New York Mailers' Union No. 6, ITU

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 196 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS , REPRESENTATIVES , AGENTS , AND MEMBERS AND TO
EMPLOYEES OF JOHN J. REICH AND Louis G. REICH, COPARTNERS , TRADING AS
JOHN REICH PAINTING AND DECORATING
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to the motion of our membership on
September 9, 1960 , regarding John J. Reich and Louis G. Reich, copartners,
trading as John Reich Painting and Decorating.
WE WILL NOT by any other means engage in, or induce or encourage anyone
employed by the above-described partnership to engage in, a refusal in the
course of his employment to perform any services , where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring either partner to join or become reinstated in our union.
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce , or restrain either partner of the above-
described partnership, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring either
partner to join or become reinstated in our union.
PAINTERS LOCAL UNION No. 24 9, BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO [New York Herald Tribune , Inc., et al.]
and The Publishers Association of New York City. Case No.
2-CC-614. March 12, 1962
DECISION' AND ORDER
On May 12, 1961, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action,
as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
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 Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case,
3 The Trial Examiner permitted Ingram , a representative of Neo-Gravure Printing Com-
pany , to intervene during the course of the hearing . The Respondent has excepted to the
ruling and in a separate motion has requested that Neo-Gravure be dismissed as an
Intervenor . Ingram sought intervention only to explain an affidavit which he had given
to the General Counsel on a charge brought by this Respondent against Neo-Gravure in
another Region As the Employer whose dispute with Respondent set in motion the
violations alleged, we find that Neo -Gravure was entitled to intervene . The fact that Its
intervention came while Ingram was testifying was not prejudicial to the Respondent.
The motion to dismiss Neo-Gravure as a party Is hereby denied.
136 NLRB No. 19.
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION NO. 6, ITU 197
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner except as noted hereafter.
The Respondent Union stipulated that it instructed mailroom em-
ployees of the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Mirror, and
the New York Journal American not to handle weekly supplements
printed by Neo-Gravure Printing Company, hereafter called Neo-
Gravure, when it struck that Company on February 20, 1961. The
record also establishes that agents of the Union had informed the
circulation managers of the newspapers named above that their mail-
room employees would not handle supplements provided by Neo-
Gravure once the strike began.
On these uncontroverted facts, the Trial Examiner concluded that
the Union had induced employees of the newspapers and had coerced
and restrained the newspapers with the objects of getting them to
cease doing business with Neo-Gravure and forcing Neo-Gravure to
bargain with the Union, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii)
(B) of theAct2
The Union contends that its purpose in inducing its members em-
ployed by the newspapers to cease handling the supplements printed
by Neo-Gravure was only to seek the publisher's observance of the
traditional, contractual,' and lawful right of its members not to han-
dle the struck work. It denies that it has sought to force the pub-
lishers to cease doing business with Neo-Gravure. Rather, it urges
that it had no objection to their continuing the existing business re-
lationship with Neo-Gravure by any means which would not require
its members to handle the work coming from Neo-Gravure's struck
plant. The Union also maintains that the General Counsel has failed
to prove that its objects were those proscribed by Section 8(b) (4)
(B), since it is not the effect of its conduct which is controlling but
rather whether its intent was to bring about the unlawful objects.
The Respondent equates "an object" as used in Section 8(b) (4) (B)
with a specific intent to accomplish the action complained of. Re-
The language of Section 8(b)(4) pertinent herein reads as follows,
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization . . . ( 4) (1) . . .
to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in com-
merce . . or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in com-
merce . . , where in either case an object thereof is : . . . ( B) forcing or requir-
ing any person to cease . . . handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of any other producer , processor, or manufacturer , or to cease doing business
with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or
bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such
labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under
the provisions of section 9.. . . .
3 The contract between the Union and the publishers does not specifically require the
publishers not to handle struck work but states that they recognize the Union 's position
on the handling of struck work and are determined not to provoke disputes with respect
to such matters . We need not decide the exact meaning of this provision since it would
not, in any event , be a defense to the violations alleged . Bangor Building Trades Council,
AFL-CIO (Davison Construction Company, Inc .), 123 NLRB 484 , enfd. 278 F. 2d 287
(CA. 1).
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent regards intent as synonymous with the scienter or wens rea
of criminal violations. This is not, however, the type of intent which
the Act requires to be proved. Rather, "in the absence of admissions
by the Union of an illegal intent, the nature of the acts performed
shows the intent."' Here, Respondent told its members who were em-
ployed by the publishers not to handle struck work from Neo-Gravure
with whom it had a dispute, and informed the publishers, with whom
it had no dispute, that so long as they continued their existing relation-
ship with Neo-Gravure it would work only on its own terms. The
Union cannot disavow the consequences of this action by denying that
it intended the publishers to cease doing business with Neo-Gravure
when its own action made it impossible for the relationship between
the publishers and Neo-Gravure to continue. The Respondent may
have been concerned with other objects as well, such as adherence to
its traditional policy of refusing to handle struck goods, but its actions
effectively establish that, at least, an object was to force the publishers
to disrupt or seriously curtail the existing business relationship be-
tween them and Neo-Gravure if the Union was unable to obtain its
goal of recognition in any other fashion.'
The Respondent has also excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding
that the publishers were restrained and coerced by the Union's an-
nouncement to newspaper representatives that their mailroom employ-
ees would not handle any supplements from Neo-Gravure. It was
stipulated, however, that mailers at three of the newspapers refused to
handle these supplements pursuant to the directions of their union
representatives. Respondent's threat that its members would not
handle the supplements, and the refusal to handle them, constituting a
partial work stoppage, had the effect of restraining and coercing the
publishers from doing business with Neo-Gravure.e
The Remedy
Although the Trial Examiner found that the publishers were co-
erced for the unlawful objects of forcing them to cease doing business
with Neo-Gravure and of forcing Neo-Gravure to bargain with the
Respondent, he failed to recommend an appropriate cease-and-desist
order. The General Counsel's exception to such omission is meritorious
and we shall correct the order accordingly.
4 Local 761 , International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO v.
N.L R B and General Electric Company , 366 U S. 667, 674, citing Seafarers International
Union of North America, Atlantic and Gulf District , Harbor and Inland Waterways Divi-
sion, AFL-CIO ( Salt Dome Production Co) v. NLRB , 265 F. 2d 585, 591 (C A D C.)
See also N L R.B. v Denver Building and Construction Trades Council , et al ( Gould &
Preisner), 341 U S. 675; and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v.
N.L.R.B., and Bernhard -Altmann Texas Corp , 366 U.S. 731, 738-739
5 Bangor Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO, supra
6 Lafayette Building and Construction Trades Council (Southern Construction Corpora-
tion ), 132 NLRB 673 Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa and Vicinity,
AFL-CIO, et al. (Tampa Sand and Material Co.), 132 NLRB 1564
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION NO. 6, ITU 199
The Respondent excepted to the scope of the recommended order,
contending that it was too broad. We agree in part and shall provide
for a broad order with respect to secondary employees but will limit
its application to Neo-Gravure, the only primary employer involved
herein.
We shall also modify the Trial Examiner's recommended order by
eliminating any reference to violation of the Act with respect to
American Weekly. At the start of the hearing, the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint by adding American Weekly to the
newspapers listed as secondary employers, and the complaint was so
amended. The stipulation entered into by the Respondent Union as to
inducement of the publishers and employees did not include American
Weekly nor does the record indicate any restraint or coercion of repre-
sentatives of that publication.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, New York Mailers'
Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its offi-
cers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by any
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, in-
cluding employees of New York Herald Tribune, Inc., New York
Mirror, Division of Hearst Corporation, and New York Journal
American, Division of Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., to
refuse, in the course of his or their employment, to use or handle ma-
terials or products, or to perform services on materials or products
with an object of forcing or requiring any person, including New
York Herald Tribune, Inc., New York Mirror, Division of Hearst
Corporation, and New York Journal American, Division of Hearst
Consolidated Publications, Inc., to cease doing business with Neo-
Gravure Printing Company, or to cease handling or otherwise dealing
in the products of Neo-Gravure Printing Company, or with an object
of forcing or requiring Neo-Gravure Printing Company to recognize
or bargain with Respondent as the representative of its employees
unless Respondent has been certified as the representative of such
employees.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, including New York
Herald Tribune, Inc., New York Mirror, Division of Hearst Corpora-
tion, and New York Journal American, Division of Hearst Consoli-
dated Publications, Inc., with ah object of having them cease doing
business with Neo-Gravure Printing Company or to cease handling or
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise dealing in the products of Neo-Gravure Printing Company
or with an object of forcing or requiring Neo-Gravure Printing Com-
pany to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representa-
tive of its employees unless Respondent has been certified as the repre-
sentative of such employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its office, place of business, and meeting place, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said no-
tices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed
copies of said notices, attached hereto, for posting, the companies will-
ing, at the mailroom premises of New York Herald Tribune, New
York Mirror, and New York Journal American. Copies of the notice
shall be furnished by the Regional Director.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, including employees of New York Herald Tribune, New
York Mirror, and New York Journal American, to refuse in the
course of his employment, to use or handle materials or products,
or to refuse to perform services on materials or products, includ-
ing Sunday supplements, with an object of forcing or requiring
any person, including New York Herald Tribune, New York
Mirror, and New York Journal American, to cease doing business
with Neo-Gravure Printing Company, or to cease handling or
otherwise dealing in the products of Neo-Gravure Printing Com-
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION NO. 6, ITU 201
pany, or with an object of forcing or requiring Neo-Gravure, to
recognize or bargain with us as the-representative of its employees
unless we have been certified as the representative of such
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, including the
New York Herald Tribune, New York Mirror, and New York
Journal American, with an object of forcing or requiring them to
cease doing business with Neo-Gravure Printing Company or to
cease handling or otherwise dealing in the products of Neo-
Gravure Printing Company, or with an object of forcing or
requiring Neo-Gravure Printing Company to recognize or bar-
gain with us as the representative of its employees unless we have
been certified as the representative of such employees.
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION No. 6, INTERNA-
TIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office (745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York; Telephone Number,
Plaza 1-5500) if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to a complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Respondent, the
above matter was heard by Ramey Donovan , the duly designated Trial Examiner,
in New York City on April 3 and 4, 1961. The complaint alleged that since
February 20, 1961, Respondent has engaged in strikes and has induced individuals
employed by Herald Tribune , Mirror , and Journal American to engage in strikes
and refusals to work or to perform services and has threatened , coerced, and re-
strained Herald Tribune, Mirror, and Journal American with objects of forcing
Herald Tribune , Mirror, and Journal American to cease doing business with Neo-
Gravure Printing Company and to force Neo-Gravure to recognize and bargain with
Respondent as the representative of employees of Neo-Gravure, all in violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. The answer denied the commission
of unfair labor practices.
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Publishers Association of New York City, with its principal office in New
York City, is an association of employers engaged in publishing daily and Sunday
newspapers in and around New York. The Association, among other functions,
negotiates and executes collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-
members with labor organizations , including Respondent.
New York Herald Tribune, Inc., New York Mirror , Division of Hearst Cor-
poration , and New York Journal American, Division of Hearst Consolidated Pub-
lications , Inc., are members of the aforementioned Association. Herald Tribune,
Mirror , and Journal American are in the business of printing and publishing daily
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Sunday newspapers in New York City. In the course of their business the
aforenamed companies hold membership in or subscribe to various interstate news
services, including the Associated Press and the United Press International, publish
syndicated features, advertise nationally sold products, cause newsprint, inks, and
other materials to be transported to them from outside New York State, publish
newspapers and cause them to be delivered to purchasers outside New York State,
and derive gross annual revenue from said publishing operations in excess of
$500,000. These publishing companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Neo-Gravure Printing Company, a subsidiary of Cuneo Press, Inc., has its princi-
pal office and place of business in Weehawken, New Jersey, where it is engaged in
the printing business. Neo-Gravure at all times material to this case has been
engaged in printing certain Sunday supplements for the newspapers heretofore
mentioned. It prints "Today's Living" for the Herald Tribune, the "New York
Mirror Magazine" for the Mirror, and "The American Weekly" for the Journal
American and delivers these supplements to the above-mentioned newspapers in
New York City.
Respondent is the collective-bargaining representative of the mailroom employees
of the Herald Tribune, the Mirror, and the Journal American and has a contract
with the Association, heretofore mentioned, of which the newspapers are members.
In general, the work of the mailroom employees is to handle and assemble and to
arrange for the mailing or shipping of the various newspapers. The Sunday supple-
ments are inserted into the Sunday newspapers by the mailroom employees although
they likewise arrange the dispatching of the supplements to certain dealers for in-
sertion by the latter. The mailroom operation is of an integrated nature with
employees performing various tasks throughout the week with respect to both the
Sunday and daily newspapers. A certain amount of the mailroom work pertaining
to the Sunday supplements is performed well in advance of the time when the
newspaper reaches the reader since papers are shipped overseas and to various parts
of the United States.
For several months prior to February 20, 1961, and continuing at the time of the
instant hearing there has been a dispute between Neo-Gravure and Respondent. On
February 20, 1961, Respondent filed a charge of unfair labor practice in Case No.
22-CA-849 against Neo-Gravure under Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act in the
Board's Newark, New Jersey, Regional Office. In substance, the aforesaid charge
alleged an unlawful refusal to bargain in that Neo-Gravure, after recognizing the
Union, unlawfully withdrew recognition and refused to bargain in good faith.'
On the evening of February 13, 1961, the Union held what the president, Laura,
described as a general body meeting. Such a meeting would include all the mem-
bers in the area who worked at the various establishments where the Union was the
bargaining agent. A strike against Neo-Gravure was voted at this meeting. Laura
informed representatives of the Publishers Association that the situation between
the Union and Neo-Gravure was not very promising. Laura, in speaking to one
of the Association representatives, Camp, advised him to have the various news-
papers get the Sunday supplements into their plants before the strike. Laura also
told Camp that "we" would not handle work that came out of Neo-Gravure after
the strike started. In the week prior to February 20 Laura told Taylor, foreman of
the mailroom at the Journal American and a member of the Union, that the strike
against Neo-Gravure would commence on Monday and that Taylor should tell
I During the course of the hearing Respondent sought an adjournment in order to file a
motion with the General Counsel in Washington, D C., under Section 102 33 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, to consolidate the instant case with Case No 22-CA-849
The Trial Examiner refused to adjourn the hearing for the above purpose but upon com-
pletion of the evidence in the instant case the Trial Examiner stated that he would not
formally close the record until Respondent had had an opportunity to file its motion with
the General Counsel and the General Counsel had made a ruling on said motion. Subse-
quently, on April 7, 1961, within the period specified by the Trial Examiner, Respondent
filed the aforesaid motion On May 5, 1961, the General Counsel denied Respondent's
request that the General Counsel take action to consolidate the cases The instant hear-
ing thereupon formally closed pursuant to the previously announced ruling of the Trial
Examiner.
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION NO. 6, ITU 203
Smith, circulation manager of the Journal American, to get everything in the plant
before the weekend and that the Union would handle material that came in before
the strike. Laura told Smith on February 16 that he should get in the supplements
as soon as possible because when the strike occurred at Neo-Gravure " our men"
would not handle the work. Foreman Taylor told Smith on February 17 that he had
received instructions from the Union that the mailers would not handle any "Ameri-
can Weekly" that came to the plant after the strike started. Smith therefore ar-
ranged to secure the Sunday supplements before the strike occurred and had no
problem thereafter .2
Zwick, circulation manager of the Herald Tribune, testified credibly that on
February 18, Collins, treasurer of the Union , told him that if there was a picket
line at Neo-Gravure Zwick would not be able to get any copies of "Today's
Living" into his plant but that the mailers would handle supplements already in
the Tribune plant. Collins said that the mailers would not handle the balance of
"Today's Living" if there was trouble on Monday.
The strike commenced at Neo-Gravure at 4 a.m . on Monday, February 20.
Zwick spoke to Laura about 5 p.m. on February 20 and said he had a couple of
trucks en route with "Today's Living." Zwick asked Laura if the mailers would
handle this work. Laura said they would not because it was struck work and they
were invoking the struck-work provision of the contract? When some Sunday
supplements from Neo-Gravure arrived at the Herald Tribune's platform on Febru-
ary 20, the mailroom employee to whom the work was assigned told the foreman
that he would not handle the work because his Union had told him it was struck
work.
On February 20 the circulation manager of the Mirror, Potts, asked Laura
whether the mailers at the Mirror would handle the supplements received from
Neo-Gravure. Laura said no. Potts then asked what the union position would be
if the supplements were printed elsewhere and not by Neo-Gravure. Laura queried
if Potts was referring to Alco as another source of printing and Potts said he was.
Laura then stated that he had checked this aspect with his attorneys and the mailers
would handle the supplements if they were printed by Alco rather than by
Neo-Gravure.4
In his testimony Laura stated that prior to his conversation with Potts, MacCauley,
vice president of Alco, had spoken to him . MacCauley had said that he had a call
regarding Alco doing some work for the Mirror. After consultation , Laura had told
MacCauley that the mailers would handle work performed directly by Alco for the
Mirror. On Monday night, February 20, the Mirror's mailers in Brooklyn did not
handle the Sunday supplements . The chapel chairman of the Union in the Brooklyn
plant said that the mailers would not handle the work because they had been so
instructed by their representatives who had told them that it was struck work.5 At
the hearing Laura acknowledged that at the Mirror and at the Herald Tribune the
mailers had refused to handle supplements that had come from Neo-Gravure after
the strike's inception.6
2 As we shall see the strike started February 20 A restraining order was secured by
the General Counsel from the Federal district court on February 24 with respect to
alleged secondary boycott activity
2 Section 37 of the contract between the Publishers and the Union states that each party
is mindful of the "historic rights" of the other and both desire "to preserve these rights
to the greatest possible extent " "Both parties, however , also are mindful of new public
law which bears on labor-management relations Insofar as possible without violation
or circumvention of law , the publishers recognize the Union's position in regard to union
jurisdiction , union security , and the Union ' s position on the handling of struck work and
are determined not to provoke disputes with respect to such matter "
4 Alco Gravure Publications is a printing establishment and a competitor of Neo-
Gravure The Respondent Union represents the Alco employees.
5 Chapel chairman is the designation used by Respondent Union to denote a person that
corresponds in other unions to a shop chairman.
'There is in the record a stipulation of the parties that agents of the Herald Tribune,
the Mirror , and the Journal American directed mailers in their employ to handle Sunday
supplements and the mailers refused to do so The evidence in the record is in accord
with this stipulation except that in the case of the Journal American the matter never
came to a head After the mailers employed by that paper had received their instructions
from the Union that they were not to handle Neo-Gravure work that came from the latter
company after February 20, the Journal American secured a supply of supplements prior
to the strike . This factor together with the restraining order of February 24 obviated
any actual refusal to work at the Journal American.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
After careful consideration of the evidence and the contentions of the parties, I
find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
Respondent in its primary dispute with Neo-Gravure used two strings in its bow.
The strike and the picketing at the Neo-Gravure plant had the potentiality, if the
picket line was honored by the other employees of Neo-Gravure, most or all of
whom were apparently members of other unions , of shutting off production of the
Sunday supplements at their source. However, potentially, and actually as it turned
out, the primary strike might not and did not accomplish the desired effect. The
second string in Respondent 's bow had been readied concurrently with the first.
The union members had been instructed that no struck work, work that came from
the Neo-Gravure plant after the commencement of the strike, was to be handled at
the newspaper publishers' plants. Such an instruction, in my opinion , envisaged
what did occur, namely, that the production of supplements by Neo-Gravure would
continue and that the supplements would come to the newspapers for their customary
handling by the mailer employees of the newspapers.
Respondent contends that an object of its conduct was not to force or require
the newspapers to cease doing business with Neo-Gravure or to cease handling
Neo-Gravure's products. The instruction and the refusal to handle Neo-Gravure
supplements is said to be attributable solely to Respondent's policy not to handle
struck work. This traditional policy is, it is claimed , recognized in the contract with
the Publishers Association of which the instant newspapers are members.
The aforementioned contract clause is not in issue in the case except insofar as
Respondent has invoked it in its defense. The pertinent section of the contract
dealing with struck work is prefaced by the phrase, "Insofar as possible without
violation or circumvention of law, the Publishers recognize the Union's position .
on the handling of struck work and are determined not to provoke disputes with
respect to such matters." It is apparent, in my opinion, that several constructions
of this clause are possible. On the one hand, the clause may be so qualified that
it has no applicability to the instant situation or it may be that the Publishers have
not failed to recognize the Union's position on struck work and have been and are
determined not to provoke disputes with respect to such matters. On the other hand,
if the Publishers' recognition of the union struck-work position is in effect an under-
standing or an agreement that the Union is not expected or obliged to handle struck
work, I am unable to see how this would constitute a valid defense in the instant
case.7 There is no "farmed out" work or "ally" situation herein and I find no pri-
mary dispute between the Respondent and the newspapers.
The failure of the Respondent to have said in so many words to the newspaper
publishers that they should cease doing business with Neo-Gravure is not dispositive
of the question of object. I also find unconvincing the assertion that Respondent was
indifferent to whether or not the Publishers continued doing business with Neo-
Gravure and that Respondent in fact would have been satisfied if the Publishers
continued to do business with that company with the assistance of employees who
were not members of Respondent. Of course it is true that some persons react
almost automatically to picket lines or to the phrase or actuality of "struck work."
But Respondent, in my opinion , was refusing to handle Neo-Gravure "struck work"
not because of that factor in itself . The reaction of a union and its members to
struck work is ultimately based on the sympathy, solidarity, or common purpose
that union members espouse toward a situation or a dispute that may not involve
them directly but which involves a contest of their fellow unionists or fellow workers.
Here, Respondent was engaged in a dispute with Neo-Gravure. Respondent believed
that it should be the bargaining representation at Neo-Gravure and that that Com-
pany was producing work that should have been produced under the aegis of
Respondent and its members. The refusal to handle the Neo-Gravure products at
the newspapers was meaningless unless it had as an object the rendering of assistance
to Respondent in its primary dispute. Such assistance could most obviously come
if the refusal to handle the struck work caused the newspapers to exert economic
pressure upon Neo-Gravure to settle its dispute with Respondent. The leverage of
the newspaper publishers with Neo-Gravure was either to threaten to or to actually
cease doing business with Neo-Gravure. If the Publishers continued to purchase
the Sunday supplements from Neo-Gravure, there would be no pressure upon the
7 Cf Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Ind) and Local No 17 of the Amalgamated
Lithographers of America (Ind) (The Employing Lithographers, a Division of the Graphic
Arts Employers Association, etc ), 130 NLRB 985; Amalgamated Lithographers of America
and Local 78, Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Employing Lithographers of
Greater Miami, Florida, and Miami Post Company), 130 NLRB 968.
NEW YORK MAILERS' UNION NO. 6, ITU 205
latter to reach agreement with the Union at its plant. This would be true whether
the Publishers simply accumulated supplements on their premises with no employees
to handle or to mail them or whether supervisors or office clericals or other employees
performed the mailers ' work . I am convinced that Respondent 's refusal to handle
Neo-Gravure work at the publishers' premises was to confront the latter with either
actual or prospective economic loss. The expectative reaction on the Publishers'
part would be to secure other sources for the printing of the supplements and thus
obviate the problem inherent in doing business with Neo-Gravure when the mailers
were refusing to handle work coming from the latter.8
It is likewise my opinion that the evidence establishes that an object of Respond-
ent's conduct was to force or require Neo-Gravure to recognize and bargain with
Respondent as the representative of its employees. Since the direct issue of whether
or not there was an unlawful refusal to bargain on the part of Neo-Gravure is in-
volved in another case , heretofore mentioned, my conclusion here is not intended
to pass upon the question of whether or not Neo-Gravure was legally obligated to
recognize and to bargain with Respondent or whether or not Neo-Gravure ever
recognized Respondent or withdrew recognition from Respondent or bargained with
Respondent or refused to bargain. The instant evidence persuades me that an object
of the instant conduct in aid of the primary dispute between Respondent and Neo-
Gravure was to require the latter to recognize or to continue to recognize and to
bargain with Respondent within the meaning of paragraph (B) of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii).
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent's position with respect to handling or working on struck work is
a basic one. Respondent's president referred to struck work as "dirt" and it is appar-
ent that the Union's policy is not to handle such work. The contract in evidence
between the Publishers Association and the Respondent refers to the Publishers'
recognition of the "Union's position on the handling of struck work." It is clear in
total context what that position is. In view of these considerations the involvement
of but three newspaper publishers in the instant case is attributable solely to the fact
that others did not have the same business relationship with a particular company,
Neo-Gravure. There is a reasonable basis to conclude that if there had been or
would .be a primary dispute with some other company and a strike ensued the basic
policy of not handling struck work at other places of employment would be applic-
able and operative.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. New York Herald Tribune, Inc., New York Mirror, Division of Hearst Cor-
poration, and New York Journal American, Division of Hearst Consolidated Pub-
lications, Inc., and American Weekly, Division of Hearst Publishing Company, Inc.,
are persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
3. By engaging in and by inducing and encouraging individuals employed by the
above-named persons to engage in a strike and a refusal in the course of their
employment to handle and to perform services on Sunday supplements printed by
Neo-Gravure Printing Company and by threatening, restraining, and coercing the
persons named before in paragraph 2 hereof with an object of forcing and requiring
such persons to cease doing business with Neo-Gravure Printing Company and to
force and require the latter-named Company to recognize and bargain with
Respondent as the representative of Neo-Gravure Printing Company's employees,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4. Said unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8 Respondent's advance warning to the Publishers to secure their supplements before
the strike may well be regarded as a considerate action. But even thus regarded, It had
the same impact potential, if not greater, than would the refusal to handle work without
warning. To say to a person, eat a good meal today because Monday you will have no
food, may be as effective as to wait until Monday and then state you have eaten your
last meal.