been separated and correctly
stapled either on the day that High was discharged (as Sweren testified ) or on the
day following (as the cutter testified), then certainly 2-days after the discharge
Sweren should have known precisely how many booklets had been stapled improperly
and had been corrected. Furthermore, the investigation of the discharge as early as
two days.following should have placed the Respondent in the favorable position of
being able to marshall and preserve its evidence of the alleged negligent and malicious
performance of her duty by High.
Respondent seeks to make much of (1) High's alleged rejoinder to Sweren's direc-
tion of her attention to the alleged improperly stapled booklets thatshe was busy
counting and stacking them, and (2) that she had testified that she did not have
adequate opportunity to count the precise number of booklets improperly stapled.
As to the alleged rejoinder, Respondent says that the machine had an automatic
counter and that High did not have to count the booklets, but it overlooks the fact
that High had to count the books in order to put them in crisscross stacks of 15 each
on the skid. Certainly the automatic counter on the machine did not do that. Then
as to High's testimony that she was unable to count the number of improperly stapled
booklets at the time she was discharged, it is true that High testified that Sweren
"didn't give (her) a chance to count them," but I do not regard this particular answer
as significant. If there were as many as .1,350 booklets improperly stapled, there
would have been no need to count them; that quantity would have been obvious.
High's answer about not having had an opportunity to count them was directed not
to whether there were as many as 1,350 booklets improperly stitched but as to the
precise and specific number of books "less than 30" which had not been properly
stapled. It seems to me that to find the precise number of booklets, less than 30,
on a skid containing more than 3,000 would have required book by book counting.
This would have been taken considerably more time than was available at the time
of the almost instantaneous discharge , as testified by Sweren.
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After careful consideration of all the . testimony . and my observation of the wit-
messes it is my conclusion that High's discharge on February 17, 1965, was motivated
not by the fact that she had negligently or maliciously permitted 1,350 improperly
stapled booklets to pass without stopping the machine but by the fact that the
Respondent 's president , having discovered or found some improperly stapled book-
lets, seized upon this as a pretext for discharging her because of. his obsession with
respect to her union activities and whatever might have been her personal reasons
for actively initiating and supporting the union movement within the shop.
By so discharging High because of her activities in support of the Union , Respond-
ent discriminated against her in her employment and thereby discouraged member-
ship in the Union and at the same time, interfered with, restrained , and coerced her
and its other employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The additional charge based upon alleged interrogation of an employee
concerning the Union
This additional charge, it will be recalled , was brought into the case by amendment
to the complaint , over objection by the Respondent , during the course of the hearing.
It is to the effect that Rube Sweren , Respondent 's president , on or about November 15,
1964, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee in his office
concerning the Union.
The General Counsel in his brief fails to refer to this additional charge and this
suggests , possibly, that he either has abandoned it or assumes that there is inadequate
evidence to support it. I disregard , however , this failure by the General Counsel
to refer to it and I dispose of it on its merits.
The alleged interrogation and violation of Section 8(a) (1) involved only one
employee , Truvine Henery . Henery testified briefly and her entire testimony is to
the effect that she wanted to be transferred from one job to another because of some
difficulty she was having with the girls with whom she was working . This resulted
either in her going voluntarily to Sweren to talk about it in his office or his calling
her there as a result of a complaint she had made . The conversation was brief and
its objective was to ascertain just what might be causing the trouble . On the stand
she seemed like rather a timid girl but she was quite firm and clear that the con-
versation in Sweren 's office was concerned solely with her own personal unhappiness
at the station where she was working . She gave me_ the impression that Sweren was
making a sincere effort to get at the cause of her unhappiness and, in doing so, asked
whether it was because of High that she wanted to change her job or whether she
was upset because of the Union . I am unable to conclude that anything that hap-
pened in Mr . Sweren 's office as far as Henery was concerned involved any interroga-
tion which can be interpreted as an interference with , a restraint of, or a coercion
of employees in the exercise of 'any rights vested in them by Section 7 of the Act.
Regardless of whether Henery went directly to Sweren's-office of her own volition
or'whether 'Sweren had her come there , the fact is that her presence there resulted
only from her own unhappy situation in the department where she was employed.
Sweren tried only to ascertain the cause with a view possibly to eliminate it.
This allegation should be dismissed because of the failure of the General Counsel
to support it with that necessary preponderance of the evidence to justify a finding.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activity of Respondent as set forth above , occurring in connection with its
operations described above , has 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 commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act, I recommend that it be directed to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Alberta G. High, I
recommend that it be directed to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position , and make : her whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits she may have suffered thereby by restoring her to all benefits
from which she may , have been deprived and payment to 'her of a sum of money
equal to the amount of wages she would have earned from the-date of her discharge
N. A. •GOSSMAN FINISHING :& BINDING, INC. . 225
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, together. with interest thereon at the rate
of 6 percent per annum, and that the loss of pay and interest be computed in accord-
ance with the formulas and methods prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which
the parties hereto are expressly referred.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act. The inference is warranted that Respondent
maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect to the
protection of employees in general. It is, accordingly, recommended that Respondent
be directed to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc., is, and at all times material herein
has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Alberta G. High, as found above, Respondent has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)• and (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with and restraining her and its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing. findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent,. N. A.. Gossman
Finishing & Binding, Inc., its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in United Papermakers and
.Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees or dis-
'charging any employees for engaging in protected concerted activity or in any similar
manner discriminating against any individual in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) oftheAct. '
. (b) In any other manner interfering with or restraining employees in the, exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor. organizations, to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary, to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer-to Alberta G. High immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay or benefits she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner provided above in the
section entitled, "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Alberta G. High if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to' the Board, or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis
of the backpay due.
2 May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376;
Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641.
•226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its usual place of business, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice, to be -furnished by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the
National Labor Relations Board, after being signed by Respondent, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region •5, in writing, within 20 days from
receipt by Respondent'of a copy of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply therewith?
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent notifies the Regional Director
that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be subbtituted for the words "the Recommended Order 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."
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(e)
thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 Rela-
tions Act, as'amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees or dis-
charge any employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, or in any
similar manner discriminate against any individual in regard to hire, tenure,
of employment, or any term or condition of employment except as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Alberta G. High immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings and
benefits she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with or restrain our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except.to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of 'employment, as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 227
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor , 707 North Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100.
The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO and Cleveland News-
paper Guild No. 1, The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO
and The E . W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleve-
land Press" and Lithographers and Photoengravers ' Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Lithographers and
Photoengravers' International Union , Local No. 24-P, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 8-CD-67. December 21, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on July 13, 1965,
by The E. W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleveland
Press," referred to herein as the Employer, alleging that The Ameri-
can Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Newspaper Guild
No. 1, the American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, referred to herein
as the Guild, violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by threatening
to strike the Employer, for an object of forcing or requiring the
Employer to assign particular work to employees represented by the
Guild, rather than to employees represented by Lithographers and
Photoengravers' International Union, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland
Lithographers and Photoengravers' International Union, Local No.
24-P, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Photoengravers. There-
after, a duly scheduled hearing was held on September 28 and Octo-
ber 5, 1965, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Hearing Officer Charles J. Con-
siglio. . All parties appeared at the hearing and were provided full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hear-
ing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by the Employer, the Guild,
and the Photoengravers.
Upon the entire record, the National Labor Relations Board i makes
the following findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is an Ohio
corporation which publishes "The Cleveland Press," a daily news-
'Pursuant to 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 [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
156 NLRB No. 37.
217-919-66-vol . 156-16