Schuckman Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 2200 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

2200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Schuckman Press, Inc. and New York Printing
Pressmen and Offset Workers Union No. 51, In-
ternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants
Union of North America, AFL-CIO
Schuckman Press, Inc. and New York Printing
Pressmen and Offset Workers Union No. 51, In-
ternational Printing Pressmen and Assistants
Union of North America , AFL-CIO; New York
Press Assistants ; and Offset Workers Union No.
23, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO;
New York Typographical Union No . 6, AFL-CIO;
New York Papercutters and Bookbinders Union
No. 119 , International Brotherhood of Bookbin-
ders, AFL-CIO, Joint -Petitioners. Cases
2-CA-1 1415 and 2-RC-14716
September 23, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, 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.
The Trial Examiner also found merit in the objec-
tions to the election and recommended that the
representation petition be dismissed and that all
proceedings held in connection therewith be
vacated. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in
support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 and brief,
and the entire record in these cases, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Schuckman Press, Inc.,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the affirmative action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
' The Respondent's exceptions are in part directed to certain credibility
findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not
to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Srandard Drs Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB
544. enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We find insufficient basis for disturbing
the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings in these cases
We find it unnecessary to our decision herein to adopt the Trial Ex-
aminer's findingthat at the June 26. 1967 , meeting with its employees, the
Respondent learned how many and which employees had signed union
membership applications
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT L. PIPER, Trial Examiner: On June 28,
1967,1 in Case 2-RC-14716, New York Printing
Pressmen and Offset Workers Union No. 51,Inter-
national Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called
Local 51 ), New York Press Assistants' and Offset
Workers Union No. 23, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Local 23), New York
Typographical Union No. 6, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called
Local 6), and New York, Papercutters and Book-
binders Union No 119, International Brotherhood
of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called
Local 119, and said unions being hereinafter collec-
tively called the Unions), filed a joint petition for
certification as the representative of certain em-
ployees of Schuckman Press, Inc. (hereinafter
called Respondent).
On August 23, after a hearing, the Regional
Director for Region 2 issued his Decision and
Direction of Election, directing, inter alia , that the
eligible employees vote whether or not they desired
collective-bargaining representation by the Unions
jointly. On September 22, said election was held.
Six ballots were cast for and seven against the
Unions. In addition there was one challenged bal-
lot. On September 28,the Unions filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the elec-
tion. On the same date Local 5 1 filed a charge of
refusal to bargain against Respondent. On
December 2 1, pursuant to said charge the Re-
gional Director issued a complaint in Case
2-CA-1 1415 alleging that Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
' All dates hereinafter refer to 1967 unless otherwise indicated
172 NLRB No. 256
SCHUCKMAN PRESS , INC. 2201
Act, as amended (hereinafter called the Act), by
various specified acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion and by refusal to bargain, and that said
conduct was engaged in to undermine and destroy
the majority status of the Unions.
On December 21, the Regional Director also is-
sued his Report on Objections, concluding that they
should be consolidated for hearing with the com-
plaint. On December 27, the Regional Director is-
sued his order consolidating cases and notice of
hearing, directing that the cases be consolidated for
hearing and decision before a Trial Examiner, and
that thereafter Case 2-RC-14716 be transferred to
and continued before the Board. The four objec-
tions consolidated for hearing with the complaint
are in substance the same as four of the five allega-
tions of the complaint concerning interference,
restraint, and coercion.2
Respondent's answer, dated December 26, de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, this consolidated proceed-
ing was heard by the Trial Examiner at New York
City on March 4 and 5, 1968. All parties were
represented and accorded all rights of due process.
The General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent is a New York corporation engaged
in the business of commercial printing, diecutting,
and related services, with its office and place of
business at New York City. During the past year it
produced and shipped products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of New
York. Respondent admits and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Issues
This proceeding involves an alleged refusal to
bargain with the Unions jointly after their request
based on the possession of signed membership ap-
plication cards from a majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit, and alleged interference,
restraint, and coercion of employees, for the pur-
pose of undermining the Unions and destroying
their collective majority status, and objections to
conduct affecting the election. As noted above, the
allegations of the complaint with respect to inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion and the objections
to conduct affecting the election are in substance
the same, except that the latter are limited to the
period from June 28 to September 22 and four of
the five allegations of interference, restraint, and
coercion. It is now well settled that even though a
union loses an election, it may successfully file
charges of refusal to bargain prior thereto based on
a proper showing of majority representation and a
bad-faith refusal to recognize or bargain.' However,
in such cases the Board will not issue a bargaining
order unless objections sufficient to set aside the
election are filed and found.'
The issues as framed by the pleadings and objec-
tions are: (1) refusal to bargain on and after June
26 with the Unions as the joint exclusive bargaining
representative designated by a majority of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit; (2) interference,
restraint, and coercion by (a) interrogating em-
ployees concerning their union membership, activi-
ties, and sympathies, (b) threatening employees
with loss of privileges and other reprisals for join-
ing, supporting, or electing the Unions, (c) promis-
ing employees medical insurance benefits to induce
them to refrain from supporting the Unions, (d)
making cash payments to employees for sick leave
greater than under the policy previously utilized to
induce them to refrain from supporting the Unions,
and (e) informing an employee that his promotion
had been effectuated because no labor organization
represented Respondent's employees; and (3) en-
gaging in the aforesaid conduct for the purpose of
undermining the Unions and destroying their col-
lective majority status.
B. Chronology of Events
Respondent operates a commercial printing busi-
ness . Its employees, from 14 to 16 in number 5
generally consist of pressmen, assistant pressmen,
cameramen, platemakers, compositors, stonehands,
papercutters, bindery employees, and shipping and
receiving employees. During mid-June, a number of
Respondent's employees decided to seek union
representation and authorized Leon Hall, one of
Respondent's offset pressmen, to do so. Hall
called Herman Woskow, business representative of
Local 51, and so advised him. Woskow told Hall
that it would be necessary for all four of the Unions
jointly to represent the employees because each
local had jurisdiction over different crafts, gave
In the light of the Board's holding in The Ideal Electric and Manufactur-
ing Co , 134 NLRB 1275 (1961 ),only that conduct occurring between
June 28, the date of the filing of the petition, and September 22, the date of
the election, will be considered in connection with the objections to the
election
'Berne! Foam Products Co ,146 NLRB 1277
Irving Air Chute Co , 149 NLRB 627
' The Regional Director's Decision of August 23 found that Respondent
had 14 employees The parties stipulated that Respondent's employees
totaled 16 for the payroll week ending June 29
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 67
2202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hall membership application cards for all four of
the Unions, and advised him that the employees
would be required to sign cards for the particular
local having jurisdiction over their respective crafts
Woskow asked Hall to bring all of the employees
who desired union representation to Local 52's
union hall Friday evening, June 23. Nine of
Respondent's employees attended this meeting. In
addition to Hall, they were Francis Coppola, Isaac
Zabludowski, Joseph Braziel, Stanley Cohen, Bono
Serratore, Robert Whitfield, Jr., Charles Felton,
and Morris Diamond. Although Hall had distributed
the membership cards, none of them had been
signed prior to this meeting.
Woskow addressed the employees, informed
them of the benefits to be obtained from union
membership, and requested that each of them sign
a membership application card for the particular
local representing the craft in which each worked.
He advised them that this was necessary because
each of the Unions had jurisdiction over different
crafts. He also told them that all four Unions would
jointly and together represent the employees and in
the near future seek joint recognition from and bar-
gaining with Respondent. All nine of the employees
signed membership application cards, five with
Local 51, two with Local 6, and one each with Lo-
cals 23 and 119, which were properly authen-
ticated, received in evidence, and are not disputed.
Although most of the employees who attended this
meeting were not well versed in the terminology or
legal niceties of joint representation, they all un-
derstood that the Unions would act together and
authorized them to act as their joint bargaining
agent. Although Respondent contends the contrary,
Woskow and all seven employees called as wit-
nesses, including the one called by Respondent,
testified clearly that Woskow informed them that
the Unions would act together as their joint bar-
gaining representative.6
On the morning of the following workday, Mon-
day, June 26, Stanley Cohen, one of the Respon-
dent's pressmen, informed William Hoist, Respon-
dent's only foreman, that the employees had gone
to Local 51's union hall and signed membership ap-
plications for the Unions. Later the same morning
Hall told Hoist the same thing. Hoist asked Hall if
he thought the men would stick together. Hall
'In this connection, considerable testimony was received concerning
oral interviews and signed statements taken by Respondent's attorney
January 18, 1968, from the employees who attended the union meeting at
Local 51 on June 23 While such interviews and statements were in
preparation for the hearing and defense herein, the record does not clearly
reveal whether the criteria established by the Board for such attorney inter-
rogation were fully observed " However, the complaint contains no such al-
legations nor was any such amendment proposed Respondent's attorney
attempted to establish that the employees were not informed by Woskow
that the Unions would represent and bargain for them jointly, by the use of
such signed statements for the purposes of refreshing recollection, past
recollection recorded, and impeachment The record establishes that on
January 18, 1968, each employee who attended the union meeting was in-
dividually summoned to Respondent's office, where he was interrogated
replied that he did not know. Hoist then told Hall
to keep that information "under his hat." Hoist
then went to the office. A few minutes later Hoist
and Richard Schuckman, Respondent's president,
called a meeting of all of the employees in the plant
during working hours.
Hoist opened the meeting by asking the em-
ployees what brought about their going to the
Unions, what the union application cards meant,
and how far they had gone with the "union busi-
ness." Hall, who apparently acted as spokesman for
the employees, replied that the men were
dissatisfied with working conditions and had signed
application cards for the Unions representing their
particular crafts. Hoist asked why the employees
had not come to him or Schuckman with their de-
mands as they had in the past, rather than going to
the Unions, and what they would think about or-
ganizing their own union in the shop. (In approxi-
mately 1963, the employees had gotten together
concertedly and demanded the adoption of a sick
leave program. As a result, at a meeting between
them and Respondent, a sick leave program was in-
stituted.) Hall replied by asking what good that
would do inasmuch as the employees still would
not have substantial representation. During the
course of the meeting either Hoist or Schuckman
asked the employees what benefits the Unions were
offering. As a result one of the employees gave
Hoist a booklet containing a sample contract
between Local 51 and an employer which the em-
ployee had received at the union meeting. Both
Hoist and Schuckman examined the contract provi-
sions.
Either Hoist or Schuckman then asked the em-
ployees if Respondent would give the same
benefits proposed by the Unions, such as sick
leave, medical and hospital insurance, and
holidays, would they still want the Unions. All
of the employees who had attended the meet-
ing on June 23 replied affirmatively. Inasmuch
as only those who had attended the meeting
replied this made evident to Respondent how
many and which employees had signed mem-
bership applications. Hall then pointed out
that, even if Respondent were to grant all of
the benefits proposed by the Unions, there
would be nothing to prevent Respondent from
concerning such union activities by Respondent's counsel in the presence
of Richard Schuckman, Respondent's president, and William Hoist,
Respondent's only foreman, who were seated only a few feet from the em-
ployee Schuckman was present throughout each interview, while Hoist,
who summoned each employee, was present throughout some part of each
interview and all of many Under the circumstances, I give little weight to
statements so obtained Clearly the employees , knowing the antiunion at-
titude of Schuckman and Hoist, were reluctant to incurr their displeasure,
less than frank, and perhaps inclined to fabricate As one of them colorfully
expressed it "You don't feel too good with him [the boss) sitting right
there right away he [counsel] started questioning me did I go
around and sign cards I know he (the boss) is against the union you
wouldn't answer freely "
Johnnie's Poultry Co , 146 NLRB 770 ( 1964)
SCHUCKMAN PRESS , INC. 2203
retracting such benefits at will. During the
meeting, Schuckman pointed out that he
probably would be unable to meet the letter-
press wage scale set forth in Local 51's sample
contract and remain in business, stating that he
was not making any money on a current job at
the established scale and thus could not pay
union scale. The meeting lasted about 10 or 15
minutes.
Both Hoist and Schuckman admitted most of the
statements attributed to them by the employees.
Hoist admitted that Cohen and Hall had informed
him that the men had joined the Unions the previ-
ous Friday. According to Hoist he did not advise
Schuckman of this fact but instead told Schuckman
he should call a meeting of the employees because
they had "grievances," were talking in groups and
there was "something going on." In any event,
within a few minutes after the meeting commenced
Schuckman learned that a number of the em-
ployees had signed application cards for the Unions
and shortly thereafter which employees had done
so. The various statements and inquiries made by
Schuckman and Hoist during the meeting occurred
after both knew the employees had signed union
membership applications. Hoist admitted that
Schuckman asked the employees why they had
done so. Although Hoist on direct examination de-
nied that he asked the employees whether they
would still want the Unions if Respondent gave
them everything the Unions were offering, on cross-
examination he admitted that Schuckman had done
so.
That afternoon Woskow and Local 51's president
visited Schuckman at his office. After introducing
themselves, Woskow told Schuckman that the
Unions had application cards from nearly all of the
people in the plant and requested recognition of
and bargaining with the four Unions jointly. He told
Schuckman that the Unions would act collectively
and jointly as the employees' bargaining representa-
tive. Woskow informed Schuckman that the four
Unions had organized the employees on a jurisdic-
tional craft basis and that after the joint negotia-
tions were concluded each would seek a separate
contract because there were some variations in
their respective standard clauses. Schuckman did
not question Woskow's statement that the Unions
represented nearly all of the employees nor ask for
any proof thereof. As a result of the information
obtained during the meeting with all of the em-
ployees that morning, it is quite clear that Respon-
dent knew that the Unions represented a substantial
majority of Respondent's production employees.
Schuckman replied that there was some possibility
that he might go out of business or move out of
town. Woskow told Schuckman that if he did not
agree to recognize and bargain with the Unions
jointly, they would file a joint petition with the
Board. Schuckman said that he desired time to con-
sult his attorney, who would contact Woskow in the
next day or two and give him an answer. On June
28 Woskow called Schuckman and advised him
that Woskow had not heard from Schuckman's at-
torney. Schuckman replied that he had nothing
definite to say Later that same afternoon the
Unions filed a joint representation petition with the
Board, describing the unit as all letterpressmen, off-
set pressmen, cameramen, strippers, platemakers,
compositors, cutters, and bindery help. Woskow
testified that the Unions were not seeking to in-
clude truckdrivers or deliverymen in the unit unless
they also worked in the plant in production from
time to time.
Schuckman denied that Woskow advised him
that the Unions were seeking recognition and bar-
gaining as the joint representative of the employees.
Schuckman admitted that he asked Woskow if the
Unions wanted to put him out of business.
Schuckman also said that he told Woskow that
Respondent could not afford to pay the letterpress
wage scale which Schuckman had seen in the con-
tract booklet that morning. Schuckman admitted
that he advised Woskow that Schuckman would get
in touch with him. He also admitted that Woskow
later phoned him. He did not deny then stating that
he could give Woskow no answer . Where their ver-
sions of the conversations differ, I credit Woskow.
A few days later Edward Schwartz, Respondent's
attorney, called Woskow concerning his request.
According to Schwartz, Woskow informed him that
there was more than one union involved and each
would seek a separate contract. Schwartz testified
that he then told Woskow that because of that fact
it was impossible for Respondent to recognize the
Unions because Schuckman had stated that he did
not believe the Unions represented a majority of
the employees in each different craft. Schuckman
did not corroborate this statement by Schwartz.
Schwartz conceded that he made no offer to recog-
nize the Unions on the basis of a shopwide or
overall unit. According to Schwartz, Woskow also
said that the Unions were seeking recognition on a
craft basis. Woskow terminated the conversation by
advising Schwartz that the men would decide the
matter in the Board election. I credit Woskow and
find that he informed Respondent clearly that the
Unions jointly sought recognition and bargaining as
the joint representative of the employees.
Moreover, the petition filed June 28 before
Schwartz' call also revealed that the Unions sought
to become the joint bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees.
Sometime in July or the first half of August, a
representation hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the Board. At that hearing the Unions
(the joint petitioners) sought a unit of all produc-
tion employees consistent with their petition. The
Regional Director found that Respondent was in
general agreement with respect to the overall com-
position of the unit, but sought to include also its
porter, truckdriver, and a student employed as a
part-time platemaker and cameraman. Respondent
never proposed four separate units on a craft basis,
2204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contrary to its alleged position with respect to the
Unions' request for recognition and bargaining.
Sometime near the end of July , Schuckman in-
formed Cohen that Respondent was considering
adopting at its sole expense a hospitalization and
medical insurance plan for the employees and
showed him a letter Schuckman had received from
the insurance company and a membership card to
be executed by the individual employee.
Schuckman told Cohen that Respondent had
planned to adopt this program prior to the advent
of the Unions ' organizing but could do nothing
about it at the present time until after the election
and the union matter were resolved. Respondent had
never mentioned such an insurance program to any
employee previously . Schuckman also told Cohen
that Respondent could not afford the Unions
because Respondent did not get sufficient prices for
its work . Cohen replied that he had to look out for
himself and that he hoped Schuckman did not hold
that against him.
On or about August 11, Schuckman informed
Braziel , then an assistant pressman in the letter-
press department , that Respondent had planned to
put into effect a hospitalization and medical in-
surance program at its expense before the Unions
started organizing but did not have a chance to ef-
fectuate it and would do so immediately after the
election. Schuckman also showed Braziel the em-
ployee membership card for the insurance program.
Schuckman then told Braziel that there was nothing
to hinder him from becoming one of the keymen in
the shop and that it would be to his advantage to
vote against the Unions . ( The significance of this
remark becomes apparent in connection with
Respondent 's later promotion of Braziel.)
Sometime during the summer , Respondent or-
dered a new Heidelberg offset press for installation
in its offset press department . The employees were
generally aware of this fact. Francis Coppola was
employed in that department as a multilith press
operator . On or about August 18 just prior to his
vacation he told Hoist that he (Coppola ) had heard
that three employees were to be sent to school to
learn to operate the Heidelberg press, asked if he
was going to be one of them , and asked for one of
the booklets explaining the operation of the
Heidelberg press. Hoist replied affirmatively. That
same day Schuckman informed Coppola that
Respondent had planned at its expense a
hospitalization and medical insurance program for
the employees , showed him a membership card
with his name on it, but said that Respondent could
not do anything about it until the union matter was
settled. Schuckman asked Coppola if Hoist had
spoken to him about the Heidelberg press assign-
ment . Coppola replied affirmatively. Schuckman
told Coppola that he would be one of the three em-
ployees to attend school to learn the operation of
the press. Schuckman then asked Coppola if he
knew whether he would be eligible to be assigned
the job of operating the new press if the Unions
came into the the shop. Coppola replied that he
was reasonably sure he would have first preference
for the assignment because Woskow had told him if
any new machinery came into the shop the men
working in that particular department would get
first preference.
On or about August 21 Schuckman showed Serra-
tore a membership card with his name on it in a
hospitalization and medical insurance program and
asked him if he knew about the new insurance pro-
gram . Schuckman told Serratone it was a good plan
and that he would not have to pay anything for it,
but that Respondent could not put it into effect
until after the union election.
During the latter part of August , Schuckman in-
formed Serratore that Respondent had adopted a
new sick leave policy. Schuckman asked Serratore
how many days of sick leave he was receiving per
year. Serratore replied that he had reached the
maximum of 5 days, accrued on the basis of I day
for each year of employment. Serratore par-
ticipated in the 1963 meeting between the em-
ployees and Schuckman when the sick leave pro-
gram was first adopted at the demand of the em-
ployees, and thus knew that the maximum annual
sick leave an employee could accrue was 5 days,
which the record establishes from other employees
as well who were also at that meeting . Nevertheless,
Schuckman told Serratore that he misunderstood
Respondent 's sick leave policy and that he was enti-
tled to 3 days for the first year of employment and
an additional day for each successive year without
limit.
On August 23 the Regional Director issued his
Decision and Direction of Election , finding the ap-
propriate unit to constitute all Respondent's
production employees , as requested by the Unions,
and also including , as requested by Respondent, the
porter , truckdriver, and part -time platemaker. His
Decision also found the Unions to be joint peti-
tioners and directed an election to determine
whether the employees desired collective -bargain-
ing representation by the Unions jointly.
On or about August 25, Schuckman showed
Zabludowski a hospitalization and medical in-
surance membership card with his name on it and
informed him that Respondent had been consider-
ing such a plan at its expense before the union or-
ganization started but under the circumstances was
unable to carry it out. Zabludowski asked for
further particulars because he had been carrying his
own medical insurance for some years. He wanted
to know if it would be possible to obtain the money
Respondent would otherwise pay for him under its
plan in order to continue his own insurance.
Schuckman replied that he did not have all of the
particulars available at the time.
On or about August 28, Respondent promoted
Braziel from assistant pressman in the letterpress
department to the job of operating the new
Heidelberg press in the offset department , in spite
of its prior conversations with Coppola. No em-
SCHUCKMAN PRESS, INC.
ployees were sent to school to learn to operate the
press. A representative of the Heidelberg Company
instructed Braziel in the operation of the press on
the jobsite . Both Hoist and Schuckman said Braziel
was given the Heidelberg press job because of
greater ability, although admittedly Coppola had
greater seniority and experience and was employed
in the offset department.
On or about September 5 Schuckman again
spoke to Braziel about Respondent ' s planned
hospitalization and medical insurance program and
again showed him a membership card in the plan
and explained its benefits . Schuckman also told
Braziel that Respondent had adopted a new sick
leave policy under which the employees would get
3 days' sick leave for the first year of work and 1
additional day for each year thereafter without
limit . Braziel started working in 1965 , at which
time he understood that Respondent 's sick leave
policy provided for 1 day for each year of employ-
ment up to a maximum of 5 days. Schuckman then
told Braziel that Respondent could not have
promoted him from the letterpress department to
the Heidelberg press in the offset department if
Respondent ' s plant was a union shop . (It will be
recalled that on August 11 Schuckman told Braziel
that there was nothing to hinder him from becoming
one of the keymen in the shop and that it would be
to his advantage to vote against the Unions.)
Schuckman admitted that he told Braziel that
it was not to his benefit to join the Unions and that
he could not have been promoted to the Heidelberg
press if the Unions had been in the plant.
Schuckman admitted that during July, August,
and September before the election he discussed
Respondent 's planned hospitalization and medical
insurance program and its sick leave policy with
many of the employees. According to Schuckman
he discussed the sick leave policy with some of the
employees because " they did not understand the
plan." Shortly before September 15 Respondent
circulated a list among its employees to ascertain
the dates when they started working for Respon-
dent . On or about September 15, a payday, 1 week
prior to the Board 's election , Respondent paid "ac-
crued sick leave" in cash to a number of the em-
ployees . This was contrary to Respondent's past
practices , came as a surprise to most of the
recipient employees , and did not represent any
unused sick leave which they had earned in the past
under Respondent 's established policy . All of the
employees who received such gratuities testified
that they had used all of their earned sick leave. All
of the employees who were present at the meeting
in 1963 testified that the sick leave policy adopted
then as a result of the employees ' demands and
negotiations with Respondent consisted of 2 days
for the first year of employment and I additional
day for each year thereafter to a maximum of 5
days . Those who were hired thereafter were never
2205
specifically informed by Respondent what its sick
leave policy was , but understood that they received
1 day for each year's employment up to a maximum
of 5 days.
Zabludowski, who was hired in 1964, strictly ob-
served all Jewish holidays and as a result made an
arrangement with Schuckman that he ( Zablu-
dowski ) could use all of his sick leave for such
holidays, which substantially exceeded in number
his annual sick leave , and that he accordingly be
(and was ) docked for such additional holidays. In
spite of this, Zabludowski received an additional
pay envelope with a day's pay in cash and a notice
stating it was for " sick leave accrued in 1966," all
of which sick leave he had previously used. Zablu-
dowski asked Respondent's bookkeeper why he had
received this extra pay, and was informed that
Resppondent had adopted a new sick leave policy,
under which an employee who did not use all of his
sick leave during a year would receive payment for
it at the end of the year . Braziel , who began work-
ing in 1965 , took all of his earned sick leave in
1966. Nevertheless, on September 15 he received 2
days' pay for " unused sick leave ." He unlike Zablu-
dowski was not surprised because on or about Sep-
tember 5 Schuckman had informed Braziel of
Respondent 's "new sick leave policy." Cohen, who
was employed by Respondent in 1961, was present
when the sick leave policy was negotiated in 1963
and hence knew its terms. He used all of his sick
leave in 1965 and 1966 and heard of no change in
the policy prior to September 15. Nevertheless on
September 15 he too received an extra day's pay
for "accumulated sick leave."
On September 20, 2 days before the election,
Schuckman sent a letter to all of Respondent's em-
ployees. After referring to the forthcoming elec-
tion, he made several references to a loss of existing
privileges and other reprisals the employees might
expect if the Unions won the election and con-
cluded by urging the employees to vote against the
Unions. The letter stated , inter alia : ". . . their [the
Unions'] interest centers in the dues , initiation fees,
assessments or fines it [sic] can collect from you
from time to time . The friendship and sincerity ex-
tended you when you find yourself in financial dif-
ficulty and need an emergency loan should be
taken into consideration . I am sure that these 4
unions do not care whether you work full or part
time .... We in the past have prided ourselves that
our employees work full time all year even though
there were times when we did not have sufficient
work for all . With 4 unions , our financial position
may be such that we may not be able to continue to
work full time in the future . In the past, we have let
you work overtime without putting on additional
help so as to circumvent the necessity of paying
time and a half for overtime. These 4 unions may
have told you how they will protect you and secure
your job .... It is no secret that unless this com-
pany makes a profit it cannot stay in business.
Without making a profit, we cannot continue
2206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations. Your security therefore is dependent
upon this company and not the 4 unions. How
much security did these same 4 unions give to those
people who worked on the 9 newspapers and nu-
merous other printing business [sic] that either
went out of business or moved out of New York?
The answer is none."
On September 22 the Unions lost the election.
On September 28 the Unions filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the election and Local 5 1 filed
the charge in this proceeding.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Interrogation
The complaint alleged that on or about June 26
and September 7 Schuckman and Holst inter-
rogated Respondent's employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and sympathies. As
hereinabove found, on June 26, shortly after learn-
ing that a number of the employees had signed
membership applications for the Unions, Respon-
dent called a meeting of all employees during work-
ing hours and interrogated them concerning their
union activities. Respondent opened the meet-
ing by asking the employees what brought about
their going to the Unions, what their union applica-
tion cards meant, and how far they had gone with
the union organizing. Respondent asked the em-
ployees why they had not brought their demands to
Respondent instead of the Unions and suggested
that they organize a union of their own in the plant
Respondent further sought to induce the
employees to abandon the Unions by asking if they
would do so if Respondent gave them the same
benefits proposed by the Unions, after inquiry con-
cerning same and ascertaining such from a perusal
of a printed contract of one of the Unions. Respon-
dent also indicated that it would be unable to meet
certain wage scales set forth in the union contract
and remain in business. As the result of this sys-
tematic interrogation, Respondent learned not only
how many but which employees had signed mem-
bership applications for the Unions. The record
contains no evidence of interrogation on or about
September 7. The record clearly establishes and I
find that on June 26 Respondent coercively inter-
rogated its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Threats of reprisal
The complaint alleged that on or about Sep-
tember 20 and 21 Respondent threatened its em-
ployees with the loss of existing privileges and other
reprisals because of their union membership and
activities. This allegation concerned the letter
which Schuckman sent all of the employees on Sep-
tember 20, 2 days before the election. As
herinabove noted, in that letter Respondent, after
stating that the Unions were only interested in col-
lecting dues and other moneys from the employees,
warned them that they should take into considera-
tion the fact that in the past Respondent had lent
them money when they were in financial difficul-
ties. A number of the employees testified that they
had in the past borrowed money from Respondent
without difficulty. The letter also warned the em-
ployees that with four unions they might not work
full time in the future, noting that in the past they
had even when Respondent did not have sufficient
work. The letter further noted that in the past
Respondent had not put on additional help to cir-
cumvent the employees receiving time and a half
for overtime work It also warned the employees
that the Unions instead of protecting might cost
them their jobs because without profit Respondent
could not continue operations and therefore their
security depended upon Respondent and not the
Unions. In the same tenor Respondent alleged that
other employers organized by the same Unions
had either gone out of business or moved away. I
am satisfied and find that Respondent threatened
its employees with the loss of existing privileges and
other reprisals, including the loss of borrowing
privileges, working full time, overtime pay and their
jobs, because of their union membership, support ,
and activities, thereby engaging in interference,
restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Promise of benefits
The complaint alleged that on or about August
11 and 25 and September 7 Respondent offered
and promised its employees medical insurance
benefits in order to induce them to refrain from or
abandon their union membership, support, or ac-
tivities. As hereinabove found, during July, August,
and September prior to the election, Schuckman
told many employees of Respondent's plan,
theretofore unknown to any of them, to put into ef-
fect at its expense a hospitalization and medical in-
surance program for the employees, informing
them that Respondent had contemplated this action
prior to the advent of the Unions' organizing but
because of the latter was unable to effectuate it
until after the election. In this connection, a letter
dated June 20 to Respondent from its insurance
carrier was received in evidence. It stated that pur-
suant to Respondent's request around May 10 for
such hospitalization and medical insurance its ap-
plication was accepted and its employees could be
covered immediately. Although Respondent
learned nothing about the Unions' organizing ef-
forts until June 26, Respondent took no action with
respect to informing its employees of this insurance
program prior thereto. Although Schuckman ad-
mitted that after the advent of the Unions' organiz-
ing he had been advised by his attorney not to take
any action with respect to this insurance p;rogram,
nevertheless as hereinabove found, he explained
the program and its company paid benefits to may
SCHUCKMAN PRESS , INC. 2207
employees, informing them that he was unable to
install the program until after the election and the
union matter was settled . I conclude and find that
the Respondent promised its employees free medi-
cal and hospital insurance coverage to induce them
to refrain from their union membership , support,
and activities , thereby interfering with , restraining,
and coercing its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the act.
4. "Accrued sick leave " payments
The complaint alleged that on or about Sep-
tember 14 Respondent paid employees for sick
leave on a basis greater than that previously utilized
to induce them to refrain from or abandon their
union membership , support , or activities. As
hereinabove found, on or about September 15,
1 week before the election , Respondent made cash
payments to a number of its employees for "ac-
crued sick leave ," contrary to its past practice,
which said employees had neither earned nor were
entitled to under Respondent 's established sick
leave policy . Prior to 1963 Respondent had no sick
leave policy. In 1963 as a result of complaints and
demands from its employees , Respondent at a
meeting with them adopted a sick leave policy. It
provided that employees should receive 2 days' sick
leave their first year of employment and 1 addi-
tional day each year thereafter to a maximum of 5
days. In other words , during an employee 's fourth
year of employment 'he would receive 5 days' sick
leave that year and each year thereafter . During
August and September before the election
Schuckman told a few employees that Respondent
had a new sick leave policy under which the em-
ployees would receive 3 days the first year of em-
ployment and 1 additional day for each year
thereafter without limit . In other words , the prior
maximum of 5 days was abolished. As hereinabove
found , on September 15 Respondent paid Zablu-
dowski in cash for I day of "accrued sick leave."
Zabludowski testified that not only had he always
used all of his sick leave but he had always taken
additional leave without pay by agreement with
Schuckman. Braziel, who testified that he had used
all of his earned sick leave, received a cash pay-
ment for 2 days of "accrued sick leave." Cohen,
who had also used all of his sick leave in prior
years, received an extra day's pay in cash for "ac-
cumulated sick leave.'
Respondent conceded that it adopted the max-
imum 5 days ' sick leave policy in 1963 as a result of
the demands of and negotiations with the em-
ployees, but contended that it had changed its sick
leave policy in January 1966, although no em-
ployee was aware of any change prior to the infor-
mation a few received from Schuckman shortly be-
fore the election. In this connection Respondent
produced a notice to employees dated January 10,
1966, which stated. "Effective January 1, 1966,
employees are entitled to one (I) sick day with pay
for every year of employment." Respondent con-
tended that this notice was posted next to the em-
ployees' timeclock for 1 or 2 days, in early January
1966, although every employee who testified said
that he had never seen such a notice. Admittedly,
Respondent never otherwise informed any of the
employees about any change in its sick leave policy.
Schuckman 's testimony concerning this change
in sick leave policy was a maze of contradictions,
inconsistencies , and confusion . He admitted that
the original policy agreed to with the employees in
1963 provided for a maximum of 5 days' sick leave,
accrued on the basis of years of employment. He
stated that he could not recall whether this policy
provided for 2 or 3 days of leave for the first year
of employment but was certain that it provided
1 additional day for each year thereafter up to a
maximum of 5 days. He contended that the policy
was changed in January 1966 by means of the
notice allegedly posted January 10, 1966. He
discussed the sick leave policy with some of the em-
ployees shortly before the election allegedly
because they did not understand the policy. He first
testified, in accord with his notice dated January
10, 1966, that the revised policy granted only I day
of sick leave for the first year of employment. He
later testified that his 1966 revision of the policy
was an improvement or increase in the amount of
sick leave granted over that established in 1963. He
stated that they did not understand the sick leave
policy , he instructed his bookkeeper to make cash
payments 1 week before the election for sick leave
accrued but unused during 1966 which should have
been paid in 1966. On cross -examination he
changed his testimony and stated that under his
1966 revised policy each employee received 3 days'
sick leave his first year of employment and 1 addi-
tional day for each year of employment thereafter
without limit. When referred back to his notice of
January 10, 1966, which limited the leave to I day
for each year of employment, he then stated that he
had changed the policy again after the election to
provide an extra 2 days for the first year of employ-
ment . After so stating , he then recalled that under
the 1963 plan the employees were given 2 days'
sick leave for the first year of employment. Later
he again changed his testimony and stated that he
had misunderstood the dates and that there was no
change whatsoever in the sick leave policy after
January 1, 1966. Once again on cross-examination
he changed his testimony and said that although the
policy was not changed after 1966 he did grant an
extra 2 days for the first year of employment some-
time after the 1966 change. Cohen, who partici-
pated in the negotiation of the original policy in
1963, was unaware of any change prior to his
receipt of an extra day's pay in cash on September
15. However, shortly thereafter he received a
written notice from Respondent advising him that
his total 1967 sick leave was 9 days. Inasmuch as
2208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cohen was hired in 1961, this amount equals 3
days for the first year of employment plus 1
additional day for each year thereafter, which
corresponds with the information about the
change in sick leave policy Schuckman gave some
of the employees shortly before the election. I
am satisfied and I find that Respondent paid
its employees for "accrued sick leave " on a basis
greater than that previously utilized , and contrary
to its previously established sick leave policy, to in-
duce them to refrain from or abandon their union
membership , support, or activities , thereby interfer-
ing with , restraining , and coercing them in violation
of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
5. Braziel's promotion
The complaint alleged that on or about August
25 Respondent informed an employee that his
promotion had been effectuated because no labor
organization represented Respondent's
employees. As previously found, on or about
August 28 Respondent promoted Braziel from
assistant pressman in the letterpress department to
the job of operating the new Heidelberg press in the
offset department. The prior conversations between
Schuckman and Coppola and Schuckman and
Braziel have been considered. On or about Sep-
tember 5, Schuckman informed Braziel that
Respondent could not have promoted him from the
letterpress department to the Heidelberg press in
the offset department if Respondent's plant was a
union shop. Schuckman admitted this. I conclude
and find that Respondent, after having earlier told
Braziel that it would be to his advantage to vote
against the Unions and shortly thereafter promoting
him, informed him that his promotion had been ef-
fectuated because no labor organization
represented Respondent's employees, thereby en-
gaging in interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Refusal To Bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged , Respondent denied, the
Regional Director found ' and I find the following to
be a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
All full-time and regular part -time em-
ployees employed by Respondent at its New
York plant including pressmen , assistant press-
men, cameramen, strippers , platemakers, com-
positors, stonehands , papercutters , bindery em-
ployees, truckdrivers , porters and shipping and
receiving employees , bu. excluding office cleri-
cal employees , guards, watchmen and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
T It is well settled that absent newly discovered evidence, which Respon-
dent did not proffer, such findings are not subject to relitigation Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co v NLRB,313US 146(1941)
2. The majority designation
The parties stipulated that the number of em-
ployees in the appropriate unit designated by the
Regional Director totaled 16 as of the payroll
period ending June 29. As hereinabove found, on
June 23 the Unions received signed membership
application cards from nine of the employees in the
appropriate unit , all of which cards were properly
authenticated and received in the record. I con-
clude and find that on June 23 the Unions were
designated by a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit as their joint bargaining represen-
tative and were then and thereafter the joint exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit.
3. The bad-faith refusal to bargain
On June 26 the Unions, through Woskow and the
president of Local 5 1, requested Respondent to
recognize and bargain with the Unions as the joint
collective-bargaining representative of all of
Respondent's production employees. Contrary to
Respondent's contention, the record clearly
establishes both that the employees were informed
prior to executing their membership applications on
June 23 that the Unions would represent them
together as their joint collective-bargaining
representative and seek recognition and bargaining
from Respondent as such joint representative, and
that Woskow advised Schuckman that the Unions
were acting jointly and sought joint negotiations on
behalf of all of the employees. In addition, Woskow
informed Schuckman that if Respondent would not
recognize and bargain with the Unions they would
file a joint representation petition with the Board.
The fact that the Unions intended to seek
separate contracts after the completion of joint
negotiations is not significant and does not justify a
refusal to bargain.' Such contracts would constitute
merely the written instrumentalities evidencing the
agreement arrived at between the Unions and
Respondent. No meaningful distinction can be
drawn between one contract containing various dif-
ferent clauses and provisions covering the different
classifications and crafts in the unit, patently com-
monplace and appropriate, and separate contracts
evidencing the same differences. That this proposal
may have presented certain practical difficulties is
likewise without significance. As the Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit observed in finding a
refusal to bargain with two unions as a joint bar-
gaining representative:
"Respondent refused to bargain because of
. asserted practical difficulties which may
arise from having to bargain with two locals
rather than one. None of these difficulties have
" HecA'i, inc , 166 NLRB 674 (1967), Swift & Company, 115 NLRB 755
(1957)
SCHUCKMAN PRESS, INC.
yet come into being because no bargaining has
taken place.9
At the meeting with Woskow, Schuckman sug-
gested no doubt whatsoever and requested no proof
as to the Unions' claimed majority. As a matter of
fact, as a result of the earlier meeting and inter-
rogation of the employees that same day, Respon-
dent knew not only that a majority but which of its
employees had joined the Unions. The meeting
concluded with Schuckman requesting time to con-
sult his attorney and stating that the latter would
contact Woskow in a day or two and give him an
answer. Two days later Schuckman again would not
give Woskow any definite response, so the Unions
filed their joint representation petition. This was
served on Respondent and corroborated the fact, as
told Respondent, that the Unions were seeking joint
representation of Respondent's employees in one
appropriate unit. Even if Respondent had had
reason to believe that the Unions were seeking in-
dividual representation of four separate units, this
petition demonstrated the contrary. A few days
later Respondent's attorney informed Woskow that
Respondent would not recognize the Unions
because Respondent did not believe that the
Unions represented a majority of the employees in
each separate craft, because the Unions were seek-
ing separate contracts.
In spite of this alleged belief and position, the
record establishes, as found by the Regional
Director, that at the representation hearing
Respondent was in general agreement with the
overall appropriate unit requested by the Unions,
except that Respondent successfully sought to in-
clude three additional employees, whom the Re-
gional Director included in his Decision because
they also performed production work in addition to
their other duties.
Thus the record establishes that the Unions in-
formed the employees before signing their member-
ship applications that the Unions were going to act
together and represent them jointly in bargaining,
that the employees signed their membership appli-
cations with that understanding, that the Unions in-
formed Respondent that they represented the em-
ployees jointly and sought recognition and bargain-
ing as their joint representative, and that Respon-
dent had no doubt, good faith or otherwise, that the
Unions represented a majority of all of its em-
ployees. Respondent also contends that, because
there was a difference in the unit petitioned for by
the Unions and that found appropriate by the Re-
gional Director, namely, the addition of three em-
ployees whose work duties at least in part encom-
passed some of the production work performed by
the unit, there was an apparent ambiguity between
the unit sought and that found appropriate which
9 N.L R B v Mead Foods , Inc., 353 F.2d 87 (C A 5)
"' Colecraft Manufacturing Company, Inc v N L R B , 385 F 2d 998
(C A 2), N L R B v Ric hman Brothers Company, 387 F 2d 809 (C A 7)
" Joy SdM Mills Inc v N L R B, 185 F 2d 732 ( C A D C ). cert denied
2209
bars a finding of refusal to bargain. The difference
between the unit petitioned for by the Unions and
that found by the Regional Drector clearly was not
substantial. It is well settled that an insubstantial
variance in units, such as where, as here, the unit
requested is in fact smaller than the unit found ap-
propriate, is no defense to a refusal to bargain when
the union represents a majority in both units.1°
Aside from the question of any reasonable doubt
as to the majority status or appropriate unit, it is
now well settled that an employer negates the ex-
istence of any good-faith doubt by engaging in
flagrant unfair labor practices designed to destroy a
union's majority status." It is also well settled that
the General Counsel has the burden of proving, in
addition to the fact that the union represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit,
that the employer in bad faith refused to recognize
and bargain with the union, and that he meets this
latter burden by snowing that after the request and
refusal to bargain the employer engaged in a series
of unfair labor practices designed to undermine the
union and dissipate its majority.12 Moreover, even
where there had been no request to bargain (and
hence no refusal or question as to the appropriate-
ness of the unit or majority status), or where an em-
ployer has a good faith but mistaken belief that the
unit is not appropriate, a refusal-to-bargain order is
justified when the employer engages in flagrant un-
fair labor practices in fact destroying the majority
status which the union had.13
The complaint herein alleged that Respondent
engaged in the above-found interference, restraint,
and coercion in order to undermine the Unions and
destroy their collective majority status. Instead of
recognizing the Unions, or awaiting the outcome of
the representation proceeding and the election
without interference, Respondent promptly en-
gaged in a series of unfair labor practices designed
to undermine the Unions, destroy their majority
status, and prevent their election.
As hereinabove found, between the filing of the
petition and the election Respondent informed its
employees of a theretofore unannounced
hospitalization and medical insurance plan at
Respondent's expense (one of the benefits sug-
gested at the Unions' organizational meeting), ad-
vising them that it was unable to put the program
into effect until after the election and the union
matter was settled. '
On or about August 28, Respondent promoted
Braziel to the job of operating the new Heidelberg
press, after having previously advised him that he
could become one of Respondent's key employees
and that it would be to his advantage to vote
against the Unions. On or about September 5,
Respondent informed Braziel that it could not have
341 US 914, Lifetime DoorConmpanv, 158 NLRB 13.
" Aaron Brothers Company, 158 NLRB 1077, and cases cited therein
Benson Wholesale Company, Inc , 164 NLRB 536
2210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promoted him to the Heidelberg press job if
Respondent's plant had been a union shop.
Several weeks before the election, Respondent
informed a few employees that it had adopted a
"new sick leave policy." Most of the employees
were unaware of any change in Respondent's sick
leave policy. On or about September 15, a week be-
fore the election, Respondent made cash payments
to a number of employees, allegedly retroactively
for "accrued sick leave," which the employees had
neither earned nor accrued under Respondent's
established sick leave policy.
On September 20, 2 days before the election,
Respondent by letter threatened all of its em-
ployees with the loss of existing privileges and other
reprisals, including the loss of borrowing privileges,
working full time, overtime pay, and their jobs. I
am satisfied and I find that Respondent engaged in
the aforesaid acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion in order to undermine the Unions and
destroy their collective majority status.
A preponderance of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence in the entire record convinces
me and I find that on and after June 26 Respondent
refueled to bargain with the Unions in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act.
IV. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
As noted above, the four objections to conduct
affecting the outcome of the election consolidated
for hearing with the complaint are in substance the
same as the interference, restraint, and coercion al-
legations of the complaint, with the exception that
the former must be limited to the period between
the filing of the petition, June 28, and the election,
September 22,11 and the latter include an additional
allegation concerning Respondent's statement to an
employee about his promotion. As hereinabove
found, Respondent coercively interrogated its em-
poyees on June 26. This preceded the filing of the
petition. It was also found that the record contains
no evidence of unlawful interrogation on or about
Sep,tember 7 as alleged. Accordingly, it is con-
cluded and found that this objection (3) has not
been sustained.
Based upon the above findings of fact and the en-
tire record herein, I conclude and find that Objec-
tions 1, 2, and 4, dealing respectively with the pay-
ments to employees ostensibly for accumulated sick
leave, promising employees hospitalization and
medical insurance coverage , and threatening em-
ployees with the loss of existing privileges and with
other reprisals, have been established and that
Respondent thereby engaged in conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director's
order directing the consolidation of the hearings on
the objections and the complaint further directed
that thereafter Case 2-RC-14716 be transferred to
and continued before the Board. Inasmuch as my
Recommended Order provides that Respondent be
required to bargain with the Unions, I recommend
that the petition in Case 2-RC-14716 be dismissed
and that all proceedings therein be vacated.15
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce, and the Unions are labor organizations,
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed by Respondent at its New York plant in-
cluding pressmen , assistant pressmen , cameramen,
strippers, platemakers, compositors, stonehands,
papercutters, bindery employees, truckdrivers, por-
ters, and shipping and receiving employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective -bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times on and after June 23, the Unions
have been and now are the joint exclusive represen-
tative of the employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining in the above unit within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain with the Unions on and
after June 26, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices wlth=n the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action of the type which is conven-
tionally ordered in such cases as provided in the
Recommended Order below, which I find necessary
to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the ppolicies of
the Act. I shall also recommend that the petition
be dismissed and that all proceedings be vacated in
Case 2-RC-14716.
'' Fn 2, supra
's Shelby Manufacturing Company, 155 NLRB 464 (1965 )
SCHUCKMAN PRESS , INC. 2211
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Schuckman Press, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and asssigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees con-
cerning their union membership , activities , or sym-
pathies.
(b) Threatening employees with the loss of bor-
rowing privileges , working full time, overtime pay,
their jobs or any other reprisals for engaging in
union activities.
(c) Offering or promising employees hospitaliza-
tion and medical insurance coverage or benefits to
induce them to abandon or refrain from engaging in
union activities.
(d) Granting employees increased or improved
sick leave benefits and/or paying employees for sick
leave neither earned nor accrued under its previ-
ously established sick leave policy to induce them
to abandon or refrain from engaing in union activi-
ties.
(e) Telling employees that their promotions
could not be or could not have been effectuated if
the employees were represented by a labor or-
ganization.
(f) Refusing to bargain collectively with New
York Printing Pressmen and Offset Workers Union
No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO;
New York Press Assistants' and Offset Workers
Union No. 23, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO;
New York Typographical Union No. 6, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, and New
York Papercutters and Bookbinders Union No.1 19,
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO, as the joint exclusive representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit found herein.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering
with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Unions as the joint exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in the appropriate unit found
herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and all other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business in New York
City copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." is Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region
2, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of
this Decision what steps Respondent had taken to
comply herewith. 17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition in Case
2-RC-14716 be, and it hereby is, dismissed and
that all proceedings held in connection therewith
be, and they hereby are, vacated.
"` In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall he modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 2, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union membership,
activities , or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
the loss of borrowing privileges , working full
time , overtime pay, their jobs, or any other
reprisals for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise our em-
ployees hospitalization and medical insurance
coverage or benefits to induce them to aban-
don or refrain from engaging in union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT grant our employees increased
or improved sick leave benefits and/or pay our
employees for sick leave not earned or accrued
under our previously established sick leave pol-
icy to induce them to abandon or refrain from
engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that their
promotions could not be or would not have
been effectuated if our employees were
represented by a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with New York Printing Pressmen and Offset
Workers Union No. 51, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants Union of North Amer-
2212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ica, AFL-CIO; New York Press Assistants' and
Offset Workers Union No. 23, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of
North America, AFL-CIO; New York Typo-
graphical Union No. 6, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO; and New York
Papercutters and Bookbinders Union No.119,
International Brotherhood of Bookbinders,
AFL-CIO, as the joint exclusive representative
of our employees in the appropriate unit noted
below with respect to wages, hours, or any
other terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of any of the rights
guaranteed them by the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the aforesaid Unions as the point exclusive
representative of our employees in the ap-
propriate unit noted below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and all other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement . The ap-
propriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees employed by Respondent at its
New York City plant , including pressmen,
assistant pressmen , cameramen , strippers,
platemakers, compositors, stonehands,
papercutters, bindery employees,
truckdrivers, porters and shipping and
receiving employees, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our emp;loyees are free to become, remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
the above-named or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement conforming to the provisions of
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
Dated
SCHUCKMAN PRESS INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York 10022 Telephone
PL 1-5500 Ext. 852.
By