San Francisco Typographical Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 319 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 319
San Francisco Typographical Union No . 21 Interna-
tional Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Cali-
fornia Newspapers, Inc. d /b/a San Rafael Inde-
pendent Journal . Cases 20-CB-2285-1,
20-CB-2285-2, and 20-CB-2285-3
September 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On May 13, 1971, Trial Examiner James T. Barker
issued his Decision in this 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 Trial Examiner's Decision with
a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed limited
cross-exceptions and an answering brief, and the
Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and an answer-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner as modified below.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
violated the Act by filing charges against, and citing
before an investigating committee and its trial
committee, employer representatives who conse-
quently were fined and expelled from Respondent.
However, he did not refer to such violations in his
recommended Order and notice. The General Coun-
sel excepts to this apparent oversight. We find merit to
this exception and shall amend the Order and notice.
As we agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Employer's representatives were at all relevant times
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, we find it
unnecessary to adopt or pass upon the Examiner's
statement that it is the individual's status at the time
discipline is imposed that governs.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
193 NLRB No. 41
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that Respondent, San Francisco Typo-
graphical Union No. 21, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order as herein modified.
1. Insert the following at the beginning of para-
graph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order:
"Filing intraunion charges against, citing before an
intraunion committee or trial tribunal,".
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce California
Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent
Journal, in the selection and retention of its
representatives, including Earl Dixon, Robert
Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, for purposes of
collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances
of employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce California Newspapers, Inc.,
d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, in the
selection of representatives chosen for the purpos-
es of collective bargaining and adjustment of
grievances of employees.
WE WILL NOT file intraunion charges against,
cite before an intraunion committee or trial
tribunal, fine, or otherwise discipline Earl Dixon,
Robert Dixon, or Ernest Fingerlos because of their
conduct and performance of work as the selected
representatives of California Newspapers, Inc.,
d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, for the
purposes of collective bargaining and adjustment
of grievances.
WE WILL rescind any fines, suspensions, expul-
sions, or other disciplinary acts taken against Earl
Dixon, Robert Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, and
exise and expunge all records or other evidence in
our files resulting from charges and proceedings
brought against Earl Dixon, Robert Dixon, and
Ernest Fingerlos because of their working for San
Rafael Independent Journal during the course of
the strike called by us.
320
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
No. 21 INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 13050 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard
at San Francisco, California, on January 12, 27, 28, and 29,
1971, pursuant to separate charges filed on July 20, 1970, by
California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independ-
ent Journal, hereinafter called The Journal. On September
14, 1970, the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 20 issued a consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing alleging that San Francisco
Typographical Union No. 21, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Respondent had
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. On March 22,
1971, the parties timely filed briefs with me.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and upon
the entire record in this case ' and my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Inde-
pendent Journal, is a California corporation which has
been at all times material herein engaged in the publication
at its newspaper publishing plant in San Rafael, California,
of a daily newspaper, the San Rafael Independent Journal.
During the calendar year immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, The Journal received
gross revenues in excess of $200,000 from the sale of
newspapers and of advertising therein. During the same
period of time, The Journal has been a subscriber to the
I The transcript of this proceeding contains numerous errors Counsel
for the General Counsel has filed a motion to correct certain of them No
opposition has been filed As the motion of the General Counsel is
addressed to the principal substantive errors in the transcript and as my
analysis of the record indicates that the corrections are warranted, the
Associated Press and United Press International, each of
which is an interstate news service. Additionally, during the
same period of time, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, The Journal has purchased and
received goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 at
its San Rafael plant directly from sources located outside
the State of California.
Upon these admitted facts, I find that at all times
matenal herein California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San
Rafael Independent Journal has been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent concedes that at all times material
herein it has been a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Contentions of the parties
The principal issue in this proceeding is whether Robert
Dixon, Earl Dixon, and/or Ernest Fingerlos were supervi-
sors of The Journal with authority to adjust grievances of
employees at a time when Respondent initiated disciplinary
proceedings against them, fined them, and expelled them
from membership for working behind a picket line
established by Respondent in support of its lawful strike
against The Journal. The Respondent denies the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
Initially, the Respondent contends that the relevant
period for determining the authority of the individuals
expelled from membership is the date on which they first
worked behind the Respondent's picket line during the
strike which ensued. Building upon this premise, the
Respondent further contends that none of the three
individuals possessed authority on behalf of the Company
to adjust grievances or engage in collective-bargaining
negotiations on behalf of the Company at the time they
crossed the Respondent's picket line to work in the employ
of the Company, or at any prior time.2 Additionally, the
Respondent contends that the proscriptions of Section
8(b)(1)(B) are not applicable in the context of this
proceeding, because union membership of a supervisory
employee was voluntary under the most recent collective-
bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the
Company and remained so at times subsequent to the
beginning of the strike. As further ground for dismissing the
complaint, the Respondent contends that, in light of the
prefatory language of Section 8(b)(I), and in consideration
of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v.
Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S. 175, Section 8(b)(1)(B) does not
prohibit a labor organization from instituting disciplinary
proceedings against a foreman for crossing a lawful picket
transcript is hereby corrected in the manner indicated at "Appendix A"
(omitted from publication]
2 It is conceded that none of the three had authority to engage in
collective-bargaining negotiations on behalf of The Journal.
SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 321
line during a strike ; and that, in any event, no violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) should be found where, as here, the
expelled members do not wish to regain their union
membership.
2. Ruling as to the relevant period
At the hearing the General Counsel took the position that
the relevant period for determining the possession and
exercise of supervisory authority by Robert and Earl Dixon
was January 7 through 30, 1970; and for Ernest Fingerlos
March 31 to April 22, 1970. In light of the position of the
General Counsel and the gravamen of the respective
intraunion charges tiled against the three alleged supervi-
sors, the Trial Examiner ruled, in substance, at the hearing
that the relevant period for determining the supervisory
status of the three individuals subjected to union charges
was delineated, on the one hand, by the dates on which they
respectively commenced working behind the Respondent's
picket line and, on the other hand, by the date upon which
intraunion charges were preferred against them. This ruling
was made over objections of counsel for Respondent who
contended, in substance, as noted above, that the relevant
and material date for determining a possession of
supervisory authority was the date upon which each
individual crossed the Respondent's picket line, which
action gave rise to the intraunion charges. Respondent thus
contended that, for the aforesaid reason, it was entitled to
probe the status of each of the alleged supervisors
preceding the date upon which each crossed the Respon-
dent's picket line and to elicit testimony and introduce
evidence pertaining to a period prior to January 7 with
respect to Robert and Earl Dixon and March 31 with
respect to Ernest Fingerlos. Although the Trial Examiner
ruled adversely to the Respondent on this issue, he
permitted an offer of proof designed to establish that prior
to crossing the Respondent's picket line none of the three
alleged supervisors in fact possessed supervisory authority.
This offer of proof was rejected by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing. I affirm that ruling and I do here specifically
reject Respondent's contention that introduction of
evidence revealing the actual status of the three disciplined
individuals as "rank and file employees" before their return
to work behind the picket line was warranted on the theory
that this would reveal that the Company's investiture of
supervisory authority in them after the strike was for the
sole purpose of immunizing them from union discipline.
Among the purposes of Section 8(b)(1)(B) is the extension
of freedom to an employer isolated from union interference
and coercion to select supervisory personnel to meet
business and operational exigencies . It is the authority
possessed by the individual selected by management at the
time he was subjected to union discipline that governs and
not his prior or subsequent status. Practical impediments
confronting the Respondent in disproving the General
Counsel's contention do not warrant a different result. In
any event, latitude was given Respondent in probing the
authority possessed by each of the disciplined employees
immediately preceding the relevant date on the theory that
3 All dates herein refer to the calendar year 1970 unless specifically
indicated otherwise
4 At all pertinent times advertising composition at The Journal had
this would give insight into the validity of testimony
suggesting that during the relevant period previously
possessed supervisory authority was merely reinforced and
reiterated by top management.
B. The Pertinent Facts
1. Background facts
On January 7, 1970,3 Respondent commenced a strike at
The Journal. The strike grew out of the inability of the
Respondent and The Journal to successfully negotiate a
collective-bargaining agreement to replace the agreement
between them which had expired on November 2, 1968.
On January 7 ultimate authority and responsibility for
the entire operation of The Journal resided with the
publisher of The Journal. Norwin Yoffie in his capacity as
general manager of The Journal was next in line of
authority. On January 7, and at relevant times thereafter,
Gordon Dixon was employed in the capacity of superin-
tendent of The Journal and in this capacity had general
supervisory authority over the composing room, the
pressroom, the engraving department, and the typing
department. He similarly had the title of foreman. Gordon
Dixon had the authority to hire and discharge composing
room employees. He maintained one office adjacent to the
composing room and a separate office on the same floor as
the composing room but not contiguous to it. On or about
January 22, Gordon Dixon suffered a heart attack and was
hospitalized until March 1970. During his hospitalization,
he retained the title of superintendent and of foreman.
In the composing room work tasks are performed which
relate to the flow of editorial copy through the department.
It is also in the composing room that the markup and
pasteup of advertising copy is performed. Additionally,
linotype and TTS machines are utilized and monitors are
operated. It is in the composing room that the task of
proofreading material is performed.
During the relevant period, Earl Dixon served as assistant
foreman in charge of the day shift in the composing room
and Robert Dixon was employed in the composing room in
the capacity of assistant foreman in charge of cold-type
composition and makeup.4 Earl Dixon had general
responsibility for the entire operation of the day shift in the
composing room and had specific responsibility in the area
of composition, which included work performed by TTS
and linotype operators, and by monitors and proofreaders.
Robert Dixon's area of specific responsibility was with
respect to cold-type composition. Additionally, he had
responsibility in the makeup of news pages in the
composition room.
With the commencement of the strike and for a period of
time thereafter, the work of the composing room was
performed by management and supervisory personnel
augmented by a number of rank-and-file employees. By
January 17, management was able to begin assigning
personnel permanently to a work position, but no definitive
two-shift arrangement emerged until several days later.
been in cold-type By this process advertising is composed on a photo-
composition or lino-film machine and then pasted into position on the
page
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The supervisory issue
a. The hiring procedures
In January, following commencement of the strike,
approximately 30 or 35 composing room employees were
hired. By virtue of the strike, it became necessary for The
Journal to increase its recruitment efforts, and to this end,
after initial testing and screening procedures were per-
formed with the participation of Norwin Yoffie, Gordon
Dixon and other officials of the Company, the assistant
foremen of the various departments, including Robert and
Earl Dixon, conducted final interviews and made the final
selection of personnel. New hires were accomplished by
Robert and Earl Dixon during this period of time without
the prior approval of Gordon Dixon.
Coincident to undertaking the reconstitution of the work
force, Norwin Yoffie spoke to all plant supervisors,
including Robert and Earl Dixon. He informed them of the
urgency of recruitment efforts and outlined the program to
be followed in recruiting, screening, testing, and selecting
personnel. He delineated to the supervisors their respective
areas of work responsibility and informed them that they
would have the responsibilities for making the final
evaluation of an applicant's qualifications and for selecting
personnel for hire in their respective assigned departments.
He detailed for the supervisors some of the "specifics"
entailed within their "general responsibilities." Yoffie
further discussed with the supervisors the "wage philoso-
phy" that would apply in operating their departments and
in the course of the discussion informed them that they had
authority to recommend wage increases for personnel
under their direction.
b. Robert Dixon
During the period January 7 to January 30,5 Robert
Dixon, as found, was employed in the composing room of
The Journal in the capacity of assistant foreman in charge
of cold-type composition and makeup. On or about
January 22, when Gordon Dixon became hospitalized,
Robert Dixon became acting foreman of the composing
room. During the aforesaid period, Robert Dixon was paid
a weekly salary of $197.10. His normal workweek was 35
hours. For the purposes of overtime compensation, he was
paid at a premium rate of time and one-half of his hourly
compensation which was the equivalent of 1/35th of his
weekly salary. The highest weekly scale for any rank-and-
file employee working under Robert Dixon during the
relevant period was $182.10 per week. Robert Dixon did
not participate in any bonus or other remuneration other
than his salary and overtime compensation.
5 In accordance with the ruling of the Trial Examiner, this period of
time is deemed the relevant period for determining the status of Robert
and Earl Dixon
6 Eight or ten employees were employed in pasteup and advertising
tasks while an additional four or five were employed as floor workers
r Yoffie testified that much overtime was worked in the composing
room during the period of January 7 to 30, and that the work force during
that period of time was an expanding one However , he further testified
that "the pattern of life" in the department was such as to necessitate an
assumption that time off was requested and granted.
I Norwin Yoffie testified that some of the personnel had worked in
other departments and that, to effectuate the transfer of these employees
During the relevant period, Robert Dixon had responsi-
bility and authority to assign work and to supervise the
work of rank-and-file employees in the composing room.
After January 17, but prior to January 30, a complement of
approximately 15 permanent employees had been achieved
at The Journal in those job categories in the composing
room over which Robert Dixon had authority.6 During the
relevant period, Robert Dixon had authority to transfer,
recall, discipline and discharge employees and he was
vested with authority to grant time off, to participate in the
hire of new employees, to recommend wage increases for
employees under his direction and to request said
employees to work overtime. Additionally, Robert Dixon
had authority to adjust grievances of employees engaged in
the pasteup, cold-type composition work and in the floor
makeup work. Procedures in effect after January 7
provided for grievances to be taken up individually by the
aggrieved employee with his supervisor. During the period
immediately following the commencement of the strike,
Yoffie specifically instructed Robert Dixon that he had
authority to discharge employees and to take disciplinary
action against them. In his testimony at the hearing, Yoffie
could not recount with particularity instances wherein
Robert Dixon had discharged, disciplined, granted time off
to, adjusted grievances of, or required employees to work
overtime. Yoffie testified, nonetheless , in substance, that
these prerogatives and authorities were inherent in Robert
Dixon's assigned responsibilities in the composing room
and would have been exercised in the normal course of
events in the composing room.7
However, Yoffie testified that Robert Dixon had a role in
hiring "most" of the 15 employees who constituted the
complement of permanent employees in the composing
room in those job categories over which Robert Dixon had
authority.8 Additionally, the testimony of Norwin Yoffie
establishes that during the relevant period Robert Dixon
recalled at least two employees.9
In the daily performance of his duties, Robert Dixon
spent a portion of the worktime making up advertising copy
to be set on the linotype machine in the department. By this
procedure indication is made on the advertising copy
transmitted from the advertising services department to the
composing room as to the type face, size , and measure in
which the copy is to be finally set for reproduction. Robert
Dixon also performed some pasteup and floor work. Other
portions of his workday were devoted to overseeing and
directing the work of others in the department. Because of
the relative inexperience of the work complement during
January 7 to 30 a large portion of Robert Dixon's time was
spent in oversight tasks. Included in these tasks, as those
responsibilities relate specifically to the flow of advertising
under then prevailing procedures , Robert Dixon would have had to make a
specific request to the department head of the department in which these
employees had formerly been employed, or to Gordon Dixon Yoffie was
unable to testify specifically with respect to individual transfers requested
by Robert Dixon, but he testified that he learned by word of mouth from
supervision that at least one such request had been made by Dixon and
had been honored
9 The term "recall" is a word of art referring to the return upon request
of supervision of an employee to perform additional work tasks after he
had completed his normal shift and has left the plant for the day Robert
Dixon's authority to recall employees had been verbally emphasized to him
by Yoffie during conversations between them
SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 323
copy through the composing room, Robert Dixon had the
responsibility for directing an employee to "redo" an
advertisement which was revealed by proofreading scrutiny
to have been incorrectly marked as to type and size.
c. Earl Dixon
During the relevant period, Earl Dixon's responsibilities
as assistant foreman in charge of the entire day shift in the
composing room required him to designate the work to be
performed by the employees employed in those job
categories , as above found, over which he had specific
responsibility. Additionally, this element of his responsibili-
ty required him to determine whether or not thejob tasks he
designated to be performed had been carried out in a timely
fashion. In fulfilling these responsibilities, Earl Dixon
exercised judgment and discretion in the designation of
employees to perform the work tasks at hand. His exercise
of this judgment and discretion was based on his knowledge
of the work skills and capabilities of the employees under
his direction. During relevant times, Earl Dixon had a desk
in the composing room from which he had a view of
portions of the composing room.
Throughout the relevant period, Earl Dixon participated
in the selection of personnel for work in the composing
room and he had authority to hire, discharge, transfer, and
suspend employees. He had authority also during this
period of time to grant time off, to request employees to
work overtime, to recall employees, and to recommend
wage increases. Earl Dixon had occasion during the
relevant period to be in complete charge of the composing
room and during this time span he caused employees to be
transferred from one job to another. Additionally, during
this time period, Earl Dixon was vested with specific
authority to deal with and adjust employee grievances. This
authority included the capacity to advise and assist the
employees under his direction concerning problems relating
to their compensation or to their work. 10
d. Ernest Fingerlos
During times relevant herein, and specifically during the
first week of April, Ernest Fingerlos served in the capacity
of chief machinist at The Journal. His duties were
performed in the composing room at The Journal and they
included responsibilities to maintain and repair all of the
composing room equipment, to order equipment and parts
as needed, to obtain supplies for the continued operation of
the equipment and to direct the work of other machinists.
During the time period March 31 to April 22, two
10 Earl Dixon credibly testified that prior to January 7 he had authority
to hire, discharge , and suspend employees and to resolve grievances He
testified that he exercised his authority to hire employees prior to January 7
and resolved some grievances Documentary evidence of record supports
Dixon 's testimony in this latter regard . Earl Dixon further testified that he
did not discharge or suspend any employee prior to January 7 and that he
did not possess the authority to discharge employees when Gordon Dixon
was present
u Norwin Yoffie testified that while the collective-bargaining agreement
then in effect gave Gordon Dixon the exclusive authority to discharge
employees in the composing room , in actual practice, when Gordon Dixon
was not present, this right to terminate employees was "assumed by
another" He testified further, in substance , with respect to machinists
whom Fingerlos in 1969 employed, that Gordon Dixon made the formal
machinists, in addition to Fingerlos, were employed by The
Journal. In his capacity as chief machinist, Fingerlos
possessed during pertinent times , authority to hire,
discharge, assign , and to transfer machinists from one job
to another. He also had authority to request machinists to
work overtime and to recommend a wage increase for
machinists. His authority included the responsibility to
consider and deal with employee grievances. Fingerlos
worked principally during the daytime hours at The
Journal, whereas one of the machinists, Craig Dumont,
worked during the evening hours. However, on "most
days" the hours of work for Fingerlos and Dumont
overlapped.
Norwin Yoffie testified that subsequent to the beginning
of the strike he specifically detailed to Fingerlos the nature
of his authority as head machinist. He pointed out to
Fingerlos that in his capacity as head machinist Fingerlos
had the responsibility for the selection, hiring, and
discharging of machinists. Yoffie testified, however, that
Fingerlos played no role in the initial hire or transfer of the
two machinists who were working in the department during
times pertinent herein. He further testified that during the
period March 31 to April 22 Fingerlos did not hire or
terminate any machinists. However, he testified that during
1969 Fingerlos hired a machinist and that in late 1968 or
early 1969 he terminated one.ii
Norwin Yoffie testified that one of the machinists
working under the direction of Fingerlos during times
pertinent herein was a "fully competent" machinist who
had the capacity to work by himself without supervision.
However, he further testified that one of the other
machinists was "not fully qualified" and that while he was
capable of working by himself there were many levels of
work that he could not perform. Yoffie further testified that
in instances wherein the two machinists had performed
complex work on machinery in the composing room it was
Fingerlos' duty and practice to check the work to determine
whether or not it had been satisfactorily accomplished.12
Norwin Yoffie was unable to testify with specificity
concerning instances wherein, during the period March 31
to April 22, Fingerlos actually exercised the authority to
adjust grievances, recommend wage increases , grant time
off to employees or to require employees to work overtime.
However, Yoffie testified that authority to take these
several actions was inherent in the authority possessed by
Fingerlos.13
On April 22, and at pertinent times , Fingerlos was
salaried and his weekly salary exceeded that of either of the
two machinists who worked under his direction. Like the
offer of employment but that Fingerlos, nonetheless , effectively selected
the machinists for employment
12 Norwin Yoffie testified that at a time subsequent to the strike the
machinery in the composing room was replaced by more sophisticated
machinery which had the effect of eliminating much of the routine
maintenance which at the time of the strike was absorbing the attention of
the machinists . Yoffie did not specify in his testimony when this transition
to the more sophisticated and automated machinery was accomplished
13 Yoffie testified, in substance , that prior to the strike Fingerlos had
actually participated in the resolution of a grievance , had made a
recommendation to Gordon Dixon on behalf of a machinist of a wage
increase and possessed , independent of the authority of Gordon Dixon,
authority to grant time off to machinists and to require them to work
overtime
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two machinists, Fingerlos received overtime compensation
for work in excess of 35 hours per week.
3. The alleged unlawful conduct
The intraunion proceedings
On or about January 30, Leon Olson, president of
Respondent, filed charges with the Union against Robert
Dixon and Earl Dixon alleging that by working behind
Respondent 's picket line during Respondent' s strike against
The Journal which commenced on January 7, Robert and
Earl Dixon had violated Respondent's constitution and
bylaws. Thereafter, on or about March 23, Respondent
cited Robert and Earl Dixon to appear before its
investigating committee scheduled to convene on March 30
to answer charges filed against them by Olson. Subsequent-
ly, on or about May 1, Respondent cited Robert and Earl
Dixon to appear before its trial committee scheduled to
convene on May 11 to answer the charges which had been
filed against them by Olson. On or about June 21, as a
consequence of action of its membership, Respondent
found Robert Dixon and Earl Dixon guilty of the charges
against them and they were expelled from membership.
Additionally, Robert and Earl Dixon were each fined
$10,000.
In a similar manner , on or about April 22, Leon Olson
filed charges against Ernest Fingerlos alleging that, in
violation of Respondent's constitution and bylaws, Finger-
los had crossed the picket line which Respondent had
established at The Journal and had returned to work in The
Journal's struck plant. Thereafter, on or about June 25,
Fingerlos was cited by Respondent to appear before its
investigating committee which was scheduled to meet on
July 7, for the purpose of answering the charges which
Olson had filed against him . Subsequently, on July 23,
Respondent cited Fingerlos to appear before its trial
committee scheduled to meet on August 3. On or about
August 16, Respondent, through action of its membership,
found Fingerlos guilty of the charges which had been filed
against him . He was expelled from membership and fined
$10,000.
The evidence of record establishes that, as charged by
Respondent, Robert and Earl Dixon worked in the employ
of The Journal at all relevant times on and after January 7,
during which period of time Respondent was engaging in a
strike against The Journal and in support thereof was
engaging in picketing at The Journal's San Rafael place of
business . Moreover, the evidence reveals that on and after
March 31 Ernest Fingerlos worked behind the picket line
which had been established at The Journal.14
4. Union membership benefits
John De Martini, first vice president of Respondent,
credibly testified that there has been in existence at all times
pertinent a fraternal pension plan and a negotiated pension
plan in which, to the extent found below, members of
Respondent and/or employees represented by it partici-
pate. The former plan exists by virtue of provisions of the
Book of Laws of the International Typographical Union
and the latter plan derives from the terms of collective-
bargaining agreements between employers and local unions
of the ITU. The negotiated plan is funded entirely by the
employers pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement and the benefits under the plan are not
dependent upon union membership. De Martini testified
that a negotiated plan had been in effect for approximately
4 or 5 years between Respondent and The Journal. He
testified that when the strike commenced on January 7, The
Journal ceased making contributions to the negotiated
pension plan.
The provisions governing the fraternal pension plan are
contained in article XX of the Book of Laws of the ITU.
The basic, enabling provision is as follows:
Section 1. Any member of the International Typograph-
ical Union who has reached the age of 60 years and
having a continuous membership of twenty-five years
immediately antedating the time of application and who
is unable to continue in or secure sustaining employ-
ment because of age or disability may receive the sum of
$100 per month.
The provisions relating to the fraternal pension plan also
contain allowances for payment of pensions to disabled
members and, inter alia, specifies procedures for applying
and qualifying for pension benefits.
Under article XX of the Book of Laws of the ITU, the
following provision is contained with respect to mortuary
benefits:
Sec. 11. Mortuary claims shall be allowed the
beneficiary of any deceased member in good standing
under the following terms and conditions: It is expressly
provided that the beneficiary of any member shall be
entitled to the mortuary benefit should death occur
within the thirty-day period immediately following the
expiration date of a current working card. (See Section
1, Article IX, and Section 2, Article XXIII, Bylaws).
Article IX, section 1, provides for the issuance of a
working card to members whose dues are fully paid and
article XXIII, section 2, specifies the wording and content
of a traveling card which may be issued to members in good
standing who desire to leave the jurisdiction of the local
union.
De Martini further testified there are in existence no
health plans which derive solely from membership in the
ITU, or in Respondent. He testified that the health plans in
which members of ITU participate are negotiated health
plans which exist under terms of collective-bargaining
agreements with employers.
Earl Dixon testified that prior to his expulsion from the
Union he had been a member of the ITU for approximately
36 years. He further testified that he had been a vice
president of an ITU local with which Respondent merged.
Earl Dixon continued to be a member of the ITU after the
merger and was thereafter a member of Respondent until
14 The foregoing is based on admissions of record and on evidence expulsion and fining of Robert and Earl Dixon and of Ernest Fingerlos is
adduced at the hearing . The legality of the proceedings leading to the not here in issue
SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 325
his expulsion in 1970. Earl Dixon testified that at the time
of the hearing he was 62 years of age.15
Article XII, section 1, of the Book of Laws of the ITU
contains the obligation to which every person admitted to
membership in the ITU must subscribe. In pertinent part
the article provides, ". . . I will, in good conscience and to
the best of my ability, comply with all the laws, rules,
regulations and decisions of the International Typographi-
cal Union and of any subordinate union to which I may
belong...."
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and The Journal expired on November
2, 1968. Negotiations followed and the strike commenced,
as found, on January 7, 1970. There is a dispute, which I
find unnecessary to resolve, whether the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement remained in effect until the
strike. It is clear that none of its terms were given effect on
or after January 7, 1970.
Conclusions
The issues in this case are, (1) whether Robert and Earl
Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos were at relevant times
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and (2) whether
by filing charges against them, citing them to appear at an
intraunion investigatory committee meeting and a trial
committee proceeding to answer charges, fining them and
expelling them from membership, all for the reason that
they worked in the employ of The Journal during the
union-called strike, the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(I)(B) of the Act.
Initially, I find that Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest
Fingerlos were supervisors within the meaning of the Act at
all pertinent times after the strike commenced and
throughout the several stages of the intraunion proceeding
against them.
The evidence of record adduced by the General Counsel,
and upon which the General Counsel placed entire reliance
established, I find, that after January 7 and on January 30
when charges were preferred against them, Robert and Earl
Dixon were vested with the array of authority which is the
accepted indicia of supervisory status under Section 2(11)
of the Act. I further find that on March 30 and on April 22,
respectively, and through the intervening period of time,
and thereafter, Ernest Fingerlos was similarly vested with
supervisory authority. Additionally, I find that there is
credible evidence of record sufficient to establish that
during the period of time ruled relevant as to each, Robert
and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos exercised elements of
supervisory authority vested in them and that this exercise
of authority was sufficient , independently, to establish their
supervisory status.
15 To the extent that Earl Dixon's testimony inferred that life and health
insurance benefits and dental care benefits derived solely from membership
in Respondent , I reject his testimony Rather, I credit the testimony of
John De Martini that these benefits became available to members only
under collective-bargaining agreements with employers De Martini's
testimony in this regard finds support in the absence of any provisions in
the Book of Laws of the ITU making provisions for such benefits
is Sec . 2(11) of the Act provides as follows "The term 'supervisor'
means any individual having authority , in the interest of the employer, to
hire, transfer , suspend, lay off, recall, promote , discharge, assign, reward,
The General Counsel correctly contends that under the
terms of Section 2(11) of the Act,is the Board has made
clear that it is the possession of supervisory authority and
not its exercise that is determinative. 17 Further, the Board
has found that an individual becomes a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act if he possesses just one of the
attributes of supervisory authority delineated in Section
2(11).18 The credible evidence of record reveals that under
the operating and oversight procedures utilized by The
Journal after January 7, Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest
Fingerlos were vested with a broad range of supervisory
authority. It is clear from the record that, in addition to
being vested with authority to hire personnel to work in the
departments under their direction-an investiture in which
Ernest Fingerlos shared-Robert and Earl Dixon played a
role in selecting the composing room work complement
which was reconstituted after January 7. Further, during
the relevant period Robert Dixon recalled employees under
his direction and Earl Dixon had occasion to transfer
composing room employees from one job to another. The
record evidence also establishes authority on the part of
Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos to responsibly
direct the work of employees assigned to them. Thus, while
Robert and Earl Dixon, as well as Ernest Fingerlos,
performed some work tasks typically performed by
journeymen, the record makes clear that each was required
separately and additionally to control the flow of work, to
observe the work of the rank-and-file employees and to
specify corrections. The work flow from one department to
another was well defined but the work being performed by
rank-and-file employees within the department was, the
record suggests, skilled work which was on an order of
difficulty requiring the exercise of independent judgment
on the part of supervision both as to the identity of
personnel who would perform the work tasks and some
elements of its actual performance.
A further attribute of supervisory authority which was
shared by Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos was
the authority to adjust grievances and to make effective
recommendations with respect to their resolution. Thus, the
authority of each included not only that authority normally
associated with the typical first step grievance procedure
but included authority to make efficacious recommenda-
tions to higher authority.
Upon the foregoing considerations, including the find-
ings which I make that Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest
Fingerlos not only were vested with authority to act on
behalf of The Journal in a manner which constituted them
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, but that they
actually, during the periods of time relevant as to each,
exercised this authority, I find that each was a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.19
I further find that, by filing charges against Robert and
or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances , or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection
with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine
or clerical nature , but requires the use of independent judgment."
17 The Eavey Company, 115 NLRB 1779; Waldo Rohnert Company, 120
NLRB 152, 154, at fn. 9.
is Research Designing Service, Inc., 141 NLRB 211
is To find , as Respondent contends , that none of the three was a
supervisor would require the trier of fact to indulge the anomalous
assumption that a work force of more than 30 employees could function
(Continued)
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos , citing each of them to
appear before an intraunion committee and a trial tribunal
of the Union, and by subjecting each of them to intraunion
disciplinary actions which resulted in an assessment of fines
against them and their expulsion from membership,
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. This
finding is predicated upon an application of the Board's
decision in San Francisco - Oakland Mailers ' Union No 18,
International Typographical Union, 172 NLRB No. 252, and
upon the Board 's subsequent decisions in New Mexico
District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A.S.
Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB No. 76, and Toledo Locals Nos.
15-p and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers
International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company,
Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 173.
In San Francisco Mailers the Board found that the union
therein had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by
engaging in certain conduct directed towards company
supervisors of a variety similar to that in which Respondent
here engaged . This union conduct included citing the
supervisors to appear before an executive committee of the
union to answer charges of alleged violations by the
supervisors of provisions of the collective -bargaining
agreement between the union and the company and of
fining them for the alleged offenses . In reaching its
determination that the union had by these actions violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B), the Board observed:
We are in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the
citation of [the supervisors] was not , as contended by
Respondent , solely for investigative purposes . We find
rather , the Respondent 's actions , including the cita-
tions, fines , and threats of citation , were designed to
change the Charging Party 's representatives from
persons representing the viewpoint of management to
persons responsive or subservient to Respondent 's will.
In enacting Section 8 (b)(1)(B) Congress sought to
prevent the very evil involved herein- union interfer-
ence with an employer's control over its own represent-
atives. That Respondent may have sought the substitu-
tion of attitudes rather than persons, and may have
exerted its pressure upon the Charging Party by indirect
rather than direct means , cannot alter the ultimate fact
that pressure was exerted here for the purpose of
interfering with the Charging Party's control over its
representatives . Realistically , the Employer would have
to replace its foremen or face defacto nonrepresentation
by them . [Footnote citations deleted.]
Subsequently , in the Horner case the Board considered
whether a union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
by preferring charges, imposing fines and attempting to
collect such fines against a supervisor because, in his
capacity as a project superintendent he had , inter aha,
refused to accede to the union 's demand that he cease
working for an employer not making contributions to the
union 's health and welfare fund. The Board found, on the
basis of its decision in San Francisco Mailers that the union
over a substantial period of time without first-line supervision As there is
no evidence of record to warrant the assumption that officials in the
hierarchy of the company vested with primary responsibility for
management of the affairs of the company expended their energy in day-
to-day direction of the operating departments I find additional ground for
rejecting Respondent 's contention on the supervisory issue Sturgeon
had by its conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In
reaching this conclusion the Board noted that the company
was not contractually or otherwise obligated to contribute
to the union's health and welfare fund. The Board reasoned
that the union was accordingly " using its internal working
rules to boycott an employer who did not have a contract
with the [union ] by making it a violation, subject to a fine,
for its members to work for such an employer." The Board
concluded that it was clear that the basic dispute
underlying the disciplinary action against the superintend-
ent was not entirely an intraunion matter but involved an
underlying dispute between the union and the company
and not one between the union and one of its members. The
Board reasoned that compliance by the superintendent to
the demands of the union which the company was not
contractually obligated to honor "would have had the
effect of depriving the Company of the services of its
selected representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances."
The inhibiting effect in the context of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
of the Act deriving from union disciplinary actions against
supervisors vested with authority to adjust employee
grievances which was given demarcation in the San
Francisco Mailers case was given further dimension by the
Board in Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), supra. In
Toledo Blade the Board adopted the following rationale of
the Trial Examiner therein:
If, therefore, the supervisor has actually been designat-
ed as the employer's bargaining or grievance represent-
ative (as the Board and the Trial Examiner found in the
San Francisco Mailers' case , and I have also found in
the present case), the Unions' discipline of the
supervisor is unquestionably a restraint upon, and
coercion of the employer's continuing its selection of,
and reliance upon, the supervisor as its bargaining and
grievance representative and an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. But
even if, as I have also indicated the Board might find in
the present case , the disciplined supervisor merely has
such present substantial other supervisory authority and
regular contact with the employees under him as to
make him a natural, possible, future choice of the
employer to handle its grievances as occasion might
arise , his discipline by the union restricts the employer's
freedom in making that choice and future selection as
bargaining or grievance representative and would, in
accordance with the language of Section 8(b)(l)(B) and
the Board's reasoning in San Francisco Mailers, also
constitute a restraint and coercion of the employer in
"the selection of his representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances."
Furthermore, in either of these cases , it is apparent from
the language of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and from the general
reasoning of the Board in San Francisco Mailers, that it
Electric Co, 166 NLRB 210, 214.
Although there is evidence of record to reveal that poor to January 7
both Earl and Robert Dixon possessed and exercised aspects of supervisory
authority , I deem it unnecessary, in context of the instant record, to rely on
this evidence to support my finding, above made , that they were
supervisors
SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 327
is not an essential element of the unfair labor practices that
the disciplined supervisor be a compelled union member
under a union -security clause obtained by the union. It is
enough that his actual membership has colorably subjected
him to the offensive discipline and its effect upon his
employer's right to rely upon him as a supervisor.
[Emphasis supplied.]
Proceeding by analogy from the thrust of the Board's
decision in Horner and taking cognizance of the nature of
the inhibitions against the exercise of supervisory preroga-
tives to handle and adjust employee grievances alluded to
in Toledo Blade, in conformity with what I deem to be the
Board's meaning and application of Section 8(b)(1)(B), I
conclude that a labor organization violates that section of
the Act, and thus engages in restraint and coercion within
the meaning of that provision of the Act, by bringing
intraunion charges against supervisors and subjecting them
to intraunion proceedings, fines, and ultimate expulsion
because they worked behind a picket line in the employ of
their employer during a union-called strike. The violation is
consummated even though, as here, no union-security
arrangement abides to render compulsory the union
membership of the disciplined supervisor. It is enough that
he was a member of the union when the disciplinary actions
were taken, and that the intraunion sanctions to which he
was subjected were of a character, quality, or gradation
sufficient to reasonably have the effect of inhibiting him in
carrying out those supervisory grievance handling and
collective-bargaining responsibilities which had been
entrusted him prior to the initiation of the disciplinary
action; or to serve as a signal to other supervisors who are
members of the union that similar discipline might be
visited upon them by the union for similar "offenses"
against it . It is through this chain of causation that the
interference and coercion against employer choice which is
the protection accorded by Section 8(b)(1)(B) arises.20 Nor
is it essential that the authority of the disciplined supervisor
to adjust grievances derived from a collective-bargaining
agreement . Rather, it is sufficient that the authority vested
in him by his employer extends merely to the adjustment of
personal grievances of employees.2i
These conclusions are consonant with those reached by
Trial Examiner George Downing in Milwaukee Printing &
Pressmen Assistants Union, No. 7, TXD-187-70, issued
April 2, 1970. In reaching his determination that the union
therein had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) for fining a
supervisor for crossing the union's picket line, Trial
Examiner Downing observed:
As the Board has noted, the firing or other disciplining
of a management representative will have an inhibiting
effect on his future conduct as a supervisor and
representative of the employer and will accordingly
restrain the employer from retaining him as its
representative. Such disciplinary measures will also be a
clear signal to other foremen, who under the established
20 Dallas Mailers Union, Local No 143 , and International Mailers Union
(Dow Jones Company, Inc), 181 NLRB No 49
21 Toledo Locals Nos 1S-P and 272 of the Lithographers and
Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company,
Inc), supra
22 New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A S Horner,
practice are members of the Union, that they would be
subject to similar discipline if they administer the
contract or dispose of grievances in a manner
displeasing to the union. Thus the effect of the
disciplinary action is to restrain and coerce the
employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) by
limiting its "right at any time to make and rely upon a
selection of representatives from an uncoerced group of
such supervisors whose loyalty to [it] has not been
prejudiced." Dallas Mailers' Union etc. (Dow Jones
Company, Inc.), 181 NLRB No. 49 quoting from Toledo
Blade Company, supra.
A similar conclusion as to the violative nature of such
conduct was reached by Trial Examiner Allen Sinsheimer,
Jr., in his decision in San Francisco Typographical Union No.
21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO,
TXD-(SF)-134-70.
In consideration of the foregoing, I must reject the
contention of the Respondent that no violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B) may be found when, as here, the disciplined
supervisors are not required to be or remain union
members. Each was at the time of the disciplinary action
against him a member of Respondent and the inhibiting
effect of the discipline both to the disciplined supervisors
and the Employer was accordingly immediate and direct.
Moreover the less direct impact upon the Company's future
selections of supervisory personnel who may also be union
members when the instant dispute is settled is both
substantial and predictable and not merely speculative,
particularly in the newspaper industry where the ITU is so
vital a force.22 Additionally, I must reject the further
contention of Respondent that no violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B) may be found when an expelled supervisor does
not desire to regain his union membership. The protection
accorded by Section 8(b)(1)(B) is the right of an employer
to be free from restraint and coercion in the selection of his
representatives, and the impact upon this freedom is not to
be measured solely by its immediate effect upon the
disciplined supervisor.23
Similarly, I find without merit Respondent's contention
that a proper balancing of interests as between the right of a
union through intraunion disciplinary proceedings and
fines to preserve itself and the 8(b)(1)(B) protection given
employers in the selection of bargaining and grievance
handling representatives requires Board sanction of the
conduct of Respondent herein. Where, as here, the purpose
and effect of the disciplinary action was such as to affect
not only the relationship between the union and its
members, but related closely to strike activity and thus to
an underlying dispute between the union and the company,
the Board has balanced the interests to which Respondent
alludes in favor of the statutory policy of allowing the
employer an unimpeded choice of representatives for
collective bargaining and the settlement of gnevances.24
Moreover, to the extent that Respondent would broaden
Inc), 176 NLRB No 105, New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (A S Horner, Inc), 177 NLRB No 76
23 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International
Typographical Union, supra, Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The
Toledo Blade Company, Inc), supra
24 New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A
(Continued)
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the applicability of Section 8(b)(I) through an analogized
application of decisions legitimizing union discipline in the
area of picket line and decertification petition disciplinary
fines25 to incorporate the proviso in Section 8(b)(1)(A) to
Section 8(b)(1)(B) as well , it is essential to conclude that the
Board has already pronounced its policy and view.26
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing I find that by and
through the separate acts of discipline imposed against
Robert Dixon, Earl Dixon, and Ernest Fingerlos, as alleged
in the complaint, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
IV. 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
Journal , described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. California Newspapers , Inc., d/b/a San Rafael
Independent Journal has been at all times material herein
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing California Newspapers,
Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal in the
selection of representatives for the adjustment of griev-
ances , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(IXB) 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.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
S Horner, Inc.), supra; San Francisco -Oakland Mailers' Union No 18,
International Typographical Union, supra.
25 See N L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers, 388 U . S. 175; Machinists Lodge No
405 [Boeing Co J, 185 NLRB No 23; Local 4186, United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO (McGraw Edison Company, etc.), 181 NLRB No 162
26 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers ' Union No 18, International
Typographical Union, supra, Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272 of the
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The
Toledo Blade Company, Inc), supra; New Mexico District Council of
Carpenters and Joiners of America ; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (A.S. Horner, Inc), supra.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 27
ORDER
Respondent, San Francisco Typographical Union No.
21, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) In any manner restraining or coercing California
Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal
in the selection of representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
(b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Supervisors Robert
and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos because of their
conduct and performance of work as the selected
representatives of California Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San
Rafael Independent Journal for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind any fines, suspensions , expulsions, or other
disciplinary acts that may have been taken against Robert
and Earl Dixon and Ernest Fingerlos, and excise and
expunge all records or other evidence in the files of
Respondent resulting from charges and proceedings
brought against Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest
Fingerlos because of their working for the California
Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal
during the course of the strike called by the Respondent.
(b) Advise the said Robert and Earl Dixon and Ernest
Fingerlos, in writing, that Respondent has taken the
aforesaid action in compliance with paragraph 2(a) above
and that it will cease and desist from the actions forbidden
in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of this Order.
(c) Post at its office and at all meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."28 Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, shall be duly signed and posted by an
authorized representative of Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and shall be maintained , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director for Region 20
signed copies of said notice for posting by the Company,
the Company willing.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
27 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
28 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 329
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 29
29 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read ' comply herewith "
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days