San Francisco-Oakland Mailers'

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' 33
San Francisco -Oakland Mailers ' Union No. 18
International Typographical Union ( The Tribune
Publishing Co.) and Alfred W. Switzer. Case
20-C B-1914
December 12, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On July 25, 1969, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action , as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner ' s Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the decision and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed
limited exceptions , and a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner ' s Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner ' s Decision,
the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in
this case , and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.'
1. The record reflects that two employees
attempted to protest the dues structure of their local
by withholding a portion of their dues . The Union,
whose chapel chairman maintains the Employer's
overtime list, effectively changed the conditions of
employment for these individuals by removing their
names from the overtime list, thus causing the
employer to deprive them of overtime to which they
otherwise would have been entitled . There is no
union-security agreement . In these circumstances the
Union ' s action constitutes a clear violation of
Section 8 (b)(2) and (1)(A).
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) of
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"(a) Causing or attempting to cause The Tribune
Publishing Company, its officers, agents, successors,
or assigns to discriminate against any of its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act."
2. Substitute the following for the first indented
paragraph of the Notice attached as Appendix A:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The
Tribune Publishing Company, its officers, agents,
successors, or assigns to discriminate against any
of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY S SAHM, Trial Examiner- This proceeding was
heard in San Francisco, California, on April 15 and 16,
1969. The complaint which issued on January 22, 1969, on
an initial charge dated September 10, 1968, alleged that
Respondent Union, engaged in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by
discriminatorily depriving two of its members, employees
of the Oakland Tribune, of overtime work because they
had antagonized union officials. Respondent filed a
general denial alleging that the union officials named in
the complaint "had no authority to act as an agent of
respondent Union with respect to all actions relating to
the allegations of the complaint." Respondent expanded
its defense at the hearing by contending that the allocation
of overtime to the alleged discriminatees was fair, and
that, in fact, the discriminatees received more overtime
than would have been the case had the overtime priority
list administered by the Union been strictly enforced.'
The Issue
Is twofold: Did the Union deprive its two members,
employees of the Oakland Tribune, of their allocable
share of overtime work and, if so, was the Union's
motivation for such action legally permissible or
proscribed by the Acts
Upon the entire record in the case and from
observation of the witnesses while testifying, there are
hereby made the following.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, San Francisco-Oakland
Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typographical
Union, Oakland, California, its officers, agents, and
The Board does not adopt fn I of the Trial Examiner ' s Decision, which
it deems inapplicable to the situation presented by the instant case The
Trial Examiner's Decision is amended to reflect that Male is the stepson of
Switzer
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jurisdictional Findings
The Tribune Publishing Company, herein called the
Tribune, publishes a daily newspaper in Oakland,
California. It subscribes to various interstate news
services, publishes nationally syndicated features and
advertises many nationally sold products. The Tribune's
gross revenues from its publishing operations far exceeded
$200,000 for the past year. It is found that the Oakland
'Shifting defenses may be a circumstance indicating a discriminatory
motivation . Dant & Russell , Lid, 92 NLRB 307, 320.
180 NLRB No 12
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tribune is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (2), (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act
The Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Background
The two charging parties, Alfred Switzer and George
Male, have been employed in the mailroom of the
Oakland Tribune since 1961 and 1960, respectively Their
duties consist of removing the daily newspapers as they
come off the press, folding them and inserting pages when
necessary, and carrying the assembled papers across the
loading dock to Tribune delivery trucks
On March 8, 1968, Male and Switzer (who is a stepson
of Male) joined with other union members, in drafting a
petition addressed to the Respondent Union and circulated
it among some of their fellow-members of the Union,
employed in the Tribune mailroom, soliciting them to sign
the petition This petition reads as follows:
To- Officers of Mailers Union
Local 18, I.T U
Under the authority guaranteed by the Landgrum
Griffen Labor Management Reporting Act, and in the
interest of getting Mailers Local 18 back on a sound
financial basis, the undersigned members of Mailers
Union Local 18 request and demand -
A full scale review and a complete financial
statement of the structure, method and operating cost
for the past 6 years (1962 through and including 1968)
of every department of Local 18 operation
We do not want copies of the local monthly financial
statement, as accepted by the Local 18 meeting These
statements are not detailed enough to show where the
money really goes Also attendance at meetings is not
representative of the 450 man local. Because of the
work schedules many members find it almost
impossible to attend.
It seems impossible that the 1 1/2% dues,
approximately $50,000.00 to $55,000 00, is not enough
money to run this union, per year. We propose to hold
off any change in local dues until we have a full
financial review of the last six (6) years (1962 through
and including 1968) operating costs. We want a full,
clear breakdown in the financial statement of all
monies handled in any way by and through Local 18
officers in these years
I A complete breakdown of all monies paid out by
Local 18 as salaries, expenses, gratuities, etc to.
Officers, employees, aids, legal help, scale
committees, executive board members, etc
2 All costs of Marine Guide - Sausalito - strike
Full breakdown on all costs involved.
3 Complete breakdown of the cost of Local 18
Union office on Market Street in San Francisco.
4 A full account of every dollar collected as dues and
or assessments, fines or in any other manner - all
money handled in any way by Local 18 or any of its
officers, as part of the local operation or any related
operations in the past six (6) years (1962 through and
including 1968)
The proposed 2 1/2% would be over $90,000 00
Local dues yearly, plus approximately $200,000 00
I T U dues
After the petition had been signed by twelve union
members (including Male and Switzer), the drafters
decided not to forward the petition to the Union Instead,
the dues revision group decided to challenge the
incumbent union administration by running its own
candidate for president on a platform of revising the
Union's dues structure. Then, on or about May 14, 1968,
Male and Switzer drafted a letter endorsing the candidacy
of David Grundmann for President of the Union.
Grundmann opposed Smith, the incumbent president, who
was endorsed by the officers of the Respondent Union
This campaign letter which was distributed by Male and
Switzer to the union members read as follows
We solicit your vote for Dave Grundmann for
president of Local 18 San Francisco Oakland Mailers
Union LT U
Grundmann will make a genuine effort to cut local
dues to the bone Try to take the local off the
percentage system for local dues and try to operate on
a $5.00 flat rate like most other unions Lets cut
expenses now $48,000.00 plus to operate this local is
ridiculous Smith can't operate on this each year, he
wants more more more more
Grundmann will give us a full audit for the last six
years and we will find out if there has been any hanky
panky going on, and where the big $48,000.00 plus per
year local money has been going
Grundmann will make an investigation of the way
I.T U dues are being paid by Boston, New York,
Chicago, Cleveland & Los Angeles, if they are paying
on the low 5 day scale of their local, as rumor has it,
we will pay that way too Lets find out Whoever heard
of $100. a month union dues
Doug Smith wants to increase your dues and will use
every dirty trick in the book to get more of your
money How do you like the Smith style of
referendum9 We think its dishonest Every man should
cast a ballot in his chapel, but Smith couldn't get your
money that way so he had the law changed to suit his
methods Lets cut out all this crazy spending Smith
does Vote for Dave Grundmann and get a square deal
Lets make sure we don't get stuck with any more
phoney Sausalito Mann guide deals How much in time
and money did that cost each of you? What a stupid
affair What good did it do? What was Smith trying to
prove? Smith is liable to hang another Sausalito deal on
our necks any time If he gets the chance we will be
stuck with it He is trying to figure out how to get
more local dues money out of each of us right now
Lets be smart and get rid of Smith now when we have
this chance
Vote for Grundmann and a real economy drive.
Dump Smith now. The night the strike vote was taken
Smith was out of town We gave the strike vote to
I T.U Rep Duncan, not to Smith. Duncan got the
conditions in the new contract, not Smith. He is giving
them back
Lets be honest with ourselves and get rid of Smith
while we have this one chance. We may not get another
two man contest like this again
Vote Grundmann into office and put control of the
union back in the hands of the membership. Smith has
had control locked up far too long Local 18 meetings
under Smith are as phoney as his type of referendum
vote The one he used to ram that $5 00 (four month
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS'
assessment) on Local dues down our throats. We want
to cut union expenses , Smith wants to increase them.
Let's dump Smith with a landslide vote for Grundmann.
Vote for Grundmann and get a square deal. Might
be your last chance. Put control of the union back in
the hands of the membership, now.
VOTE FOR DAVE GRUNDMANN FOR
PRESIDENT THIS TIME
Grundmann won the election and took office on May 18,
1968, but resigned as president on or about September 15,
1968.'
The Tribune mailroom is understaffed. Consequently,
mailroom employees have abundant overtime work
available to them, for which they earn time and a half of
their basic wage scale. Employee overtime records are
kept to insure an equitable distribution of the substantial
overtime available.' Overtime is allocated on a priority
basis to the employee who, according to the overtime list,
has accumulated the least amount of overtime.
The overtime list is a large sheet which contains a list
of names of the employees arranged in priority order and
alongside the names there are spaces for each day of the
week in which employees are to register the amount of
overtime they worked on the days of that particular week.
The order of the names on the list is determined by the
employee who has the least amount of accumulated
overtime. The employee who has accumulated the least
amount of overtime appears first on the current listing.
The amount of overtime registered by each employee
during the current week when added to his accumulated
overtime hours determines the order of the priority listing
for the next week.
The priority list is maintained by the chapel chairman,
who is the equivalent of a shop steward. Each Saturday he
takes the list down, computes the overtime of each
employee and makes out a new priority list for the coming
week based on his computation.
While the mechanics of the overtime priority system are
self-operating in that the employees themselves, by
registering their overtime on the sheet, determine the
order of the next week' s listing , it is the chapel chairman
who assigns the overtime work. Every Saturday he is
notified by the mailroom foreman of the amount of
overtime which will be available during the ensuing week.
The chapel chairman then refers to the priority listing and
assigns overtime to those who have accumulated the least
overtime.
To recapitulate, those mailers who are regularly
employed at the Oakland Tribune, and who are
interchangeably referred to as " regulars" and "situation
holders," are guaranteed five shifts of work a week. These
regular mailers ' names are listed on a "slipboard," in
priority order and following each name is a schedule of
their workweek. When the foreman of the mailing room
determines that the number of shifts for a particular week
will exceed the number of shifts worked as regular
situations , he notifies the chapel chairman on Saturday
morning of the number of overtime shifts which will be
available for the coming week. The chapel chairman then
assigns this overtime work on Saturday to the mailroom
'See Infra.
'Respondent ' s counsel in his opening statement phrased this situation as
one in which these employees "have available to them substantial overtime
.. " The General Counsel's representative described the employees as
working "many hours of overtime."
35
employees before the day-shift men go home, in order of
priority to those available situation holders or regular
employees of the Tribune who have accumulated the least
amount of overtime and who are low on the overtime list,
so that the employee with the least amount of overtime
will be first allocated an overtime shift.,
After David Grundmann was elected to the office of
president on May 15, 1968, a union meeting was held on
May 19, 1968, at which the members voted to adopt their
executive board's recommendation that an investigation be
made of the payment of dues, with special emphasis on
the question of whether some members of the local were
paying an incorrect amount of dues. Under the Union's
rules, members' dues are calculated on a percentage of
their gross income from the job.' It appears that the
average dues for mailers amounts to around $100 a month
according to General Counsel's Exhibit 3, fourth
paragraph. See supra.
President Grundmann appointed Keith "Rocky"
Bentley, a union official, to handle the investigation into
the dues paying practices of the members of the Oakland
Tribune mailers. Bentley who has held the post of
secretary-treasurer of the Union since May 19, 1968, is
also a member of the executive committee. The
investigation disclosed that a number of members were
paying less dues than they should have because they were
computing their dues on the contract scale for a 5-day
shift rather than on the basis of-their gross income which
includes overtime.
The record reveals Bentley knew sometime in May
1968 that Switzer and Male, the alleged discriminatees in
this proceeding, were leaders of a group of union members
who had determined to intentionally withhold part of their
dues as a means of protesting what they considered an
excessive amount of dues required of them by the Union.
This is further evidenced by Bentley 's singling out Switzer
and Male for phone calls about mid-July concerning their
dues payments.'
On May 29, 1968, Grundmann visited the Tribune
mailroom and spoke with Switzer and Male. He told them
that the Union was having financial problems and that if
all of the members would pay dues based on their gross
earnings , it would be helpful to the Respondent. Switzer
and Male told him that they and other members, as a
means of protesting the excessive amount of dues the
Union required, were paying dues only on the basic
contract 5-day week and not gross income which meant
they were not including their overtime pay.'
At a union meeting held in June 1968, the Union's
problem of collecting the correct amount of dues was
discussed. George Duncan, a representative from the
International Typographical Union, who was visiting the
Respondent Union, told the members that the
International recognized that dues payments were high.
According to Switzer, Duncan stated "that the whole
International was basically sound and most people didn't
like paying the high dues and he said the International
recognized this, it was a great payment [that the members
made] each month and he figured, . . . the International
'This assumes the employee will be available
'The International Typographical Union "Laws" provide at page 42 of
G C Exh. 18 that dues are computed "on all wages received during the
dues month."
'See infra and fn. 25.
'Some union members were computing their dues on the basic weekly
scale of $160.75 and others on $168 33 which included the Saturday
"double-header" but this did not include any additional overtime pay. See
G.C. Exh 17, "Double-Header," Sec. I and 2, at p. 36.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
really didn't care if you hedged a little bit on your
payments, he said the general practice was to pay the
greater amount then He said, 'you know you could take a
little back.' It was a well known fact that everybody in the
country did this at different times "
On July 3, 1968, Switzer tendered dues to John
Quigley, who was chapel chairman of the Respondent
Union from March 1968 to October 1968, and who was
responsible for the collection of dues The dues tendered
by Switzer to Quigley amounted to $49 96 representing
dues payment for June based on the basic 5-day week but
did not include the overtime he had worked which was the
correct basis for determining the dues he owed the Union.
On July 11, Bentley, Secretary-Treasurer of the Union,
telephoned both Switzer and Male at work and told them
there were discrepancies in their dues payments Switzer
admitted this but advised Bentley that he was intentionally
tendering less than the full amount of dues as a protest in
order to spark action toward the lowering of dues Bentley
told him that in computing his dues he should include the
overtime he had worked in June Switzer said he "would
think about it," to which Bentley replied, testified Switzer,
"take a good serious thought about that sort of thing,
because he said there is a lot of fellows in town if they
only want to pay on five days I can arrange it to see they
only get five days "
Bentley prepared and sent a form letter on July 26,
1968, to approximately 50 union members, including
Switzer and Male The letter informed the members that
the Tribune had made its payroll records available to the
Union and that on the basis of these records, the
addressee's dues payments were insufficient The letter
concluded by asking the members to "effect an adjustment
of all monies RECEIVED" in the future from the Tribune
in computing the amount of dues they received 8
Switzer then sent a check dated July 27 (G C. Exh
11(a)) for his June dues computed on the basic 5-day shift
plus the overtime Saturday night "double-header" shift
but he did not include additional overtime which he had
worked. Bentley sent the check to Quigley who, returned
it to Switzer on August 17, stating Bentley would not
accept it as it was made out for an amount less than he
owed
Switzer's testimony continues as follows When he
reported at 10:30 p m. for the Saturday night shift on
August 17, 1968, Quigley said "We [Switzer and Male]
wouldn't be working any overtime next week because he
had orders to keep us off the overtime list till we paid our
proper dues . he showed us the worksheet or the
overtime sheet, and he had three names 'x-ed' out on
there"' The top two names on the overtime list were
George Male and Alfred Switzer, and Quigley said,
according to Switzer, "I put these down there for
reference because Rocky [Bentley] ordered me to keep
you off the overtime list until you paid your proper dues "
When Switzer was asked on cross-examination if he ever
had a conversation with Quigley "about the 'x-mg'," he
replied "This was on Saturday, August 17, when he was
making up the list We were wanting to know if we were
going to be offered overtime on Monday and Tuesday -
would we be hired and if not we were planning on doing
some other business 10 So he said, "Well your name has
- we have 'X's' beside your name here I have been
'G C Exhs 5 and 6 Bentley testified that the response was excellent and
that all were in compliance by the middle of August except Switzer and
Male who refused to pay the full amount required by the union laws until
September
ordered by Rocky [Bentley] to keep you off the overtime
until you pay your dues " Also, on cross-examination,
when Respondent's counsel asked Switzer if he believed
Quigley to be a man of integrity who tells the truth, he
answered. "That's what I believed when he told me Rocky
[Bentley] told him to knock me off the overtime list "
Switzer's testimony continues as follows- "We, myself
and George Male, decided that the Company should be
informed of this, that we were available for work for
Monday and Tuesday [August 19 and 20], which were our
two days off So we compiled a letter on a sheet of
newsprint which was handy and we compiled the letter to
state our position to the foreman and the Company that
we would be available for these shifts and we presented
this to the night foreman who was Clarence Taves " These
notices, dated August 17, notified the Tribune foreman
that they were available to cover any Monday or Tuesday
overtime shifts The notice also stated overtime was being
denied them " These notices were forwarded by the
foreman to the Oakland Tribune's Director of Labor
Relations who answered both Switzer and Male by letters
dated August 20, which stated that the labor agreement
between the Newspaper and Union provides procedures
for the settlement of such "differences" and suggesting
that if they have a "problem" to utilize said procedures=
Switzer then wrote to the Union on August 24, requesting
the convening of a "special standing committee" to
consider his grievance and to recover "a day's pay at
1-1/2 tines scale for Tuesday, August 20 The Union
never replied "
Switzer testified that as of August 17, he had only 14
1 /4 hours of overtime charged against him and that he
"was second or third from the bottom of the list as low
man on a list of 70 or 80 men " The complaint alleges
Switzer and Male were discriminatorily denied overtime
on August 19 and 20, as well as September 9, 10, and 12,
but Switzer admitted, as did Male when he testified, that
none of the Tribune mailroom employees worked overtime
on Monday, August 19 11
However, on Tuesday, August 20, five of the mailroom
employees worked overtime Switzer and Male testified
that they had priority over all five of these employees and
consequently they should have been offered this overtime
before the five employees who actually worked on the
20th'" Switzer's and Male's testimony as to their priority
stands uncontradicted in the record "
Shortly after August 20, Switzer had some buttons
prepared at his own expense which had printed on them
the figure "$160 75" which was the basic scale earned by
the mailroom employees for a 5-day, 7-hour shift He
distributed about 20 of these buttons to his fellow-workers
asking each to wear a button as a means of protesting the
'The third name was apparently McLaughlin , another employee who
also was withholding part of his dues
"Both Switzer and Male's regular off days are Monday and Tuesday
"See G C Exh 7 Although Switzer's notice does not appear as an
exhibit, it is reasonable to infer that he sent one as evidenced by the letter
the Newspaper ' s Director of Labor Relations sent replying to Switzer See
G.C Exh 8
"G C Exhs 8 and 9
"it is interesting to note Switzer made no claim for loss of overtime on
August 19, although the complaint so alleges See footnote 15
14G C Exhs 10 and 17, Section 32, pps 24 and 25
"See fn 13
"The five employees over whom Switzer and Male had priority were
Bland , Harty, Larkins, Lamprecht, and Angrisam See G C Exh 19
"On redirect examination , Switzer testified that he did not believe it
necessary for him to remain in town on August 19 and 20, his off days,
because Quigley had "X -ed off" his name on August 17
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS'
existing dues system of the Union 18 Switzer testified that
approximately 25 union members joined in this dues
protest On cross-examination, Switzer testified that Kent
Duane Jones, who succeeded Grundmann as president in
the latter part of September 1968, "suggested to me if you
would throw that button away I know 15 other guys that
would do the same thing but he didn't demand, he just
sort of hinted that if I was to throw it away he knows 15
other guys that would do the same " Switzer also testified
on cross-examination that Angrisani, a union member
who worked in the Tribune mailroom, told him that he
was "being knocked off" five extra overtime shifts
because he was wearing a button and protesting, and he
said "that he had been paying his short dues like
everybody else, everybody with a button had been paying
short dues "
On August 28, Bentley returned Switzer's dues check to
him stating he was not paying the correct amount and
that he would not accept partial payment for his July
dues (G.C Exh 12(a)). The following day, Switzer sent a
letter addressed to union President Grundmann and
Secretary-Treasurer Bentley, which reads as follows.
I Received Sect Bentley's letter of Aug 28/68 with
reference to payment of my July 68 dues
In consideration of the various confusing statements
Sect Bentley has made to me in his letters and phone
conversation, and with reference to the remarks to Rep.
Duncan concerning payment of dues I feel that most of
the membership: are not satisfied that we are getting an
honest count dues wise either on a local level or on a
national level
It is the duty of the officers to carry out the will of
the membership As the new President you have given
new power to the membership but the Sect in his
attempt to thwart the referendum vote is reverting to
the old Smith policies.
I call on you as President to order a full
investigation of Local No. 18 dues situation, and to
investigate each member back to the limits of the
statute of limitations and to call for the services of the
man Rep. Duncan spoke of, Auditor of I.T.U
Jefferson Also I would invite that the investigation
start with myself
I Let's1put our lownihousel in ordeliand then see where we
stand on the national level where nearly all of our
members feel we are getting a short count
In the event you do not take this action as requested
I will contact Sect Cloud directly, and get a petition of
my fellow members to demand this action of the
Department of Justice
Switzer's testimony continues as follows On August 30,
Quigley, the chapel chairman, and Grundmann, the union
president, asked him if he would resign from the Union
Switzer testified he refused, telling them, "[he] would
never sign a resignation paper from the Union that I was
going to stay in the Union and see if I could keep them
honest ." Male testified that he, too, was asked by
Quigley if he would resign from the Union
On Saturday, August 31, Quigley asked Switzer and
Male if they wanted to work on Monday, September 2,
which was Labor Day, a legal holiday 19 When they were
offered this overtime, Switzer testified Quigley told them
that President Grundmann had been notified by the
International Typographical Union officials to return
"Switzer testified that he gave buttons to Quigley, the chairman, who
stated that the president and secretary -treasurer had requested them
Secretary-Treasurer Bentley received five buttons
37
Male and Switzer to the overtime list Male and Switzer
worked on Labor Day, a so-called "triple shift" day for
them since Monday was their off day, in addition to being
a legal holiday which pays double the day or night rate so
that they received triple pay or $96 45 for this 7-hour day
shift on September 2, Labor Day 20
Switzer testified that on Saturday, September 7,
Quigley told him and Male that they were again "knocked
off' the overtime list, stating that "he had been ordered
to take us off the overtime list " Switzer testified that
when he told Quigley he could not understand this action
in view of President Grundmann's order on August 31,
that he and Male be returned to the overtime list, Quigley
replied that Secretary Bentley had ordered their names to
be removed from the overtime list "because our dues were
still not paid up in full " Switzer testified he was off the
overtime list from September 7 to 14
Switzer and Male were not assigned any overtime work
on Monday, September 9, Tuesday, September 10, or
Thursday, September 12, although they were available.
Switzer testified that on September 12, the Tribune
printed a "special circular" which required "extra men
over and above the regular crew . . " See General
Counsel's Exhibit No 20 21 Switzer testified that he had
priority over all the mailroom employees who worked
overtime on Monday, September 9 22 Switzer testified that
for Tuesday, September 10, he had priority over Norton,
Johnson, Kerr, Jdilliams, Westervelt and Holtzclaw, all of
whom worked overtime on that date. Switzer testified that
he had priority over ten men who worked overtime on
Thursday, September 12, and that he was not offered the
opportunity to work overtime on that date although he
notified Quigley he was available 23
Switzer testified that he sent a check on September 12,
to Bentley, paying his dues in full and so notified Quigley
on September 13 That same afternoon about 4 p.m ,
Quigley assigned him overtime and he worked overtime on
the night shift that same night, September 13 Male
testified to the same effect.2'
Male, the other alleged discrimtnatee, corroborated
Switzer's testimony in all its salient aspects. He testified
that Quigley told Switzer and him on August 17, that
"Rocky [Bentley] had knocked us off the overtime list and
that we weren't going to get back on until we paid the
dues that Rocky wanted and we had telephone
conversations about it 21 And so, we said we weren't about
to do that and so he said - well, he is going to make an
example of us guys and meaning Switzer and myself."
"See G C Exh 17, Section 23, p 17
"See Section 3 of G C Exh 17
"G C Exh 20 which is for the week ending September 14, is not
complete as the second sheet of this overtime list is missing Respondent's
witness Quigley, who has custody and control of this list , testified he has
not been able to find the second sheet of the September 7 to 14 list
"Switzer named the following Nassau , Quigley, Wyatt, Kerr, Clarke,
Johnson, Williams, Westervelt , and Holtzclaw He testified that he had
priority for overtime work over all the above-named men for the week
beginning September 7
"The following worked overtime on September 12 Nassau, York,
Sowaal, Kerr, Olson, Clark, Westervelt, Mendiblez, Hansen , Hale, and
Woodward
"Switzer and Male, received letters from Bentley, secretary-treasurer of,
the Union, acknowledging receipt of their payment in full for all dues
owing by them These letters are attached as Appendices B and C at the
end of this Decision See also Resp Exh I, Switzer ' s covering letter dated
September 12, forwarding his dues payment
"This is an unmistakable reference to the telephone conversations Male
and Switzer had with Bentley regarding their dues See supra
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Male also testified that he had priority over all the
mailroom employees who had worked on August 20,
September 9, 10, and 12 but on those days when overtime
work was available , he did not work because he was not
assigned any overtime . 16 Male testified that his and
Switzer' s names "reappeared" on the overtime list on
Saturday, August 31, when Grundmann ordered it, which
accounted for their working on Labor Day, September 2.
However, continues Male's testimony, Quigley told him
on Saturday, September 7, in the presence of Switzer, that
"Rocky had taken over, that Grundmann had fallen apart,
that Rocky had taken over the duties, was sort of taking
over the duties of president, too, because Grundmann was
so weak and that he [Bentley] had ordered us back off the
overtime list." Male concluded this phase of his testimony
by stating that Quigley did not ask him on Saturday,
September 7, to work on either September 9, 10, or 12.
However, when he mailed his dues in full on September
12, he was assigned overtime work on September 13. On
cross-examination , Male testified "as soon as the - the
okay came from Rocky Bentley" that "immediately"
thereafter he was assigned overtime work.
Bentley, the Union's secretary-treasurer, denied that he
caused Switzer and Male's names to be removed from the
overtime list or that he threatened Switzer that those
members who persisted in paying dues based on scale
would get only 5 days of work a week.
Quigley, the chapel chairman, denied he told Switzer
and Male on August 17, or at any other time, that he had
been instructed by Bentley to remove their names from
the overtime list or when he assigned them overtime on
Labor Day that he was putting them back on the overtime
list.=' Quigley testified that the overtime lists for August
and September were "destroyed" approximately 4 to 6
weeks after their removal from the bulletin board.
There is considerable testimony as to whether Quigley
"read" the notice Male and Switzer wrote to the
Tribune's mailroom foreman on August 17, notifying him
they were being denied overtime and that they were
available for overtime. When Quigley was shown this
notice (G.C. Exh. 7) by counsel for the Respondent and
asked if he "recognized" it, he answered: "I am cognizant
of this here and I have, I believe seen this a previous time
in the Oakland Tribune mail room. I saw it on the
foreman's desk on Saturday night, August 17th. I didn't
thoroughly read it as I am reading it now, I glanced at
it." He went on to testify that he knew what it said "in
the essential idea of the writing, I understand glancing at
it." On cross-examination he testified: "I saw it. I did not
thoroughly read it. I glanced at it . . . . I didn't read it
thoroughly. I looked at it. I didn't study it." He admitted
that he knew Male would be available that week on the
basis of looking at the letter stating : " I would say on my
past experiences I would, yes." Then Quigley contradicted
himself when he was asked if, when he looked at that
letter, he knew Male and Switzer were available for the
following week, he answered: "No, because I didn't read
and study the letter I glanced at it and that was it. I
recognized the fact that he had written something and
when you are approached on all sides by the business of
this particular type job, you don't thoroughly go through
everything in that particular respect." Quigley did,
however, admit Male spoke to him about this notice to
"See supra
"The witness used the term that their names were both "removed" and
put back on the overtime list ," to describe the fact they were passed over,
although there was no physical removal from the list of their names.
the foreman on August 17, but later he denied it.38 When
he was asked on direct examination if he understood that
Male would be available for overtime, his answer was:
"No, he would not. As far as I could understand, he
would not be available." When he was asked " Why" he
replied: "Well, first of all, there was no overtime and I
would assume here, and also from my memory, that he
wouldn 't be in town . . . . there was no overtime on that
Monday ... so nobody would be working." When he was
asked specifically whether Switzer on August 17, told him
that he would be available and wanted the overtime the
following week on his days off, Quigley answered, "No."
Quigley testified that with respect to the letter dated
August 17, to the foreman of the Tribune, that it was put
on the foreman's desk, at a time when the foreman was
not working as he was off on Saturday night. Quigley's
testimony continues as follows: "This letter was therefore
laid on his desk for him when he would get back there
Monday. I go in and out of the office quite often and I
looked at this laying on top of his desk, which was on
Saturday, August 17." Quigley concluded his direct
examination by testifying that the reason that they were
not offered overtime was because he "assumed" they did
not care to work overtime on Monday and Tuesday, their
"off days" and furthermore, he was never notified they
were available for overtime on Monday and Tuesday,
August 19 and 20, and Monday and Tuesday, September
9 and 10.
Respondent's Contentions
Respondent's counsel contends that the General
Counsel's representative has failed to show an improper
motive on the part of the Union when Switzer and Male
did not work on the 5 days alleged in the complaint.
Moreover, Respondent argues, credence should be given
to Bentley's statement that he had never issued
instructions to Quigley to have Switzer and Male
eliminated from the overtime list, which denial was
corroborated by Quigley. Furthermore, argues
Respondent's counsel, Switzer and Male were not
available on the days on which they were alleged to have
been denied overtime work." Finally, Respondent
concludes, there is no convincing evidence that Quigley
knew Switzer and Male were available for overtime work
as it has not been shown Quigley read their August 17th
letter of availability addressed to the mailroom foreman.
The General Counsel's representative, on the other
hand, contends the alleged discriminatees were denied
overtime work because of their concerted efforts to change
the Union's existing dues structure which protest took the
form of withholding part of their dues and running their
own candidate for president of the Union. Moreover, it is
claimed that Bentley and Quigley knew Switzer and Male
were the leaders of a protest group critical of the dues
collection system, and because of this, they were punished
"The first two lines of Male's notice to the foreman reads as follows.
I hereby notify the foreman of the Oakland Tribune that I am available,
willing and able to cover any Monday or Tuesday overtime shifts.
"The mere act of passing over the names of Switzer and Male on the
overtime list was a violation of the Act. Local 12, Operating Engineers,
113 NLRB 655, 662 . Assuming arguendo. which is contrary to the finding
made herein, that Switzer and Male did not make known their availability
for overtime work, this defense is without merit . Under the particular
circumstances of this case any such notice to the Union would have been a
futile gesture The law compels no man to do a useless act. N.L R B. v
/A.M. Local 504. 203 F.2d 173, 176 (C.A. 9), citing N.L R B v.
Swinerton , 202 F.2d 511 (C.A 9), cert. denied 346 U.S. 814
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS' 39
by being deprived of their allocable share of overtime
work
Credibility
There are here presented mutually exclusive stories
which require the resolution of pure questions of fact. To
resolve these questions of whether Switzer and Male were
deprived of their allocable share of overtime work and
whether the Respondent Union's motivation was legal or
illegal, consideration must be given to circumstantial as
well as direct evidence. It is well recognized that a finding
of discrimination must frequently rest on inference, as
direct evidence of intention to violate the Act is rarely
obtainable Furthermore, it is well established that relief
should not be denied because there is an absence of direct
evidence, a party has recourse to and may rely upon
circumstantial evidence which is relevant to resolving the
issues 30
The Respondent's counsel urges that the testimony of
Bentley and Quigley denying that they acted to deprive
Switzer and Male of overtime work, should be credited.
This denial raises an issue of credibility which is resolved
in favor of the versions told by Switzer and Male. Bentley
and Quigley's testimony has been considered in the
context of the foregoing recital of facts, their demeanor on
the witness stand observed, the record has been analyzed,
the inferences to be drawn therefrom and it is concluded
that their testimony denying that Switzer and Male were
discriminatorily refused overtime work does not merit
belief, for the reasons hereinafter explicated. Male and
Switzer appeared to be sincere and truthful witnesses. The
events related by them follow logically and are consistent
with attendant circumstances. The impression that Switzer
and Male were testifying truthfully became a conviction
when their stories were not substantially shaken by able
counsel for the Respondent who vigorously and
thoroughly cross-examined them
On the other hand, Quigley's testimony was evasive,
inconsistent and contradictory to the point of straining
one's credulity. In particular, Quigley's self-serving denial
that he knew the substantive contents of Male and
Switzer's August 17 letter of availability to the mailroom
foreman is of such doubtful verity that it is rejected on all
disputed matters relevant to the probative issues in this
proceeding.J1
Judge Learned Hand in Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d
265, 269 (C A 2), stated-
[demeanor] evidence may satisfy the tribunal, not only
that the witness' testimony is not true, but that the
truth is the opposite of his story, for the denial of one,
who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with such
hesitation, discomfort, arrogance, or defiance, as to give
assurance that he is fabricating, and that, if he is, there
is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he
denies.
Discussion and Conclusions
Inasmuch as Section 8(b)(2) and (a)(3) are interrelated,
it is necessary to analyze both sections together.J2 From
such examination, it seems clear that it is an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents to cause or
attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
"Hartsell Mills Co v N L R B., I I I F.2d 291 , 293 (C A 4); N L R B
v Piedmont Wagon & Mfg Co, 176 F.2d 695 (C A 4)
."Shattuck Denn Mining Corp v N L.R B, 362 F 2d 466 , 471 (C A 9)
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment. In determining whether discrimination falls
within the statutory condemnation, it is the "true
purpose" or "real motive" that constitutes the test." If the
improper motive can be adequately demonstrated, the
Board and the Courts will look to the alleged reason and
hold it to be unlawful." Settled law establishes that,
subject to one sharply defined exception," the power of a
union to discriminate in employment may not be
sanctioned nor may an employee be subjected to job
discrimination. The legislative history of Section 8(b)(2)
shows that Congress sought to eliminate union abuses of
control over employment 36 This policy is endorsed by the
International Typographical Union's "Book of Laws"
which provides 31
Laying off a situation holder and employment of
another journeyman as extra to perform work to which
the situation holder's priority and competency entitle
him is prohibited.78
In the often cited Radio Officers' Union case,3' the
United States Supreme Court stated that "the policy of
the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their
organizational rights."°0 In that case, the Union violated
Section 8(b)(2) when, pursuant to an agreement with the
employer, it moved a union member to last place on the
seniority list because he became delinquent in the payment
of union dues In that proceeding, as in the case at bar,
there was no union security provision, the Supreme Court
stated. "Thus Secs 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) were designed to
allow employees to freely exercise their right to join
unions, be good, bad or indifferent members, or abstain
from joining any union without imperiling their
livelihood " This precept is particularly applicable where
union members engage in protected concerted activity as
did Switzer and Male, when they withheld part oflthetrdues
"Sections 8(b)(2), (1), and 7 provide in pertinent part that
Sec 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or
its agents -
(I) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against
an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) or to discriminate against
an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has
been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to
tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership,
# M * t :
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection,
"Local 357, Teamsters v N L R. B , 365 U.S 667, 675
"N L R B v Local 405. Biscuit & Cracker Workers. 222 F 2d 573, 577
(C. A. 2), N L R B v Mechanics Educational Society. 222 F.2d 429 (C A
6), enfg . 109 NLRB 838
"Namely, permitting a union through a valid union security agreement
to compel payment of union dues, which is not applicable in this
proceeding, as the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and
Tribune newspaper did not contain a union security clause.
"House Rep . No 245, 80th Cong 1st Sess p 34, Sen Rep No 105,
80th Cong Ist Sess pp 6, 7, 21 and 22; House Conference Rep 510, 80th
Cong , 1st Session , p. 44, 93 Cong Rec 3837, 4135, 4191, 4193, 4432,
4886, 4887, Sen Rep 986, part. 3, 80th Congress, 2nd Sess , p 52
"Article Vil, Page 104, G C Exh 18
"See G.C Exh. 18, the Union's "Book of Laws," at p 102-104 with
respect to overtime
'Radio Officers' Union v N L R B, 347 U S. 17
" Id at 40
" Id at 40
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as a means of protesting42 the Union's dues structure.43
Absent a union security clause, which is the situation in
this proceeding , "no other discrimination aimed at
encouraging employees to . stay in good standing in a
union is condoned."14 Thus, Switzer and Male were denied
overtime work, to which they were entitled, for no reason
other than their concerted protected activities. The
ultimate and motivating causal reason for this
discriminatory treatment was their aggressive exercise of
their Section 7 rights to participate fully in the affairs of
their Union They had antagonized the union hierarchy by
importuning their fellow union members to loin with them
in an effort to reform what they considered the Union's
excessive and unfair dues structure This dissent of Switzer
and Male and their some dozen fellow union members
took the form of withholding a portion of their dues and
not only running their own candidate for president of the
Union but also defeating the administration's nominee JS
The record reveals that this conduct provoked the union
officials and the discriminz tion that followed stemmed
from these protected activities °" It is found, therefore,
that the Union was motivated by proscribed reasons when
it deprived and denied Switzer and Male overtime work
on August 20, September 9, 10, and 12, thus violating
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act " The Union's agents, Bentley
and Quigley, also restrained and coerced the mailroom
employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by showing
its members what might happen to them if they opposed
its officials, by demonstrating the power of the Union to
protect the job security of its members at the expense of
others toward whom it was not kindly disposed.
It is clear that "mutual aid" and concerted activities, as
specified in Section 7 of the Act, included the right of
Switzer and Male to criticize the union leadership and its
dues policies and to support the candidacy of another
union member for elective office without fear of reprisal.i8
Accordingly, it was a violation of the Act for the Union
to deprive them of overtime work because they engaged in
concerted activities which Section 7 was designed to
protect .49 Congress has clearly expressed the intention
to "protect the rights of union members to discuss freely
and criticize the management of their unions and the conduct;
of their officers," by preventing union officials from using
their disciplinary powers to punish those who dare to
question and complain .50. Moreover, it is settled law
that a union violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
Act, if it causes an employee to lose job benefits in
order to punish or retaliate against him for protesting
"Id
"Cf Tracy Towing Line, Inc, 166 NLRB No 9
"Id at 41-42
"On cross-examination, Bently referred to Switzer and Male as the
leaders of the "$160 75" club
"An improper motive must be a cause without which the discrimmatees
would not have been denied overtime N L R B v Neuhoff Bros Packers,
Inc, 398 F.2d 640, 647 (C A 5)
"The allegation in the complaint that Switzer and Male were deprived of
overtime work on August 19, is dismissed as the uncontradicted testimony
shows there was no overtime work available on that date See page 36,
supra
"N L R B v Bowman Transportation , Inc , 314 F 2d 497, 498 (C A. 5)
Cf Local 6. Brewers and Molesters Union v N L R B, 301 F 2d 216,
218-223 (C A 8), Local 138. Operating Engineers v N L R B, 321 F 2d
130, 136 (C A 2)
"Cf Interboro Contractors , Inc.. 157 NLRB 1295, enfd 388 F 2d 495
(C A. 2), N L R B v Plastilite Corp , 375 F 2d 343, 346-347 (C A 8), G
& W Electric Specialty Co, 154 NLRB 1136
"Salzhandler v Caputo , 316 F 2d 445, 448 (C A 2) See Giordani v
Upholsterers Union , 403 F 2d 85 (C A 2)
the Union's policies or questioning the official conduct
of its agents. So long as the activity is protected by
Section 7, there can be no justification for a union making
it the occasion for discriminatory treatment of its members.
,Dissident union members may subsidize propaganda,
distribute broadsides , support intraunion political
movements and in any other way further their cause or that
of other members whom they wish to win to their side.
Such activities may be prejudicial and detrimental to those
union officials whom they oppose, it may embarass
and disparage them but the statute forbids union officials
to discriminatorily retaliate against members for such
protected activities.51 For all of the foregoing reasons,
the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A)
of the Act by knowingly and discriminatorily denying
Switzer and Male overtime work to which they were entitled
and for which they were available.52 See Iron
Workers, Local 444, 174 NLRB No. 164 involving
discrimination in assigning overtime
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent Union, by denying, depriving and
refusing to give overtime work to Switzer and Male in the
course of administering the contract with The Tribune
Publishing Company, restrained or coerced them in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 to engage in
concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection,
and caused or attempted to cause the Oakland Tribune to
discriminate against them in violation of Section 8(a)(3),
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
(2), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. It shall be recommended that the Respondent make
Switzer and Male whole for any loss of overtime pay they
may have suffered as a result of Respondent having
caused the said discriminatees to be deprived of overtime
employment and overtime pay for August 20, September
9, 10, and 12, 1968, by payment to them of a sum of
money, plus interest," equal to that which they would
have earned as employees of The Tribune Publishing
Company on the aforementioned dates. No recovery is
provided for Switzer and Male's not working on overtime
on August 19, as there was no overtime worked by any
mailroom employee on that day.
It will be recommended also that the Order contain an
injunction against any form of restraint or coercion by the
Respondent It shall, therefore, be recommended that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from causing
or attempting to cause The Tribune Publishing Company,
or any other employer, as defined in the Act, within their
jurisdictional and geographical area, to deprive employees
of overtime work to which they are entitled on a priority
"N L R B v Local 12, ILWU. 378 F 2d 125, 129 (L A 9), cert denied
389 U S 846, Lummus Co v N L R B. 339 F 2d 728, 734 (C ADC ),
N L R B v Ferguson Co , 337 F.2d 205 , 207 (C A 5), cert denied 380
U S 912
"Local 12 , Operating Engineers. 113 NLRB at 662-663
"Isis Plumbing & Heating Co . 138 NLRB 716, F W Voolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND MAILERS'
basis and for which said employees are available, except in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings and
conclusions and on the entire record in the case, it is
recommended pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
issuance of the following:
ORDER
Respondent, San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union
No. 18, International Typographical Union, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of The Tribune
Publishing Company or any other employer, within their
jurisdiction and geographical area, in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
(b) Discriminatorily depriving or denying Alfred W.
Switzer and George Male, or any other employee, of their
allocable, full and equal overtime work to which they are
entitled and for which they are available.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of any right guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the limited extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.ss
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole Alfred Switzer and George Male for
losses they sustained as the result of the Respondent's
discrimination against them, computing the amounts due
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its business offices in San Francisco,
California, and usual membership meeting places, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."56 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail sufficient signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A," to the Regional Director for
Region 20 for posting by The Tribune Publishing
Company at its Oakland, California, newspaper plant, in
places where notices to its mailroom employees are
customarily posted, if said Company is willing to do so.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director of Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by
authorized representatives of the Respondent, as indicated,
"Local 327, Teamsters , 173 NLRB No. 220.
"The Respondent Union in a recent case, 172 NLRB No 252, was
found to have made threats and taken disciplinary action (citations, fines
and threats of citation ) in violation of Section 8(b)(I )(B) of the Act
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
41
be forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such
posting.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what'
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND
MAILERS' UNION No. 18, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT deny or deprive any person overtime
work because of that person's exercise of the rights
guaranteed to him in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL pay Alfred Switzer and George Male any
sums due them arising out of our depriving them of
overtime work.
SAN
FRANCISCO-OAK LAND
MAILERS'UNION No.
18, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal
Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335.
APPENDIX B
September 16, 1968
RE. Dues Payment
September 12, 1968
Dear Al:
This letter will acknowledge receipt of the
above-captioned subject.
Specifically I am in receipt of your personal check
for $52.47 which is payment for July dues on a total
earnings report of $854.53.
I am also in receipt of your personal check for
$29.88 which is payment for August dues on a total
earnings report of $402.37.
If I can be of any further assistance to you, please
feel free to call upon me at any time.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Have a good day. above-captioned subject.
Fraternally, Specifically, I am in receipt of your personal check
K. "Rocky" Bentley 707 dated July 1968 in the exact amount of $45.93, and
Secretary-Treasurer your personal check 711 dated August 1968 in the exact
amount of $33.38.
APPENDIX C Enclosed please find the weekly earnings reports for
July and August and the correct computation of monies
September 20, 1968 owed for union dues for each month. Please be advised
that a $.62 shortage has occurred and I assume that
John Quigley has collected same at this date.
RE: Dues Payment If there is some doubt or anxiety as to the
July and differential or if I can be of any further assistance
1968
please feel free to call upon me any time.
August Have a good day.
Respectively and
Dear George : Fraternally,
This edict will serve to acknowledge receipt of your K. "Rocky" Bentley
payment in the total amount of $79. 11 pertinent to the Secretary-Treasurer
a