Nassau County Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1263 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPI-IICAL UNION #915 (A 11,y
AND INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION (AFL) and
DAILY REVIEW CORPORATION
Case No. 00-CB-44.-Decided December 21, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 7, 1948, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. . The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondents, jointly or individually, had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and
recommended that these particular allegations in the complaint be
dismissed . Thereafter, the Respondents , Complainant , General
Counsel, and Intervenor 1 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and briefs in support thereof.
All parties participated in oral argument before the Board on April
21, 1949.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the briefs and exceptions, the contentions advanced at
oral argument, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
only those findings of fact of the Trial Examiner which are consistent
with this decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Board does
not adopt the Trial Examiner's unfair labor practice findings and
recommendations in this case.
The instant proceedings involve the impact of the I. T. U.'s 1947
collective bargaining policy upon the bargaining negotiations between
the Respondents and the Company, which commenced prior to, and
continued after, the effective date of the amended Act. In earlier
1 American Newspaper Publishers Association.
87 NLRB No. 101.
1263
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cases involviiig the utilization of the same policy at other places, we
found that the policy had objectives proscribed by the Act, and that
the adamant enforcement of such a policy against employers consti-
tuted violations of Section 8 (b) (1) (B), 8 (b) (2), and 8 (b) (3)
of the Act.2 Thus, in determining whether the holdings in those
cases are here applicable, the sole issue is whether there has been an
adamant enforcement and application of that policy to the exclusion
of any legally proper basis for reaching an agreement. With this in
mind we shall consider the Respondent's contentions that: (1) on July
17, 1947, prior to the effective date of the Act, the Local and the Com-
pany orally agreed upon a traditional closed-shop agreement with a
1-year term ; (2) the Company refused to honor or otherwise recognize
the existence of such an agreement; and (3) at all times after August
22, 1947, the Respondents sought to compel the Employer to adhere to
that contract, and only in the event of continued default. on that ob-
ligation to operate in accordance with the ITU's collective bargaining
policy.
The Trial Examiner found, in accordance with the Respondents'
contention, that on July 17, 1947, the Respondents and Company orally
reached agreement on the terms of a 1-year contract, effective as of
July 2, 1947, the expiration date of the previous contract. The new
contract contained the customary closed-shop provision and in other
respects paralleled the previous contracts between the parties, with the
addition of a new clause referred to by the parties as the "all or none
clause." 3 The Trial Examiner fully explicated the reasons for his
finding and we find the same considerations compelling. The Trial
Examiner further found, however, contrary to the contentions of the
Respondents, that the Respondent Local had abandoned its oral con-
tract by serving on the Company on August 13, 1947, a notice of termi-
nation of contract and by submitting on October 10 and 14, 1947, a
new P-6 A Form contract to the Company as the only contract which
the Respondent Local would be willing to sign.
Unlike 'the Trial Examiner, we are not satisfied that a waiver and
abandonment of the July 17 oral agreement was either intended or
effected by the Local's notice of August 13. On August 8, 1947, the
Union, upon the failure of the Company to execute in writing its pre-
vious July 17 agreement, caused to be posted in the Company's com-
posing room Conditions of Employment under which its members
would be willing to work. These Conditions reflected the terms re-
2 American Newspaper Publishers Association , 86 NLRB 951 ; Chicago Newspaper Pub-
lishers Association , 86 NLRB 1041.
3 This clause reads : "If any part of this agreement is declared illegal or inoperative by
any agency or court, this entire agreement shall thereupon become null and void."
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION # 915 1265
cently agreed upon by these parties.' In a letter to the employees
dated August 9, 1947, the Company rejected the posted Conditions of
Employment and purported to reinstate the 1945-1947 contract which
had been superseded by the oral agreement. We think it clear that
the Local's termination notice of August 13, relied upon by the Trial
Examiner, did not have reference to the oral agreement of July 17,
but was prompted by the Company's attempt to reinstate the expired
1945-47 contract, and was intended to make it clear that such contract
as no longer effective.-5
To determine whether the submission of the P-6A type contract in
October was intended by the Respondents to constitute an abandon-
ment of the July 17 agreement, it is necessary to consider the positions
taken by the parties before and after such submission. As set forth
in the Intermediate Report, there is conflicting testimony as to the
Respondents' position at the meetings between the parties in Septem-
ber and October 1947. According to the Company's witnesses, the
Respondents made only two proposals at these meetings: (1) that
there be no contract at all, using instead ITU-approved conditions of
employment, or (2) that the Company agree to a P-6A Form contract
with a substantially increased wage scale.' Respondents admit that
the Local did make the above proposals, but have adduced evidence
that these proposals were in fact only made secondarily and that-Re-
spondents throughout the course of the entire negotiations after July
1.7 continued primarily to seek execution of the oral agreement of that
date. The Trial Examiner accepted the testimony of the Company's
witnesses and discredited in this respect that of Byrnes, the Respond-
-In the light of the Company's refusal to execute its July 17 agreement, no finding of
union abandonment of that contract can be premised upon or supported by the posting of
such Conditions. Rather it appears that the Local was seeking a means of. enforcing
the contract.
5 While the notice contained an offer to meet for the purpose of negotiating conditions
of employment, it expressly reserved to the Local the right not to make concessions or
agree to new proposals.
6 The P-6A Form contract was submitted for the first time to the Company by letter
of October 14 and discussed by the parties only at their meeting on October 22 before the
New York State Mediation Board.
An issue arose at the hearing as to whether the proceedings of this meeting were privi-
leged. In view of our disposition of the case on its merits, we do not find it necessary to
pass upon the Trial Examiner's denial of the Respondents' motion to strike evidence
adduced by the Company with respect to this meeting.
With respect to the Trial Examiner's denial of the Company's motion to strike all related
testimony of Byrnes because of his refusal to testify on cross -examination covering this
meeting, assuming, without deciding, that negotiations before that Board were testimo-
nially available, we find no abuse of discretion under Section 203.44 of this Board's Rules.
Byrnes ' refusal to testify was occasioned by his bona fide belief upon advice of counsel
that the matter under question was privileged. There was therefore no intentially con-
tumacious conduct on his part, and the Company was afforded an opportunity to, and did.
offer evidence concerning the meeting. However, in considering the probative value of
Byrnes ' testimony on matters which the record shows were mentioned at this meeting, we
have taken into account Byrnes ' limited refusal to subject himself to cross-examination.
877359-50-vol. 87=81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ents' only witness, who was otherwise found to be a credible witness,
largely because he felt that the Respondent Local was following the
established ITU policy. However, the Trial Examiner apparently
failed to consider the fact that in July when the ITU's general "no
contract" policy was. beginning to evolve, the Respondent Local ob-
tained specific authority from the Respondent ITU to utilize the July
17 agreement with the Company. There is no convincing evidence
that this unique express authority was ever revoked. Moreover, the
Trial Examiner failed to mention a damaging admission against in-
terest-by Stiles, the Company's president. Thus Stiles, during cross-
examination, admitted that at.all times during the period from August
to November 1947, the Local proposed as an alternative the signing of
"the [July 17 contract] that they had submitted." 7
It is clear that the Company's own initial and continued wrongful
refusal to honor the July 17 agreement caused the Respondents to
take the action which is alleged to be violative of the Act. The Com-
pany's willful disregard of its agreement placed the Union in the
position of either abandoning valuable contractual terms agreed to
through the process of collective bargaining or seeking to force the
Company to comply therewith. Upon the entire record, we are not
convinced that the Respondents intended to, or did in fact, abandon
the July 17 agreement as a basis for governing employee-employer
relations. Indeed, the Respondents did propose the use of Conditions
of Employment or a P-GA type contract, but the record affords a
reasonable basis for concluding that such proposals were designed
primarily to force the Company to act and perform in accordance with
the July agreement which it had repudiated. In any event, Stiles
admitted that throughout the period covered by this record the Re-
spondents' proposals were not limited to adamant insistence upon
either the Conditions of Employment or P-GA. The Company's po-
sition repudiating its pre-Act July 17 agreement precludes the finding
on this record that the dispute between the parties could not have been
resolved by the Employer's recognition of that agreement. Conse-
quently, there is no basis for concluding that at times here material
the Respondents were adamantly enforcing the illegal ITU policy as
the only basis for reaching agreement. As one of the Respondents'
alternative proposals, adherence to the July 17 agreement, was en-
s Stiles' admission also contains a statement that the Local' s proposal during this period
for signing the July 17 agreement included a demand for Form A clauses, discussed in the
Intermediate Report. For the reasons assigned by the Trial Examiner, we accept his
finding, based on Byrnes' testimony, that the Form A clauses were never incorporated or
proffered for inclusion in the July 17 agreement. In any event, for the purposes of deter-
mining whether the Local was adhering to the general ITU policy after August 22 or also
included in its proposals the July 17 agreement, it is most significant that the relevant
portions of Stiles' admission corroborate the testimony and contentions of the Respondents.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1.267
tirely proper,' and one which the Company was actually under obli-
gation to accept, we do not find here, as we did in the prior ITU cases,
that the Respondents' conduct violated Section 8 (b) (1) (B), (b)
(2), and (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.,
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (e)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the Re-
spondents, Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) and
International Typographical Union (AFL), be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
Although I concur in the findings that the parties did reach agree-
ment on July 17, as is unquestionably corroborated by the news re-
leases by the Company itself on the following day, I am unable to
acquiesce in the conclusion of my colleagues that the Respondents
thereafter at all times continued to offer this contract as a basis for
concluding negotiations. On the contrary, it seems undeniably clear
to me that after August 22 the Respondents had.not only abandoned
this contract as a basis of agreement, but thereafter affirmatively re-
jected this contract and any other bona fide contract in conformity
with their well known "collective bargaining policy." Not only the
testimony credited by the Trial Examiner, but the correspondence
during September and October between the parties, particularly the
Local's letter of October 14, 1947, demonstrate that the contract of
July 17 for one reason or another was no longer even being mentioned
as an offer by the Local."' Instead, on the basis of the entire record,
it is clear to me that here, as in the other ITU cases, the "policy"
was being implemented without variation.
s '%Ve find no merit in the General Counsel's contentions to the effect that the Respond-
ents' continued attempts to secure execution or performance of the July 17 agreement
after the effective date of the Act were unlawful. This 1-year closed-shop contract,
although oral, was legal when consummated. Therefore, its otherwise illegal closed-shop
provisions are protected by Section 102 of the Act.
U For the reasons given in the ANPA case, supra, footnote 2, none of the activities
encompassed in the complaint constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
30 Stiles, the company president, did admit that the Local proposed an agreement like
the July 17 agreement plus the Form A clauses during the months of September and
October 1947. However, on the basis of his entire testimony and all the other objective
circumstances indicating a contrary conclusion, I am unable to give controlling signifi-
cance to the admission in question.
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the General Counsel.
Tobin and Tobin, by Messrs. C. J. Tobin and C. J. Tobin, Jr., of Albany, N. Y.;
and Mr. Godfrey P. Schmidt, of New York City, for The Daily'Review Corporation.
Messrs. Alan F. Pert and Jerome Y. Sturm, of New York City ; and Van Arkel
and Kaiser, of Washington, D. C., for the Respondent.
Hanson, Lovett and Dale, of Washington, D. C., by Letitia Armistead, for the
American Newspaper. Publishers Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed September 29, 1947, by The Daily Review Corpora-
tion of Rockville Center, Long Island, New York, herein called the Company,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board; issued a complaint
dated November 10, 1947, against Nassau County Typographical Union #915
,(AFL) and International Typographical Union (AFL), called herein respec-
tively the Local and the ITU, and jointly, the Respondents, or the Respondent
Unions, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce withig the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A), (1) (B), (2) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947,2 herein called the Act, the amended Act, and, at
times, the Taft-Hartley Act. Copies of the complaint, with charge attached,
and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondents and the
Company.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as clarified by a
bill of particulars, alleged in substance: (1) that all linotype operators, hand-
men, make-up men, and proofreaders, and all other employees in the newspaper
composing room of the Company at its Rockville Center plant, excluding galley
boys-messengers, all clerical employees and all other employees, and all super-
visors having authority, in the interest of the Company, to hire; transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees
or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively recom-
mend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of
independent judgment, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining under the Act; (2) that at all times since August 22, 1947,
the Respondents, and each of them, have been the representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining of a majority of the employees of the Company
in the aforesaid unit; (3) that the Respondent Unions, from on or about August
22, 1947, and at all times since have refused and failed to bargain collectively
with the Company in good faith; (4) that the Respondent Unions from on or
about August 22, 1947, to the date of the issuance of the complaint, have restrained
and coerced and are restraining and coercing employees of the Company in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by :
' The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to. generally
as Board's Counsel; the National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
2 The National Labor Relations Act as amended by Public Law. 101, Chapter 120, 80th
Congress, 1st Session. The National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment is sometimes
herein referred to as the Wagner Act.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1269
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Company.
(2) Attempting to impose and imposing upon employees of the Company
certain "Conditions of Employment" requiring said employees, as a con-
dition of employment, to obtain and maintain membership in the respondents,
in contravention of the Act; o
(5) that the Respondent Unions from on or about August 22, 1947, down to and
including the date of the issuance of the complaint, have attempted to cause
the Company to discriminate against its employees in regard to hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment, to insure membership
in the Respondents and discourage membership in any other labor organization
by insisting upon the aforesaid "Conditions of Employment"; (6) that the Re-
spondent Unions from on or about August 22, 1947, thereafter to the date of
issuance of the complaint, have restrained and coerced, and are restraining
and coercing the Company in the selection of its representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining or the adjustments of grievances, by threatening
and warning the Company to refrain from employing foremen who are not or do
not become members of the Respondents; and (7) by the aforesaid acts the
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), (1) (B), (2) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent Unions filed a joint special appearance wherein they denied
the jurisdiction of the Board, and alleged that the Act was unconstitutional.
Both Respondents filed separate answers wherein some of the allegations of the
complaint were admitted, but denied that they had engaged in any of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Prior to the hearing the American Newspaper Publishers Association, herein
called the ANPA, filed a motion to intervene. The motion was referred to the
undersigned for ruling and was granted on December 15. 1947.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on various dates between December
14, 1947, and February 19, 1948, in New York City, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were repre-
sented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing, and at various times thereafter, the Respondent
Unions, respectively, moved the dismissal of the complaint on jurisdictional and
constitutional grounds.' These motions were denied. The motion of the Respond-
ents for a bill of particulars was granted in part. During the hearing counsel for
the Respondents made a motion to strike all the testimony of certain witnesses
having to do with the meeting of the parties with the Mediation Board of the
Statd of \New York. The motion was denied by the undersigned with privilege
of renewal at or before the close of the hearings. At the close of the hearings
counsel for the Respondents renewed the motion to strike such testimony and
the undersigned reserved ruling thereon and now denies the motion.' Also dur-
In denying all motions to dismiss the complaint on alleged lack of constitutionality
of the Act, the undersigned conformed to the Board's policies as enunciated in Rite-Form
Corset Company/. Inc., 75 NLRB 174.
d Counsel for the Respondents contends that the proceedings before the State Mediation
Board are "privileged," and testimony concerning statements made by parties during
such proceedings are inadmissible in evidence herein . The Mediation Board ' s general
counsel, at at least one of the meetings before the Mediation Board, stated that "this
is all informal discussion ; that remarks would be completely off the record . . ; and
that lie had "no authority to make any order or direction in the matter" ; and that at
no time "did the parties specifically agree that discussions which took place in that room
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the hearing, counsel for the Company moved to strike the testimony of
Witness James J. Byrnes because Byrnes, upon the advice of counsel, refused
to testify on cross-examination as to matters which occurred before the Mediation
Board meetings. The undersigned denied this motion and granted counsel for
the Company privilege of renewing the motion at or before the close of the hear-
ings. Such motion was renewed and the undersigned reserved ruling thereon
and now denies the motion." At the close of the hearing counsel for Respondents
offered in evidence a speech of the General Counsel, delivered before the St. Louis
Bar Association, St. Louis, Missouri, on November 3, 1947,-on the theory that
such speech might have material bearing on the issue of "good faith" involved in
the instant case. Counsel for the Board and the Company objected to the receipt
of such speech. The undersigned permitted the speech to be marked for iden-
tification as an exhibit and reserved ruling thereon and now rules that the
exhibit be rejected and placed in the file of "rejected exhibits." A motion on
behalf of the General Counsel made at the close of the hearing, to conform the
pleading to the proof in the matter of minor variances not going to the substance
of the complaint, was granted.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties argued orally on the record. Upon
the request of the parties, each was granted the privilege of filing briefs and/or
proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law within 15 days after the close
of the hearing. Upon request, time was subsequently extended until April 5,
1948. Briefs were duly received from the Company, the ANPA, and the Respond-
ents. Proposed findings and conclusions were presented on behalf of the Com-
pany and insofar as they are consistent with the findings and conclusions herein-
after made by the undersigned, such findings and conclusions are granted ; in all
other respects they are rejected.
Upon the entire record of the case and upon his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Daily Review Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business at Rockville Center, Long Island, New York, where
it has been continuously engaged in printing, publishing, and distribution of a
were not to be divulged outside of that room by either of the parties." While the General
Counsel for the Mediation Board availed himself of his privilege to refuse to testify under
New York State Laws, no such privilege attached to the witnesses for the parties herein.
The above statement of facts are from a statement made on the record and testimonially
received pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. On the foregoing and the record the
undersigned finds that counsel for the Respondents' contention that the statements made
before the Mediation Board by the parties herein are privileged, is without merit.
3 Byrnes, upon advice of counsel, refused, on cross-examination, to answer any questions
as to matters occurring before the State Mediation Board. Other than the fact that he
knew of, and attended Mediation Board meetings, Byrnes gave no testimony on direct
examination concerning the events of the meetings ; nor did any other Respondent witness
testify in such connection. The versions of witnesses of the Company and the General
Counsel, as to what was said and occurred at these meetings, stands undisputed in the
record. The undersigned is of the opinion that counsel for the Respondents urged his
claim of "privilege" in good faith and in good faith advised Byrnes to refuse to answer
questions concerning such meeting in order not to waive his alleged claim of privilege.
Byrnes was in no sense an unwilling witness and in the opinion of the undersigned
followed the advice of his counsel under a belief that such advice was proper, despite a
ruling to the contrary by the undersigned. Under all the circumstances the undersigned
concludes that the motion to strike should be, as stated above, in all things denied.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1271
daily newspaper. During the year 1947 the Company caused to be purchased,
transported, and delivered to its Rockville Center plant, newsprint, metal, ink,
mats, news-photo service, photo-engraving and advertising mat services, and other
materials, valued in excess of $250,000, of which approximately 90 percent was
transported to said Rockville Center plant in interstate commerce from States
of the United States other than the State of New York. During the same period
the Company printed, published, and distributed products valued in excess of
$500,000, of which approximately 5 percent was transported from its Rockville
Center plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the
State of New York.' The Company admits and the undersigned finds that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) and International Typo-
graphical Union (AFL) are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. Bargaining relationships between June 9, 1944, and April 17, 1947 °
On June 9, 1944, John J. Buckley, as representative of the ITU, Bled a petition
for certification of representatives of the Company's composing room employees;
(Case No. 2-R-4532) on July 7, 1944, Buckley, as representative for "Typogra-
phical Union #915," and James E. Stiles, as publisher of the Nassau Daily
Review-Star, signed an agreement for consent election, agreeing that a unit
composed of all linotype operators, handmen, make-up men and proofreaders
and all employees in the newspaper's composing room including foremen and
assistant foremen, except for the superintendent, constituted an appropriate unit ;
further agreed that such election be held on July 31, 1944; and stipulated that
certain named and listed employees on the pay roll as of July 5, 1944, were eligible
to vote at such election. The agreement for holding of the election was approved
by the Board's Regional Director under date of July 17,1944.
The election was held pursuant to agreement, on July 31, 1944; the Tally of
Ballots disclosed that a majority of the valid votes were cast for the Local ; and
thereafter on August 7, 1944, the Acting Regional Director issued a Consent De-
termination of Representatives finding and determining that Typographical Union
#915 to be the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
On October 2, 1944, as a result of collective bargaining negotiations, the parties,
with the Company as party of the first part, and the Local as party of the second
part, executed a closed-shop contract, to run from October 2, 1944, to September 2,
.1945, and thereafter until a new contract "shall have been concluded." Also on
October 2, 1944, the parties executed and attached to the above-described contract,
a "Label Agreement," which the Local, as party of the second part, signed as
agents for the ITU. Such agreement provided, in part, that the Company as party
'e Findings in this section are based upon credited testimony , and the allegations of the
complaint which were admitted by the Respondents '.answer, as amended during the hearing.
7 While negotiations between these dates would appear to be "background " only, the
Board ' s Counsel relies on certain facts covering the events between these dates as part of
his proof that the Respondents had been jointly designated as bargaining agents of the
Company ' s composing room employees.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the first part, ". . . further agreed to pay the adopted scale of wages of the
party of the second part, hereto attached, and to comply with all its [the Local's]
laws and those of the International Typographical Union." The 1944 contract be-
tween the Local and the Company unlike the 1945 contract referred to below con-
tained no written approval of the ITU, or its president.
On September 3, 1945, following negotiations between the Company and the
Local, the parties signed a second closed-shop agreement, which by its terms was
to continue "in full force from the 3d day of September 1945, to the second day of
July 1947," and "shall continue thereafter until a new contract shall have been
concluded."
After its execution the 1945 contract was forwarded to Woodruff Randolph for
approval. Under date October 23, 1945, Randolph sent to Joseph H. Curley, then
president of the Local, eight changes which he "ordered" to be made in the con-
tract. Curley in turn sent the "ordered" changes to Karl H. Thiesing, executive
secretary of the New York State Publishers Association, who had negotiated the
contract on behalf of the Company. The changes so ordered were incorporated
in the 1945 contract and the contract was then returned to the parties with the
following :
This agreement is approved as being in compliance with the laws of the
International Typographical Union, and the undersigned, on behalf of the
Executive Council of the International Typographical Union, hereby pledges
its full authority to the fulfillment thereof.
Approved :
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
By (S) WOODRUFF RANDOLPH.
The 1.945 contract carried a scale of $56 for day work ; $59.50 for night work ;
and $61 for the lobster shift. All rates were for a 5-day week.'
B. Negotiations by parties between April 17, 1947, and July 24, 1947
On April 17, 1947,° John J. Byrnes, president of the Local, wrote James E.
Stiles, president of the Company, enclosing a proposed form of contract to sup-
plant the existing, or 1945 contract, upon its expiration on July 2. The scale
of the proposed contract was as follows : $93 per week for day work ; $102.30
for night work ; and $105.30 for the lobster shift. At the time this proposed
contract was sent to Stiles, the scale contained in the 1945 contract had, by
mutual agreement, been increased to $63 for day work10
The first 1947 negotiating meeting was held on May 10. Two newspapers
were represented, namely, the Review-Star, owned and operated by the Com-
pany, and Newsday, a competing newspaper also published in Nassau County,
then under the management of one Henry Page. The negotiations on behalf of
the two newspapers was, pursuant to agreement, carried on jointly. At the May
10 meeting the Review-Star was represented by William C. Rowley, advertising
director, and Newsday was represented by Page, while Thiesing represented both
The findings in the above subsection are based on documentary evidence and upon the
credited and undisputed testimony of Thiesing, James E. Stiles , president of the Company,
and John J. Byrnes, president of #915.
° Sinless otherwise indicated all events referred to hereinafter occurred in 1947.
io While the record does not disclose that the scale for night work and the lobster shift
had also been increased , the undersigned assumes that they were increased in proportion
to that of the day scale.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1273
newspapers . The Local was represented by Byrnes, Ruth Clarke, secretary of
the Scale Committee, and other members of the Scale Committee. The Local's
proposed contract was discussed and following a recess for dinner the Company
presented, as a counterproposal, the 1945, or the then existing contract, with
the scale then being paid, conditioned that the term of the contract be for 2
years, and changing of the date of the applicable ITU laws normally incorporated
in such contracts, from 1945 to ITU laws of 1947. A further meeting was held
on May 11 when various sections of the proposed contract were considered and
understanding was reached on some clauses and on many clauses no agreements
were reached.
Thereafter meetings were held on June 10, 1.1, and 12, with the final result
that the Company offered to increase the day scale from $63 to $67 payable as of
July 2, 1.947, and $1 additional, payable January 1, 1948, for a 40-hour week and a
"two-year contract" ; which offer Thiesing stated was the "rock bottom offer"
of the publishers of both papers. The Local then offered to reduce its demand
from $93 to $90 per week. Both offers were rejected.
The next meeting of the parties was held on June 19. Stiles appeared as a.
company representative for the first time. He, Fowley, and Thiesing repre-
sented the Company. The Local was represented by Byrnes, the Scale Com-
mittee, and Robert Kirkpatrick, an ITU representative who had, at Byrnes'
request, been assigned by the ITU to assist the Local in its negotiation with the
two publishers.
During this meeting Thiesing and Kirkpatrick conferred apart from the other
members to the two committees. Thiesing, pursuant to authority of both pub-
lishers, offered an increase in the scale of $5 payable as of July 2; and $2 payable
January 1, 1,948, or $68 payable July 2; and $70 payable January 1, 1948. The
offer was submitted to the Local Scale Committee and rejected. The Local's
counteroffer of $75 per day work ; $80 for night work ; and a 371/2-hour workweek
was also rejected. The representatives of the two papers then submitted an
offer of arbitration, which Byrnes agreed to submit to the membership of Local
#915. This meeting closed in "hopeless disagreement.""
Following the close of the June 19 meeting Stiles, at Kirkpatrick's invitation,
joined the latter and Byrnes at the hotel bar. During the ensuing conversation
Stiles said that there should be some way for the parties to settle their matter and
asked Kirkpatrick and Byrnes what they considered the Local's minimum de-
mands. He was told that the Local had three main objectives, (1) a decent
wage scale; (2) a reduction of the 40-hour week to fewer hours per workweek;
and (3) certain social benefits, such as hospitalization, be incorporated into the
contract. As to the third objective, Stiles stated that the existing insurance
policy covering all employees was "roughly" the equivalent of the Local's de-
mands and he would be willing to "write that into the contract" ; that as to cutting
the workweek "about 15 minutes a day," Stiles said he did not think that would
make much difference in his production, and added, "I am sure your men would
be willing to work just a little harder and make it up." As to the Local's demand
for a more adequate wage scale, Stiles said he did not know what he was "going
to do about that." He then suggested that he might be willing to give the
"hanging $2" 12 as of July 2, or a total of $70, if that would help "sell the contract
"The above findings covering events from April 17 to the close of the June 19 meeting
are based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Byrnes and Thiesing.
12 This is the $2 which , under the publishers ' offer made at the June 19 joint meeting, was
to be payable as of January 1 , 1948 , had the Local accepted the $68 and $2 scale offered.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Union ." The $70 offer was made on condition that the Local did not inform
the Newsday people of such offer ; and that the Newsday offer ( of $68) be
submitted to the Local membership first , and if rejected that Stiles ' $70 offer
be submitted . Stiles was informed by Kirkpatrick and Byrnes that although they
could not recommend his $70 offer they would submit it.
The next meeting of the parties was held on July 2 at which time the two
owners of Newsday , namely, Colonel Guggenheim and wife , made'extended state-
ments to the effect that they had put all the money into Newsday that they in-
tended to ; that their plans for a new building had been canceled or indefinitely
deferred ; and intimated that publishing of the paper would be discontinued if the
offered scale of $68-$70 was not accepted by Local #915. As the meeting broke up
Byrnes asked Page, Newsday 's manager , if the $68-$70 was the final offer. Page
replied, "Yes , that or arbitration ." Stiles was present during the entire meeting
but said nothing.
While the July 2 meeting broke up over the seeming inability of the parties
to agree on a wage scale , the record discloses that shortly after lunch on July 2,
Thiesing and Kirkpatrick conferred in the former 's room at the Garden City
Hotel . 13 Thiesing produced two copies of a proposed agreement that he had pre-
pared from notes he had kept of the meetings , which proposed agreement cov-
ered matters agreed to up to this time . "With the exception of a few minor
changes in the phraseology and the shifting of some clauses and sentences and
putting sub-headings," Thiesing and Kirkpatrick , "were substantially in agree-
ment except for the wages and hours and possibly the split shift ." Ruth Clarke
had prepared a "document" based on the notes she had taken . Thiesing and Kirk-
patrick finally arranged to give Clarke a copy of the document the two had
agreed upon for comparison with her document . Clarke retyped the agree-
ment ; mailed it to Thiesing who received it on July 7 ; who by letter to Stiles on
the same date suggested certain minor changes be made in proposed contract.
Thiesing " who characterized the meeting as an "informal conference" did
not pretend to act for Newsday on this occasion . Byrnes told Stiles that the
Newsday's offer of $6S-$70 stood no chance of being accepted by the Local ; and
that Stiles ' offer of $70 payable as of July 2, even with the added inducement of a
shorter workweek , had no better chance of acceptance.
Stiles then asked what would be the outcome if the Company left another "$2
hanging" ( or $70 July 2 ; and $72 January 1, 1948).
Stiles asked what would happen in the event the local " turned down" Newsday's
final offer of $68, and Stiles had not, as yet , made a "final offer ," he asked "would
there be a strike at Newsday alone ?" Kirkpatrick replied that he did not
know and was asked by Stiles to find out . Kirkpatrick , after two attempts, got
in touch with ITU headquarters by telephone and reported back that since the
Local was engaged in scale negotiations with two newspapers and was unable
to reach an agreement on a contract , the Local's desire to strike one paper could
not be granted under existing conditions ; that the ITU held both papers would
have to be struck . Byrnes then suggested "Conditions of Employment ," 1u which
provided that the Local would unilaterally post unsigned conditions covering
wages, hours , and working conditions which would be followed by the Company
13 Most of the June and July conferences of the parties were held at the Garden City
Hotel, Garden City, L. I., N. Y.
14 The negotiations on this occasion took place on the hotel veranda and during much
of the time Thiesing stayed at one end of the veranda where Stiles would, from time to
time, consult with him apart from the Local 's group.
11 Conditions of Employment are described in detail in Section III D below.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #9 1 5 1275
until the parties reached an agreement. Thiesing objected to such conditions
and further discussion of them was discontinued at that time.
Stiles asked the Local's officials to present Newsday's $08 offer to the union and
if that was rejected, to offer his $70 for 3S.3/4-hour week. On July 7, the union
membership voted to reject both offers ; and both publishers were informed
by letter of the rejection.'0
On July 15 a meeting was held at 4: 30 p. m. at the Garden City Hotel between
the Company, as represented by Stiles and Fowley, and the Local, as repre-
sented by Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the Scale Committee. There was some dis-
cussion of the Local's action on July 7, in rejecting the Company's offer of $70
for 38'%r-hour workweek, and Kirkpatrick took exception to Stiles' letter 17 in
connection therewith, after which Stiles said ". . . I might have made a mistake."
Kirkpatrick produced a telegram addressed to him, dated July 15, and
signed ITU by Woodruff Randolph and three other ITU officials. The telegram,
omitting address and signature, read:
Any contract hereafter entered into must contain the following : "IF ANY
PART OF THIS AGREEMENT IS DECLARED ILLEGAL OR INOPERA-
TIVE BY ANY AGENCY OR COURT, THIS ENTIRE AGREEMENT
SHALL THEREUPON BECOME NULL AND VOID."" [Emphasis not in
original.]
The telegram was shown to Stiles, who asked for a copy of it, whereupon
Clarke made a copy of the all-or-none clause and handed it to Stiles. Thereafter
a general discussion concerning the all-or-none clause was had with Kirkpatrick
and Byrnes insisting that it would have to be made part of any contract made by
the parties. Stiles, on the other hand, stated that he could not agree to the clause
until he took it up with his counsel or his labor expert and found out "just exactly
what it meant" and whether or not he could include it in the contract. The July 15
meeting broke up without any affirmative results.
Following the meeting with Stiles and Fowley on July 15, Kirkpatrick, Byrnes,
and the Scale Committee called on one Amberg, who had succeeded Henry Page
as manager of Newsday, in an attempt to renew negotiations with Newsday.
Amberg declared that Stiles had "double-crossed" him, by making a separate
(and higher) offer to the "Union" after it was agreed that the two papers would
negotiate jointly with the Local; that Guggenheim (joint-owner of Newsday),
was angry at Stiles and was determined to show Stiles something "once and for
all." Amberg informed the Local's group that Guggenheim had authorized Am-
berg to make an offer to the Local based on a scale of $75 for a 40-hour week for
a 1-year contract.19
16 As found above Newsday was not invited to attend the July 3 meeting and had no
advance knowledge that the Company would increase the two papers' "final" offer of $68
made jointly on July 2., No joint negotiations between the publishers and the Local were
had after July 2.
17 Stiles had written Byrnes on July 11, in response to his letter of July 7 informing
Stiles of the Local's rejection of his July 3 offer. In his letter Stiles contended that
Byrnes and Kirkpatrick had agreed to recommend acceptance of his offer.
18 The italicized portion of the above telegram is frequently referred to in the record
herein as the "all or none clause" ; and on occasion as the "escape clause." It will be
referred to in this report as the "all or none clause" and on occasions as the "termination
clause."
19 Stiles was aware of Newsday's resentment ; in this connection he testified :
A. My recollection is that there were several discussions with Newsday after July
2nd and their representatives in relation to the scale and the contract.
a a a a o a a
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amberg was informed that the Scale Committee would not recommend the
Guggenheim offer and suggested that Amberg offer $73 payable July 2: $75 pay-
able January 1, 1948; and a 383/4-hour week, which the Committee would recom-
mend. Amberg said he was sure that Guggenheim would not change his offer of
$75 for a 40-hour week, but since the Scale Committee would not recommend it,
he would submit the Local's proposition to Guggenheim. At this point Amberg
was informed that the all-or-none clause would have to be included as part of
any contract agreed to.
On July 10 Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the Scale Committee again met with Am-
berg, who informed them that Guggenheim had rejected the Local's proposal but
stated that the $75-40-hour week 1-year contract proposal still stood.
The Scale Committee sought a meeting with Stiles on the night of July 16 but
was unable to contact him. Byrnes then got in touch with Fowley and informed
him that an event of importance that might be of interest to Stiles had arisen and
that the Scale Committee wished to meet with Stiles 20
Through Fowley's efforts the parties met at the Garden City Hotel at about
5 p. m. on July 17, at which time Stiles was informed of the Guggenheim offer.
Byrnes told Stiles that Guggenheim 's offer would not be recommended to the
union membership as the Local desired to break the 40-hour week. Byrnes told
Stiles that if he (Stiles) offered a scale of $73-$75, payable $73-July 2; and $75
payable January 1, 1948, for a 38%-hour workweek, Byrnes and Kirkpatrick would
recommend it, "even though it amounted to less money."
While Stiles refused to make a definite offer at that time, he advised Kirk-
patrick and Byrnes to submit the Newsday offer to the union membership that
night and either accept or reject it ; if rejected to come back and see him as he
would be in his office until late that night ; and "if you have turned down News-
day's offer then I will make you a proposal," and thus tacitly agreed that he
would, as he subsequently did, make the offer requested by Local #915.
After the meeting at the Garden City Hotel broke up on the evening, of July
17, the Scale Committee went to the union meeting, where the Union, voting upon
the Amberg-Newsday offer of $75-40-hour-week 1-year contract, rejected the
offer. Thereafter, Byrnes, Kirkpatrick, and the Scale Committee went to Stiles'
office where they arrived about 9: 30 p. m., and informed Stiles that Newsday's
proposal had been rejected. Stiles then said, "All right, I will make you an
offer of $73, payable July 2, 1947; $75, payable January 1, 1948; 383/4-hours."
There was a discussion of some minor matters, involving a seeming contra-
diction in two clauses of grievance procedure which was ironed out satisfactorily to
Footnote 19-Continued
Q. Tell me the substance of those.
A. Newsday felt that in considering the proposals at the union meeting that we
had not carried out our program of negotiating jointly together.
Q. Will you explain that answer , please, Mr. Stiles.
A. Yes. The union , on July 7th , voted down proposals, and the union had sub-
mitted one which they said was coming from the Review -Star , the newspaper corpo-
ration.
Q. May I interrupt
A. And Newsday took exception to that, indicating that we were not bargaining
with them or carrying out our agreement to bargain in good faith together.
° On. the morning of July 17, the Review-Star had carried a news story purporting to
give a r6sum6 of the bargaining negotiations between the Company and the Local from
May 10 to the morning of July 17. The article stated in part :
"Negotiations were complicated by the union ' s insistence that the following clause
be written into any contract the Review-Star might sign with the Union . "If any part
of this agreement is declared illegal or inoperative by any agency or Court , this entire
agreement shall thereupon become null and void." An insertion in the news story, in
large type read: "See Editorial Page 8."
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1277
the parties ; and further discussions relating to jurisdiction of Local #915 over
the composing room had to do with the addition of three words which were agreed
upon as follows: "and Departments thereof." Byrnes said to Stiles, "We will
use the exact wording `for that single clause' [all or none] that was con-
tained in the telegram to Mr. Kirkpatrick, of which you have a copy." Stiles
said, "All right." During and at the close of this session, some two to three
rounds of drinks Fowley prepared in an adjoining room, were served.
After the last round of drinks, the party shook hands and Stiles said, "Enough
of this negotiating. Let's get back to production now." Thereafter, the mem-
bers of the Scale Committee, with Byrnes and Kirkpatrick, went back to the
union meeting. Stiles' offer was presented to the Union and accepted. The
contract was then approved by the Local's membership. Following the accept-
ance of Stiles' offer, a vote was taken and carried for a strike against Newsday.21
On the morning of July 18, the Review-Star published the following news
story :
UNION ACCEPTS PROPOSAL OF REVIEW-STAR
Conference Results in Amicable Settlement
An agreement reached between James E. Stiles, publisher of the Nassau
Daily Review-Star, and the scale committee representing the Nassau County
Typographical Union, No. 915, made possible, today, the continuance of
publication of the Review-Star,
The agreement, effected last night during a recess of the meeting of the
union brought to a satisfactory and amicable conclusion negotiations that
had been in progress since May.
Under its terms,-members of the union in the employ of the Review-Star
will receive $73 a week for a 38%-hour week, as of July 2, and $75 a week
for a 38%-hour week as of January 1, 1948.
The new scale, reached at a conference of Mr. Stiles, the union scale
committee and Robert Kirkpatrick, field representative of the International
Typographical Union, was accepted by the union at the continuance of its
meeting.
Previous to the recess, which resulted in the agreement, a proposal sub-
mitted by Newsday, calling for a 40-hour week at $75, was turned down.
When the meeting was called to order, the newspapers' proposal was $08
for a 40-hour week as of July 2 and $70 for a 40-hour week as of January 1,
1948.
The union was asking $75 for a 371/2-hour week as of July 2 and $80 for
a 371/2-hour week as of January 1, 1948.
After turning down the Newsday proposition, a recess was called and the
conference between Mr. Stiles, the scale committee and Mr. Kirkpatrick
arranged, resulting in the agreement.
This, both sides in the issue agreed, was due to the "open door" policy
maintained by the Review-Star's publisher throughout the negotiations.
"It was a settlement eminently fair and satisfactory to both the union
and the Review-Star," John J. Byrnes, president of the local union, said
this morning.
"During our negotiations with the Review-Star," he said, "our relations
have been nothing but cordial. We are happy that we have reached an
21 These findings covering the events of July 17 are based mainly on Byrnes' credited
testimony. The credibility of Byrnes , Fowley, and Stiles is discussed in detail below.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement and that the Review-Star this morning is again giving service
to its readers."
Mr. Stiles also expressed satisfaction.
"Naturally we are all pleased," the publisher declared. "We have been in
existence 26 years and we have played no little part in the growth and
development of Hempstead Town and surrounding area.
"We would not have liked to have seen anything disrupt our service to
our community. We are under an obligation to our 175 employes, many
of whom have been with us a long time. Certainly we did not want to
see them out of employment.
"Then, too, we owed a further obligation to our readers and our adver-
tisers. It was necessary that we continue publication and I appreciate
the fairness and levelheadedness shown by the union in its dealings with
us."
The new contract runs for a year.
On July 18 Kirkpatrick and Byrnes called on Amberg at the Newsday plant
and informed him that a strike vote had been taken' against Newsday. Alnberg
indicated that he had already learned of the strike vote, and ". . . was intensely
angry on the turn of affairs and very bitter." Amberg refused to agree to the
$73-$75 scale for 388/4-hour workweek. Byrnes suggested that Amberg con-
sider the' matter for a week and said that he and Kirkpatrick would return
and see what his position would be "at the end of the week."
On July 21, Byrnes received a communication from ITU headquarters, con-
taining so-called "Form A" 22 clauses. The ITU circular containing such clauses
stated in substance and in part that closed-shop contracts might be negotiated
and signed until August 22, 1947, that such contracts could be made "only for
a period not to exceed one year," and that "new sections (Form A) must be
added to preserve our rights under the new law." On the same evening Byrnes
received a telephone call from Kirkpatrick, who informed him that he had
received the communication with reference to the Clause A form. Kirkpatrick
stated that he had checked with ITU headquarters and inquired about the
Local's position in reference to the agreement that had been reached ,with Stiles
and was informed by the ITU headquarters that in view of the fact the agree-
ment had been reached the contract would receive ITU approval with only the
"all-or-none" clause included.
On July 23, Byrnes discussed with Mechanical Superintendent Moyer, the pos-
sibility of having the contract mimeographed upon the mimeograph machine
of the Company. Moyer referred Byrnes to Fowley, who stated that he was
sure that it would be all right but that he (Fowley) "had better check with
Mr. Stiles." Thereafter, Dooley, assistant to the publisher, told Byrnes that
Stiles had asked him (Dooley) to have the contract mimeographed for Byrnes.
Since contracts of the Job Shops, with whom the Local was negotiating, had
not been completely negotiated, it was necessary that the "Clause All form,
referred to above, be included in their contracts. When Dooley asked Byrnes
22 These clauses, restrictive in nature , in substance provided : that neither party shall
bring any legal action against the other or be liable to damages except that which may be
awarded by a joint standing committee (provided for by contract) ; that no award for
damages shall exceed $25 ; that in the event action is brought against either party by any
person or agency, either party may declare agreement null and void ; and that no union
member shall be required or expected to cross a picket line established by any subordinate
union of the ITIJ.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1279
how many of the contracts he wanted mimeographed, the latter replied about
40 of the contracts designed for `.'Job Shops" and about 10 with the endings
designed for newspapers.
On or about July 23, Byrnes, Kirkpatrick, and the Scale Committee called
on Amberg, presented him with three copies of the contract prepared for news-
paper publishers; Amberg agreed to accept the $73 and $75 scale and agreed
to the reduction in hours as had been negotiated with Stiles ; objected to para-
graphs concerning social benefits such as group life insurance or sickness and
accident insurance, after a discussion the committee agreed to and did delete
paragraphs in this connection.
As Amberg was about to sign the contract he asked, "Did Mr. Stiles sign
this"' It was replied, "No, but he will, it is his proposal. It is what we agreed
upon with him." Amberg then decided to, and did, call Stiles and informed him
that the "Union people" were there with the contract and that they wanted
him to sign and then told him that-he (Stiles) had not signed it yet. Amberg
asked Stiles if he was going to sign. There followed a lengthy conversation
which was unintelligible to the union representatives who heard Amberg whose
statements consisted of "Yes," "uh huh," "No." Amberg then stated that he
would sign the contract after Stiles had done so and not before.
On July 24, Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the Scale Committee met with Stiles
and Fowley at Stiles' office and presented three copies of the contract to him
for signatures. Stiles stated, "I won't sign it until it has been checked." Byrnes
pointed out to Stiles that the preliminary drafts of the contract had been
checked by Thiesing and Kirkpatrick and by Thiesing and Mrs. Clarke. Stiles
then glanced through the contract and said, "In any event, I won't sign with that
clause in," referred to the "all-or-none clause." The Committee reminded Stiles
that he had agreed to sign it and had agreed to the whole contract. Byrnes
stated, "this is the whole contract exactly as you agreed to it, with the exception
that the Union has withdrawn the paragraphs on social benefits." Stiles insisted
that he would not sign the contract with the "all-or-none clause" in it. He then
picked up the telephone and asked someone to "get me Elisha Hanson, I think
he is in Washington." After listening at the phone for a time (without re-
sponse), Stiles hung up the receiver and then picked up a paper from his desk
and said, "Here is a copy of a clause my lawyer said I could substitute for
that" ("all-or-none clause"). The paper referred to reads as follows:
In the event that any provision of this agreement shall become inopera-
tive by reason of any federal, state, county, municipal or military law or
regulation, it shall be superseded by such law or regulation only while such
law or regulation is in force, and the remaining provisions of the agreement
shall not be affected thereby during the term of this agreement.
The above proposed clause contains notations admittedly in Stiles' hand-
writing, as follows : "Burns [sic] Union contract" ; and "substitute copy last
sentence introduction."
After Stiles had, on July 24, refused to sign the contract and had presented
the proposed substitute clause, Byrnes informed Stiles that the ITU had adopted
the Form A clauses referred to above which would have to be included in all
future contracts ; that Kirkpatrick had informed ITU Headquarters of the situ-
ation between Local #915 and the Company to the effect that the parties had
reached a complete agreement on July 17 ; and the ITU headquarters had
agreed that in view of the agreement having been reached before the "Form A"
clauses were received by the Local, approval would be given to the contract
agreed on between the parties with the "all-or-none" clause included.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record discloses , as found above , that at the time Byrnes had contracts
mimeographed for the newspapers , he also had contracts drafted for the Job
Shops which contained the "Form A" clauses ; when Stiles asked if he might
see the "Form A" clauses , Byrnes tore a sheet containing the clauses from one
of the Job Shop contract forms and handed it to him. Stiles asked if he might
keep the torn sheet and Byrnes replied , "Certainly . We are not asking you
to sign a contract with those clauses in it. The only contract we are asking you
to sign is the contract with the single ( all or none ) clause you agreed upon,
but you can keep that ." Stiles still insisted that he would not sign the contract
with the all-or -none clause included.
Counsel for the Respondents contend, in effect, that , by its refusal to sign
the contract on July 24, the Company has relieved Local #915 of any further
duty to negotiate with it. The undersigned deems it advisable at this point in
the report to determine whether the parties did, in fact , reach an agreement
on the essential terms of a collective bargaining contract on July 17.
C. Contentions of the parties as to the July 17 agreement
Counsel for the Respondents contend in substance and effect: (1) that the
parties agreed upon all the terms of a contract on the night of July 17; (2)
that by refusing, on July 24, to sign the contract so agreed upon, the Company
and not Local #915 had refused to bargain in good faith; and (3) that the
Company by such action created conditions that "rendered impossible the
further negotiations" contemplated by the Act; that the Local was relieved
from any further duty to bargain with Company ; and that such negotiations
as were had after July 24, were had as an alternative to the Company's execu-
tion of the agreement of July 17, and merely represent conduct not required of
the Local. Counsel for the Board and the Company contend in substance that
contract negotiations had not been completed on July 17 and that no valid or
enforceable agreement was ever reached between the parties.
As to contention (1), the record discloses (a) as to all terms of the proposed
contract, except the "all or none" clause as follows: that as found above on
the afternoon of July 2, Thiesing and Kirkpatrick checked duplicate copies of
a proposed contract which Thiesing had prepared from notes showing matters
agreed upon up to that time, with the result that :
With the exception of a few minor changes in the phraseology and the
shifting of some clauses and sentences and putting in sub-headings, Thiesing
and Kirkpatrick, "were in substantial agreement except for wages and
hours and possibly the split shift." 23
The record discloses that the Thiesing-Kirkpatrick drafts were retyped by
Ruth Clarke and mailed to Thiesing, who returned the drafts to Stiles with
certain more or less minor recommendations and a suggestion that the draft
be returned to him for the checking after his recommendations had been carried
out. Thiesing's suggestion changes were not made. That they were not deemed
essential is evident from Stiles' testimony :
Q. And is it your testimony that despite the contents of the letter you
received, that the parties were in substantial agreement?
A. That's right.
n That the wages and hours were definitely agreed to on the night of July 17 is not in
dispute.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1281
Q. These (Thiesing's recommendations) are all minor things.
A. They are not what we consider the primary elements in the contract.
On July 24, after he refused to sign the contract according to the testimony
of Rowley, Stiles suggested that Kirkpatrick arrange to have ITU counsel meet
with Stiles' counsel, and see if they could not work something out,
'because we are agreed in every point on this contract-wages, and hours,
and all the provisions, age of apprentices, the slide day, vacations, holidays,
everything you could think of, all but this one phrase, one paragraph, at
the top of the contract (all or none clause), and I wont sign it with that in,
and you say that you can't sign a contract unless it is in.
Rowley with reference to the August 12 meeting before the State Mediation
Board testified :
A. Mr. Stiles said he would sign this contract (presented on July 24) if
the last sentence of the first paragraph was eliminated, and he explained to
Mr. Bergman (General Counsel of Mediation Board) that we were in complete
agreement on every phrase of the contract, other than that. . . .
On July 18, the Review-Star published a news story (quoted above) which
on its face indicates that the parties had reached a complete agreement. In
any event it is clear that, except for the "all or none" clause, the parties were
in complete agreement on all the terms of a collective bargaining contract on
July 17 and 24,1947. It is so found.
(b) As to the "a,ll or none" clause the record discloses without dispute that
it was submitted by Kirkpatrick on July 15 at a bargaining conference of the
parties with the statement that such clause would have to be included in any
contract made between the parties.
With reference to the Local's insistence, at the afternoon meetings of July
17, that the all-or-none clause must be included in the contract, Rowley testified:
Repeatedly at that conference Mr. Kirkpatrick referred to the phrase
that was in this telegram, the escape clause, as we call it, saying, "Now,
we have got to include this in any contracts that we sign," and at that
time Mr. Stiles said No, that he wouldn't include it.
While it is clear that Kirkpatrick and the Scale Committee were on July 15,
and the afternoon meeting of July 17, insisting that the "all or none" clause be
included in any contract made, Stiles and Rowley testified that the inclusion
of the clause was not mentioned by any of the parties at the night meeting of
July 17. In this connection Stiles testified :
Q. (By Mr. PERL.) Mr. Stiles, my last question or the last few questions
that I asked you were whether you were in substantial agreement with
the Union at the conclusion of the meeting in your office on July 17, and
you answered, "Yes." Were you in agreement on the inclusion in the
contract of a termination clause?
A. We were not.
Q. The Union was insistent on its clause and you were insistent on your
clause, so that that was an exception to your statement of substantial
agreement?
A. My recollection is that there wasn't any discussion of any substantial
type, if any, about the continuation clause at the meeting at night at my
office. At the afternoon meeting, Mr. Rowley and I participated in, at
877359-50-vol. 87-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Garden City Hotel, the Union, on at least a dozen occasions, indicated
to me that in connection with any contract, there would have to be the
so-called "first sentence clause," and we equally indicated that there
wouldn't be any continuing sentence clause in the contract.
Now, there has been a division of opinion between the newspaper and
the Union and Mr. Kirkpatrick about the so-called "continuing sentence
clause," the Union insisting at all times that we said we would put it in,'
and we insisting at all times that we said we would not put it in-but I don't
recall any discussion at my office, Dir. Perl, on the night when the Union
agreed to make our offer and recommend it. I don't recall any discussion
about a continuing clause.
Q. And despite the fact that both parties, on the afternoon of July 17th,
were equally solid in their respective positions respecting what you call
the "continuing clause," your testimony is that it wasn't even mentioned
on the night of July 17?
A. Yes, that's right.
In this same connection, Fowley testified :
Q. Did anybody bring up the question of the language of Board's Ex-
hibit 25 (all or none clause) ?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. What do you remember?
A. Well, that I didn't hear it.
Q. Nobody said anything about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Everybody just dropped it at that time?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. Right?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. And that is despite the fact that Dir. Kirkpatrick had said that
afternoon that this language must be included in the contract.
A. Yes, Sir." [Emphasis added.]
As set forth above, the Review-Star carried a news story on the morning
of July 17, purporting to give a resume of the bargaining negotiations between
the Company and Local #915 from May 10 to the morning of July 17. The
news story stated in part:
Negotiations were complicated by the Union's insisting that the follow-
ing clause be written into any contract the Review-Star might sign with
the Union. "If any part of this agreement is declared to be illegal or in-
operative by any agency or court, this agreement shall thereupon be-
come null and void."
Stiles testified that he knew in advance that the all-or-none clause would be
presented, after identifying a copy of the "all or none" clause which he ad-
mitted had been given him on July 15, Stiles testified as follows :
24 While the undersigned credits most of Fowley's testimony given herein he does not
credit his testimony above to the effect that "everybody" just dropped the "all or none"
.'clause at the night meeting, July 17. His testimony as to other matters was straight-
..forward and consistent, although at times contrary to that of Stiles. The record indicates
that he was not present during the entire meeting on the night of July 17, since he.prepared
drinks served on this occasion, in an adjoining room, and it may well be that he was
absent from the room when the all-or-none clause was discussed.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION # 915 1283
Q. (By Mr. MACHT.) Now, after Mrs. Clarke made a copy of the tele-
gram from Mr. Randolph, as you describe, what did you say, if anything?
A. I said to Mr. Kirkpatrick that we could not agree-that I would not
agree and that the Company would not agree to the inclusion of that sentence
in the proposed contract. I told Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Byrnes that I had
been advised of the plan to insist upon the inclusion of that sentence. I told
him that Mr. Elisha Hanson, the General Counsel for the ANPA, had advised
me in relation to that proposed sentence. I told Mr. Kirkpatrick that we
could not consent to the inclusion of any such sentence in the paragraph.
I said to Mr. Kirkpatrick and to Mr. Byrnes that I would have ready a type
of sentence to be prepared by counsel that we would be willing to include in
the paragraph, covering the same type of idea which they had, and that I
would have it ready for any subsequent meeting with the committee within
the next two days.
Q. And did you give such a sentence to the representatives of the Union?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. When?
A. On July 17th, at a meeting with Mr. Kirkpatrick and the Scale Com-
mittee at the Garden City Hotel, I presented to Mr. Kirkpatrick and to Mr.
Byrnes and some of the members of the Scale Committee who were present
the type of sentence, in wording that my attorneys advised me could be
properly included in place of the one and in substitution for the one which
they proposed.
On cross-examination Stiles testified :
Q. Would you look at your answer on page 240 of tha record, in which you
say :
I said to Mr. Kirkpatrick that we could not agree-that I would not
agree and that the Company would not agree to the inclusion of that
sentence in the proposed contract. I told Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr.
Byrnes that I' had been advised of the plans to insist upon the inclusion
of that sentence. I told him that Mr. Elisha Hanson, the General Coun-
sel for the ANPA had advised me in relation to that proposed sentence.
Now, was that answer of yours, which I just read, untrue?
A. If that answer was made at that point in the testimony, it was not true,
because I did not even have the contents of the notice, and I asked to have
the contents of the notice made available in order that we could have it
checked by counsel. So that if I indicated that it occurred at that meeting,
it did not, Sir.
Q. Then your testimony was not true, if you so testified?
A. That's right.
Q. And your testimony is now that you didn't know what the sentence was
that the Union would be asking for ; is that right?
A. Yes, Sir.
In his , direct examination, Stiles identified a paper containing the following
paragraph:
In the event that any provision of this agreement shall become inoperative
by reason of any Federal, State, county, municipal or military law or regula-
tion, it shall be superseded by such law or regulation only while such law or
regulation is• enforced, and the remaining provisions of the agreement shall
not be affected thereby during the term of this agreement.
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the top of the sheet containing the preceding paragraph, were the following
words, admittedly in Stiles' writing: "Elisha Hanson, July 15."''6
On the Voir Dire Examination, Stiles testified in substance, that the above-
described "substitute" clause was typed in his office on July 17 ; and the language
was taken from a letter sent him by Mr. Hanson, and that the original of such
document was given to some representative of the Union on the 17th of July.
It will be noted above the substitute clause which Stiles testified he had received
from Hanson bears the words: "Elisha Hanson, July 15," thus indicating on
its face that it had been received from Hanson on July 15.26
While Stiles testified that the language of the proposed substitute clause was
taken from a letter received from Hanson on July 17, he was unable to produce
the letter, although he stated that a search had been made for it.
With further reference to the date "July 15" appearing on the substitute clause,
Stiles testified :
Q. (By Mr. PLRL.) What I want to know at this point is, sitting on the
witness stand right here and now, can you tell me on what date, with cer-
tainty, Board's Exhibit 26 was given to the Union?
A. Between the 15th and 17th of the month (July).
Q. How about the date on top of it, Mr. Stiles?
A. The date says July 15th.
Q. And what does that date represent?
A. I don't know what it represents.'
It is found below in Section III D that the ITU, under its constitution, general
laws, bylaws and by issuing certain instructions and directions by the means of
post-card bulletins and its official. Journal, exercised complete control and domi-
nation over its subordinate unions and their members; that the officials and
representatives of Local #915 obeyed all directions and instructions, unless ex-
pressly excused therefrom ; and that the ITU ordered the all-or-none clause to be
included in all contracts entered into after July 15. From the foregoing and the
record the undersigned is convinced that Local #915 at all times insisted, and at
no time abandoned, its demand for the inclusion of the all-or-none clause in its
contract with the Company.
As is found above, Stiles sought to prove that he had advance information that
Local #915 would demand the all-or-none clause; sought to prove that he re-
ceived the substitute clause on July 15 and on July 17, gave a copy of it to the
Local. In addition, he indorsed upon the substitute clause "Elisha Hanson,
July 15" and thereby sought to establish proof of his alleged receipt of such
substitute on that date.
25 The above-described document, admittedly a carbon copy, is in evidence as Board's
Exhibit 26 ; the original of such document is in evidence as Respondent ' s Exhittlt 24.
2 6 The original of the substitute clause, which was handed to the Local ' s committee on
July 24, with the notation, admittedly in Stiles' handwriting, as follows : "substitute copy
last sentence introduction," together with the words "Burns (sic) union contract," is
significant in two particulars, (1) that Stiles could not know that the all-or-none clause
had been inserted as the last sentence of the introductory paragraph until the contract was
submitted for signature ; and (2 ) Stiles and Fowley testified to the effect that on the night
of July 17, the Local 's representatives did not mention the all-or -none clause , and thus
either abandoned or forgot it. If the Local had in fact abandoned its position on the clause
or had Stiles reason to believe it had, there was no need to prepare a substitute.
27 Stiles' testimony above, v,_erein he testifies that the all-or-none clause was anticipated
that he had a substitute clause in advance ; and that within 2 days after receipt of the all-
or-none clause lie had delivered the substitute to the Local which statements proved to be
untrue, is more or less characteristic of his testimony as a whole . The undersigned does
not credit some portions of Stiles ' uncorroborated testimony.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1285
Also, as found above, Stiles, after agreeing to bargain jointly with Newsday,
privately raised the joint offer of the two newspapers made to the Local and
sought to have the latter accept his offer and call a strike against Newsday; that
the owners of Newsday learned of his conduct, became incensed thereat and
raised Stiles' offer by $5 per week for a 40-hour week and thereby forced Stiles
to make the offer the Local desired for a reduced workweek at $73 payable as of
July 2; $75 payable as of January 1, 1948, and the inclusion of the all-or-none
clause.
The undersigned is convinced that if Stiles had not in fact agreed to the all-or-
none clause on July 17, he would not have concocted the story to the effect that
he had advance information that such clause was to be demanded or would not
have contended that the substitute clause had been received in advance and de-
livered to the Local representatives on July 17. From the above and the record
the undersigned concludes and finds that Stiles did in fact agree to the inclusion
of the all-or-none clause in the contract on July 17, 1947. Since there is no dispute
that the parties had agreed on all other elements of the contract, it necessarily
follows and the undersigned finds on the,night of July 17, 1947, parties had
agreed to all the essential terms of the contract.
As to contention (2), it is clear from the record that as of July 24, 1947, the
Company refused to bargain collectively with the Local. Had a charge been
filed under the Wagner Act ; a complaint issued and served on the Company,
the facts herein would support a finding that the Company had refused to
bargain in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (5)
of the amended Act. Since, however, no charge accompanied by a complaint
was filed or issued against the Company, the undersigned may not recommend
that an order issue against the Company, notwithstanding that all. the elements
of a refusal to bargain by the Company were fully litigated herein.
As to contention (3), the undersigned is of the opinion that if the Local had
stood fast and firm upon its July 17 agreement, even after the effective date of
the Act,28 the Respondents could not be found to have refused to bargain col-
lectively. However, the record discloses, as is found in Section III D below, the
Local in effect abandoned and waived its right to insist upon the execution of the
July 17 agreement by, on August 13 pursuant to instructions of the ITU, serving
a "60-day notice of termination of contract" on Stiles, which notice read in part:
To the extent required by Section 8 (b) (3) of the L. Al. R. A., this is to
offer to meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of em-
ployment but reserving all rights provided by said L. M. R. A., Section 8 (d),
that such obligation does not compel this Union to agree to a proposal or
require the making of a concession ;
by, on October 10 and October 14, in submitting a new proposed form of con-
tract and requesting Stiles to meet and bargain upon such proposal, the Local
waived and abandoned its right to insist upon the execution of the July 17
agreement. On the foregoing and the record, the undersigned concludes and
finds that contention (3) is without merit29
=s Since an agreement had in fact been reached on July 17. the signing of a contract which
embodies the terms of the agreement reached on July 17, after the effective date of the Act,
would have been a legal and proper procedure.
88 Counsel for the Board and the Company contend that the July 17 agreement was not
an enforceable one. The Local did not seek to enforce specific performance of the contract ;
had it done so, the undersigned is of the opinion that a court having jurisdiction would, on
the facts found herein , have ordered specific performance.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The refusal to bargain. by Nassau County Typographical Union #915
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all linotype operators, handmen, make-up men and
proofreaders, and all other employees in the newspaper composing room of the
Company at its Rockville Center plant, excluding galley boys-messengers, all
clerical employees and all other employees and all supervisors having authority,
in the interest of the Company, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to
direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend such actions,
if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a
merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of independent judgment,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
While the Local's answer denied the foregoing allegation of the complaint,
no evidence was offered or contention advanced which tended to prove or suggest
that the unit on the record describedsa.bove is an inappropriate one. The record
discloses that the parties bargained for a unit substantially the same as the one
described above, except that, in the unit so bargained for, foremen and assistant
foremen were included. Under the Act, as amended, supervisors are excluded
from the term "employee," and are therefore ineligible for inclusion in the appro-
priate unit. 30 On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record herein, the
undersigned finds that the above-described unit constitutes a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
2. Representation by Local #91.5 of a majority in the appropriate unit
The record discloses that Local #915, pursuant to the 1944 consent-election
determination, first established itself as the majority representative of the em-
ployees in the then appropriate unit, which majority representation was con-
tinued through the execution of a closed-shop contract, which was later replaced
by a further closed-shop contract due to expire on July 2, 1947.
Under the closed-shop contracts all employees in the then appropriate unit
were members of Local #915, thus the exclusion of supervisors " from the unit
pursuant to the amended Act did not affect the Local's majority, in the unit
above found to be appropriate.
The undersigned accordingly finds that on August 7, 1944, and August 22, 1947,
and at all material times thereafter, Nassau County Typographical Union #915
was the duly designated bargaining representative of the majority of the ems
ployees of the aforesaid bargaining unit, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, Local #915 was on August 7, 1944, and at all material times thereafter has
been and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
10 See Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 NLRB 90, wherein the Board held :
The general appropriateness of the bargaining unit herein was determined in the
Board's previous decision. No issue with respect to such unit was raised in this
proceeding. We note, however, that the unit includes two supervisory employees
who should be excluded as no longer being "employees" within the meaning of the
Act as amended. Accordingly, we shall amend the unit by eliminating therefrom
the foreman and forelady presently included therein.
u During the 1947 negotiations, but one foreman was employed in the company composing
room.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION # 915 1287
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
(a) Events between July 24 and August 22
On July 24, and after he had refused to sign the contract agreed to as found
above, Stiles suggested to Kirkpatrick that the latter call Randolph at Indian-
apolis and see if arrangements could be made to have attorneys for the ITU,
Local #915, and the Company get together and "work out something agreeable
to all." All those present, with the exception of Kirkpatrick, left Stiles' private
office, and Kirkpatrick telephoned the ITU Headquarters at Indianapolis.
Shortly thereafter Kirkpatrick reported that he was unable to contact Ran-
dolph, since the latter's wife had died. Kirkpatrick reported that he had dis-
cussed the matter with the Executive Council and informed it of the situation
existing between the parties at that time. The Council advised Kirkpatrick,
according to his report, that if Stiles refused to sign the contract agreed to and
Local #915 desired to, and did adopt Conditions of Employment, and if there-
after Stiles either refused to sign the contract or to work under the Conditions
of Employment , the Local would have permission to take a strike vote, "if it so
desired."
Stiles asked how the Conditions of Employment were operated; as to what
wage scale would be included in them ; and as to whether or not the " all or none"
clause would be contained in such conditions. He was informed that the Con-
ditions of Employment would not contain the all-or-none clause and would be
practically the same as the contract as submitted except that the only difficulty
would have to do with matters of grievance procedure. To this Stiles replied,
"That doesn't make any difference, John. We never have any grievances any-
way."
On that same night, July 24, the Scale Committee reported to the union mem-
bership that Stiles had refused to sign the contract upon which agreement had
been reached on July 17. Kirkpatrick then explained the Conditions of Em-
ployment to the members, and such conditions were then formally adopted.
The scale adopted for inclusion in the Conditions of Employment were those
agreed to on July 17, namely $73, effective as of July 2 and $75, effective as of
January 1, 1948; and 3S% hours per workweek. The Conditions of Employment
as approved by the Local was sent to ITU headquarters on July 25 for approval.
On August 7 at Stiles' request, Byrnes, Mrs. Clarke, and other members of
the Scale Committee met with Stiles in the latter's office. Stiles asked if the
Conditions of Employment had been received; he was informed that they had
not been but that they might be at Byrnes' home. Byrnes called his home;
learned that the Conditions were there and at Stiles' suggestion went to his
home and got them. Stiles said that he was going to Syracuse, New York, to
attend a newspaper publishers' meeting on the next day and asked for a copy
of the Conditions of Employment to take with him. Since there was but one
copy, Stiles made arrangements and had his secretary make a number of copies
to the end that he would have one to take with him and that Byrnes would have
extra copies for his own use and files . Stiles asked Byrnes when he intended
to post the Conditions of Employment and the latter replied, "immediately."
To this statement Stiles made no comment at that time.
Stiles also asked concerning the Job-Shop Contract form, and stated that he
would like a copy of such contract to take on his Syracuse trip. Byrnes tore
1288 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off the signature pages of a Job-Shop Contract form and handed it to Stiles.
When Stiles noted that he had torn the signature pages off, be asked Byrnes
what he was doing. Byrnes replied, "I am tearing off two pages, pages for the
signatures, so you do not get this mixed up with the three copies I gave you to
sign , the three copies you agreed to.,, 32
On August 8, Byrnes posted a copy of the Conditions of Employment in the
composing room of the Company's plant.
On August 11, Stiles had all composing-room employees gathered together and
read to them a letter addressed to Byrnes , which letter, among other things,
stated: ,
I am informed that on August 8th, while I was at Syracuse, your Organi-
zation caused the promulgation of the so-called Conditions of Employment
among ITU members in the employ of the Nassau Daily Review-Star, owned
by the Daily Review Corporation. The same are herein rejected. And we
will continue to operate under our existing contract dated September 3,
1945, and not to exceed the period of one year expiring July 2nd, 1948 and
pending continued negotiations. [Emphasis in original.]
The concluding paragraph of such letter reads as follows :
To conclude, we will not sign or accept any agreements or alleged Con-
ditions of Employment which are in open defiance of and do not conform to
the Federal or State laws or regulations.
After the above proceedings, the employees asked Byrnes what they should
do and were advised to continue at work, which they did.
On August 12 a meeting was held before the New York State Mediation Board,
at which General Counsel Bergman presided. Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the
Scale Committee represented Local #915. Stiles, Fowley, Dooley, and the Coin-
pany's Counsel Godfrey P. Schmidt appeared on behalf of the Company. During
this meeting Stiles told Bergman that he (Stiles) would sign the contract sub-
mitted by the Union on July 24, but for the "escape" (all-or-none) clause con-
tained in paragraph 1 of the contract. Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the Scale Com-
mittee contended and said that Stiles had agreed to sign the contract with the
"all or none" clause contained therein. Stiles further contended that the. Local
ivas insisting that he sign a contract containing the Form A clauses"
32 The findings in connection with the August 7 meeting are based on Byrnes' credited
testimony. Stiles testified that this contract form was given to him by Byrnes sometime
between July 31 and August 7 and that Byrnes stated it to he "the copy in its present form
and available for signature as between the union and the newspaper" ; that he told Byrnes
that the contract contained the all-or-none clause and the Form A clauses, which he could
not agree to ; that the contract "failed to contain the page for signatures," and the label
agreement ; that Byrnes said it was the only contract the Union would consider signing ;
and that page for signatures and label agreement would he attached when it was signed.
The normal procedure would require that three copies , complete with signature pages, be
submitted , after which Stiles would submit the proposed contract to Thiesing or his
counsel for checking. This was not done and it is not referred to as a contract demand
in any correspondence. Stiles' testimony in this connection is not credited by the under-
signed, since he is convinced and finds that the purported contract was, as testified to by
Byrnes, a sample of Job-Shop Contracts , and not a demand or request made on Stiles.
33 Stiles testified on a number of occasions , that after July 24 , the. Local ' s committee
insisted that he sign a contract containing the Form A clauses. There is no credible testi-
mony in the record to such effect, since the record shows that, prior to October 14, the Local
had submitted but one form of contract to Stiles for signature, and that was on July 24.
As found above Stiles was informed at the time he refused to sign the contract with the
all-or-none clause that future contracts would have to contain the Form A clauses ; and
at Stiles ' request he was given a copy of the Form A clauses , which Byrnes tore from a
Job-Shop Contract form and handed to him. In this same connection see footnote 32, above.
NASSAU COUK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION .n 915 1289
Bergman conferred with each of the parties separately and with all of them
jointly, but was unable to get the parties together in any agreement 9i
(b) The control of ITU over its subordinate unions
The constitution, bylaws, and general laws of the ITU in evidence disclose
that the ITU exercises complete domination over its subordinate unions.
The general laws provide, in part, as follow :
Local unions shall incorporate in their contracts with employers a sec-
tion containing the necessary requirements to carry out the apprenticeship
laws of the International Typographical Union. (Article I, Sec. 17,)
No local union shall sign a contract guaranteeing its members to work for
any proprietor, firm or corporation, unless such contract is in accordance
with International law and approved by the International President. (Article
III, Sec. 2.)
Subordinate unions are required to submit to the International President
for review and approval, as complying with requirements of International
Union laws, all proposals for a new contract, alteration, amendment or ex-
tension of an existing contract before presentation to the employer. No con-
tract shall provide for automatic renewal on failure to notify either party
thereto of desire to change or terminate the contract. (Article III, See. 4.)
Local Unions must incorporate in contracts,a provision that all compos-
ing room work appertaining to printing and the preparations therefor, shall
be done by journeymen or apprentices, and must further provide for the
elimination of all so-called miscellaneous or composing room helpers by
agreement that as vacancies occur they shall be filled (if needed) by journey-
men or apprentices. Article III, Sec. 11.)
It is the unalterable policy of the International Typographical Union
that all composing room work or any machinery or process appertaining to
printing and the preparations therefor belongs to and is under the jurisdic-
tion of the International Typographical Union. Subordinate unions are
hereby directed to reclaim jurisdiction over and control of all composing
room work or any machinery or process appertaining to printing and the
preparations thereof now being performed by non-members. (Article III,
Sec. 12.)
The foreman may discharge (1) for incompetency ; (2) for neglect of duty;
(3) for violation of office rules which shall be kept conspicuously posted, and
which shall in no way abridge the civil rights of employes, or their rights
under accepted International Typographical Union laws. A discharged
member shall have the right to appeal in accordance with the laws of the
International Union as provided in the contract, and shall have the right to
challenge the fairness of any office rule which is applied to bring about his
discharge. (Article V, Sec. 10.)
All persons performing the work of foremen or journeymen, at any branch
of the printing trade, in offices under the jurisdiction of the International
Typographical Union, must be active members of the local union of their
craft and'entitled to all the privileges and benefits of membership. (Article
V, Sec. 10.)
None but members of the International Typographical Union shall be
permitted to operate typesetting, typecasting or material making machines.
84 Since the Local was not required to bargain prior to the effective date of the amended
Act, the events of the August 12 meeting are included herein merely as "background."
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The International Typographical Union also claims jurisdiction over all
duplicating machines, such as typewriters and varitypers, etc., the product
of which is actually used in offset printing. (Article VII, Sec. 1.)
It is the unalterable policy of the International Typographical Union
that only members in good standing shall be employed in installing, operat-
ing and maintaining all mechanical devices which cast, compose or impose
type or slugs; perforate tape for use in composing or producing type or slugs;
operated manually or automatically and wherever located. (Article VII,
See. 5.)
(c) The ITU's No-Contract Policy
The amended Act was passed on June 23. Shortly thereafter, the ITU began
and continued to issue certain directions and instructions to the Locals by the
means of a post-card bulletin, reprints of post-card bulletins, and its official
paper, published monthly as "The Typographical Journal." Post-card Bulletin
No. 86 enunciated the no-contract policy as follows :
A rock-bottom foundation must be built upon which our relations with
employers must rest. In order to do so, we must have a clear understand-
ing of our fundamental rights which remain inviolate under T-H-L or any
state law.
THIS IS IT-MEMORIZE IT!
We cannot be compelled to make contracts with employers. We cannot be
compelled to work against our will or under conditions unsatisfactory to us.
We can collectively promulgate the specific conditions under which our
members will work after expiration of existing agreements. We CAN col-
lectively refuse to work for any employer refusing to meet union-promul-
gated conditions of employment. We CAN issue "We Do Not Patronize
Lists !" If you read it in these Bulletins it is so, BUT only exactly what you
read. There are a lot of restraints on what a union may do as to strikes and
picketing.
Prior to the Cleveland convention, which was, held from August 16 to 22, the
ITU issued Post-card Bulletin No. 95. It read in part :
WARNING !
After August 21, 1947, no union can protect itself in the essentials of ITU
laws if it signs a contract with employers. The T-H-L will prevent your
securing a closed-shop contract. The T-H-L will prevent you from ex-
cluding non-union men. The T-H-L will prevent your refusing to handle
struck work. The T-H-L will interfere with your jurisdiction over work.
Read and remember all T-H-L Bulletins '
These no-contract activities finally culminated in the adoption of a collective-
bargaining policy recommended to the convention in Cleveland in August 1947.
This policy took the form of a resolution which passed as a revision of Sec.
1, Art. III of the General Laws. This amendment reads as follows ( Proposition
No. 125) :
It is our policy that we continue to maintain our long standing reputation
for integrity in performing our contracts and carrying out our union
commitments.
Other post-card bulletins are referred to below.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1291
It is our policy that we maintain our historic rights and prerogatives,
to which we are entitled and which we have enjoyed for nearly a century.
We believe that the harmony of our relations which has prevailed, almost
without interruption, for many decades between our members, our local
unions and their employers, can continue in the future, as in the past, and it
is our policy to try to continue it.
We express this belief despite the fact that ill considered legislation has
recently been enacted, the effect of which might easily be disastrous to labor-
management relations.
We confidently assert that there are certain provisions in the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947 that are unconstitutional and invalid, that
certain provisions of it are impracticable and unworkable and that a great
deal of it is inequitable and unjust to organized labor.
We believe that as the provisions of this act become generally known,
the law will in time be amended to eliminate its defects and inequities.
While there should not be, and will not be, any attempt on the part of the
international or subordinate unions to violate any valid provisions of this
law, or of any law, federal or state, yet there should be, and will be, earnest
endeavors on the part of these unions to avoid any condition that will result
in their being penalized by these laws and to avoid the sacrifice of rights and
prerogatives which may be lost by the signing of contracts as heretofore.
The Labor Management Relations Act does not compel the signing of
contracts, and refraining from doing so is not a violation or evasion of
the law. It will be our policy to refrain from signing contracts in order
that we avoid agreeing, or seeming to agree, or voluntarily accepting the
conditions created by such a relationship under the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947.
Even the Taft-Bartley Law provides that :
Nothing in this Act shall be so construed to require an individual em-
ployee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything
in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual
employee an illegal act.
Upon the expiration of existing contracts, and until the laws above re-
ferred to are amended and free collective bargaining is again recognized,
our members may accept employment only from employers who are willing
to employ them under the "Conditions of Employment" which the several
unions adopt, after approval by the Executive Council of the ITU.
Our unions will give sixty days' notice before an existing contract may
be changed or terminated.
They will notify state and federal conciliation agencies simultaneously
thirty days after the original notice.
They will engage in collective bargaining to the extent required by law,
bearing in mind that the legal obligation of a "labor organization" under
the LitIRA to "bargain collectively," meet and confer in good faith with
reference to wages, hours, etc., expressly provides as follows : "But such
obligation does not compel. either party to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession."
A "Conditions of Employment" form, which must be used by all unions
and which is uniform except for local scales and practices, has been printed
for the convenience and use of all subordinate unions. The form sets out
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the conditions under which our members offer their services-so long as
they are individually able and willing to work.
It is our policy that local unions do not seek to qualify as representatives
under the Labor Management Relations Act, except in special cases, after
careful analysis and approval by the Executive Council, and that they do
not seek to execute so-called "union shop" contracts. The process provided
by the Labor Management Relations Act for that type of contract is too
lengthy and cumbersome and there are features of such a "union shop"
that are unacceptable to our members. Neither may our unions enter into
"no strike" agreements or contracts of any kind without approval of the
Executive Council.
The International Typographical Union and its local unions and their
officers will file any financial reports and affidavits required by law.
Local unions should not file any unfair labor practice charges or petition
for investigation or representation, without first consulting the President
of the International Typographical Union and obtaining approval of the
Executive Council.
We realize that this policy may bring some disappointment to our em-
ployers because it provides for unilateral action. It may be possible for
those employers who do not approve the policy to prepare unilaterally a set
of conditions of employment that would be satisfactory.
The Executive Council is hereby authorized to interpret, construe and
enforce the above policy from August 22, 1947.
In addition to adopting its "no-contract" policy set forth above, the ITU
amended its bylaws to provide for the summary expulsion. of "any subordinate
union, member or members refusing to accept and observe a decision or action of
the Executive Council, pending appeal to a convention.
On or about September 3 the ITU approved Post-Card Bulletin No. 98 which
was mailed on September 4 to Local #915. The card reads:
Our Objective in Conference With Employees
First.-Submit our offer consisting of two paragraphs as follows :
OUR OFFER IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Paragraph 1. We propose that there be no signed, verbal or any other
kind of a contract.
Paragraph 2. We propose that the employer recognize that there is no
obligation on the part of the Union or its individual members to do other
than may be specified in the "Conditions of Employment" set by the Union.
Second.-Try to determine, through discussion, a fair price for our labor,
giving due consideration to the employers' arguments and ability to meet
conditions which the Union contemplates prescribing. Bear in mind that
once the Union, with the approval of the Executive Council of the I. T. U.,
promulgates "Conditions of Employment," failure on part of the employers
to comply therewith will result in a declaration of a lock-out. Such declara-
tion must have the approval of the Executive Council.
N. B.-Use "Conditions of Employment" form furnished by the ITU
adding any necessary additional sections in the blank spaces on the
reverse side.
On or about October 7, 1947, the ITU issued an "EXPLANATION OF
CHANGE IN STRATEGY BECAUSE OF ATTACK BY NLRB COUNSEL
AGAINST OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POLICY."
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1293
In this "Explanation" the ITU referred to the fact that the General Counsel
of the NLRB had after the close of the Cleveland convention, contended that
the ITU Unions were not bargaining in "good faith."
In the new form of contract (P-6A) we protect ourselves as well as we
can by the paragraphs at the beginning, set in 10, pt. bold-faced type. The
first paragraph, and the paragraphs that followed, lettered (a) to (i) both
inclusive are the ONLY protection you can write into a contract on matters
of utmost importance to us.
CONTRACT PROPOSAL ONLY FOR 60-DAY DURATION
The right to terminate on 60-day notice is absolutely essential because:
It puts the employer in position where is likely not to have union employees
working for him if lie hires non-union men; if he brings in non-union matter
for you to work on or if he tries to take away your jurisdiction.
The reason we adopted a "no-contract" policy was to protect ourselves
against the above acts which the employer could perform to our destruction.
NOW-with the 60-day notice requirement of the T-H-L, a local union
can terminate form P-6A on 60 days' notice and begin "bargaining in good
faith," again, even "Denham style," and be free at the end of the 60 days.
OUR UNION'S LIFE AT STAKE
Every member MUST keep in mind the basic reason for our course of
action.
1. We want to preserve the right of our members individually or, as
far as we can collectively, to refuse to work with competing non-union men;
the right to refuse to work on a competing non-union product and the right
to protect our jurisdiction over composing room work.
2. During the life of a contract you cannot successfully do so. The
T-H-L will stop you in several ways.
3. The employer is in position during the life of a contract to act either
way as to those important matters.
4. The 60-day termination of the form P-GA limits the time during which
you are in danger on those three above stated points.
5. The other paragraphs in form P-6A are carefully drawn to take care
of the other matters vital to us. You can "bargain in good faith" (even
"Denham style") but are not required to agree to a proposal or grant a
concession. We like our 60-day limitation. We like paragraphs (a) to (i)
inclusive. We want them as part of any contract we sign and the Executive
Council has approved them for offering to the employers. Do not change
them simply because the employer screams about them. We have plenty
to worry about ourselves.
It may be after the employer "bargains in good faith" with its he will
take another look at our "Conditions of Employment" idea which was
successful and acceptable enough until the T-H-L and Denham.
(d) Events occurring between August 22, 1947, and November 10, 1947
Counsel for the Respondents contend that since the Local and the Company
reached an agreement on July 17, which the Company refused to sign on July
24, the Local was under iio"duty to bargain with the Company thereafter and
that such negotiations as did take place between the parties may not be made
the basis of a finding of a refusal to bargain on the part of the Local. Since
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the undersigned finds herein that the Local, on and after August 22, acquiesced
in and conformed to the "no-contract" policy of the ITU, such contention is
without merit.
Under date of August 13, Byrnes sent a "60-day notice of termination of con-
tract" to Stiles. The notice so sent was a verbatim copy of Post-card Bulletin
No. 81 which had been approved on July 1 and mailed to the Local on or about
July 2, 1947, and read as follows :
This is to serve you with 60-day notice of termination of the contract
heretofore in effect between your Company and Nassau County Typographi-
cal Union No. 915, a subordinate union of the International Typographical
Union.
The Union considers its previous notice and negotiations to have complied
with the Labor Management Relations Act, but this notice is sent in addi-
tion thereto.
To the extent required by Section 8 (b) (3) of the LMRA, this is to offer
to meet and confer for the purpose of "negotiating" conditions of employment
but reserving all rights provided by said LMRA, Section 8 (d), that such
obligation does not compel this Union to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession.
The letter was signed by Byrnes as president of the Local.
On August 14, Stiles replied to Byrnes' letter of the preceding. day; the second
and closing paragraph of which .read :
We are ready and prepared to continue to meet your negotiators in an
attempt to apply a theory of collective bargaining, set forth in my letter to
you of August 9 at any mutually convenient time and place, any week day
or any week in order that we may conclude a genuine agreement and con-
tract, valid in law and predicated on sound industrial relations.
On September 17, Stiles wrote Byrnes to the effect that he had received word
from the New York State Mediation Board and from the Federal Mediation Con-
ciliation Service to the effect that Local #915 had notified the State Board of
Mediation to the effect that the contract between Local #915 and the Company
would expire within 30 days. Among other things the letter stated :
Please communicate with me so that we can make immediate arrange-
ments for our next session dedicated to the purpose of completing and sign-
ing the contract, on which up to July 17, we had made great progress.
Upon receipt of the above-referred-to letter, Byrnes telephoned Stiles and
asked that he meet with the Local Committee on the afternoon of September 18.
Stiles agreed to this meeting and fixed the meeting place at his (Stiles) office.
The parties met as per this agreement, with Byrnes and the Scale Committee
representing the Local and Stiles, Fowley, and Dooley representing the Com-
pany.
At the outset Stiles stated that the parties had been negotiating since May 10,
and had agreed on every phrase (except all-or-none clause) and Stiles "won-
dered" whether they could get together, work out and sign a contract.
The witnesses are in conflict as to what was actually said at this meeting.
According to Byrnes, Stiles asked him if he had any proposals to make; and
Byrnes replied that he had "two suggestions," either of which would solve the
difficulty; (1) That Stiles either sign the contract he had agreed to or, (2) to
continue to work under Conditions of Employment. Fowley, on the other hand,
testified that Byrnes read from a card and said:
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1295
These are my instructions and these are the two proposals that I have.
One is that we cannot sign a contract or enter into any verbal or implied
agreement of a contract and the only way, the only conditions under which
the composing room, or employees of the composing room, can work are
under the Conditions of Employment as posted in the composing room.
Stiles testified in this connection, and stated that Byrnes read a card that
said the Union could not make a contract, "oral, implied or written, and, 2nd that
they could only work under Conditions of Employment." Stiles added :
As a matter of fact, he pulled the card out of his pocket and I was going
to make a copy of it, and later asked Mr. Dooley to make a transcript of it.
I think eventually Mrs. Clarke or Mr. Byrnes read it to us. We were told
by Mr. Byrnes and the committee that they could not work only under Con-
ditions of Employment, as they had been mandated. I asked Mr. Byrnes if
the Union was going to strike, and he said he did not know.
The record shows that the ITU under date of September 4 mailed Post-card
Bulletin No. 98 to the Local, which read, in part:
Our Objective in Conference With Employees
First.-Submit our offer consisting of two paragraphs as follows :
OUR OFFER IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Paragraph 1. We propose that there be no signed, verbal or any other
kind of a contract.
Paragraph 2. We propose that the employer recognize that there is no
obligation on the part of the Union or its individual members to do other than
may be specified in the "Conditions of Employment" set by the Union.
Second.-Try to determine, through discussion, a fair price for our labor,
giving due consideration to the employers' arguments and ability to meet
conditions which the Union contemplates prescribing. Bear in mind that
once the Union, with the approval of the Executive Council of the I. T. U.,
promulgates "Conditions of Employment," failure on part of the employers
to comply therewith will result in a declaration of a lock-out. Such declara-
tion must have the approval of the Executive Council.
It is clear that Byrnes . in his dealings with the Company , followed all appli-
cable instructions and directions of the I. T. U. The undersigned is convinced
that at this September 18 meeting he followed the instructions contained in
Post-card Bulletin No. 98, set out above, and therefore did not request Stiles to
sign the July 17 contract on this occasion ; but did state, in substance, that the
Local would sign no contract, and would not agree to a verbal or other kind of
contract 36
On the morning of September 26 Byrnes, at Stiles' request, met with the
latter in his office. At this time Stiles complained that the work was not getting
out; displayed a number of advertisements that had not made the paper;
and said that the night shift was producing practically no work. Byrnes replied
36 The findings with reference to the September 1S meeting are based in the main on
Fowley's credited testimony. While Brynes' testimony is credited in most instances, the
undersivned is convinced that he adhered to ITU no-contract instructions at the September
18 meeting of the parties . Stiles' testimony above is credited insofar as it is corroborated
by Fowley.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the night shift was practically "nonexistent" as most of the men had
left for employment in other places and the remaining few employees were
working as hard "as they possibly could," and that he (Byrnes) was and
had been doing his best to get the men who left the plant to return, and to
persuade those who were there, to remain.
Stiles then informed Byrnes that he was going to file charges with the National
Labor Relations Board ; that he wanted the Scale Committee to meet with him
that afternoon, and that lie was going to ask a list of questions and proposed to
present the answers to the Board in the support of his charges. Byrnes told
Stiles that he did not think his conduct amounted to collective bargaining,
but agreed to bring the Scale Committee to the meeting; which he did.
At the opening of the afternoon meeting, Stiles asked Byrnes if he had any
proposals. According to Byrnes, he replied that he had no proposals but three
suggestions, (1) that Stiles sign the contract he had agreed to; (2) that he
continue to work under Conditions of Employment or (3) that he formulate
his own conditions of employment. According to Fowley, Byrnes presented the
same proposals at the September 26 meeting as he did on September 18, except
that he added a third proposal to the effect that the Company draft and submit
its own proposals (conditions)."
The September 26 meeting was largely a duplication of the September 18
meeting, except that at the latter meeting Stiles asked Byrnes if it were possible
for the Local to make a contract separate and apart from ITU. Byrnes replied
"that it could but it wouldn't" because to do so would result in the Local losing
ITU benefits.
Stiles then proceeded to ask a series of questions which had been prepared by
his counsel. Prior to the meeting, Stiles had apportioned the questions between
himself, Fowley, and Dooley. At this meeting both Dooley and Fowley asked
a question each and Stiles asked the balance of those on his list. Byrnes had
been delegated by the Scale Committee to answer the questions and did so.
At this September 26 meeting Stiles asked Byrnes whether Local #915
would sign any contract without the ITU (approval). Byrnes answered as
follows : "That the local Union might accept an employer's proposal, send it to
Indianapolis for approval, and if it were rejected, then it became the problem
of the local Union whether to (decide) to sign the contract or not." On the
foregoing and the record the undersigned finds that at the September 26 meet-
ing Byrnes iterated his "no-contract" proposals made on September 18; pro-
posed that the Company continue to work under the Conditions of Employment,
as then posted, or that the Company submit "Conditions of Employment" for
the approval of the Local and ITU.
On October 10, 1947, Byrnes wrote Stiles as follows :
Nassau County Typographical Union No. 915 has requested Representa-
tive Robert C. Kirkpatrick to assist us in negotiating a contract with The
Daily Review Corporation.
We would like to meet with you for that purpose on Tuesday, October
14th, if that date is agreeable, at your offices or elsewhere.
On October 14, Byrnes again wrote Stiles at considerable length. In one
paragraph he said :
On Friday, October 10, I, as President of the local Union, caused to be
delivered to your secretary at your office a letter addressed to you request-
31 As was the case in connection with the September 18 meeting, the undersigned credits
Fowley's testimony as to the proposals submitted by Byrnes.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1297
ing a conference with you and the local committee and the ITU Representa-
tive Kirkpatrick, for the purpose of negotiating a contract. I also requested
that this conference be held on Tuesday, October 14th. Since that time
I have been informed that you cannot meet with us on Friday, October 17th.
Representative Kirkpatrick informed me that it will be impossible for
him to attend a meeting at this date, as he has previous appointments in
other localities. However, Representative Kirkpatrick has advised me to
submit a contract to you which the local Union would be willing to sign, if
you will sign it, and I am enclosing such a proposed contract for your
consideration.
Nassau County Typographical Union No. 915 will sign a contract with
you provided that we can agree on the terms contained therein.
A proposed contract submitted with Byrnes' letter of October 14 was and
is known as Form P-6-A, which had been forwarded under date of October 7,
1947, to all subordinate unions of the ITU by Woodruff Randolph, under the
heading,
"EMPLOYER DEMAND FOR CONTRACT"
Seventh, now if the employer and his "legal advisers" insist on a contract,
you are prepared for that by immediately agreeing to negotiate, bargain
collectively, for a contract that both parties will sign if agreed upon. The
Union, can in regular fashion, adopt proposals to be submited to the em-
ployer on the enclosed Form P-6-A. When the employer displays a desire
to run to the National Labor Relations Board, make it plain you are negoti-
ating for a contract and bargaining in good faith by offering to submit a
formal contract which will he signed if agreed to in full by both parties.
The form contract should take ample care of the wage question, sick leave,
holidays, vacations, etc., to protect the Union against inflation or other
adverse legislation which might be adopted, also to allow for possible
bargaining concessions on wages, hours or working conditions. The right
to terminate after 60-day notice is absolutely essential to the Union when
signed contracts are made.
The next meeting between the parties was held before the New York State
Mediation Board on October 22. Kirkpatrick, Byrnes, and the Scale Com-
mittee appeared for the Local; Stiles, Schmidt, Fowley, and Dooley appeared
on behalf of the Company. Kirkpatrick informed Bergman, General Counsel
of the Mediation Board, that the Local had submitted a contract to the Company
which the Local was willing to sign. Stiles stated that he would not agree to
the wage scale in the proposed (P-6-A) contract and Bergman asked if any
provisions in the P-G-A Forms were similar to the first (July 17) contract.
Stiles replied that there were some. Bergman then asked if it were not possible
to negotiate on the P-6-A Form. Whereupon Kirkpatrick replied that the
Local could not change any clause in this contract. Kirkpatrick then suggested
that Stiles go along and work under Conditions of Employment like some of the
other papers were doing. The meeting ended without any agreements or
provisions for further meetings."
se Since counsel for the Respondents had moved to strike all the testimony that was
taken before State Mediation Board from the record as privileged, he, in order to protect
his claim of privilege , advised Byrnes not to testify on cross -examination ; and offered no
other Local witnesses to testify concerning this October 22 meeting.
877359-50-vol. 87-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As found above the Local posted Conditions of Employment on August 8.
On August 11, at a meeting of all the composing room employees, Stiles read
a letter addressed to Byrnes to the effect that the Company would not be bound
by the Conditions of Employment so posted.
Such Conditions read in part, as follows :
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
This schedule of the Conditions of Employment, as hereinafter stated,
is in nowise a contract nor is it an offer susceptible of acceptance by an
employer in any manner to infer that there has been any meeting of the
minds in collective bargaining to attain the results hereinafter prescribed
solely by the Union.
This policy of prescribing conditions of employment by union action only
is for the purpose of retaining all legal rights of the Union and its individual
members.
Nassau County Typographical Union No. 915, a subordinate Union of the
International Typographical Union and subject to all of its laws, regula-
tions and decisions, hereby, and with the consent and support of the In-
ternational Typographical Union, establishes the wages, hours and condi-
tions under which members of Nassau County Typographical Union No.
915 shall work, as stated in the schedules and provisions herein, on and
after July 3, 1947, subject only to such alteration, amendment or withdrawal
as may be authorized by a vote of the membership as prescribed by local
laws and approved by the International Typographical Union. Following
the foregoing, it listed the schedules and provisions together with daily
newspaper scale."
The amended Act makes it an unfair labor practice for labor organizations to
refuse to bargain with employers. It is clear that Section 8 (b) (3) of the
amended Act imposes on labor organizations the duty to bargain which is im-
posed on employers by Section 8 (a) (5), which had been imposed upon em-
ployers by Section 8 (5) of the Wagner Act. Under the Wagner Act the Board
and the courts have held that insistence on a contract or an understanding which
reserved to an employer a unilateral right to determine particular terms and
conditions of employment, constitutes bad faith and a refusal to bargain. South.
CaroUna Granite Company, 58 NLRB 1448. The Board stated in part :
The record shows that the Union's charge of bad faith on the part of
Granite was limited to three matters: (1) rates of pay, (2) hours of em-
ployment, and (3) union activities on company property outside of working
time. These matters were proper subject for collective bargaining. By
insisting on its sole unilateral right from time to time to change the hours
of employment and the rates of pay (including overtime rates), Granite
refused to bargain collectively with the Union on these subjects, in the
face of the Union's repeated request that it do so. As we stated in Matter
of V-0 Milling Company," an employer's attempts, in contract negotiations
3° While Stiles had told the employees on August 11 that he would not be bound by the
Conditions of Employment, such Conditions remained posted on the bulletin board of the
composing room until after November 10, 1947, and after the composing room employees who
were union members, had gone on strike.
40 43 NLRB 348.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1299
with a union, to reserve to itself the right to revise wages unilaterally and
without bargaining with the union on the matter, constituted "a complete
negation of the principles of collective bargaining."
The third paragraph of the Conditions of Employment, quoted above, reserves
to Local #915 the right to effect unilateral changes in all conditions of employ-
ment, including wages and hours, and thus fails to meet the standards of good
faith in collective bargaining as required by the Act in the cases next above cited.
Also, as is found above, Byrnes submitted an ITU P-6-A Form of Contract
on October 14. This contract was discussed at the State Mediation Board meet-
ing on October 22 where, as found above, Kirkpatrick insisted that none of the
clauses in the contract could be changed. The advancement of a proposal under
these circumstances, even under the traditional forum of bargaining negotia-
tions, is not collective bargaining as is required by the Act. Montgomery Ward
and Co., 37 NLRB 100, 118; Globe Cotton Mills v. N. L. R. B., 103 F. 2d 91 (C. A.
5), the Court stated :
. . . There is a duty on both sides . . . to enter into discussions with an
open and fair mind, and a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement touch-
ing wages and hours and conditions of labor, and if found to embody it in
a contract as specific as possible, which shall stand out as a mutual guar-
antee of conduct, and as a guide for the adjustment of grievances.
By refusing on October 22 to discuss or permit the change of any clause in the
proposed P-6-A contract, the Local has refused to bargain.
Even had the Local consented to discuss changes of clauses in the P-6-A Form
of Contract, the Local would have insisted that the ITU-ordered 60-day termina-
tion clause remain in the contract. Its "Explanation of change of strategy, . . :'
clearly indicated that the contract was a 60-day duration one, since :
It puts the employer in a position where he is likely not to have union em-
ployees working for him if he hires non-union men ; if he brings in non-
union matter for you to work on or if he tries to take away your jurisdiction.
Absent any other clause, the P-6-A Form requiring a 60-day termination under
the circumstances disclosed in the record herein was tantamount to a refusal
to bargain.
It is clear that Local #91.5, from at least on or about August 22 to November
10, 1947, pursuant to directions of the ITU, displayed a fixed purpose not to arrive
at any agreement which would result in a legal contract between the parties
for a substantial duration of time.
On the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned con-
cludes that Nassau County Typographical Union #915 on September 18, Sep-
tember 26, and October 22, 1947, and at all times thereafter, althougho requested
by the Daily Review Corporation, has refused and continues to refuse, to bargain
collectively in good faith with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and did thereby restrain and coerce the employees in the appropriate unit
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The record discloses that all composing room employees, eligible for member-
ship in Local #915, went on strike on November 9 and 10. They gave neither
notice nor reason before going on strike. No picket line was formed thereafter
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the only reason ever assigned for such action was the contention by the
Local officials that the employees had been locked out °'
E. The alleged refusal to bargain by ITU
The complaint alleges a refusal to bargain by both the ITU and the Local,
jointly. The record discloses that, while the ITU filed a petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of the Company's composing room employees
on June 9, 1944, the employees of the Company voted as to whether or not they
wished Typographical Union #915 to be their bargaining representative, with
the results that the Local was selected and thereafter duly determined to be the
bargaining representative of all the employees in the Company's composing room.
In addition to the fact that the employees had selected the Local as their bar-
gaining representative in the manner prescribed by the Act, the General Laws of
the ITU, Article III, of which laws the Company at all times had due notice,
provides as follows:
Section 1. Contracts between local unions and employers are collective
agreements in which the local union as such is a contracting party with an
employer or association of employers... .
Counsel for the Board and for the Company contend in substance and effect that
inasmuch as ITU representatives participated in negotiating the 1944 and 1945
contracts which were duly signed and executed by the parties; that since Repre-
sentative Kirkpatrick assisted in the negotiations of the contract of July 17,
1947; and since the Local, as a subordinate union and the agent of the ITU,
executed the Label Agreements attached to the contracts of 1944 and 1945; that
all acts of the Local in dealing with the Company were performed as agents
of the parent ITU.
The record herein does show that the ITU exercised complete domination over
the Local ; that members of the Local are, as a result of such membership, mem-
bers of the 1TU and directly or indirectly pay dues to both unions ; and had
recognition of the Local and/or the ITU been based upon union membership
and not upon a Board-conducted election, there would be some basis for finding
a refusal to bargain by the ITU. The record herein will not support a finding
that the ITU has refused to bargain collectively with the Company. It will be
recommended below that the complaint, insofar as it so alleges , be dismissed.
Restraint and coercion by Respondents
(a) Of employees
The complaint alleges that both Respondents have restrained and coerced
the employees of the Company by refusing to bargain and by attempting to im-
pose and imposing upon such employees conditions of employment requiring
membership in Respondent Unions, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
Since it has been found that the ITU did not refuse to bargain collectively with
the Company, it necessarily follows that the ITU has not restrained or coerced
employees by so refusing to bargain. It has been found that Local #915 refused
41 Counsel for Respondents in his argument referred to this walk-out as a "strike." By
this walk -out and strike the employees demonstrated that they were following ITU instruc-
tions contained in Post-card Bulletin No. 96, which is in part , as follows :
1. Follow I. T. U. policy no matter what happens.
2. If It becomes necessary to leave your job, make no statement to employer, con-
ciliator or anyone else as to the reason .. .
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION # 915 1301
.to bargain in violation of Section 8 (b) (3). It has been further found that
the Local refused to bargain as a result of the adoption by the ITU of its "no-
contract policy." The policies followed by the Local's negotiating committee
under the many and emphatic instructions from the ITU would naturally cause
employees to retain membership in Local #915 and the ITU; to refuse to work
with nonunion employees if any such should be employed; and to refuse to
work if the Local or the ITU should declare goods unfair or the Local's juris-
diction was questioned or interfered with ; and to plan to quit work in the event
any contract entered into should be canceled by the Local pursuant to the 60-day
notice of termination. It is clear that by the numerous post-card bulletins, the
circulation of the ITU's Journal containing the drastic "no-contract" resolutions
and other instructions, Respondent ITU as aided by Local #915, threatened
their members (employees in the appropriate unit) with expulsion from member-
ship in the event of noncompliance with the laws of the ITU and the "no-
contract" policy. On the basis of the foregoing and the record, the undersigned
finds that Local #915, by refusing to bargain, has restrained and coerced the
employees in the appropriate unit, and that the ITU and the Local, by attempting
to impose and imposing upon such employees conditions of employment requiring
them, as a condition of employment, to obtain or maintain membership in the
Local and the ITU, have restrained and coerced the employees in the appropriate
unit in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Restraint and coercion of employers
The complaint alleges restraint and coercion by both Respondents of the Com-
pany in the latter's selection of its representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustments of grievances by threatening and warning the
Company to refrain from employing foremen who are not or who do not become
members of the Respondent Unions. The record herein discloses that the parties
at the outset bargained for a unit which included foremen and which had been
established in 1944; that during the entire negotiations, both before and after
the effective date of the amended Act, no specific reference was made by the
parties to foremen in any of their negotiations. During this period a new fore-
man was hired without any advance consultation or discussion with the Local
or its officials. There is some testimony to the effect that members of Local
#915 made inquiries as to whether or not the new foreman was a union member.
It later developed that he was, in fact, a member of the ITU at the time Stiles
.employed him. While the terms of the Conditions of Employment as posted,
and the terms of the proposed Form P-6A contract and each of them, provided
for the retention of foremen as employees of the composing room, the under-
signed is of the opinion and concludes, under all the circumstances, that the
conduct of the Local and the ITU in this connection does not amount to threats
or warnings to the Company to refrain from employing nonunion foremen. The
record will not support a finding that the Respondents restrained or coerced the
Company to refrain from employing foremen who were not or who did not
become members of the Respondents.
(c) Restraint and coercion by attempting to cause employers to discriminate
The complaint alleges in substance and effect that the Respondent Unions
have attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against its employees by
seeking to compel the Company to require the employees to be and remain
members of the Respondent Unions as a condition of employment, in violation
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. The record herein clearly discloses that it was
the purpose of the ITU and the Local to preserve the closed shop and thus
preserve "the right of union men to refuse to work with non-union, men." The
so-called "union-shop" as permitted under Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act was
characterized by the ITU as an "open shop," since, . . . "If your union was
so designated (under union-shop provision), and certified, the Employer could.
still employ non-union help and dare you to do anything about it . . ."
It is clear that by the instructions of the ITU to its membership and the
Local; the insistence on the Conditions of Employment; the determination dis-
closed in negotiating meetings that the Company accept either Conditions of
Employment or a form of contract which retained the traditional "rights" of
union members were had for the purpose of preventing nonunion employees
working in the composing rooms of the Company. The law as settled under
the National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment clearly establishes that
in the absence of a closed-shop or a union-shop agreement, the employer would
discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employment if he should refuse to
hire employees because of nonmembership or should discharge union members
on account of their failing to retain such membership. On the above and the
record it is clear that since on or about August 22, 1947, the ITU and the Local
have continuously attempted to cause the Company to follow the practice,
permissible prior to August 22, 1947, of excluding nonunion employees from
consideration as employees in the appropriate unit. The undersigned accord-
ingly finds that the Respondent Unions have attempted to cause the Company to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices , the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent Nassau County Typographical Union,
#915 (AFL) on September 18, September 19, and October 22, 1947, and all
times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Company, it will be
recommended that it, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith as the
exclusive representatives of the employees in the appropriate unit of the Com-
pany and if an understanding is reached to embody such understanding in a
signed agreement "
11 Counsel for Local #915 contends, ". . . The instant record does not establish that
Respondent 915 at present represents a majority of the employer's employees in any unit."
The record discloses that "replacements" of all the Local's member employees was made
on and after November 10, 1947. Counsel for the Board and the Company contend, in
effect, that all of the Local's members have lost their "status" as employees and that an
order should issue requiring the Local to bargain with the Company in the "event" the
Local should sometime in the future represent a majority of the Company's employees.
While the record does show that Stiles notified all composing room employees by telegram
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION # 915 1303
Counsel for the Respondents contend in effect that they are not subject to
the provision of the Act, nor to any remedy against them, for the reason that
they have failed to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. If
such contention could under any circumstances be deemed to have merit it
has none in these proceedings, since ITU convention which adopted the "no
contract" policy in an amendment in revision of Sec. 1, Art. III, of its Gen-
eral Laws, contained the following clause, "The International Typographical
Union and Its Local Unions and Their Officers Will File Any Financial Reports
and Affidavits Required by Law." This clause would appear to bind the Local,
as a subordinate union of the ITU, to comply with said section in the event
such compliance became necessary to make the Local amenable to the Act.
Having found that the Respondent ITU has restrained and coerced the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit by adoption of Conditions of Employment and
requiring its Local #915 and its members to follow such Conditions of Employ-
ment without bargaining with the Company, it will be recommended below that
Respondent ITU cease giving effect to such Conditions of Employment, or other
similar policy instruction or direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) and International Typo-
graphical Union (AFL), are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. All linotype operators, handmen, make-up men and proofreaders, and all
other employees in the newspaper composing room of the Company at its Rock-
ville Center plant, excluding galley boys-messengers, all clerical employees and
all other employees and all supervisors having authority, in the interest of the
Company, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to ad-
just their grievances, or effectively recommend such actions, if in connection
with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature but requires the use of independent judgment, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Nassau County Typographical Union #015 (AFL) was on September 18
and, 26, 1947, and on October 22, 1947, and at all times material herein the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
4. By refusing on September 18 and 26 and October 22, 1947, and at all times
thereafter, to bargain collectively as the exclusive representative of the em-
that if they did not return to work on a certain day they would be replaced , and that
the Company has employees working in the composing room at the present , the record
does not show that such replacements are in fact "permanent" replacements . The record
further shows that the composing room employees went on strike on November 10 and
at the time of the hearing were receiving strike benefits. It is clear that such employees
are on strike as a result of the current labor dispute , and there is nothing in the record
to indicate that the Company would not reinstate the union members in the event Local
#915 will bargain collectively . Moreover, by pressing the refusal to bargain charges
against the Local herein, the Company indicates an intention not to permanently replace
the strikers.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with The Daily Review Corporation,
Respondent Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (3) of the Act.
5. By attempting to impose and imposing upon the employees of the Com-
pany, Conditions of Employment requiring said employees, as a condition of
employment, to maintain membership in the Respondents, the Respondents have
restrained and coerced and are restraining and coercing employees of the
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondents have not restrained or coerced the Company in the selec-
tion of its representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or adjust-
ment of grievances by threatening and warning the Company to refrain from
employing foremen who are not or do not become members of the Respondent
Unions.
6. The Respondent International Typographical Union (AFL) has not refused
to bargain collectively as alleged in the complaint.
7. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with The Review Corpora-
tion, Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) has restrained and
coerced and is restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
8. By attempting to cause The Daily Review Corporation to require its employ-
ees to be and remain members of the Respondent Unions as a condition of employ-
ment, the Respondents have attempted to cause The Daily Review Corporation
and are attempting to cause The Daily Review Corporation to discriminate
against its employees, in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of
the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that:
1. The Nassau County Typographical Union #915 (AFL) and its officers,
representatives, and agents shall:
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all linotype operators, handmen, make-up men, and p,oof-
readers, and all other employees in the newspaper composing room of the
Company at its Rockville Center plant, excluding galley boys-messengers, all
clerical employees and all other employees and all supervisors having authority,
in the interest of the Company, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, pro-
mote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly
to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of
a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judg-
ment, with The Daily Review Corporation with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(2) Promulgating, observing, or giving effect to any policy, practice, or course
of conduct, which states or requires the Local #915 (a) shall refuse to bargain
or refrain from bargaining, collectively in good faith with the Company or its
bargaining representatives with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1305
employment, or (b) shall refuse or refrain from entering into signed collective
bargaining contracts;
(3) Requiring or instructing or inducing its representatives to require (a) that
the Company adopt or acquiesce in any condition of employment promulgated
unilaterally by #915, without bargaining thereon with the Company, or (b) that
the Company execute a contract which expressly or by implication make member-
ship in or approval by Local #915 of the ITU a condition of hiring or continued
employment except in accordance with the provision in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act ;
(4) Requiring from or enforcing against the Company any condition of em-
ployment which requires or permits Local #915 to require that the Company
assign particular work to members of Local #915 or of the ITU rather than to
employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class
unless the Company fails to conform to an order of certification of the National
Labor Relations Board, determining that #915 is the bargaining representative
for the employees performing such work ;
(5) Requiring that the general laws, rules and decisions of the ITU be
adopted by the Company as rules and conditions of employment applicable to its
composing room, without bargaining in respect to them, or that such general
laws, rules, and decisions must be accepted by the Company without bargaining
with respect to them, or that no question of the application of such general laws,
rules, and decisions may be the subject of bargaining;
(6) Requiring that the Company agree, without bargaining thereon, that the
meaning, interpretation, or application of terms or conditions of employment,
whether named or referred to in any contract or not so named or referred to, be
unilaterally determined by Local #915 or the ITU ;
(7) Causing or attempting to cause the Company to discriminate in any
manner against its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and
particularly by requiring that the Company, without bargaining thereon, adopt
or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated unilaterally by
Local #915;
(8) Restraining or coercing employees of the Company in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and particularly by attempting to
impose or by imposing upon employees of the Company any conditions of employ-
ment requiring said employees as a condition of employment to obtain and
maintain or to maintain membership in Local #915 or the ITU except in accord-
ance with the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with The Daily Review
Corporation as the exclusive representative of the employees within the unit
above found to be appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, with
respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment
and if any agreement is reached embody such agreement in a signed contract;
(2) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the meeting hall and office of
Local #915 and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A ;
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps Local #915 has taken to comply therewith.
2. International Typographical Union (AFL), its officers, representatives, and
agents shall:
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Promulgating, observing, or giving effect to any policy which states or re-
quires that Local #915 or any other subordinate union (a) shall refuse to
bargain or refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with the Company or
other employers or their bargaining representatives with respect to wages, hours,
or other conditions of employment, or (b) shall refuse or refrain from enter-
ing into or signing collective bargaining contracts agreed to ;
(2) Requiring or instructing Local #915 or any other subordinate union or
its representatives to require that the Company or other employers adopt or
acquiesce in any Condition of Employment, promulgated unilaterally by Local
#915 or the ITU, without bargaining thereon with the Company, or that the
Company execute contracts which expressly or by implication make member-
ship in, or approval by Local #915 or the ITU, a condition of hiring or continued
employment, except in accordance with the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act ;
(3) Requiring from or enforcing against the Company or any other em-
ployer any condition of employment which requires or permits Local #915 or
any other subordinate union to require that the Company or other employers
assigned particular work to members of Local #915 or the ITU rather than to
employees in other labor organizations or in another trade, craft, or class unless
the Company or other employer involved fails or has failed to conform to an
order of certification of the National Labor Relations Board, determining that
Local #915 is the bargaining representative for employees performing such
work ;
(4) Requiring or instructing its members of a subordinate union that the
general laws, rules, and decisions of the ITU must be adopted or accepted by
the Company or other employers as rules and conditions of employment ap-
plicable to their respective composing rooms, without bargaining with respect
to them, or that no questions of the application of such general laws, rules, and
decisions, may be the subject of collective bargaining;
(5) Requiring or instructing its members or a subordinate union to require
that employers agree, without bargaining thereon, that the meaning, interpreta-
tion, or application of terms or conditions of employment, whether named or
referred to in any contract or not, be not so named or referred to, be unilaterally
determined by the Local or the ITU ;
(6) Causing or attempting to cause or instructing its members or a subordinate
union to cause or attempt to cause employers to discriminate in any manner
against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and par-
ticularly by requiring that the employers without bargaining thereon adopt or
acquiesce in the terms or conditions of employment promulgated unilaterally by
the Local or the ITU ;
(7) Restraining or coercing or instructing its members or a subordinate union
to restrain or coerce employees of the employer in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by attempting to impose
or by imposing on employees of the employer any condition of employment
requiring said employees as a condition of employment to obtain and maintain
or to maintain membership in the Local or the ITU except in accordance with
the proviso in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about the ITU head-
quarters and at the meeting hall and office of Respondent Nassau County Typo-
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1307:
graphical Union #915 (AFL) and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix B ;
(2) Cease giving effect to any provision of its constitution, bylaws, general
laws, policies, rules, resolutions, decisions, instructions, or directions, which are
inconsistent with or in conflict with these recommendations ;
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the In-
ternational Typographical Union (AFL) has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it al-
leges that the International Typographical Union (AFL) has refused to bargain
collectively with the Company, and that the Respondents have restrained and
coerced the Company.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) clays from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondents notify the
Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
Respondents to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in
support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and
six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on
the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as
required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the afore-
said Rules and Regulations,- the findings, conclusions, recommendations and
recommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of
said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings,
conclusions, and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 7, 1948.
APPENDIX A
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS NASSAU COUNTY
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, we hereby notify you that:
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith as exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit found
in the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner in Case No. 2-CB-14 with
THE DAILY REVIEW CORPORATION with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment and other conditions of employment of the employees in such
appropriate unit.
2. WE WILL NOT promulgate, observe, or give effect to any policy, practice,
or course of conduct which states or requires that we shall refuse to bargain
or refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with the Company or its
bargaining representatives or that we shall refuse or refrain from entering
into or signing a collective bargaining contract.
3. WE WILL NOT require, or instruct or induce our representatives to require
that the Company adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of employment pro-
mulgated unilaterally by us or INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION without
bargaining thereon with the Company, or that the Company execute a con-
tract which expressly or by implication make membership in or approval by
this Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION a condition of hiring
or continued employment, except in accordance with the provisos in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. WE WILL NOT require from or enforce against the Company or other
employers any conditions of employment which require or permit this Local
to require that the Company assign particular work to members of this
Local or INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION rather than to employees in
another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class unless the
employer involved fails to conform to an order of certification of the National
Labor Relations Board determining that this Local is the bargaining repre-
sentative for employees performing such work.
5. WE WILL NOT require that the general laws, rules, and decisions of the
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION must be adopted or accepted by the
Company as rules and conditions of employment applicable to its composing
room without bargaining with respect to them, or that no question of the
application of such general laws, rules, and decisions may be the subject of
bargaining.
6. WE WILL NOT require that the Company agree, without bargaining
thereon, that the meaning, interpretation, or application of terms of condi-
tions of employment whether named or referred to in any contract or not so
named or referred to, be unilaterally determined by the Local or the INTER-
NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
7. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the employers to discriminate
in any manner against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, and particularly by requiring that the employers, without bargain-
ing, adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated
unilaterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
8. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the Company in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by
attempting to impose or by imposing upon employees of the employers any
conditions of employment requiring said employees as a condition of em-
ployment to obtain and maintain or to maintain membership in the Local
or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION ; except in accordance with the
provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
9. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the said unit with THE DAILY REVIEW
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915 1309
CORPORATION and if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
Ing in a signed agreement.
NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915,
By JOHN J. BYRNES,
President.
Dated - ------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS, AND MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND TO NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION #915,
ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, we hereby notify you that:
1. WE WILL NOT promulgate, observe, or give effect to any policy which
states or requires that a subordinate union (a) shall refuse to bargain or
refrain from bargaining collectively in good faith with the employers or their
bargaining representatives with respect to wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment or (b) shall refuse or refrain from entering into
or signing collective bargaining contracts.
2. WE WILL NOT require or instruct any subordinate union or its representa-
tives to require that employers adopt or acquiesce in any conditions of em-
ployment, promulgated unilaterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION without bargaining thereon with the employers, or
that the employers execute contracts which expressly or by implication make
membership in, or approval by, the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHI-
CAL UNION, a condition of hiring or continued employment, except in accord-
ance with the provisos in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. WE WILL NOT require from or enforce against an employer any condition
of employment which requires or permits a subordinate union to require that
the employers assign particular work to members of the Local or the INTER-
NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION rather than to employees in other labor
organizations or in another trade, craft, or class unless the employer involved
fails to conform to an order of certification of the National Labor Relations
Board, determining that the Local is the bargaining representative for em-
ployees performing such work.
4. WE WILL NOT require or instruct our members or any subordinate union
to require that the general laws, rules, and decisions of the INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION must be adopted or accepted by the employers as rules
and conditions of employment applicable to their. respective composing rooms
without bargaining with respect to them, or that no questions of the applica-
tion of such general laws, rules, and decisions may be the subject of collective
bargaining.
5. WE WILL NOT require or instruct our members or any subordinate union
to require that employers agree without bargaining thereon that the meaning,
interpretation, or application of terms or conditions of employment, whether
named or referred to in any contract or not so named or referred to, be
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unilaterally determined by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION.
6. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause or instruct our members or any
local to cause or attempt to cause employers to discriminate in any manner
against their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and
particularly by requiring that the employers without bargaining- thereon
adopt or acquiesce in terms or conditions of employment promulgated uni-
laterally by the Local or the INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION.
7. WE W:LL NOT restrain or coerce or instruct our members or subordinate
Union #915 to restrain or coerce employees of the Company in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and particularly by at-
tempting to impose or by imposing upon employees of the Company conditions
of employment requiring said employees as a condition of employment to
obtain and maintain or to maintain membership in Local #915 or the INTER-
NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION ; except in accordance with the provisos in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
8. WE HAVE rescinded and will cease to give effect to any and all provisions
in the constitution, bylaws, general laws, policies of INTERNATIONAL TYPO-
GRAPHICAL UNION and of any subordinate Local #915 which are inconsistent
with or in conflict with the foregoing statements.
INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
By WOODRUFF RANDOLPH,
President.
Dated -------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.