San Jose Stereotypers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
San Jose Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers ' Union No.
120, International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers'
Union of North America , AFL-CIO (Dow Jones &
Company, Inc.) and Daniel , C. Anderson. Case
20-CB-1711
May 19, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby 'adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent , San Jose Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers ' Union No . 120, International
Stereotypers' and Electrotypers ' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO , its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner' s Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
On October 16, 1968, Trial Examiner William E.
Spencer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, a supporting brief, and a brief
in answer to the Respondent's exceptions. The
Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, 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 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,
cross-exceptions,' briefs, and the entire record in this
case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
'Because we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, by
causing Anderson 's discharge, was attempting to enforce and protect its
unlawful hiring practice, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the General
Counsel's cross-exception as to additional motivation.
The respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
issues are adequately dealt with in the briefs.
The Trial Examiner held that "if Respondent's objections [to
Anderson's transfer] had amounted to no more than a simple request, this
might not have satisfied the term `cause or attempt to cause as used in the
Act." We do not agree In accordance with our previous holdings, we hold
in this case that a union's efficacious request that an employer discriminate
against an employee is unlawful. Mid-States Metal Products, 156 NLRB
872; Mid-Pacific Construction Company, 161 NLRB 1351. Upon a review
of the entire record in this case , we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding
that the Employer would have transferred Anderson "except for the
Respondent's objections ." We also find that the Respondent's request that
Anderson not be transferred as a regular situation holder had no legitimate
basis and therefore violated Sec. 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. We do not
find it necessary , therefore, to determine whether the Respondent's request
was fortified by a threat.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM E. SPENCER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
under 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act, was heard in San Jose, California, on May
27, 28, 1968, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, dated
March 4, 1968, was based upon a charge filed July 14,
1967, by Daniel C. Anderson, an individual, and alleged
that the Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act. The Respondent, in its duly filed answer, denied
that it had engaged in the alleged violations.
On the entire record in the case, my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed with me by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, respectively, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE EMPLOYER
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation
having a principal office in New York, New York, and
other offices in various other States including California,
among other things publishes the Wall Street Journal, a
newspaper, which will be referred to hereinafter as the
Journal. It subscribes to interstate news services; publishes
nationally syndicated features; advertises nationally sold
products; and at its Palo Alto, California, facility has an
annual gross revenue in excess of $200,000.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
San Jose Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No.
120, the Respondent herein, and Union No. 29, each
affiliated with the International Stereotypers' and
Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
Effective February 24, 1967, the Journal transferred its
San Francisco printing operation to Palo Alto. In San
Francisco its stereotype employees were under the
jurisdiction of Local 29, with whom the Journal had a
bargaining contract. In Palo Alto these operations fell
under the jurisdiction of Local 120, and Local 120 and the
Journal negotiated a contract covering its stereotype
175 NLRB No. 174
SAN JOSE STEREOTYPERS
employees in Palo Alto, effective February 26, 1967. At
the, time of the transfer of operations, there were six
regular, "situation" positions in the offices of the Journal.'
Five of the employees holding these situation positions
transferred to Palo Alto after changing their union
affiliation from Local 29 to Local 120. The sixth of these
employees, Daniel C. Anderson, though like the other five
having his "traveller"2 honored by Local 120 was denied
transfer into a situation position He did, however, obtain
work as a "sub" through Local 120.
The issues are: whether the Respondent Union
unlawfully denied Anderson his transfer into the situation
position he held at the time of the Journal' s termination
of its San Francisco operation, causing him , in effect, to
be discharged from that position; and whether the
Respondent Union operates an unlawful hiring system.
B. The Anderson Discharge
In about September, 1964, Locals 29 and 120 were
advised by the Journal that it would be moving certain of
its mechanical operations from San Francisco to Palo
Alto. Shortly after receiving this information, at a
membership meeting of Respondent in September, a
resolution was passed to the effect that all regular
situation holders at the San Francisco operation as of
September 20, 1964,would retain their job seniority and
move with the job when the operation was transferred to
Palo Alto. Anderson, then a member of Local 120, was
present when this resolution was passed, without
opposition. The resolution was communicated to Local 29
and the two locals reached agreement in the matter. The
Journal was not a party to the agreement. In October,
1966, Anderson transferred to the Journal's San Francisco
operation as a sub. In January, 1967, when a regular
situation holder retired, Anderson took his place and
thereby achieved status as a situation holder. Adhering to
its resolution of September 1964, the Respondent Union,
though accepting Anderson's "traveller" objected to his
transfer into a situation with the Journal in its Palo Alto
operation and, over the Journal's objections, referred one
of its members who under the Respondent's rules was
entitled to the job. The Journal, though protesting the
action, acquiesced and Anderson accordingly was refused
continuance as a regular situation holder. This was
tantamount to a discharge. A position as a sub is by no
means equivalent. to a regular situation and the fact that
the Respondent did refer Anderson for sub work with the
Journal and that that work may have been regular, is
actually immaterial in determining whether or not the
discrimination practiced against him was unlawful. In
reaching a conclusion, particular consideration has been
given to the factors stated below.
There can be no doubt on the evidence in this case that
the Journal wanted to transfer Anderson along with the
other situation holders in its San Francisco operation to
the same positions in Palo Alto, and except for the
Respondent's objections would have done so. If
Respondent's objections had amounted to no more than a
'An employee holds a "situation " position when he works on a regular
basis for a given employer Employment as a "sub" refers to all
employment except that of a regular fulltime job with a particular
employer , and may consist of filling in for a regular employee who is on
vacation , absent from work because of illness or other reason , or just extra
help
'A "traveller" has reference to an employee transferring from one local
to another , at which time he deposits his traveller card with the local to
which he is transferring
1067
simple request, this might not have satisfied the term
"cause or attempt to cause" as used in the Act. But there
was more than this. Crediting arguendo Respondent's
officers that they did not specifically threaten a strike,
picketing, or other overt act in the event the Journal chose
to ignore its demand, it is clear from the testimony of
these officers that in response to the Journal's repeated
protests over Anderson's exclusion as a situation holder in
the Palo Alto transfer, and insistence on his right to the
transfer, it stated that it would do "whatever was
necessary" to make sure that Anderson did not get the
situation job; that it did not know what 'action the union
might take if Anderson reported for work on February 24,
but "there could be trouble," etc.' From the entire
testimony, it is clear that the Journal would have rejected
a simple request from the Respondent that Anderson not
be transferred to a situation position, and that it was only
out of its reasonable fear of retaliatory action by the
Union, that it acquiesced in the Union's demand.
Therefore, there was a clear "cause or attempt to cause."
That Anderson did not actually report at the Palo Alto
operation with the demand that he be assigned a situation
position, is immaterial. Both the Respondent and the
Journal knew of his claim to the position and Anderson,
with full knowledge of Respondent's position in the
matter, knew that it would be a futile act for him to
appear at the plant and insist on being assigned to the job.
That he chose to prosecute his appeal through union
channels is indicative of his desire not to create an
explosive situation at the plant and by no means spells
acquiescence on his part. That he was aware of
Respondent's resolution of September, 1964, and
apparently assented to it or at least did not openly oppose
it, can hardly stand as a waiver of whatever rights he has
under the Act.
I find it equally clear that Respondent's action in
causing Anderson's discharge from a situation position,
caused the Journal to discriminate against Anderson
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and
therefore constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(2) and
(1)(A) Since despite the discrimination practiced against
him Anderson was and remained a member of
Respondent, it may be argued with some surface
plausibility that the discharge action neither encouraged
nor discouraged affiliation with the Respondent but the
test is not the immediate effect on the employee involved
but its reasonable and general tendency, and there can be
no doubt that an employer's acquiescence in a labor
organization's control of employment status, other than
that expressed in the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) - which
has no application here - encourages union affiliation.
Finally, on the assumption that had Anderson
transferred his affiliation, to Local 120 on or before
November 8, 1966, under union rules he would have
established priority on that date and accordingly would
have been assigned to the situation position he claimed
when the Journal transferred to Palo Alto - there was
testimony by Respondent officials to that effect - the
Union's action in causing his discharge is' nonetheless
unlawful inasmuch , as it made affiliation with the
Respondent a condition of his continued employment with
the Journal as a situation holder.'
'Testimony of Walter Edwin Baker, Respondent 's president.
'In finding as I do that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(2) and (I)(A),
I do not rely on the General Counsel's theory that Respondent 's action
with respect to Anderson stemmed from Anderson 's failure or refusal to
engage in a stoke action by Respondent which was pending at the time
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Issue of Unlawful Hiring Practices
Members of Respondent employed by one employer
constitute a "chapel." They elect a Chapel Chairman who
functions as an agent of Respondent . Respondent's
constitution and bylaws provide also for a Hiring
Chairman. With respect to situation holders, the said
constitution and bylaws provide , inter alia:
When a situation is declared open it shall be posted on
the chapel board by the chapel chairman for seven days.
After the seventh day, the man with the highest priority
in the chapel, or the substitute with the highest
established priority in said chapel that signed for the
posted situation shall receive it.
On jurisdiction, it is provided:
None but members and apprentices of this Union in
good standing shall be employed to do any work
pertaining to Stereotyping or Electrotyping or such
other platemaking processes as agreed by contracts,
including the operation and maintenance of all
machines, etc.
The constitution and bylaws of both the Respondent and
its International provide, inter alia:
When the local Union is in a position to furnish
competent mechanics , a regular situation becoming
vacant in' an- office must be filled permanently by the
foreman within one week after such vacancy occurs.
Respondent's International ' s constitution , bylaws, and
general laws, binding on the Respondent, also provide,
inter alia : that all work falling within the jurisdiction of
the International "shall be done" by its members; that
certain machines used in the trade shall be operated only
by members; and, in effect, that "priorities" in job
preferment shall be based on membership.
At the heart of Respondent's system and practice of
referrals either for job vacancies or promotions , are its
rules on priorities . These have been referred to above.
There are in effect two systems of priorities, one relating
to situation holders, the other to subs. The Respondent's
argument , as I understand it, is that these rules in effect
establish a system of shop seniority which is compatible
with nondiscriminatory seniority rules prevailing in
industry generally. Aside from the fact that these
priorities are not confined to the employees of a single
employer,' an employee can enjoy their privilege and
protection only if he is a member of the Respondent. They
do not therefore constitute a system of shop seniority, but
union seniority, in which the employer has no part , unless
acquiescence is considered a part. With reference to
subpriorities , an employee ' s status depends upon the
length of his membership in Respondent. As Walter
Baker , Respondent' s president , admitted on
cross-examination, if a sub job was open it would go to
the employee with the highest local priority, and that
"highest local priority," would be the "one who had been
a member of the local the longest ." Also, if a situation
holder lost that situation he would go on the sub list and
there' would have priority over anyone on the list with less
union seniority . As to situation holders , an employee's
Anderson changed his affiliation to Local 29, and became effective a day
or so thereafter . I strongly suspect that Respondent's officials saw, and
reasonably saw, a connection between the transfer and avoidance of strike
action , and that this did not enhance their liking and respect for Anderson,
but the evidence, in my opinion , falls short of establishing this as a
motivation for Respondent 's subsequent action with respect to Anderson's
transfer . It did accept his traveller and it did refer him regularly to sub
work
place on this list is determined by the date he requests
from Respondent's Hiring Chairman or Recording
Secretary, consideration for such employment. It was one
of the defences offered by Respondent with respect to
Anderson, that two other members had established
priorities with respect to the situation at the Journal
predating his, entitling them to preferential treatment over
him. As a matter of fact, the said priorities predated the
start of the Journal's Palo Alto operations and occurred
at a time when no contractual relationship existed between
Local 120 and the Journal and therefore at a time when
there was no Chapel at the said operations.
Membership in the Respondent being a prerequisite to
getting any kind of job through the Respondent` except in
the one situation when Respondent comes to the aid of a
sister local on strike, and control and enforcement of
priorities being unilaterally determined by Respondent, it
is obvious that to the extent that it controls the hiring
policies of any employer, or imposes its system of
priorities on any employer, it is acting in violation of
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A). The defense on this point is
that not the Respondent but the Employer does the hiring
through the latter's foreman and the employer therefore is
not bound by union rules. Here it relies on that provision
of its constitution and its International's quoted above,
providing for the foreman to fill certain vacancies, and its
contract with the Journal which adopts this language and
which provides, inter alia, that "membership or
nonmembership in a labor organization shall not be a
factor in the hiring of any employee or in the tenure or
any condition of his employment or advancement therein,
except..." (follows the usual lawful union shop provision)
and that the Journal "agrees to respect and observe the
General Laws of the International Stereotypers and
Electrotypers Union of North America in effect as of
February 1, 1965, insofar as the laws are not in conflict
with the provisions of this agreement or with state or
federal laws."
With more specific references to hiring practices, the
contract between the Respondent and the Journal,
executed 15 May, 1967, with retroactive effect to
February 26, provided in its Section 42(a):
When a situation is declared open it shall be posted on
the Chapel Board by the Chapel Chairman for seven (7)
days. After the seventh (7th) day, the man with the
highest priority in the Chapel, or the substitute with the
highest established priority in said Chapel that signed
for the posted situation shall receive it. [Emphasis
supplied.]
'Testimony of Edgar Knight Forest, Respondent's recording secretary.
Q Now , if a man wanted to put in his priority for the Wall Street
Journal , is there any requisite that he has worked for that company
before?
A. No.
`Testimony of Leroy Lee, Respondent's secretary-treasurer and onetime
hiring chairman:
Q What is the practice in Local 120, how does an individual go about
obtaining employment in Local 1209
A. Well, he will come in and deposit his traveling card and make
himself available for work with the Hinng Chairman. If he wants a
steady job, then he can put in his priority in the shop. It is a waiting list,
more or less.
Q Who keeps that list?
A. Well, the Hinng Chairman keeps the list , but it has to be recorded
with the Recording Secretary.
Q Now, before a man can put in his priority, he has to be a member
of Local 120, is that right9
A. Yes
SAN JOSE STEREOTYPERS
Addendum (5) to the contract, provides:
The Publisher agrees to hire all vacation coverage days,
sick days, layoff days, extra office days, T-F days, time
and one-half days, or any other days that must be
covered with substitutes or extras through the Union's
Hiring Chairman as provided in Article IV, Section 6(a)
of the Constitution and Bylaws of San Jose
Stereotypers and Electrotypers Local Union, No. 120 in
effect April 17, 1966. All other hiring shall be done by
the Foreman. In the case of "time and one-half days",
regular employees and Chapel substitutes, in that order,
shall have first, preference. [Emphasis supplied].
The specific language of 42(a) and Addendum (5) of the
contract does and -must take precedence over the
generalized language with respect to nondiscrimination in
hiring which precedes it, and when the language of 42(a)
and Addendum (5) is subjected to analysis, it is seen that
the Respondent, in effect completely controls the hiring
policies of the Journal. Section 42(a) is mandatory and
deprives the foreman of any discretion whatever in the
filling of situations. Addendum (5) inequivocally
surrenders to the Union's Hiring Chairman control of
employment in other areas. Therefore, "All other hiring
shall be done by the Foreman" becomes meaningless.
That this is in fact the practice is borne out by the
testimony of James A. Mannon, the Journal's foreman in
San Francisco who transferred in that capacity when the
Palo Alto operation began: "I was advised [by the Hiring
Chairman, George Kluck,] 'that the Hiring Chairman
elected by the local would do the hiring." Walter Arthur
Phillips, the Journal's production manager in Palo Alto,
testified in similar vein: "And then there is a sentence in
there that says, `All other` hirings shall be done by the
foreman,' and there is no other hiring so if there is no one
with priority then the foreman can go find someone to fill
the situation .... Only if there is no one on a priority list,
then a foreman can select someone if he can find
someone." That the practice under 42(a) conforms to the
testimony of these two witnesses is borne out by the
Respondent's control of priorities under which it caused
the Respondent, over the latter's protests, to deny
Anderson his transfer into a situation at Palo Alto.
Obviously, if the foreman is allowed no more than the
ministerial function of designating the employee who is at
the top of the Union's priority list he is stripped of any
actual authority to hire.
On the entire evidence it is found, as alleged in the
complaint, that Respondent has and maintains a practice
with employers in Respondent's territorial jurisdiction,
including the Jourrial, requiring employees to be members
of Respondent as a condition precedent to obtaining
employment, job seniority, or priority for employment
with such employers, all in violation of Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) of the Act.'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the
'In reaching these conclusions I do not question the good faith of
Respondent's president, Walter E. Baker, a veteran labor leader, who no
doubt acted with respect to Anderson in what he believed to be the best
interests of the labor organization he headed . Much might be said for the
stabilizing effect of traditional practices of the printing trade unions,
including the closed shop , but my function is to construe and apply the Act
as it is written
1069
Employer herein, 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
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The Respondent having caused the Employer herein to
discharge Daniel C. Anderson in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent forthwith notify the said Employer that it
withdraws all objections to Anderson's reinstatement as a
situation holder with the Employer in the latter's Palo
Alto, California operations, with a full restoration of
seniority and all other privileges which would have
accrued to him had he not been denied his transfer to the
said Palo Alto operations as a situation holder, and make
the said Anderson whole for any loss of pay suffered by
him as a result of the discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages as a situation
holder from February 26, 1967, to the date on which the
Respondent complies with the notification requirement set
forth above, less his net earnings during this period.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as provided in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
It will further be recommended that Respondent cease
giving effect to any and all agreements with the Employer
herein which require employees to be members of the
Respondent as a condition for obtaining employment, job
seniority, or priority, except as authorized in the Act.
Because of the provisions of its constitution and bylaws,
and the constitution and bylaws of its International, and
practices thereunder, the said requirement will be
broadened to include all employers in Respondent's
jurisdiction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., the Employer herein,
is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent herein is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By causing the Employer to discriminate against the
Charging Party, Daniel C . Anderson, in violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) of the Act.
4. By maintaining in effect an agreement with the
Employer requiring employees to be members of
Respondent as a condition precedent to obtaining
employment , job seniority , or priority with said Employer,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(2) of
the Act.
5. By the aforementioned acts, the Respondent has
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
employees are customarily posted.
(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.',
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of - fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
proceeding , it is recommended that the Respondent, its
representatives, officers, successors, assigns, and agents,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Executing, maintaining , performing, or enforcing
any agreement, understanding, or practice with the
Employer herein, or with any other employer, which
requires employees to be members of the Respondent as a
condition precedent to obtaining employment, job
seniority, or priority, except as authorized • by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Employer
herein, or any other employer, to discriminate against
employees or prospective employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees or prospective employees of the Employer
herein, or any other employer, in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effect the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Daniel C. Anderson for any loss of pay
suffered by him as a result of the discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify the Employer herein that it withdraws all
objections to Anderson's reinstatement as a situation
holder with the Journal in its Palo Alto operations
retroactive to February 26, 1967, when the said Palo Alto
operations commenced, with a full restoration of seniority
and all other rights and privileges accruing to him as a
situation holder from that date.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices,
meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20,
shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent, 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.
(d) Forthwith mail to the aforesaid Regional Director
for Region 20, signed copies of said notices for posting by
the Journal, if it be willing, in places where notices to its
'In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 shall be enforced by a decree of the 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 "
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the said Regional
Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
,, APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SAN JOSE STEREOTYPERS'
AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION No 120,
INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND
ELECTROTYPERS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
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 execute, maintain, perform, or enforce
any agreement, understanding, or practice with the
Wall Street Journal, or any otter employer, which
would require membership in San Jose Stereotypers'
and Electrotypers' Union No. 120, as a condition for
obtaining employment, job seniority, or priority, except
as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act which provides that an employer may
make an agreement with a labor organization requiring
membership as a condition of employment on or after
the thirtieth day following the beginning of such
employment or the date on which such an agreement
becomes effective. Our present agreement with the
Journal became effective February 26, 1967, and
includes such a provision, generally known as a union
shop clause.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the Wall
Street Journal, or any other employer, to discriminate
in any manner against its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
which makes it an unfair labor practice for any
employer to discriminate against any of its employees
in regard to hire or length of employment or any term
or condition of employment, to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization, except in
compliance with a valid union shop agreement as stated
in the preceding paragraph.
WE WILL notify the Wall Street Journal that we
withdraw all objections to the reinstatement of Daniel
C. Anderson as a situation holder retroactive to
February 26, 1967, without prejudice to his seniority
and all other rights and privileges which normally
would have accrued to him from that date to the
present, and will make the said Anderson whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our
action in causing the said Journal to deny him a
transfer as a situation holder, from February 26, 1967,
to the date that we so notify the Journal.
Dated By
SAN JOSE STEREOTYPERS
SAN JOSE
STEREOTYPERS'AND
ELECTROTYPERS' UNION
No. 120, INTERNATIONAL
STEREOTYPERS'AND
ELECTROTYPERS' UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
1071
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.