Pacific Manifolding Book Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1257 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of PACIFIC MANIFOLDING Booii COMPANY, INC. & MooRE
BUSINESS FORMS, INC.' and OAKLAND PRINTING PRESSMEN AND As-
SISTANTS' UNION N O. 125, SUBORDINATE TO THE INTERNATIONAL PRINT-
ING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
Case No. 20-C-1270.-Decided December 10, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 23,1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, on July 14,1945, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral
argument before the Board was made, and none was held.
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 respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
THE REMEDY
In view of the findings of the Trial Examiner, which we have
adopted, it is apparent that, the respondent has, by varying methods
and over a long period of time, dominated and interfered with the
Employee Representation Plan and thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's course of conduct
in this respect, by virtue both of its intensive and extensive character,
discloses a fixed purpose to defeat self-organization and its objects.
',Moore Business Forms, Inc, was erioneousls refereed to in the pleadings and designated
In their entitlements as "Moore Business Forms, Inc, Pacific Manifolding Book Division "
At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that all references to "Moore
Business Forms, Inc, Pacific Manifolding Book Division" be corrected to read as herein-
above set forth. This motion was granted without objection.
64 N. L. R. B, No. 211.
1257
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'thus, the respondent, by dominating and interfering with, and by
contributing support to, the Employee Representation Plan, inter-
fered with its employees' right to self-organization, and to form, join,
niid assist labor organizations, denied its employees the free oppor-
tunity to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and substantially deprived its employees of their right to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or of lier mutual aid or protection, except in the channels directed
by the respondent. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct
and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor
practices found are persuasively related to tlu, other unfair labor
practices proscribed and that a danger of their commission in the fu-
ture is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct
in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted un-
less our order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to
make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent
a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, we will order the respondent to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Pacific Manifolding Book
Company, Inc., and Moore Business Forms, Inc., Emeryville, Cali-
fornia, and each of them, and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Em-
ployee Representation Plan, or with the formation or adznini8tration
of any other labor organization of the employees, or from contribut-
ing financial or other support to Employee Representation Plan or to
any other labor organization of the employees;
(b) Recognizing, or in any manner dealing with, Employee Repre-
sentation Plan, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any
of the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment;
2 See, for example, N. L. R. B. v. Standard Oil Company, et al., 188 F. (2d) 885 (C. C. A.
,2), enf'g 43 N. L. R. B. 12.
PACIFIC M.:NIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1259
(c) Performing or giving effect to the contract of May 29, 1944.
with Employee Representation Plan, or to any amendment, exten-
sion, or renewal thereof, or to any other contract, agreement, or under-
standing entered into with said organization relating to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
the employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Oakland Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union No. 125, Subordinate to the International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employee Representation
Plan as the representative of any of the employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and completely disestablish the Employee Representation
Plan as such representative;
(b) Post at the plant in Emeryville, California, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twen-
tieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondents' repre-
sentatives, be posted by the respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by the respondents for sixty (60) consecutive
clays thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San
Francisco, California), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Order, what steps the respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
3 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the
first paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order "
1260 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. John Paul Jennings and Robed t E Tillinam,, fox the Board.
Messrs Gilbert & Zagri, by Sidney Zagra, of San Francisco, Calif, for the
Union.
Messrs. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, by Moses Lasky, of San Francisco, Calif,
for the respondents
Mr. Fredea ick J Schoeneman, of Oakland, Calif, foi the intervenor
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Oakland Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants ' Union No 125, Subordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants ' Union of North America, herein called the Union. the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued its complaint dated
December 9, 1944, against Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc, and Moore
Business Forms, Inc,' alleging that these companies had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices aflecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and amended
charge, accompanied by notice of hearing, wei e duly sei N ed upon the respondents
and the Employee Representation Plan, herein referred to as the ERP.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that: (1) the respondents on or about Apiii 1934. initiated and instigated at the
plant of the Pacific Manifolding book Company. In(, in Enieryv mile, Californm,
the formation of the ERP and have fiom that (late to the date of the issuance
of the complaint, dominated and interfered with the administration of the EPl'
and contributed financial and other support tlieieto Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the respondents instigated, suggested, and assisted the formation
of the ERP about April 1934; that newly hired employees have ])(,come members
of and are entitled to participate in the ERP solely by virtue of their employee
status; that the respondents have borne all expenses relative to the formation
and operation of the ERP ; that the i espoudents have pen witted a ml encouraged
the employee representatives of the ERP to utilize the respondents' time and
premises in conducting ERP activities, continuously furnishing them with such
equipment and facilities as meeting places, typewriters, paper awl pencils, print-
ing presses and secretarial services The complaint fnnther alleged that the
respondents by the foregoing acts, have nnteifered with. restrained, and cocked
the employees involved in the exercise of the rights guaranteed theta by Section
7 of the Act.
The respondents' answer dated December 16, 1944. admitted certain of the
allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices and denied that the Board had jurisdiction Specifically, the re-
spondents denied that they initiated, instigated, assisted or suggested the for-
mation of the ERP; that they dominated or interfered with the administra-
tion of the ERP or contributed financial suppot thereto; or that they bore the
expenses of the formation or operation of the ERl' Pacific Manifolding Book
Company, Inc., admitted, aniong other things, that each enpdoyee within a
unit previously found by the Board to be appropriate (Matter of Pacific Manic
folding Book Co., 3 N. L. R. B. 551) was entitled, not compelled, to participate
IHerein designated as the respondents, when referred to jointly The singular terns,
respondent , will be used when reference is made to the Pacific blanifolduig Book Company,
Inc , only
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1261
In the ERP by virtue of his employee st.itus; that at all times since 1934 it
has permitted the nomination and election of employee representatives to be
held upon the plant premises; that it has permitted meetings of the ERP
Plant Council to be held on company time and premises, but that such prac-
tice was initiated some time after the formation of the ERP ; that since the
certification of the ERP in the Board proceeding hereinabove referred to in
1937 such grants of time have resulted from collective bargaining negotiations
between it and the ERP ; that it haS permitted the ERP to use its waste and
scrap paper and printing presses to print pamphlets embodying, among other
things, the constitution and bylaws of the ERP and the Joint Agreement be-
tween the Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc., and the ERP, but that the
monetary value of such pamphlets has been wholly trifling; and that it has'
permitted the ERP to use its waste and scrap paper to print election ballots.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 28, 29, and 30 in San
Francisco, California, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the opening of the hearing, the Trial Ex-
aminer granted, without objection, leave to the ERP to intervene as a party
in the instant proceeding. The Board, the respondents, the Union, and the
ERP were represented at the hearing by counsel. All parties participated in
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. All of the parties
argued orally upon the record before the undersigned and all of the parties filed
briefs with the undersigned.
Thereafter, by telegram on April 25, 1945, the undersigned Trial Examiner
issued a rule to show cause why the entire transcript of the testimony in the
1937 representation proceeding, and the brief filed in behalf of the Pacific'
Manifolding Book Company, Inc , in that case, the only brief filed in the case,
should not be received in evidence in the instant proceeding, to determine the
position taken by the Trial Examiner and the parties at that hearing, and by
the respondent, Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc, in the aforesaid brief.
Upon consideration of the responses received, the undersigned, on May 2, 1945,
ordered that the documentary material specified in the above-mentioned rule
be received in evidence for the limited purpose herein stated, and further or-
dered that all parties be given an opportunity to submit additional briefs or
memoranda with respect to the record as supplemented. The respondents sub-
mitted such a supplemental brief, which the undersigned has considered.'
The respondents, both during the hearing and in their original brief, moved
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety upon the ground that the Board
cannot proceed with the instant case because a proviso attached to the Board's
appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, precludes the use
of any of its funds for purposes of such proceeding. The respondents urged
in support of this motion that the instant proceeding came within the purview
t The respondents argue that this procedure has placed them at a "disadvantage ," claim-
ing that the hearing was not formally reopened to receive the additional evidence submitted
and that the rule contained no specific reference to the particular portions of the evidence
which the undersigned deems relevant. These contentions are without merit. The supple-
mental brief filed by respondents ' counsel itself recognizes that substantial portions of the
matter admitted pursuant to the above order bear upon questions which he raised in this
proceeding . The respondents have been afforded full opportunity to present argument with
respect to the evidence in question Under the circumstances, it is clear that the respond-
ents have been afforded a full and fair hearing , and cannot properly contend that they have
suffered any injury or been deprived of any substantive right Market Street Railway
Company v . Railroad Commission of the State of California, 65 S Ct 770 , decided March 26,
1945, 13 L. W. 4272 ; of Ohio Bell Telephone Company v Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio, 301 U S. 292, 302; Morgan v U. S 298 U. S. 468, 480; U S. v. Abilene and
Southern Railway Company, 265 U S. 274, 288.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the proviso in that the Board had already determined in the representation
case hereinabove referred to that the Employee Representation Plan was a
"lawful labor organization " Ruling on this motion was reserved. The motion
is disposed of as hereinafter indicated.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the wit-
nesses, the under vaned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF. FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc, a Delaware corporation, has its
principal office and place of business in Emeryville, California, where it was
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of manifolding forms. It
also operated a branch plant in Los Angeles, California, and maintained sales
offices in Seattle and Spokane, Washington ; Portland, Oregon ; Salt Lake City,
Utah; and Denver, Colorado. During 1944, Pacific Manifolding Book Com-
pany, Inc., manutactured products valued in excess of $2,000,007, of which
approximately 35 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Call-
fornia. During the same period it used products consisting principally of
paper, having a value in excess of $370,000, of which approxini:itely 90 per-
cent originated at points outside the State.'
It was further admitted by counsel for the respondents, and stipulated at
the hearing between him and counsel for the Board. that Alooie Business
Forms, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operating plants in two States of the
United States, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of mani-
folding forms . The respondents ' answer alleged that on or about January 1,
1945, Pacific Manifolding Book Company , Inc., would transfer all of its assets
to Moore Business Forms , Inc., and that thereafter Moore Business Forms, Inc.,
would operate the business as a successor to Pacific Manifolding Book Com-
pany, Inc.
II THE ORGANI%ATIONS INVOLVED
Oakland Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No 125, Subordinate to
the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership certain employees of the respondents.
Employee Representation Plan is an unaffiliated labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A Domination of and interference with the ERP and contributions of support to it
1. Events prior to 1937
(a) House Committee
About the middle of 1933 Jesse Hall, a working foreman in the "job de-
partment" of the respondents' Emeryville plant' and the president of the
3 The foregoing statement of facts is based upon admissions in the respondents' answer
and a stipulation between counsel for the Board and the respondents.
' Unless otherwise indicated, the findings of fact hereinafter set forth are based upon
admitted and stipulated facts or uncontradicted evidence which the, undersigned credits
The term respondent, as used in this section, refers to Pacific Manifolding Book Company,
Inc. only. See footnote 1, supra
Hall, who had general powers of supervision and was directly responsible to the plant
Superintendent, was empowered to recommend persons for hire and to direct and discipline
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1263
Employees' Mutual Aid Association, in employee-welfare organization,' con-
ceived the idea of establishing a committee to process employee grievances
relating to wages, hours, and working con(jitiois Hall adinittedly thought
of the idea for such a "committee" without prompting or suggestion from any
source.' Before appointing employees to the committee, be first sought per-
mission of Plant Superintendent H. T. Raynor. In explanation of this action
he testified, "You would have to have permission to appoint the committee
for such a purpose . . . the supposition would be that the committee wouldn't
have any recognition if you hadn't had permission from the Superintendent
to appoint them." Raynor asked Hall to wiite him a letter embodying such
a request. Accordingly, Hall wrote Raynor s Hall, upon receiving an affirm-
ative reply, appointed various employees from each department in the plant
to a committee. John Kelly testified that Hall, in appointing him, advised
that the committee was "to function as an independent body . . . to promote
the general welfare of the employees." Hall met with the committee in the
cafeteria, an annex to the main plant, after working hours. In attendance
were employees Peter Nielsen, Harold Drennan, and Edna Coletti, of the "press
room"; Joe Sorci, of the "slitting department"; Victor Porter and Nellie Gray,
of the "finishing department" ; John Sherry, of the "stereotype department" ;
and John Kelly, of the "composing room " Hall, who acted as chairman of
the meeting , informed the assembled group that lie had permission "to ask
them to serve on a House Committee," an "intermediary" between the em-
ployees and management. In addition, according to Kelly, Hall said that
"they ]Wild [had] House Committees of this nature before that would make
recommendations as to improl ing conditions throughout the plant," that the
assembled group "would act as an election committee . . . [to] elect officers
and then draw up [their] own set up." At this juncture, Kelly was elected
chairman and Dienman secretary of the House Committee. Hall thereupon
withdrew from the meeting.
Thereafter, until February 7934, the House Committee was permitted to meet
several times in the cafeteria after working hours The respondent also fur-
nished the House Committee with stationery and secretarial services for con-
ducting its affairs During this period the House Committee's functions were
limited to making written suggestions to Superintendent Raynor concerning
plant and recreational facilities. Illustrative of the type of proposals made were
suggestions for the installation of an employee suggestion box to get "at the
root of many of the employees' grievances that might never occur to any member
of the committee" and the installation of a locker for volley-ball equipment On
some seven or eight employees tinder his supervision . In 1933, Hall was demoted to the
status of a production employee ' tn the composing room , and since that time has exercised
no supervisory functions The undersigned finds that throughout 1933 Hall had super-
visory status
'The Employees ' Mutual Aid Association, hereinafter called the "A ssociation," was
formed in 1916 . Its chief functions are to provide sick , accident, and relief benefits to
employeeanenibers In addition , the. Association sponsors various social and athletic activ-
ities The funds required for the foregoing functions and activities are now provided
solely by dues payments of Association members checked off by the respondent. From
1916 to 19 28 the respondent contributed to the Association an amount equal to that which
it obtained from employee -members. Since that date, the respondent has limited its con-
tribution to $7 50 it month , the equivalent of 15 memberships , which amount helps defray
the costs of the Association ' s annual banquet which several repicsentatives of management
customarily attend ( See p 1371 . infra )
On several previous occasions house committee, had been et up which functionod
for short peiieds and for limited purposes
8 Ravner was not called upon to tesid}.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another occasion, the House Committee sought permission "to start a company
paper. Sort of mouthpiece" The House Committee also requested informa-
tion concerning the operation of the "Bedaux System" which the respondent
had had in operation for several years. The House Committee explained to the
respondent that "we are not impatient and whatever suggestions we make are
just suggestions. However, we are not content and intend to keep right on
asking for things."
The House Committee made no attempt to enable the employees to elect
representatives until sometime in February 1934. In the meantiune, it kept the
respondent advised of its deliberations. On November 7, 1933, the House Com-
mittee wrote to the respondent and explained its reluctance to enlarge the scope
of its activities declaring, "The House Committee at present is small and really
not a true representative of all departments Several people have suggested
we enlarge this committee and bring under its wing not only employees' welfare
but also social and athletic activities. This we feel is a good suggestion but we
would rather wait until the Committee is in better working order before branch-
ing out" On February 8, 1934, the House Committee wrote the respondent,
"The election we have been talking so much about for two or three months is
actually to become a reality. We plan to hold it this week. There are several
things the Committee as it stands are anxious to have put through before the
new committee takes charge."
The House Committee thereupon addressed a letter, typewritten on the
respondent's facilities, to each of the employees which read in part as follows:
The House Committee which has now been Iunctionnig for sometime past
believes that its members should be elected by ballot and thus become a truly
representative committee for the purpose of providing closer contact between
employees and Management in all matters affecting employees' interests.
The letter thereupon referred to a plan "formulated" by the House Committee
providing for an election by secret ballot within designated voting divisions.
It further provided that all employees excepting supervisory and clerical em-
ployees, with one year's service in the respondent's employ were entitled to vote
and act as representatives Pursuant to the procedure outlined in the notice
an election was held in February on company time, the ballots being openly dis-
tributed and the employees placing their ballots in boxes located in each
department.
With but one exception, all of the member s of the appointed House Com-
mittee were elected to the permanent House Conmiittee and Kelly and Drennan
,continued to act as chairman and secretary of the group. In the same manner,
the elected House Committee continued to use the respondent's facilities in
conducting its affairs. In March 1934, the House Committee "suggested" in
writing that the respondent provide the employees with a 1-week vacation with
pay, "that the direct workers of the Factory be taken into the faith of the execu-
tives, as much as the indirect and be given some of the privileges they enjoy."
Upon an exchange of letters and a meeting in early March between the House
Committee and Superintendent Raynor and P. H Raine, the respondent's per-
sonnel director, the respondent granted the employees a vacation with pay
(b) Transformation of the House Committee into the ERP
According to Kelly , that same month , as a consequence of the resiondent's
grant of a vacation with pay, an unidentified committee member suggested that
to e House Committee become an "oi ganization that could actually deal with wares
and hours." Kelly testified that Drennan secured copies of the bylaws of various
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1265
unaffiliated organizations, and shortly thereafter the House Committee agreed
upon the ERP form of representation' Kelly was unable to testify as to where
or in what manner Drennan secured these bylaws. With respect to the drafting
of the ERP's bylaws, he testified, "we at these meetings agreed on the portions
that he showed. If he had contacted anyone else, that is entirely unknown to
me . . . he was the secretary and he was given certain things to do and he
handled those." 10
Joseph Sorel,11 however, who was a committeeman at that time, testified that
"since we didn't know what the score was at the first couple of meetings there,"
either Personnel Director Raine or Superintendent Raynor met with the House
Committee on one occasion during this period and "kind of enlightened us on
what we were supposed to be, or represent, what power we had, how far we
would go in what we wanted," and "what benefits we would get out of it." Either
Raine or Raynor, Sorci continued, pointed to several companies, including the
"telephone company," where such "plans" operated successfully. Kelly, after
first testifying that the House Committee had not met with the management con-
cerning the ERP, admitted on cross-examination that the House Committee met
with Raine and Raynor. He admitted that they handed over both the bylaws
of the ERP and the "Joint Agreement" n therein provided to Raine and Raynor.
He testified, however, that the House Committee merely asked Raine and Raynor
"if they were willing to work under [the joint] agreement" but "they were not
asked any questions as to whether they objected to or did not object to the Plan
we had for the employees" and that both documents were submitted only because
they were stapled together. He testified that he was unable to recall whether
Raine and Raynor kept the "plan" for "study" and subsequently replied by
letter, or whether they signified their assent thereto during that same meeting,
but that in any event they recommended no changes.
The undersigned, rejecting Kelly's testimony that only the Joint Agreement
was submitted to the respondent for its approval, finds that the House Committee
sought and secured the respondent's approval of the ERP's bylaws as well. The
ERP and Joint Agreement, each of which makes express reference to the other,
were not only physically one document when submitted to the respondent, but
are, as hereinafter demonstrated, integral parts of a single structure. It was
necessary for the respondent first to examine the structure and functions of the
ERP in order to determine whether it would accept the "Joint Agreement."
Moreover, the'undersigned, fully cognizant of the fact that Sorci's memory con-
cerning the sequence of events preceding the formation of the ERP was admittedly
vague, credits his testimony hereinabove set forth. The undersigned, upon his
observation of Sorci and an examination of his testimony, finds that Sorci, who
for sometime has not been in the respondent's employ, was an honest and forth-
right witness without apparent interest in the outcome of the instant proceeding.
He testified explicitly and the undersigned finds accurately concerning the sub-
stance of what the House Committee had been advised by the management's
representatives. That he was unable to recall precisely the events which preceded
the ERP is understandable in light of the length of time which has elapsed since
9 One of the "plans" considered by the House Committee was that of the employees of
the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey See Matter of Standard Oil Company , Standard
Oil Company of New Jersey , 43 N L. R. B . 12, enf 'd 138 F. ( 2d) 885 (C. C. A. 2), wherein
that particular plan is discussed.
1° Drennan , who since that time has become a supervisory employee , was not called
upon to testify.
11 Sorci has for several years been employed otherwise than at the respondents ' plant.
az A detailed account of the provisions of the ERP and Joint Agreement is hereinafter
set forth.
670417-46-vol 64-81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the ERP was formed and the hearing in this case began. Moreover, it has been
several years since Sorci has had any connection with either the respondent
or the ERP. Finally, Kelly's admission that both Raine and Raynor were present
at a meeting of the House Committee immediately preceding the emergence
of the ERP further demonstrates the credible nature of Sorci's account." -
Under the provisions of the ERP thus approved by the respondent, the plant
was divided for voting and representation purposes into five divisions, three
having one representative in each division and the remaining two having two
representatives each. Representatives in each division were selected from among
the men employed therein Membership in the ERP was automatic. No applica-
tions for membership and no dues were required. With the exception of persons
in supervisory positions, all of the employees on the pay roll within any of the
designated divisions were eligible to vote in elections. Participation by the
employees in the ERP's functioning was limited to voting in annual elections, the
ERP making nQ provision for employee meetings.14 Adoption and termination of
the ERP required a two-thirds majority of the eligible voters, and amendments
a two-thirds vote of a Plant Council which was composed solely of the employee
representatives. About 1942, provision was also made for amendment by a
majority of the employees as well
The duty of the elected representatives as set forth in the ERP was to consider
matters relating to wages, hours, and conditions of employment and to bargain
collectively with the respondent. The employee representatives who composed
the Plant Council were required to meet quarterly, a majority of the elected
representatives constituting a quorum. The keystone of the ERP, however, was
its "Joint Conference" procedure. Thus, the ERP expressly empowered the
Plant Council "to enter into joint agreement with the officers or other representa-
tives of the Company respecting a practical working arrangement for the orderly
and expeditious consideration of any decision on matters of mutual interest."
The Joint Agreement thus provided by the ERP was designated "Joint Agreement
between E ected Representatives of Employees and Appointed Representatives
of Management of the Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc." and set forth
its "Purpose and Scope" as follows :
This agreement freely entered into by the elected representatives of
employees to affectuate [sic] the purpose and objectives of the employee
repi esentation plan as developed and adopted by the employees . . . makes
provision whereby the elected representatives shall meet in Joint Conference
with the representatives of management to discuss and to settle all matters
of joint interest, such as wages, hours, working conditions and the adjust-
ments of gi ievances, subject to review when necessary. [Italics supplied.]
The Joint Conference," composed of an equal number of employee representa-
tives elected under the ERP and a corresponding number of representatives
appointed by the management 10 including, among others, the plant superintendent
"Neither Raine nor Ravnor was called upon to testify in this proceeding
14 According to Kelly, the employee representatives discussed "matters of interest" with
their constituents at the plant and with other plant representatives during and after work-
ing hours Kelly testified that in August 1937 he submitted for approval of the employees
within his department a mimeographed wage schedule which he had already agreed to
incorporate in the agreement between the respondent and ERP. He further testified that
in 1941 the employees' representatives similarly secured approval of the employees within
their respective departments to execute a proposed agreement with the respondent.
15 It later became knooon as the "Joint Council" and is thus referred to herein
10 Although the "Joint Agreement" made no provision concerning the precise number of
management representatives upon the Joint Council, the management appointed the same
number of repiesentatives as the employees elected. Some years later the Joint Agreement
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1267
and personnel director, met bi-monthly at dinners paid for by the respondent.
Action by the Joint Council was passed on to the respondents' general manager in
the form of -recommendations, matters beyond his authority were referred to the
president of the respondent "for approval or reconsideration." Matters resulting
in a tie vote were, if a majority of the employee representatives desired, referred
to the general manager and finally to the president. If the settlement ultimately
proposed was not satisfactory to a majority of the employee representatives, it
might be referred to arbitration if the president agreed to such reference. The
grievance procedure scheduled under the Joint Agreement provided for the pres-
entation of grievances by the employee or his representative to his immediate
supervisor , the plant superintendent, and the Joint Council. If no adjustment
was reached at this last stage, it was referred to the president and disposed of
pursuant to the procedure hereinabove set forth.
On April 12 a plant-wide referendum on the adoption of the ERP was conducted
by the House Committee on company premises during working hours," a large
majority of the employees voting to adopt the ERP Shortly thereafter, an elec-
tion of employee representatives was held, each member of the House Committee
distributing ballots in his respective department during working hours The
employee representatives elected, with but one exception, constituted the same
group whom Hall had appointed to the House Committee some months before.
Finally, on the evening of May 29, 1934, the elected employee representatives and
appointed management representatives held a "Joint Council" dinner meeting. In
attendance were eight employee representatives and seven management represent-
atives, one of the appointed management representatives being absent. Among
the management representatives in attendance was Superintendent Raynor.
Personnel Director Raine was made temporary chairman and T. B. Heely, another
management representative, temporary secretary. On the motion of a manage-
ment representative the "Joint Agreement" hereinabove described was approved
and subsequently executed by all of the management and employee representa-
tives. Raine thereupon suggested that the Joint Council elect permanent officers.
At this juncture, an employee representative pointed out that "in order to main-
tain the confidence of all employees that factory employees be elected chairman
and vice-chairman." Thereupon employees Drennan and Porter were elected
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, and R L. Mosher, an employer repre-
sentative, was elected secretary. Subsequently, printed booklets containing the
bylaws of the ERP and provisions of the Joint Agreement which had been printed
on the respondents ' presses using the respondents ' waste paper, were distributed
among the employees.
The ERP functioned in the same manner as had its predecessor the House Com-
mittee ; all elections were held during working hours on company premises. Com-
mencing in the fall of 1934, the employee representatives were compensated by the
respondent for working time lost while in Plant Council meetings.38
The respondent also undertook the mimeographing of the minutes of the Plant
Council, copies of which were posted on the Company's bulletin boards and dis-
tributed among the ERP representatives. The respondent also retained copies for
was amended to provide that the respondent appoint an equal number of representatives
on the Joint Council.
"Copies of the ERP bylaws and Joint Agreement, as well as a letter addressed to the
employees by the I-louse Committee and ballots, mimeographed on paper furnished by the
respondent and on the respondent 's facilities , were distributed among the employees.
"The ERP was amended to provide that a meeting of the Plant Council he held on the
first shift during the regular working period , no employee representative to suffer any loss
of compensation by reason of attendance at such meetings . Employee representatives who
worked on the respondent 's second and third shifts attended such meetings on their own,
time.
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its files. In addition, as hereinabove noted, the entire cost of the Joint Council
dinner meetings was borne by the respondent.
As hereinabove noted, in addition to the foregoing Joint Council meetings which
were held bi-monthly, the Plant Council met monthly on the respondent's time and
premises. The Plant Council, as had the House Committee, made its recom-
mendations concerning improvements in plant working facilities in the form of
written suggestions, and the respondent continued to regard them as just-that.
In January 1937, when H. W. Bass replaced Raynor as plant superintendent, the
Plant Council explained its function to Bass as follows:
This is our first direct contact and we are very desirous that you receive
these requests, not in the spirit of our demanding a number of unreasonable
things, but rather that we are passing on to you those problems which bother
the employees, upsetting their daily routine and breaking down faith and
valuable good-will.
2. Events during the period from 1937 to 1944
In January 1937, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, the charging union in the instant case, instituted a campaign to
organize the respondent's employees. Commencing on January 31, it held several
employee mass meetings Prior thereto, however, a representative of that organ-
ization had spoken with the employees individually at the plant on several occa-
sions.'a On February 15 the Union, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, filed a
petition with the Board's Regional Office asking that it be certified as the collective
bargaining agent of the respondent's employees within a designated unit. (Matter
of Pacific Mantfoldaaig Book Company, Inc., 3 N. L. R. B. 551.) The petition
asserted, among other things, that:
The above company refuses to recognize the [petitioner] as the bargaining
agency of their employees. Said Company operates a company-dominated
union and has threatened to discharge employees if they join an outside labor
organization.
The Board's Regional Director notified the respondent by letter dated February
16 of the filing of such a petition. On June 18, the Board's Regional Director
issued a Notice of Hearing advising the respondent that a hearing was to be held
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act "upon the question of representation affect-
ing commerce which has arisen." The respondent filed an answer with the
Board's Regional Office denying that the petitioner represented any of the respond-
ent's employees, that any question concerning representation had arisen, or that
the respondent was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The
respondent further "Allege[d] that the allegation of the petition that the respond-
ent operates a company-dominated union is ambiguous, unintelligible, uncertain,
without any meaning whatsoever, and entirely insufficient to notify the respondent
[sic] of the acts it is charged with committing or with what it is charged with
having done with respect to the Employees' Representation Plan." On July 8
And 9 a hearing was held pursuant to the foregoing notice of hearing. The Board,
finding both the petitioner and the ERP to be labor organizations, directed an
election among the respondent's employees and placed both organizations on the
19 There is no levidence that such activities were either known to the respondent or
carried on with its permission.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1269
ballot.20 Pursuant thereto a Board conducted election was held,21 147 voting for
the ERP and 46 for the petitioning organization. On October 15, 1937, the Board
certified the ERP as the exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's
employees within the appropriate unit.
Throughout the pendency of the foregoing organizational campaign and rep-
resentation proceedings before the Board, the respondent continued to recognize
the ERP as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. On Feb-
ruary 9, 1937, the Plant Council wrote Superintendent H. W. Bass as follows :
For the past eighteen months, at first very weakly and lately becoming
stronger, there has been voiced resentment by the employees over being
required to put in a full forty hours before overtime will be paid for extra
time. They feel that overtime should be paid on time over eight hours per day
and Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, regardless of whether or not 40 hours
have been put in. This attitude . . . has gradually spread over the entire
plant. The reason it has not been mentioned heretofore was that the senti-
ment was not strong enough, and too, the Plant Council felt that the time for
such a request was not opportune However, the time has arrived, inasmuch
as we are trying to offer to our employees the benefit of an outside union, and
feel this request should be granted.
On February 16 Bass promised to "reply promptly" to the matters hereinabove
set forth, and, on February 18, he acceded to all of the Plant Council's "sugges-
tions." The schedule thus granted provided for 8 hours' pay for 71/2 hours' work
on the second shift and 8 hours' pay for 7 hours' work on the third shift, overtime
rates for all time in excess of the specified number of hours per day, and overtime
rates for Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. No overtime was to be paid for
Saturday work during those weeks in which a holiday intervened during the
first 5 days. The Plant Council, taking exception to this last provision, declared,
"We hope to bring this subject up in the next joint council meeting." A few days
later, on February 23 or 24, the respondent withdrew the above limitation upon
Saturday overtime. A "Notice to Employees" over the signature of H. W. Bass
and "approved" by Kelly was thereupon posted, embodying all of the foregoing pro-
20 During the course of the hearing some evidence was adduced concerning the formation
and structure of the ERP and the manner in which it functioned. Counsel for the Board
in that proceeding briefly interrogated the general manager of the respondent, a witness
called on behalf of the Board, concerning the formation of the ERP and its negotiations
with the respondent. Board counsel's questions and the answers adduced thereto covered 7
pages of the transcript Counsel for the respondent interrogated Kelly, a witness called
on the respondent's behalf, concerning the ERP, its genesis, structure and operation.
Board counsel's cross-examination of Kelly was limited by the Trial Examiner to matters
traversed on the respondent's direct examination. Questions by the Board's counsel
concerning such matters as the cost of printing the ERP booklets hereinabove referred to,
and the persons responsible for such printing , were specifically excluded by the Trial
Examiner The Board upheld the Trial Examiner in these rulings ( 3 N. L. R B., at
p. 552). With respect to the ERP the Board found :
The Plan is a labor organization which automatically includes all the production
employees of the Company It was formed in 1934 in an attempt to effect a more
permanent bargaining machinery than had been provided by the house committees
chosen from time to time that worked in conjunction with the Mutual Aid Society
which had been in existence at the plant for 22 years.
21 The respondent objected in writing to the form of the ballot, contending that the above
described ballot "compels the voter to choose between the one organization and the other,"
since it did not provide an opportunity for the employees to reject both organizations. The
Board rejected the respondent's contention.
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visions and crediting the ERP for the employee gains therein represented. The
notice read in part as follows:
After giving careful consideration to the PLANT COUNCIL's suggestions
concerning working hours and overtime as outlined in-their letter of February
9th, the management has decided to operate the factory on the following
working hours and overtime schedule
This schedule has been approved by the Plant Council and Factory Superin-
tendent, and has been adopted in the interest of all concerned, to promote and
maintain harmonious relations.
On February 19 the respondent, after some discussion with the Plant Council,
also promulgated several unilateral wage schedules over the signature of Person-
nel Director Raine providing for periodic increases for several categories of
employees. These wage schedules were of indefinite duration. On several oc-
casions, between that date and August 6, additional wage schedules were posted
over the signature of Superintendent Bass.22 On May 13 the respondent, pursuant
to the Plant Council's suggestion, granted the employees on the second and third
shift a 10-percent bonus. Finally, on August 6, 1937, after the hearing in the fore-
going representation case but before the election, the respondent and the ERP
entered into a comprehensive formal agreement covering wages and hours for all
production employees in all shifts during the ensuing term of some 17 months.
The agreement specifically provided: "If any dispute or question arises as to the
interpretation or operation of this agreement, it shall be adjusted in the manner
provided in ... the `joint agreement between Elected Representatives of Employees,
and Appointed Representatives of Management '." It was executed in behalf of
the respondent by the General Manager and-in behalf of the ERP both "by the duly
elected Employee Representatives" and "by the Appointed Representatives of
Management," including Personnel Director Raine and Superintendent Bass.29 In
every year since 1937, up to and, including 1944, similar wage and hour agreements
have been executed between the respondent and the ERP. All of these agree-
ments contained the above reference to the "Joint Conference" procedure. Like-
wise, all agreements were executed in behalf of the ERP by both the management
and employee representatives.
Since 1937 the ERP, with the exceptions hereinafter discussed, has continued to
operate in the same manner as it did prior thereto. The ERP continues to hold
its e!ections on company time and premises, the ballots being printed on the re-
spondent's facilities. It continues to use the respondent's facilities and paper in
printing its booklets. The Plant Council continues to forward the minutes of its
monthly meetings to the respondent for mimeographing, the respondent retaining
copies thereof. In June 1937, however, 2 months after the Act was declared
constitutional,24 the president of the respondent advised the Plant Council that
it would be "impossible for the Company to continue to pay wages to members of
the Plant Council for the time spent while they are engaged in Plant Council
Meetings." The Plant Council replied, "The Company has never contributed
financial assistance in a manner contrary to the National Labor Relations Act,
22 On April 12 a wage schedule covering the female operators in the finishing department,
having previously been approved by the Joint Council, was posted over the signature of
Personnel Director Raine. It read, however, that the wage rates "were promulgated by
the Plant Council "
23 Drennan, who had been secretary of the House Committee and an employee repre-
sentative of the Plant Council, signed the contract as a management representative, having
been elevated to a supervisory position Nielsen subsequently was made a supervisor and
appointed a management representative.
24 See N. L. R. B. v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, and companion cases.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET, AL. 1271
but is living up to an obligation contracted in the same manner as recent wage
increases and bonuses." On November 17, 1937, the Plant Council, with Super-
intendent Bass in attendance, met and discussed the foregoing matter. It was
finally decided that the respondent would continue to compensate the employee
representatives for 90 minutes' working time spent in monthly Plant Council
meetings if a representative of management was present. In practice, however,
this constituted a continuation of the then existing procedure, since management
representatives were called into and were present during at least a part of every
Plant Council meeting. In fact, the ERP bylaws were amended to provide that
monthly Plant Council meetings "will be held with the management on the first
work Monday of each month " The ERP bylaws provided for no other regularly
scheduled meetings. According to Kelly the management representative was
present merely to receive grievances presented by the Plant Council, since, begin-
ning in 1937, the ERP altered its procedure for processing grievances concerning
working conditions. Since that date, Kelly testified, the Plant Council discusses
such matters directly with management representatives at Plant Council meetings'
and the Joint Council meetings are largely devoted to "educational matters,"
"speakers . . . from various branches of the business . . . give talks on the
operation of their particular phase of the business." It is plain, however, from
the Joint Council's minutes that it continued to discuss matters involving the func-
tioning of the ERP as well as working conditions Illustrative thereof is the fol-
lowing excerpt from the Joint Council's minutes: The Joint Council decided to
distribute ERP booklets, containing the bylaws and Joint Agreement, to each new
employee at the time of his employment, and agreed that new employees be in-
troduced to their respective Plant Council representatives and that the ERP be
"fully explained" to them.' Finally, as hereinabove set forth, the Joint Council
continued to execute all of the wage and hour agreements between the ERP and
the respondent.
In addition, it was stipulated by all parties that in May 1937 the respondent
discontinued paying directly for Joint Council dinner meetings. Since that date
the Mutual Aid Association has paid for these dinners, the respondent reimbursing
the Association in the amount of $23 00 for each dinner meeting. The respondent
contends that such sum was contributed to the Association solely for the purpose
of paying for the dinners of the 8 to 10 management representatives customarily
in attendance In view of the presently increased costs of these dinners it is
perhaps now true, as the respondent urges, that its contribution is equal only to
the amount expended for the management representatives' dinners It is plain,
however, that at the time these contributions to the Association were initiated
they helped in large part to pay for the cost of the dinners of the employee rep-
resentatives as well." Hall, as president of the Association, was permitted to
attend the Joint Council dinners as a non-voting representative and he was allowed
to speak upon questions which were considered.
3 Events during 1944
In May 1944, for the first time since 1937, affiliated labor organizations at-
tempted to organize the respondent's employees and engage in collective bar-
gaining with the respondent. On May 4, the charging union in the instant case
25 In 1944, at a Joint Council meeting, it was proposed that the Joint Council approve
certain amendments to the ERP. The respondent's representatives, however, pointed out
that such approval was solely a matter for Plant Council action. At that same meeting,
however, the Joint Agreement was amended with respect to employee appeals and arbitration.
26 Hall testified without contradiction that the dinners cost from $20 to $44 ; during
1937 and several years thereafter the cost per plate was about $1.25 to $1 50, and in
recent years the cost per plate has risen to between $2 25 and $2 50.
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wrote a letter to the respondent claiming to have been designated by a majority
of the respondent's employees in its press room. The next day the Union filed
a petition with the Board's Regional Office requesting that it be certified as the
collective bargaining representative for the 20 odd employees within the press
room (Case No. 20-R-1080), and that same day the Board so advised the respond-
ent. Contemporaneously, the Oakland Typographical Union wrote the respondent
a letter requesting recognition of the respondent as the collective bargaining
representative of the respondent's 13 employees within the composing room
and filed a petition with the Board's Regional Office (Case No. 20-R-1084). The
respondent, replying to each of the foregoing organizations by identical letters
dated May 15, 1944, declared as follows:
As you undoubtedly are aware, the National Labor Relations Board has
determined that all production employees of this Company constitute the
appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes. You no doubt are fur-
ther aware that the National Labor Relations Board has certified the Em-
ployee Representation Plan as the collective bargaining representative of
all our production employees.
Since your letter of May 10th does not claim that a majority of all pro-
duction employees desire to have your Union act as their collective bargain-
ing agent, we cannot feel free under the circumstances to deal with anyone
except the representative designated by the majority of all production em-
ployees unless and until the National Labor Relations Board in some new
proceedings should change the ruling or certify a different representative.
On June 15 the Union filed charges in the instant case and in September both
of the foregoing petitions were withdrawn without prejudice.
During the pendency of the foregoing proceedings, the respondent continued to
recognize and deal with the ERP as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employ-
ees. At a Joint Council meeting on May 29, 1944, some 21/2 months prior to
the expiration date of the existing wage and hour agreement and 2 weeks after
the Union filed its petition, the respondent and the ERP entered into an agree-
ment automatically renewable at the end of each year.
The Board adduced testimony through Hall, attempting to show that in 1944,
while he was an employee representative on the Plant Council, the respondent
exerted pressure upon and attempted to coerce him to execute the foregoing
agreement and that, because of his reluctance to execute such agreement, caused
him to resign from the Plant Council. Hall testified that he refused to execute
the contract at the meeting on May 29, that he refused to sign because the employ-
ees whom he represented had expressed their dissatisfaction with the agreement,
and that he so advised Edward Fray, chairman of the ERP Plant Council. Fray
thereafter summoned Hall to the office of Superintendent Merner.27 In attend-
ance at this meeting, in addition to Hall, Fray, and Merner, were two proof-
readers and Kelly," all three from Hall's department. Merner, after first speak-
ing with the proofreaders, asked Kelly to poll the employees in the composing
room concerning the wage schedule provided in the agreement and advise Fray
as to their decision. Subsequently, Hall, upon instructions from Fray, executed
the above agreement. On cross-examination, however, Hall testified that Fray,
as well as Merner, requested Kelly to poll the employees in the composing room.
He was unable to specify whether it was Fray or Merner who first suggested the
poll. Fray testified that he and Hall agreed to hold a meeting, and he thereupon
arranged a meeting in Merner's office and invited the proofreaders, Kelly and
27 Merner is currently superintendent of the respondent's Emeryville plant. He replaced
Bass in January 1941.
28 Kelly was not an ERP representative at the time.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1273
Hall, to attend . Fray further testified that during this meeting Hall refused his
request to poll the employees within the composing room. He thereupon pre-
vailed upon Kelly to conduct a poll. Kelly and Merner testified to the same
effect. Kelly added that he attended the meeting at Fray's request , and that
Hall , who expressed his reluctance to poll the employees , asked Kelly to do so,
but that Merner had made no such request of him. The undersigned , upon his
examination of the testimony of all of the witnesses who testified with respect
to the foregoing incident, finds Kelly's, Fray ' s and Merner 's accounts to be ac-
curate. Accordingly , insofar as Hall's account thereof differs from that of these
three witnesses , it is rejected.
Hall further testified that he resigned as an employee representative at the
end of June under the following circumstances . He testified that at a meeting
with Superintendent Merner and the foreman of the composing room, Ralph
Means, in Merner 's office, Merner ascribed Hall's low efficiency rating to his Plant
Council activities and accused him of causing friction both within his department
and the Plant Council. On cross -examination , however, he admitted that he
had complained concerning his working conditions to the management repre-
sentative in charge of labor relations a few days before this conversation. He
further admitted that during his meeting with Merner , Merner advised him that
he was not receiving large incentive payments because he had been wasting
time, and that he, Hall, replied that he was engaged in Plant Council business.
He further admitted that Merner had replied , "I am not concerned with that.
If you don 't do your work as a compositor you can't earn the money you want
to earn " In reply to his inquiry as to whether he should resign from the Plant
Councir, Hall admitted that Merner declared , "That is none of my business,"
that there was no reason why Hall could not satisfactorily do both Merner, who
testified that the foregoing conversation took place as a result of Hall 's complaint
regarding incentive payments a few days before, testified to the same effect as
Hall had done on cross -examination . The undersigned , upon examination of the
foregoing testimony , noting especially the disparity between Hall 's testimony on
direct and cross -examination with respect to this incident , finds that it took
place as Merner related.
In conclusion , the undersigned finds that the respondent neither exerted !in-,
proper pressure upon Hall to execute the 1944 wage and hour agreement , nor did
the respondent urge or exhort Hall to resign as a Plant Council representative,
and that these incidents do not constitute interference with the administration of
the ERP or domination of its affairs.
4. The effect of the 1937 representation proceeding
The respondents moved at the hearing to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the proviso attached to the Board's appropriation act for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1945, precludes the use of any Board funds for the purposes of
the instant proceeding" The respondents argue that the Board is barred from
proceeding in this case because of the Joint Agreement which has been in existence
since 1934. In support of their contention that this proceeding falls within the
proscription of the current appropriations rider and is not withdrawn therefrom
29 Title IV, Labor-Federal Security Agency Appropriation Act, Public Law 373, 78th
Cong. 2nd Sess , approved June 28, 1944, provided that :
No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used in any way in connection
with a complaint case arising over an agreement , or a renewal thereof, between man-
agement and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without
complaint being filed by an employee or employees of such plant : . . . Provided, . . .
that these limitations shall not apply to agreements with labor organizations formed
in violation of Section 158, Paragraph 2, Title 29, United States Code.
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the language of limitation respecting agreements with S (2) organizations
therein contained, the respondents rely entirely upon the previous representation
proceeding before the Boaid. The respondents contend that the Board, in the
1937 proceeding, found, in effect, that the ERP was not a "labor organization
formed in violation of Section [8 (2) of the Act] " (Matter of Pacific Manifol(ling
Book Company, Inc, 3 N. L R. B 551). The respondents urge that the Board, by
placing the ERP upon a ballot pursuant to its decision and direction of election
in the representation proceeding in 1937 and thereafter certifying the ERP upon
its receipt of a majority of employee votes, recognized the competency and validity
of the ERP to act as a collective bargaining agency under the Act, since the legality
of the ERP was necessarily in issue in that proceeding. The respondents further
urge that, in any event, the foregoing representation proceedings partook of the
character of an unfair labor practice proceeding under Section 10 of the Act. The
respondents conclude that by such acts the Board was estopped from considering
or reviewing the acts of domination or support hereinabove set forth. Objection
was raised by the respondents to the introduction of evidence relative to company
sponsorship, domination, and interference of the ERP prior to the 1937 repre-
sentation proceedings.
With respect to the respondents' contention that "in a representation proceeding
legality of a union to be certified is necessarily in issue", it may now be' taken as
datum that representation proceedings, whether or not they culminate in the
certification of a bargaining representative, neither estop the Board from subse-
quently investigating and prosecuting charges of unfair labor practices alleged to
have occurred prior thereto, nor constitute res judicata of such charges. Wallace
Corporation v. N. L R. B , 323 U. S. 248, 240-2413° Nor does the Board's decision
in the Matter of Baltimore Transit Co., 59 N. L. R. B. 159, enf'd January 29, 1945,
by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, hold otherwise On the contrary, the
language of the Board's decision clearly establishes that the Board may, solely at
its option, determine certain "matters which might appropriately be raised in a
complaint proceeding." The Board, in that case, specifically recognizing the dual
functions bestowed upon the Board by the Act, declared :
In the ordinary representation proceeding, the issues are normally limited
to those concerning jurisdiction, whether a question of representation has
arisen, and the appropriate bargaining unit or units. The Board certainly
is under no statutory duty under Section 9 to consider other issues. Accord-
ingly, in administering the Act, the Board has found it to be convenient and
practicable, for the most part, rigidly to exclude any proffered evidence of
unfair labor practices in a representation proceeding, thereby leaving to
the aggrieved parties the right to file charges under Section 10. This di-
vision of the Board's functions has proved invaluable in expediting the
handling of representation cases.
An examination of the evidence as to the 1937 representation proceedings plainly
establishes that the Board did not depart from its normal procedure in that case.
There, as in the "ordinary representation proceeding", the issues were "limited
to those concerning jurisdiction, whether a question of representation has
arisen, and the appropriate bargaining unit". The notice of hearing therein
30 See also Warehousemen's Union , Local 117 v. IT. L. R B., 121 F (2d) 84 , 92-94 (App.
D C ), cert denied 314 U. S. 674; Utah Copper Co. v. N. L. R. B, 139 F. (2d) 788, 791
(C C. A 10), cert denied 322 U. S 731 ; N L R B. v. Swift & Co., 127 F. (2d) 30, 31
(C C. A. 6 ) ; N. L. R. B. v. Standard Oil Co., et al , 142 F . ( 2d) 676 ( C C. A. 6 ), enf'g with
modifications 47 N L R B 517, cert denied 323 U S 791 ; N. L. R B v. Stone, 125 F
(2d) 752, 756-757 (C. C. A. 7),,cert. denied 317 U S 649. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Sun Ship-
building and Dry Dock Co., 135 F. (2d) 15, 18, 23 (C C. A. 3). 1
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1275
expressly informed the parties that that hearing was "pursuant to Section 9 (c)"
of the Act "upon the question of representation affecting commerce which
has arisen". The Trial Examiner in that case, in ruling out questions concern-
ing the identity of union members, expressly declared :
I will say, however, for the information of counsel, that previous deci-
sions of the Board, binding upon the Examiner in his opinion, malie it
improper in representation proceedings where there is no claim as pet of
unfair labor practices, to inquire into the identity and character of the
employees who have either designated the union or who have given it aid
and support of various kinds. [Italics supplied.]
The Board's counsel thereupon declared, "I agree fully with the grounds on
which you base your ruling . . ." Moreover, counsel for the respondent in the
instant case, expressly concurred in the afore-mentioned ruling of the Trial Ex-
aminer in his brief before the Board in that case. Counsel for the respondent,
taking a position diametrically opposite to that now taken, argued as follows :
Although the petition and the [petitioner's] witness Mr. Gilmore, made
repeated but unfounded insinuations concerning "domination" and "intimi-
dation" by the Employer, we were not permitted to examine the witness to
go behind these insinuations and imaginations to ascertain the actual facts,
if any, upon which these imaginations were based, by a ruling of the Trial
Examiner predicated on the further ruling that the only question involved
in the proceeding was whether the [petitioner] represents the employees
and that no question under Section 10 is involved. (Record citation.) We
agree that no question under Section 10 is involved. [Italics supplied.]
(Resp. Brief in Case No. R-183, p. 3.)
Upon this posture of the case, the Board in its decision made no reference or
finding as to whether or not the ERP was a valid labor organization within the
meaning of the Statute. The Board examined the structure and functioning of the
ERP solely for the purpose of determining whether the ERP was a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. It is plain that the Board's
action in directing and conducting an election to determine a representative for
collective bargaining was not determinative of the question whether the ERP had
been dominated, supported or assisted by the respondent so as to disqualify it from
acting as a collective bargaining representative of the employees. When the
Board directed and conducted the election and certified the ERP, the Board did
not have before it the latter issue ; that was presented for the first time in the
instant unfair labor practice proceeding. See Warehousemen's Union v. N. L.
R. B., 121 F. (2d) 84, 93-94 (App. D. C.), cert. denied 314 U. S. 674.
Moreover, and entirely apart from the foregoing considerations, the repre-
sentation proceeding and certification are no bar to the instant proceeding and
a finding of a violation of the Statute. Section 8 (2) declares that it shall be an
unfair labor practice for an employer to "dominate or interfere with the formation
or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other
support of it". [Italics supplied.] Thus, the subsection in question prohibits
employer domination or interference, not only in the formation or initial estab-
lishment of a labor organization, but in the subsequent administration of its
affairs as well. Accordingly, even if it were erroneously assumed as the re-
spondents contend, that the representation proceeding and Board's certification
conclusively determined the ERP's competency at that time to function as a
collective bargaining agent under the Act, the Board is riot therefore precluded
from finding that at the time of the instant hearing the ERP did not enjoy such
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
status 8' In the instant case it is clear that the acts of the respondent, following
the certification in 1937 improperly intgrfered with the administration of the
ERP and constituted support thereto. Therefore, the ERP's origin and initial
support aside, it was subsequently to the certification assisted by the respondent's
unfair labor practices. Not only is the employees' full freedom to change, if
they so desire, unlawfully impaired, but since the ERP has received such support
it is incapable of functioning as a truly independent, arms-length bargaining
representative contemplated by the Act. Utah Copper case, supra, at p. 791.
"As in the performance of other duties imposed upon it by the Act, the Board
has power to fashion its procedure to achieve the Act's purpose to protect em-
ployees from unfair labor practices." Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 323
U. S. 248.
The undersigned concurs in the respondents' argument that the charging
union's failure to make timely challenge of the respondent's conduct hereinabove
described, its acceptance without question of the ERP as an election rival, and
its apparent willingness to accede to the results of the election, are factors which
the undersigned and Board should consider, inter alma, in appraising the respond-
ent's conduct and reaching a conclusion as to whether the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices. See Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation, 33 N. L. R. B.
613, 620-627. In light of the clear character of the proof of domination, inter-
ference, and support disclosed by the instant case, however, noting especially the
continuing and current character thereof, action or inaction by the charging
union becomes a matter of secondary significance. To urge that it is decisive
under the circumstances of the instant case completely ignores the Board's
statutorily imposed role and obligation "The proceeding authorized to be taken
by the Board under the National Labor Relations Act is not for the adjudication
of private rights . . . The Board acts in a public capacity to give effect to the
declared public policy of the Act, to eliminate and prevent obstructions to inter-
state commerce by encouraging collective bargaining, and by protecting the 'exer-
cise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization and designation
of representatives of their own choosing' . . " National Licorice Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
309 U. S 350, 362. See also Amalgamated Utility Workers (CIO) v. Consolidated
Edison Co of New York, Inc, 309 U S. 261, 265.
The undersigned finds the respondents' motion to dismiss without merit and
it is denied.
Concluding findings
From the foregoing review of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the
respondent initiated and expressly approved the formation of the ERP, assisted
in the formulation of its basic structure and purpose, and undertook and there-
after provided its support and maintenance. In its origin, structure, functioning,
and support, the ERP is essentially indistinguishable from employee representa-
$1 In cases involving settlements of unfair labor practice charges approved by Board
agents, the Board has consistently held that where subsequent events show that a settle-
ment or other adjustment is not accomplishing the purpose of the Act , because the employer
violates or continues to violate the Act after entering into it, the Board will disregard such
agreement and consider the employer ' s entire course of conduct both before and after
the agreement was executed . Matter of Locomotive Finished Material Company, 52
N L. R. B. 922, 926-928; Matter of Chicago Casket Company, 21 N. L . R. B. 235, 252-
256 ; Matter of Harry A. Haig, 16 N. L. R. B. 667, 679-682; Matter of Houde Engineering
Corp , 42 N. L R. B. 713, 724-725; cf. Matter of Wickwire Brothers, 16 N. L. R. B. 316,
325-326. The Board 's practice in this respect has been recognized by the Courts as prop-
erly within the Board's Administrative discretion. E. g., Wallace Corp case, supra, at
pp 241-242 ; Canyon Corp. v. N. L. R. B , 128 F. (2d) 953, 955-956 (C. C. A 8) ; N. L. R. B.
v. Hawk d Buck Co., Inc., 120 F. (2d) 903, 905 (C. C. A. 5).
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1277
tion plans, the disestablishment of which has uniformly been ordered by the
Board and approved by the Courts'
The ERP had its origin in and was the direct successor to the House Commit-
tee which Hall had set up in 1933.' Hall sought and secured authorization from
the respondent's plant manager before appointing the foregoing committee and
he so advised the employees whom he selected to act as committeemen. That the
House Committee members understood that they functioned by sufferance of
the respondent is further established by the manner in which they sought and
secured the respondent's approval of the ERP and Joint Agreement before sub-
mitting it to the employees for adoption. They were expressly instructed by the
respondent as to the scope of the ERP'S operations and their functions as repre-
sentatives thereunder!" From 1934 to 1937 the respondent extended to and fur-
nished the ERP, which operated as a clearing house for minor grievances, with
all the support it required to carry on its functions.
Finally, in 1937, by crediting various gains extended to the employees to the
ERP and entering into a contract with the ERP during the pendency of repre-
sentation proceedings before the Board instituted by an affiliated labor organiza-
tion claiming to represent a majority of the respondent's employees, the respond-
ent entrenched as its employees' collective bargaining agent the organization
whose formation it had fostered and supported. The respondent, although
apprised of the existence of a question concerning the representation of its
employees, thereby carried to a conclusion the building up of its chosen repre-
sentative. By signing a contract with the ERP under the foregoing circum-
stances, after the Board hearing and before the Board directed election, the
respondent marked the ERP as its candidate in the forthcoming election,
thereby lending it powerful support and assistance in violation of Section 8 (2), as
well as 8 (1) of the Act.3" Conversely, the respondent thereby insured the defeat
of the rival organization."
Entirely apart from the respondent's role in initiating, supporting, and inter-
fering with the formation of the ERP, its organic structure before the passage
of the Act and at all times thereafter has been such as to assure the respondent
83 E g, N. L R B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc et al, 303 U. S 261 ; N L R. B.
v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U S. 272; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding
& Dry Dock Co., 308 U. S. 241 ; N. L R. B. v. H. E. Fletcher Co , 108 F. (2d) 459 (C. C. A.
1), cert denied 309 U S 678, Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp, Ltd., et al v. N. L. R. B,
114 F (2d) 930 (C C A. 1).
33 Hall had supervisory status and was so regarded by the employees. The undersigned
finds that Hall was further identified with management in the eyes of the employees as a
consequence of his long tenure as president of the Association, which organization the
respondent had supported for many years with substantial sums of money.
34 While acts of domination, interference and support which occurred prior to the effective
date of the Act were not violative of any law and are not unfair labor practices, never-
theless, the conduct of the respondent, in continuing to deal with such labor organization
as the representative of its employees after the effective date of the Act, does violate the
Act. The Board is entitled to examine the pre-Act history of the ERP with which organiza-
tion the respondent continued to deal after the effective date of the Act for the purpose of
determining whether such labor organization is in fact the lawful and freely chosen repre-
sentative of the employees. N. L R. B. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, rinc, 303 U S.
261, 268-270 ; N. L R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuildinq & Dry Dock Co , 308 U. S 241,
244-248; N. L R. B. v. Falk Corp, 308 U. S. 453, 460; N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co , 311
U. S 584, 586, 588
3"lllatter of John Engelhorn & Sons, 42 N L R. B 866, 877-878, 134 F (2d) 553
(C. C A. 3) ; Matter of Ever Ready Label Corporation, 54 N. L. R B. 551, 556; Matter of
Houde Engineering Corp , 42 N. L R B. 713, 725 ; cf N L. R B v Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, rue , 303 U S 261, 267
83 Contrary to the respondent's assertion, this id' precisely the kind of employer support
which Section 8 (2) proscribes , and is accordingly , within the ambit of the allegations
ofi the complaint.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
control over its functions and seriously to impair its capacity to act as a
bona fide employee representative. Thus, employees may not choose whether
they shall be represented by the ERP. Membership is automatic, starting when
an employee is hired by the respondent and ceasing upon the severance of his
employment. An employee's right to participate in ERP elections of employee
representatives stems solely from his employment and not from any act of
affiliation with the ERP. No provision is made for meetings of the employees,
either as a body or by departments, with the representatives or otherwise, in
order that the employees may benefit from collective discussion or instruct
their representatives as to their desires." The respondent's contention that,
despite, the absence of such group discussions, the employee representatives were
adequately advised and informed of the employees' desires concerning wages,
hours, and conditions of employment is not borne out by the record. The evi-
dence to which the respondent adverts in support of its contention that the
employees participated in formulating wage and hour agreements establishes
the contrary. Thus, the respondent adverts to the fact that certain of the
employee representatives sought individual employee ratification or approval of
ERP action with respect to basic wage and hour agreements This does not
constitute the rank and file participation and collective discussion contem-
plated by the Act.
But even if this were otherwise, the function of the employee representatives,
at least until 1937, was to receive employee complaints and refer them to the
Joint Council, and to discuss working conditions in such Joint Council sessions.
Control of the Joint Council was secured to the respondent by reason of equal
representation and voting power by the management and employee representa-
tives. In addition, the Joint Agreement adopted by the ERP and the respondent
lodged with the respondent's president a veto power over the Joint Council's
more important decisions. The Joint Agreement further provided that, if after
successive appeals respecting an employee grievance commencing with the fore-
man, settlement could not be reached by the Joint Council, the grievance might
be referred to arbitration, but only if the respondent's president agreed. If he
did not, the matter was at an end The respondent contends that since 1937 the
Joint Council has operated primarily as an educational forum. As the facts here-
inabove set forth demonstrate, however, the Joint Council, through both its man-
agement and employee representatives executed wage and hour agreements in
behalf of the ERP, plainly indicating that the Joint Council continued to function
in the manner provided in the Joint Agreement. The minutes of the Joint
Council also reflect its continued consideration of matters relating to conditions
of employment and operation of the ERP.
Nor is it material that the employees, as well as the employee representatives,
were empowered to alter the structure of the ERP or terminate its existence.
Even if it were assumed that the ERP, as the respondent contends, had achieved
some measure of independence and was empowered solely through action of the
employees or their representatives, to alter its structure so as to make it capable
of functioning as an independent representative, such factors could not rehabili-
tate the ERP and establish it as a genuine collective bargaining agency within
the meaning of the Act when it was formed, supported, and controlled as here.
"An unaffiliated union known for long to be favored by the employer, carries
over an advantage which necessarily vitiates its standing as exclusive bargaining
7 The record affirmatively discloses that no such mass meetings were held until after
the Union sought recognition of the respondent as a collective bargaining agent in 1944,
and, even then , such meetings were held on the respondent 's premises.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1279
agent" [Western Union Telegraph Co. v N. L. R B., 113 F. (2d) 992, 996,(C. C. A.
2) ], especially where it continues to be the beneficiary of the respondent's open
support."
The ERP, which had no funds of its own or any independent means for securing
funds, has been completely dependent upon the respondent for all the materials and
facilities which it requires in conducting its affairs Throughout the ERP s
existence, the respondent has made outright contributions of all the equipment
and materials necessary for ERP elections and permitted the ERP the use of
company time and premises for holding such elections. The respondent has per-
mitted the ERI' to use the company's premises, facilities, and secretarial services
in conducting all of its other affairs as well In addition, up to and including
a part of 1937, the respondent compensated employee representatives for all time
lost from their work in Plant Council meetings. Since 1937 the respondent has
provided that employee representatives be compensated for time lost from their
work only 13 a management representative is present at the monthly Plant Council
meeting. A representative of management has been present, however, during a
portion of every monthly Plant Council meeting and the respondent has continued
to pay employee representatives for time lost in attending such meetings. In
light of the manner in which the respondent has thus construed all monthly Plant
Council meetings to be meetings with management, the provision in Section 8 (2)
of the Act, permitting an employer to allow employees "to confer with him during
working hours without loss of time or pay" is inapplicable and the respondent's
reliance thereon misplaced Finally, the respondent, up to the middle of 1937,
bore all expenses of the bi-monthly Joint Council dinner meetings. Since then
the respondent has indirectly contributed towards these dinners through the
Employee's Mutual Aid Association.
The respondent's contention before the undersigned during the hearing and
in its brief that the material support which it affords the ERP is comparable to
that frequently obtained from employers by bona fide organizations is, the under-
signed finds, without merit. The ERP bears no resemblance to genuinely inde-
pendent labor organizations, affiliated or otherwise. Without funds of its own
the ERP is wholly reliant upon the respondent for support ; to the employees the
ERP is necessarily identified with the respondent who brought about its creation,
nurtured and sustained it. Equally without substance is the respondent's con-
tention that the cost of the ERP's maintenance to the respondent is small. The
respondent bestowed upon the ERP all the support which it required for its
maintenance. Without such support, the ERP would not have been created and
could not long have remained in existence. The illegality of employer support
of a labor organization is not measured in terms of its cost to the employer, but
in terms of its effect upon the recipient organization and the employees. The
question for determination is whether, as a result of such support, the employees
are deprived of an opportunity freely to organize.
The respondent and the ERP contend that they engaged in arms length bar-
gaining and the respondent made substantial concessions to the ERP. The fact,
assuming it to be such, that the respondent bargained with the ERP and the
ERP procured substantial benefits for its members is immaterial under the Act
if the respondent has, as here, interfered with, dominated, or supported it.
N. L R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U S 241; Corning
Glass Works v. N L R. B., 118 F. (2d) 625, 629 (C C. A. 2).
88 E g, N. L. R B. v. Falk Corp, 308 U. S. 453; Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. (2d) 657, 660 (C C. A. 2), aff'd per curiam 312 U S. 660 ; Republic
Steel Corp v N. L R. B , 107 F (2d) 472 (C C. A 3), cert denied on this point, 310 U. S
655; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N. L. R B., 114 F. (2d) 930, 938 (C C. A. 1).
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the above-described course of
conduct has, since July 5, 1935, dominated and interfered with the administration
of the Employee Representation Plan, and has contributed financial and other
support thereto, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that Moore Business Forms, Inc., has not, for
the period from July 5, 1935, up to and including December 30, 1944, dominated
and interfered with the administration of the Employee Representation Plan,
nor contributed financial and other support thereto, and has not interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees of the Emeryville plant in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the 'respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents set forth in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMFDY
Since it has been found that the Pacific Manifolding Book Company , Inc., has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that
Pacific Manifolding Book Company , Inc., and its successor and assign, Moore
Business Forms , Inc ,99 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been-found that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the administration of Employee Representation Plan and contributed financial
and other support thereto , and that the effects and consequences of such domina-
tion, interference , and support rendered the Employee Representation Plan
incapable of serving the respondents ' employees as a genuine bargaining agency.
Since the effects and consequences of such practices with respect to the Employee
Representation Plan and its continued recognition as a bargaining representative,
constitute and will constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by the
respondents ' employees of their right to self-organization and to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing , it will be recommended
that the,respondents withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish
the Employee Representation Plan as the representative of any of the employees
at the Emeryville plant for the purpose of dealing with the respondents with
respect to grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment . Since the contract of May 29, 1944, between
the respondent and the Employee Representation Plan, which was in effect at the
date of the hearing herein , embodies recognition of the Employee Representation
Plan as such representative and is a means whereby the respondents ' unfair labor
practices are perpetuated , it will be recommended that the respondents cease and
desist from performing or giving effect to such contract , or any amendment,
extension , or renewal thereof, or any other contract , agreement or understanding
with the Employee Representation Plan relating to grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
31 Since Moore Business Forms, Inc on or about January 1, 1945, became the successor
and assign of Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc, the same recommendations will be
made as to Moore Business Forms, Inc. as are made with respect to Pacific Manifolding
Book Company, Inc.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1281
Nothing in this Intermediate Report, however, shall be deemed to require the
respondents to vary or abandon those wage, hour, and other substantive features
of their relations with the employees themselves, which the respondents may
have established in performance of any contract, agreement, or understanding, as
amended, extended, renewed, supplemented, or superseded.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oakland Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 125, Subordinate to
the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America
and Employee Representation Plan are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Employee Rep-
resentation Plan and by contributing financial and other support thereto, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5 Moore Business Forms, Inc., has not during the period from July 5, 1935,
up to and including December 30, 1944, engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respond-
ents Pacific Manifolding Book Company, Inc. and Moore Business Forms, Inc.,
and each of them, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Employee Represen-
tation Plan, or with the formation or administration of any other labor or-
ganization of their employees, and from contributing financial or other support
to said labor organization or any other labor organization of their employees ;
(b) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with Employee Representation Plan
as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Performing or giving effect to the contract of May 29, 1944, with Em-
ployee Representation Plan, or to any amendment, extension, or renewal there-
of, or to any other contract, agreement, or understanding entered into with said
organization relating to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Oakland Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No.
125, Subordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
670417-46-vol. 64-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employee Representation Plan as the
representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish
the Employee Representation Plan as such representative;
(b) Post at the plant in Emeryville, California, copies of the notice attached
to this Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director of the Twentieth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondents, be posted by them immediately, upon
receipt thereof, and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custo-
marily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by, other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended
that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate
Report, the respondents notify said Regional Director in writing that they will
comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the respondents to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944-
any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order
transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions- to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case to
the Board.
WILLIAM J. ISAACSON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 23, 1945.
APPENDIX A
NoTcE To ALL EMPLOYEES
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
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
' WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH Employee Representation Plan as the representa-
tive of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
other conditions of employment , and we will not recognize it or any successor
thereto for any of the above purposes.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 1283
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the administration of Employee
Representation Plan or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization of our employees or contribute financial or other support
to it.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to the contract of May 29, 1944, with
Employee Representation Plan, or to any amendment, extension, or re-
newal thereof, or to any other contract, agreement, or understanding with
Employee Representation Plan relating to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist Oakland Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union No. 125, Subordinate to the International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants Union of North America, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection All our employees are free to become or
remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
PACIFIC MANIFOLDING BOOK COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------- ----------------
(Representative (Title)
Dated------------------
MOORE BUSINESS FORM, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------- ----------------
(Representative (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.