Southern California Associated Newspapers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1850 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1S50 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than his failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required
as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership in Respondent Union, the
Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
South Bay Daily Breeze, a Division of Southern California Asso-
ciated Newspapers, Inc. and Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper
Guild, American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO, CLC
South Bay Daily Breeze, a Division of Southern California Asso-
ciated Newspapers, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Guild.
Local 69, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, Peti-
tioner. Cases 31-CA-119 (fornerly 01-CA-6862) and 31-RC-18
(formerly 21-RC-9602) . October 10, 19G6
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 13, 1966, Trial Examiner Jamcs R. Webster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The National Labor Relations 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 .2 The Board
' Respondent ' s undated motion to submit an additional exhibit ( a telegram from the
witness McDonnell to Respondent which was received after issuance of the Trial Examiner's
Decision) purporting to show bias and unreliability on the part of McDonnell, is denied,
as it presents nothing material that would affect our reliance upon the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings.
2 The authorization cards of certain employees, who were not called as witnesses by the
General Counsel , were introduced into evidence by the testimony of other witnesses Re-
spondent sought to obtain , by means of a subpoena dices tecuni, any statements in the
Board's possession relating to the execution of these cards , but the Trial Examiner granted
the General Counsel ' s motion to quash the subpcna we affirm this ruling, Aero Corpora-
tion, 149 NLRB 1283, 1288
160 NLRB No. 145.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1851
has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,3 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] A
3Member Brown, for the reasons set forth in his separate statement in Dan Howard
Mfg. Co. and Dan Howard Sportswear, Inc, 158 NLRB 805, footnote 5, would find all the
authorization cards, including that of Ceder, to be valid designations of the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
4 The address and telephone number for Region 31, appearing at the bottom of the
notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read . Tenth Floor,
Bartlett Building, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone
688-5850.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case with all parties represented was heard before the Trial Examiner James
R. Webster in Los Angeles, California, on January 18, 19 , 20, 21, 24, 25, and 31
and February 1, 2, 3, and 28, 1966, on a complaint of the General Counsel and
answer of South Bay Daily Breeze, A Division of Southern California Associated
Newspapers, Inc., herein called Respondent or Company. The complaint was issued
on October 19, 1965, upon a charge filed on July 27, 1965, and amended on Octo-
ber 5, 1965. The complaint alleges that Respondent has threatened, restrained, and
coerced employees and has refused to bargain with the Union and has thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act.
By order dated October 26, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 31 issued
notice of hearing on objections in Case 31-RC-18 and an order consolidating said
case with Case 31-CA-119. Hearing was directed on the objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election filed by the Union on July 27, 1965.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent and have
been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation engaged in the publication and distribution of a
daily newspaper entitled the South Bay Daily Breeze in Torrance, California. Dur-
ing the calendar year 1964, Respondent's gross income from the operation of this
newspaper exceeded $200,000. Respondent utilizes national wire service dispatches
and publishes advertisements of nationally sold products. During the calendar
year 1964, Respondent received newsprint of a value in excess of $50,000 which
was shipped to it directly from points outside the State of California.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. U
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild , American Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO, CLC , herein referred to as the Guild or Union , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
A. Prefatory statement and issues
On April 21 or 22, 1965, Loel Schrader, an international representative for the
American Newspaper Guild, received a telephone call from a member of the Guild
that employees of Respondent were interested in that organization. A meeting was
arranged for Friday evening, April 23, 1965. Three employees of Respondent's
editorial department attended-Gary Gillis, Floyd Rinehart, and Alvin Butkus, and
1852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed authorization cards that evening. Cards were distributed to Gillis and Rine-
hart for their use in soliciting signatures from other employees during the weekend.
Schrader gave them copies of contracts that the Guild had with other employers,
discussed advantages of Guild representation, and gave them information that
would be useful in soliciting other employees. He told them that signatures on
cards from at least 30 percent of the editorial employees were required before the
Board would direct an election; that before the Guild would grant Schrader per-
mission to seek bargaining rights, he needed cards signed by at least 70 percent
of the eligible employees. He told them how to compute union dues and that dues
and initiation fees would be waived until there is a contract. I find that Gillis
and Rinehart were key solicitors of authorization cards on behalf of the Guild.
On Sunday evening, April 25, 1965, Gillis and Rinehart turned over to Schrader
12 authorization cards they had solicited from employees in the editorial depart-
ment. This gave Schrader a total of 15 cards. He then dispatched a telegram to
Respondent, as follows:
Editorial dept. employees of the South Daily Breeze have designated the Los
Angeles Newspaper Guild as their representative for the purpose of bargain-
ing collectively for improved wages, hour and other terms and conditions of
employment. The Guild requests that it be granted recognition as bargaining
representative for editorial dept. employees. In the event you do not voluntarily
grant recognition the Guild will insist that a secret ballot election be con-
ducted among all eligible employees by the National Labor Relations Board.
The guild expects that the Daily Breeze will continue to act in a gentlemanly
fashion and employees will not be impeded in their exercise of free choice by
threats, interrogation or promises. In this regard the Guild calls your attention
to appropriate sections of the labor management relations Act. Any attempts
by the Daily Breeze to go beyond the proper bounds of pre-election conduct
will be dealt with swiftly by the Guild's legal dept. The Guild's only concern is
that eligible employees be given an opportunity to act, speak and vote in accord-
ance with their own free consciences and without fear of retaliation from either
party.
On Monday, April 26, Schrader filed a representation petition with the Board,
and on the following day Respondent received notification from the Regional Office
of the Board of this fact.
On April 27, 1965, Robert L. Curry, publisher and editor of Respondent, dis-
patched the following telegram to Schrader:
In response to your telegram of April 26, I wish to advise you that the South
Bay Daily Breeze declines to recognize your union as the collective bargaining
representative of any of its employees because it genuinely doubts that your
union represents a majority of its employees in any appropriate bargaining units.
We further believe that the proper way to resolve these questions is through a
secret ballot election conducted under the provision of the National Labor
Relations Board provided you meet the requirements of the National Labor
Relations Board for such an election.
On April 28, 1965, Schrader visited Curry, and told him that he represented the
employees in the editorial department. He referred to a previous election that the
Guild had had in the circulation department and suggested that they could avoid the
bitterness and disruption of an election campaign by agreeing at that point to sit
down and negotiate a contract. Curry replied that the matter has been turned over
to counsel and was out of hisihands and further that he doubted the Guild repre-
sented a majority of the employees. Schrader suggested a quick election, but Curry
did not accept the suggestion.'
A representation hearing was conducted on June 1, 2, and 3, 1965, at the Regional
Office in Los Angeles, California. The Decision and Direction of Election issued on
June 30, 1965, and the election was held on July 20, 1965. Thirteen votes were cast
for the Union and 13 were cast against the Union with no challenged ballots.
IIn this conversation, as well as in other conversations where there are conflicts in
testimony, I have carefully evaluated the conflicting testimony as to substance, logic,
corroboration or lack of it from other evidence, and the demeanor of the witness, and I
base my findings upon these considerations. In 1962, the Guild filed a petition with the
Board seeking to represent Respondent's employees in the circulation department. A
consent-election agreement was executed, and an election held ; the Guild did not receive
a majority of the votes. ,
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1853
The issues are (1) whether Respondent, by conduct and statements of Publisher
Curry, Managing Editor Moon, News Editor Johnson, Agent Paffin, and Production
Manager Wahlheim, during the period from April 26 to July 20, 1965, interfered
with, restrained, or coerced employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act; (2) whether the Guild represented a majority of employees in an appropriate
unit on April 26, 1965; (3) if so, whether Respondent had a good-faith doubt as
to the Guild's majority status; and (4) whether Respondent engaged in conduct
between April 26 and July 20, 1965, that would warrant setting aside the represen-
tation election conducted on July 20.
Respondent contends, among other things, that (1) News Editor Johnson is not
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that therefore Respondent is not
chargeable for alleged statements by him; (2) the unit sought to be represented by
the Guild in April 1965, was inappropriate as it excluded three employees found by
the Board to be nonsupervisory; and also Respondent had a sincere doubt as to the
scope of an appropriate unit, and (3) employees were induced to sign authorization
cards on representations that they could forget the printed statement on the cards
and that the cards were solely to get an election, and also Respondent had a sincere
doubt as to the Union's majority status. Respondent also contends that there has
been no conduct or statements violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act or that
would warrant setting aside the election.
B. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
1. By Kenneth Johnson, news editor 2
On April 26, 1965, shortly after Respondent had received the telegram from the
Guild, Johnson informed employee Gary Gillis of this fact and inquired of Gillis if
he was with him or against him. Gillis replied that he did not quite understand
Johnson . Johnson asked him if he had signed a petition, and Gillis answered that he
had not. Johnson told him that his father had been a union organizer and that he
knew their tactics and that these things had turned him against unions in general.
He told Gillis that he (Gillis) would not want to work there if there was a Guild;
that it would ruin the paper.
Later the same day Johnson showed the telegram to employee Patricia McDonnell,
women's editor, and asked if she were one of the people responsible for it. She read
the telegram and replied that she was not. He stated that he felt it was a personal
affront and that he had been stabbed in the back; that employees responsible for it
were cowards and should have at least given him some warning that they were going
to try to get the Guild in.
Approximately 1 week later McDonnell and Johnson had another conversation
regarding the Guild. This conversation was after work and in a lounge known as the
Lama Room near Respondent's building. She told Johnson that she was trying to
keep a stand of neutrality in the matter, but that she would be tempted to vote for
the Guild simply to protect employees Lorraine Geittmann, Gary Gillis, and Robert
Jones. These employees were known to be Guild leaders. She stated that she knew
how vindictive Curry and Johnson were, and that if the Guild were in, these employ-
ees would be protected. Johnson replied that if the Guild got it, that is when things
would be tough on them. McDonnell asked, "How could it be, if they would be pro,
tected for six months after an election ?" Johnson answered, "Well, so the Guild
gets in. Then you know how Lori [Geittmann] is late all the time. We just change
2 Respondent contends that Johnson is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
The Regional Director in Case 31-RC-18 (formerly Case 21-RC-9602) found Johnson to be
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and excluded him from the appropriate unit.
Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations precludes relitigating this issue "in
any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding." But the instant case involves
more than the question of Johnson's supervisory status for inclusion or exclusion in a
bargaining unit-refusal-to-bargain allegations being directly related to representation
proceedings ; it involves the question of Respondent's liability for unfair labor practices
by the conduct or statements of Johnson if he is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. I, therefore, permitted Respondent to offer newly discovered or additional evidence on
the issue of Johnson's supervisory status. The issue of Johnson's supervisory status was
fully and thoroughly litigated in the representation proceedings (Case 31-RC-18), the
hearing having lasted 3 days . Respondent offered no significant new or additional evidence
on this issue. Under the circumstances I am bound by the Regional Director 's determina-
tion and will not consider the issue do novo. Security Guard Service, Inc., 154 NLRB 8;
Rish Equipment Company, 150 NLRB 1185.
1854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her hours , and I will have her come in at 5:00 in the morning and you know how
long it would take before Lori is being late. We could dismiss her after a week."
As to Robert Jones, he stated, "You know what an old maid he is about his rou-
tines and his schedules ; all we have to do is put him on a split shift , and he couldn't
take that very long." On this occasion or on another occasion in the Lama Room
about this same time , McDonnell asked Johnson how he could "get " everyone with
so many employees, and, besides the outspoken ones, how would he really know
who did vote for the Guild since it is a secret ballot. Johnson replied, "Now Patty,
we have ways; we have ways."
In another conversation in the Lama Room after work during the first several
weeks following April 26, Johnson told McDonnell that she would have to have
faith in Curry and in his statement that inequities would be met. McDonnell
inquired as to how she could believe his promise since Managing Editor Moon had
promised her a sizable raise after her first 6 months, which promise was not kept.
Johnson stated that she would just have to have faith and that he could tell her
what kind of salary she was going to make, but that he could go to prison if he told
her. He stated he would write it down on a slip of paper and give it to her the next
day. She did not receive the slip of paper or hear any more about the matter.
In the middle of May 1965, Johnson also told employee Eugene Hall that he was
going to show him a slip of paper some time before the election indicating what his
salary would be if the Guild were voted out A short time before the election Hall
asked Johnson about the slip of paper and Johnson replied that he did not have it
at that time 3
In early June 1965 , Johnson asked Hall to do him a personal favor and not attend
the Guild meeting that night. Hall stated that he would not go, and he did not
attend the meeting.
I find that by Johnson 's interrogation of employees Gillis and McDonnell regard-
ing their union activities, his statement to McDonnell threatening discharge of
employees Geittmann and Jones in the event the Guild is voted in, his warning that
Respondent had ways of piercing the secrecy of the Board election, and his promise
to McDonnell and Hall of wage increases if the Guild is voted down, and his solici-
tation of Hall not to attend a Guild meeting after having promised him a wage
increase, Respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the absence of a preceding
promise or threat or other unfair labor practice, I would not consider a naked solici-
tation of any employee not to attend a union meeting as a violation of the Act.4
2. By Robert L. Curry, publisher, Charles Wahlheim, production manager and
consultant to publisher, and Robert Paffin, an agent for Respondent
In mid-May 1965, employee Patricia McDonnell had a conversation with Pub-
lisher Curry regarding another matter, and he asked her if she had any grievances
or was unhappy about anything. She replied in the affirmative She stated that she
understood that Mary Brandvig, the women's editor for another newspaper with no
employees under her , was earning $ 145 a week and she was earning only $120 a
week and had two women working under her. Curry stated that he had been so busy
8 During the campaign Johnson prepared for Publisher Curry and other supervisors a
list of employees with his evaluation of their stands on the Guild As to Hall , he reported,
" Sees dollar signs , thinks he's better and worth more than he is Is very impressionable.
Listens to me a lot , and a last minute promise of more money from me would weigh
heavily on his decision . . . . He is the kind you worry about selling the day of the
election."
'Eased on the implications contained in Johnson 's testimony ( as for example, he testi-
fied that he asked Gillis about the Guild and that during the course of their conversation
Gillis told him he was going to weigh both sides before making any decision ; that he had
100 to 200 conversations with McDonnell and a similar number with Hall relative to the
Guild ; that every facet of the Guild came up in his conversations with McDonnell, in-
cluding changes that might be made in the working conditions of employees Geittmann
and Jones and the secrecy of the ballot ; that he considered it part of his job to keep a
finger on the pulse of the situation and he wanted to make sure the boss knew that he
knew a certain amount of things that were going on among the people ; and that he made
a list for the publisher and other supervisors showing his evaluation as to how the em-
ployees stood on the question of the Guild ), the corroborative nature of the testimony of
Gillis, McDonnell , and Hall, and my general observation of the witnesses , I credit the
testimony as found herein and discredit Johnson's denials.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1855
with the construction of the new building that he had not been aware of how their
salaries were lagging. He stated that he could assure her that once everything was
cleared up, these inequities would be taken care of. He said that he knew there were
some fence sitters and that she probably had not made up her mind as to how she
would vote and he hoped that she would listen to his side of the story. She told
him that she had already made up her mind; she stated, "You don't bite the hand
that feeds you."
McDonnell had another conversation with Curry about June 21, 1965. She was
called into his office and he told her that Robert Paffin. an agent for Respondent,
had been studying the salary structures at Respondent and that he (Curry) was now
ready to do something about the inequities. He stated, "Now, I could go to prison
for this, but I know you are one of us, and T feel I can trust you, Pat, and I want
you to know, as of July 1, you will be receiving $15 more a week and you can be
sure that after this thing is settled, that your salary will be equal or comparable to
Mary Brandvig's." On June 28, 1965, McDonnell's salary was increased $15 per
week.
In mid-May 1965, employee Eugene Hall went to see Curry regarding Curry's
cosigning a banknote for him. During the course of the conversation, Curry asked
Hall how he stood "in this Guild thing?" Hall replied that he was 100 percent with
the Company. Curry replied that that was good and that he was going to know how
people were going to vote and that if the Guild did win the election, promotions
would go to people who voted against the Guild, because he would want people who
were true to the Company to negotiate with the Guild for contracts. He told Hall
that he had to beat the Guild and would appreciate anything Hall might do for him
that would help him defeat it. Hall, on his own and in an effort to comply with this
request, supplied Curry a few days later with a list of employees and how he thought
they would vote. This list was given to Curry's secretary for transmittal to Curry. In
the conversation Curry told Hall he had talked to Supervisor Moon and Johnson
and that Hall had a tremendous future with Respondent, and told Hall that the only
reason he was agreeing to the loan was that he had been told that Hall had great
possibilities and was a good reporter, and was going to be with Respondent for a
long time.
On the day of the election Curry asked Hall to have coffee with him. He told
Hall that he understood that Union Representative Schrader was at his house the
night before and that Hall had called Schrader the day before. He told Hall that
Johnson and Moon were worried that Hall was going to vote against the Company,
and that he (Curry) felt sure that Hall was merely stringing along with the Guild
to supply Curry further information. Hall replied that this was true, but he testified
that he in fact was not stringing the Guild along.
Curry held staff meetings with employees in the editorial department on June 10
and 22 and July 14 and 16, 1965, to discuss the Guild.
He told them that he was very shocked to be notified that his employees had taken
action resulting in the petition filed with the Board seeking Guild representation; that
he thought they were a family group and that his door had always been open to any-
one that had any complaints, and that perhaps in the past year he had been a poor
employer because he had been so involved in the construction of the new plant and
was not aware of the complaints within the department; that he has become aware
there were inequities and that they would be rectified, but he could not give them
specific details because he did not want "to end up in jail"; that he and Managing
Editor Moon and Executive Editor Samuel Stewart had gone over the specific things
that would be done to eliminate the inequities. He assured them that there would be
no firings because of the Guild.
At the meeting of June 10, Charles Wahlheim, production manager and consul-
tant to the publisher and a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,5 stated that
where there is a union contract, rules and regulations have to be strictly followed,
but where there is no union contract, more laxity exists. He told them of an exam-
ple in the stereotype department (where Respondent has a contract with the Inter-
national Stereotypers Union) of a long-term employee, who, through no fault of his
5 On July 13, 1965, Wahlheim's position was changed from production manager to con-
sultant to the publisher in labor relations matters and production matters. In both posi-
tions he negotiated and administered contracts with labor unions representing employees
of Respondent. Respondent has contracts with the International Typographical Union
covering printers, with the International Stereotypers Union covering stereotypers and
with the International Pressmen Union concerning pressmen.
1856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
own, spilled some hot metal on his foot and was off work because of this for a con-
siderable period of time. Wahlheim pointed out that this employee received no sick
or disability benefits from Respondent because there was nothing in the contract
covering sick leave; that Respondent was "unable to help this man, as much as we
wished to, being a long-term employee and ex-foreman, because of setting a prece-
dent that maybe at a later date some other employee whom we may not feel quite
the same about and who may have an entirely different set of circumstances that we
weren't aware of, and then this being set as a precedent, we could be required to pay
sick leave for the second hypothetical case, having established a precedent with the
first gentleman, of giving him sick pay." 6
In connection with the remarks of Wahlheim, Curry stated that as things were
then in the editorial department, if an employee came to work drunk, the Company
probably would give him a break if he were a reasonably good employee. He stated
that the Guild would cause management to be on one side and the employees on the
other and would end the family feeling that has existed, and that it might take 6
months to negotiate a contract. Curry told them that if they were under a Guild
contract and an employee were tardy three times, Respondent would have to fire
him, because if it did not, it would be setting a precedent and would not thereafter
be able to fire anyone for being tardy.
In this connection Wahlheim told the employees of a situation that had recently
occurred in the stereotype department where an employee had wanted to take a day
off and had called a substitute to cover his position. On the day involved the substi-
tute did not show up; a few minutes after 6 a.m., the starting time, the foreman
called the president of the Stereotypers Union and told him about it; this person in
turn called the employee who had planned to take the day off and told him he could
lose his job if his position were not covered. The employee then rushed to work
without taking time to dress fully.
Wahlheim testified that he wanted to make it clear to the employees in the edi-
torial department that in departments represented by unions Respondent rigidly
adhered to the contract and company rules, not because Respondent wanted to in
all cases, as "in the case of this ex-foreman we personally felt badly about the situa-
tion," but because Respondent was fearful of setting a precedent of leniency if rules
were not strictly enforced for all employees, and then be faced with this precedent
in a subsequent arbitration of a similar situation.
In the latter part of June 1965, Curry asked employee Peterson to have lunch
with him. At the restaurant Curry stated that it was probably evident why they were
there. He stated that he was not going to ask Peterson to vote for the Company,
but that he wanted and needed his vote. He stated that he did not understand why
a person with Peterson's background would want to have the Guild because it is
something for people who need a crutch and who cannot get anywhere on their
own. Curry stated that with the Guild they would have regimentation; that the Guild
would run the show and would take over. He told Peterson that his recent wage
increase had nothing to do with the Guild. He also stated that newspaper companies
check with one another on applicants. He stated, "We also check whether you had
any Guild leanings, and a lot of publishers do not like to hire people that had Guild
leanings, you know, and this may go bad with you."
About 2 weeks before the election , Curry asked employee Inez Staff to have
coffee with him. He told her that he was very disturbed by "all this Guild fuss"
and that he realized that it had a very disrupting influence on the employees; that
he had been a very busy man with the new building; that he realized there were
inequities but that he meant to see that they were corrected. He stated that he hated
to see the Guild get in because the editorial department had always had a good
family relationship and that the Guild would destroy this. He also stated , "Well,
you know, we publishers have our organization, too, and if any of those young
fellows try to get a job and he has been active in trying to get the Guild in here,
we publishers have our own ways of letting each other know that he just wouldn't
be a desirable fellow to hire."
In mid-June 1965, Curry called employee Gillis into his office, and told him that
he wanted to have a chat with each of the employees, as he had mentioned-in a
staff meeting. He told him that there were certain things he could not discuss which
would be illegal. He stated he did not question Gillis' part in the Guild, but that
6 Employees in the editorial department currently may take 2 weeks of sick leave
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1857
the Guild is an irresponsible union and he would show him proof as to why he
should change his mind. He told him that Guild or no Guild, raises would be
given as part of their salary review, and that after the election there would probably
be other raises. He stated there were inequities that had been brought to his atten-
tion and that they would be taken care of.
On about July 13, 1965, Agent Robert Paffin told McDonnell one evening at the
Plush Horse Restaurant that he had worked many years on the side of unions in
New York and had worked many years on management's side, and that if the
Guild got in, he would participate in contract negotiations, and stated, "I know
every trick in the book, and we will hold this up for one year, until another
election is due."
I find that Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees by
Curry's promises to employees during the election campaign that salaries would be
increased and "inequities" rectified , his interrogation of employee Hall, his state-
ment to Hall that he was going to know how people were going to vote and that
if the Guild did win the election promotions would go to people who voted against
the Guild, and his statement to him that he knew of Hall's telephone call to Union
Representative Schrader and of Schrader's visit to his residence the night before
the election, giving the impression of surveillance,7 and his threat to employees
Peterson and Staff constituting blacklisting. I find insufficient evidence of any state-
ment by Curry of an intent to refuse to bargain with the Guild, as the representa-
tive of employees of Respondent , or that he made any solicitation of an employee
to engage in surveillance; I shall therefore recommend that paragraphs 12(b)
vi and x of the complaint be dismissed.
Both Curry and Wahlheim warned employees that with the Guild there would
be regimentation and adherence to rules whereas without the Guild laxity is per-
mitted. Without a union an employer has flexibility in his dealings with his employ-
ees; preferential treatment can be accorded some employees and denied to others..
Unions usually seek to standardize treatment of employees in accordance with
some objective criteria. Thus, working rules or practices evolve or are_ promulgated.
This is a concomitant of unionization, and an employer may advise employees of
that fact. But, on the other hand, it would be improper for an employer to threaten
that rules would be administered without "heart" or regard for equity considera-
tions or reasonable excuses and to infer that rules would be used to do injury to-
employees rather than to bring about fair and equal treatment.
The issue here is whether Respondent said that with a union there would be
rules and rule adherence , a normal concomitant of unionization , or whether it
informed employees that rules would be heartlessly administered. Respondent men-
tioned a rule existing in another department to the effect that three tardinesses
result in discharge . There are employees in the editorial department, Geittmann
and McDonnell in particular, who have been tardy a number of times and who,
because of their habits, would find it difficult to comply with this rule. I do not
consider it improper for an employer to advise or warn employees of direct conse-
quences and concomitants of unionization as long as his remarks are not improp-
erly out of perspective. But, in the instant case there is evidence that Respondent
warned that the rules would be administered and used vindictively. Managing
Editor Moon stated that the Guild would take the heart out of the employer-
employee relationship. News Editor Johnson told McDonnell that the starting hour
of Geittmann could be changed to where her proclivity for lateness would cause
her to violate the rule. In a written report submitted by Johnson to Curry giving
his appraisal of employees' feelings on the Union, he suggested that employee
Randy Gray, whom he reports has been "goofing badly," might be convinced to.
vote for the Company with the selling point that "Guild rules will cost you your
job." Wahlheim told of instances of strict application of rules in situations where
hardship resulted. I therefore find that remarks in this vein by Curry and Wahl--
heim, as well as Johnson and Moon (paragraphs B, 1 and 3 of this Decision),
7 Employee Geittmann testified that Curry told her in one of their conversations that
he had heard she was campaigning for the Guild. In view of the fact that she openly cam-
paigned for the Guild and that it was commonly known she was a Guild supporter, I
find that Curry 's statement to her does not constitute illegal surveillance or impression of
surveillance.
257-551---67-vol. 160-118
1858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threatened that working rules would be heartlessly and vindictively administered,
and I find that this constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .8
I find that Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
Paffin's threat to employee McDonnell that bargaining would be held up and delayed
until another election could be conducted.
3. By John C. Moon, managing editor
The representation hearing in Case 3l-RC-18 was scheduled for June 1, 1965,
at the Regional Office in Los Angeles, California. However, prior to the scheduling
of the hearing for Los Angeles, there was discussion and consideration of the
setting of the hearing in Torrance, California, near the offices of Respondent. The
Guild subpenaed 13 persons from the editorial department-their being 25 employ-
ees in the appropriate unit. For this number of employees to be absent at one
time from that department, adding the loss of time involved in travel between
Torrance and Los Angeles, it would have been exceedingly difficult, if not impos-
sible, for Respondent to have gotten out a newspaper for the day. The subpenaed
employees were not-advised of a last minute agreement between the Guild and
Respondent for the scheduling of their appearance as witnesses. On May 31, Moon,
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, after consultation with Publisher Curry
and Respondent's attorney, was directed to call each of the subpenaed employees
and advise them to report to work on June 1, and that they would be sent to the
hearing as they were summoned. During the 3-day hearing, six nonsupervisory
employees testified. I find that under the circumstances Moon' s urging and direction
to subpenaed employees to report for work on June 1 did not constitute a violation
of the Act, and I shall recommend that paragraph 12(c) ii of the complaint be
dismissed.
During Moon's telephone conversation with employee Gillis on the evening of
May 31, he stated that if the Guild got in at Respondent, it would have rules that
the Company would have to abide by; one was that if a person is tardy three times,
the Company would have to fire him He mentioned that employee Geittman had
been tardy on many occasions. He stated that the Company has a lot of heart and
the Guild would take this away.
In mid-June 1965, while Gillis and several employees and Moon were having
coffee in the coffeeroom at Respondent, the Guild was discussed. Moon suggested
that they could form their own union and not have to pay dues, and he suggested
a suggestion box on the wall in which employees could put their - complaints or
suggestions; he stated he felt that this would solve many of the problems that
existed rather than through the Guild He told them that their salaries would be
reviewed in June and that they were all going to get raises and that after the Guild
was defeated they would continue to receive raises.
In the latter part of May 1965, employee Geittmann had a conversation in
Respondent's coffeeroom with Moon in which her participation in the Guild cam-
paign was mentioned. She was one of the senior employees in the editorial depart-
ment and was openly active on behalf of the Guild. Moon had known Geittmann
for approximately 9 years and was concerned about her physical reaction to the
campaign. She testified that she was nervous and worried, Moon had observed this
and told her he was worried about her and that he did not want her to get hurt-
that he did not want anything to happen to her because of the Guild campaign.
In early May 1965, Moon stated to employee McDonnell that employee Erickson
had a fine career ahead of him and that it would be too bad if he gets mixed up
with the Guild because anyone who has been a Guild agitator or a Guild supporter
would never get into a managerial position, and that this was the case at the Coply
newspaper in San Diego, California, where the Guild is bargaining agent for
8 On credibility, there is substantial accord in Curry's testimony with that of McDonnell
except that he denies that her wage increase and the correction of inequities is related to
the Guild. Curry denies significant portions of the statements attributed to him by Hall.
Due to the general tenor of Curry's testimony, the corroborative testimony of other wit-
nesses to his statements, and my observation of the witnesses, I credit the testimony as
found above and discredit Curry's denials . As to Hall, he admitted that on occasions he has
made untrue statements where it served his purposes, but under strenuous cross-examination,
he impressed me by his straightforwardness, demeanor, and truthfulness on the witness
stand and for the most part his testimony is corroborated in substance and tenor by
ether witnesses.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1859
employees . McDonnell stated that she disagreed with him on this as it was her
understanding that the city editor in San Diego had been an officer of the Guild.
He denied that this - was true and the conversation ended.
In the latter part of May 1965, McDonnell had another conversation with Moon
in which the Guild was mentioned . McDonnell was late to work one morning and
Moon called her into his office . He reprimanded her because of her lateness and
told her that if the Guild and the Federal Government were not breathing down
his back, he would fire her at that time, and he told her of another employee,
Randolph Gray, whose termination had been recommended but who had not been
terminated because of the pendency of the Guild matter . He handed her a letter
about her tardiness that morning , and told her this was evidence or proof that she
had been late, and stated that if the Guild got it, "three times late, Pat McDonnell,
and you will be out on the streets ." McDonnell testified that she has frequently
been late to work.
In a conversation in mid-June 1965, Moon told McDonnell that she was the
first professional newswoman that he had ever hired as a women 's editor and that
-since she has been there the salary of the women 's editor has been increased from
$100 a week to $120 a week , but that since the Guild agitation had started, they
were going to have to make all the salaries at Respondent comparable to other
newspapers of the same size, and therefore he would be paying the women 's editor
$165 or $170 a week . Then he stated , "Therefore , Pat, you make one slipup, and
you will be out, because I can hire anyone I want to at that kind of money "
A week or two before the election of July 20, Moon told McDonnell that there
were five or six of the employees, including her, who were fence sitters He stated
he could not understand why they did not stand up and say whether they were for
.or against the Guild, or how they were going to vote. Moon brought the matter
-up on several occasions.
On July 20, 1965, shortly before the election, employoe Hall told Moon that in
his opinion if the Guild won the election it would be the fault of News Editor
Johnson as he had antagonized and upset people and they would vote against the
Company because of Johnson. Moon replied to this and also told Hall that if the
Guild won the election, Hall would be fired, Randy Gray would be fired, and
Lori Geittmann would be fired.9
About 3 weeks before the election , employee Robert Peterson was in the coffee
room of Respondent and Moon called him over to his table. Moon asked him,
"What is this I heard about you being pro-Guild?" Peterson denied it, and Moon
stated that he had heard Peterson was for the Guild. Peterson asked who had told
him this. Moon replied that a number of employees were compiling lists of those
for the Guild and those against it, and that everyone who had checked in with
him had reported that Peterson was pro-Guild. He asked Peterson, "How come
you have not approached me on this Guild thing? You are the quietest fellow in
the house." They then discussed Peterson's goals and his future. Moon told him
that if the Guild gets in, they lose the closeness in the Company. He told him that
if he wanted to go to another paper for a job, the other paper would probably
want to know his background, and if they found out that he had guild leanings,
they might not want to hire him; that newspapers keep in contact with each other
regarding job applicants.
I find that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Moon's threat to Gillis and McDonnell of
stringent application of working rules if the Guild came in, his threat to Hall that
certain named employees would get fired as a result thereof, his promise of a gen-
eral pay raise, his threat to McDonnell that Guild supporters would never get into
managerial positions, his repeated interrogation of McDonnell urging her to say
whether she was for or against the Guild, his interrogation of Peterson and threat
to him to inform other prospective employers of an employee's guild leanings as a
basis for interfering with his future employment, and his statement to Peterson
regarding reports and lists he has received from other employees, giving the impres-
sion of surveillance. I find that Moon's statement to Geittmann that he did not
want to see her get hurt because of the guild campaign was motivated by a concern
for her health and did not constitute a threat of reprisal action by Respondent.
0 In context with other testimony, Moon was inferring that with the Cuild as bargain
ing representative, working conditions would become more stringent, which, in turn, would
bring about ,the discharges of these employees.
1860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1
C. The appropriate unit and majority issue
Following the representation hearing in Case 31-RC-18, the Regional Director
for Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Election finding that the appro-
priate unit included all editorial department employees at Respondent's Torrance,
California, plant, including the librarian, and excluded all other employees, part-
time contract reporters, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act-
Concerning the eligibility of certain employees, the Regional Director found, con-
trary to the contention of the Guild, that Sports Editor Richard White, Women's
Editor Patricia McDonnell, and Chief Photographer Robert Moore were not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act; and the Regional Diiector found, contrary to,
the contention of Respondent, that City Editor Jay Berman, News Editor Kenneth
Johnson, and Assistant News Editor Gary Palmer were supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act. Respondent contended in the representation hearing that all six or
the above-named persons were nonsupervisors, and the Guild contended that all were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.lo
The parties stipulated that there were 25 named employees on April 26, 1965, in
the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director, and that these same employ-
ees were employed on July 20, 1965. On April 23 through 25, 1965, 15 of these
employees signed authorization cards designating the Guild as their bargaining rep-
resentative . Each of these employees, except Al Butkus, identified his authorization
card. The card of Butkus was identified by Schrader, in whose presence the card
was signed on April 23, 1965. Respondent contends that certain of the cards should
not be counted as valid designations of the Guild as bargaining agent because of the
nature of the representations made to employees when they were induced to sign
them . Cards questioned were those signed by. Robert Peterson, reporter; Floyd
Rinehart, reporter; Marx Ceder, Sunday editor; Randolph Gray, reporter; Richard
Baylor, night editor; Charles Cole, reporter; Donald Erickson, reporter.
Robert Peterson: Gillis solicited the card of Peterson. He told Peterson that if he
signed the card they could get the Guild to represent them and the more cards they
got, the better off they would be. He stated that Publisher Curry could "go along
with it," but they knew he would not do this; therefore, "we are going to get an
election." He told Peterson, "Now, this does not mean that you have to vote for the
Guild, just because you sign a card," and he told him that the cards would not have
to be shown to the employer. Peterson asked if the employees would lose all con-
trol over their working conditions and would the Guild "run the show" if it became
their bargaining representative. Gillis replied, "No, the Guild will only represent us,
that we decide what kind of wage increase we want, we decide what kind of work-
ing conditions we want."
Floyd Rinehart: Rinehart, who was one of the three employees who first met with
Union Representative Schrader and who solicited other employees to sign authoriza-
tion cards, asked Schrader at the first meeting whether these cards constitute an
immediate application to the Guild as dues-paying members. He replied that they
were not members at that moment, but that the cards indicate the employees are
interested in the Guild and that they want an election; that if the election is success-
ful for the Guild, then the employees who signed would be members.
Marx Ceder: The card signed by Ceder was given to him by Gillis. Gillis told him
that he and Rinehart were getting signatures of editorial employees in order to call
an election , and if they obtained a majority of signatures , they could turn these
cards over to the Board, which would then serve notice on Respondent that an elec-
tion would be called. Ceder called Gillis' attention to the wording on the card, and
Gillis told him that the language on the card meant nothing beyond the fact that
an election would be called. Ceder was hesitant to sign the card and stated he wanted
to talk with other employees before signing the card. Gillis told him, "Well, if you_
don't want to be represented, then give us the chance to be represented, if not at
least for an election." Gillis left a card with Ceder. On the next day Rinehart
talked to Ceder on the matter. Ceder asked him if the card constituted membership
10 Respondent sought to relitigate In this proceeding the issue of the appropriate unit.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations a party to a representa-
tion case is precluded from relitigating in any related subsequent unfair labor practice-
proceeding any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceed-
ing. I also reject Respondent's contention that this section of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, and the authorities binding me to follow Board determinations in representa-
tion cases, do not apply in the instant case on the grounds that the refusal to bargain
is alleged to have commenced at a time prior to the Board's unit determination.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1861
in the Guild. Rinehart replied that it did not; that it was his understanding that it
was simply to bring about an election, and if the election was successful from the
Guild's standpoint, then it would constitute an application for membership. On these
representations Ceder signed an authorization card.
Randolph Gray. Gray's authorization card was solicited by Gillis. Gray had been
a member of the Guild when employed by another newspaper. Gillis told him that
he was trying to get signatures together to bring about an election for representa-
tion by the Guild, and that he thought all of the employees at Respondent would be
better off with union representation, and he urged Gray to sign a card.
Richard Baylor: Rinehart solicited Baylor's card and talked to him about the situ-
ation at Respondent and stated that some of the employees had gotten together and
decided to see if the Guild could straighten the situation out, he explained that
the Guild needed a certain percentage of signatures of the employees in the edi-
torial department in order to file a petition with the Board requesting an election.
He asked Baylor to sign and he did.
Charles Cole: Gillis solicited Cole's card. After reading the printed matter on
the card, Cole asked Gillis if he would be committing himself to vote for the Guild.
•Gillis replied, "Forget it;" that it would not commit him to vote for the Guild or
commit him to the Guild. Gillis stated that Gillis made a pretty good argument
for the Guild, and when he left he was pretty well sold on what they were trying
to do. Cole filled out the back side of the authorization card, indicating that he
would be interested in serving on the negotiating committee for the Guild and the
legislation committee, although Gillis told him it was not necessary for him to fill
,out this side of the card. Cole had been a member of the Guild on a prior occasion
when employed by another newspaper. During part of the campaign, Cole was
active on behalf of the Guild.
Donald Erickson- Gillis solicited Erickson's card and told him about the Guild,
the possibility of having it represent the employees in collective bargaining with
Respondent and the possible benefits they could receive by joining the Guild. He
told Erickson that the cards would bring about an election whereby all the employ-
ees could vote by secret ballot and determine through the election whether or not
they wanted to be represented by the Guild and that he did not want Erickson to
commit himself one way or the other at that time regarding his vote. Gillis stated
that he wanted to get as many cards signed as he could and that this would show
,the Company that the employees were united and that they wanted better condi-
tions; and the more cards, the better. He stated that the cards would all be kept
secret , but that the total number would be sent by telegram to the Respondent.ii
Conclusions on questioned cards: Case precedent establishes that a union may,
under certain circumstances , acquire the status as a bargaining representative by a
count of authorization cards signed , and without an election . Of course, a secret
ballot is the most accurate method of ascertaining the true desires of the employ-
ees, and this method is encouraged by Board decisions. Normally an employer may
refuse to rely on a count of authorization cards and insist upon a secret ballot,12
and both the employer and the union may campaign for the votes of the employ-
ees. Employees who signed cards and those who did not may change their minds
by the time the election occurs. This procedure, however, contemplates campaign-
ing free from intimidation and coercion; otherwise it would not result in a free
and accurate tally of the true desires of the employees. Where intimidation and
coercion of a nature that destroys the "laboratory atmosphere" occur, the Board
examines an employer 's "good faith" in questioning a union 's majority status, and
generally good faith is found to be absent where unfair labor practices have
occurred.13
"Erickson testified he could not say that Gillis told him the card was "only" for an
election, although he said Gillis told him "that in so many words" ; but he testified that
by the words used by Gillis he was "lead to 'believe" the sole purpose of the card was
an election
12 Hammond & Irving, Inc., 154 NLRB 1071 ; Oklahoma Sheraton Corporation, 156
NLRB 681 , John P. Serpa, Inc, 155 NLRB 99 However, once he has checked the cards
and started bargaining, the Board found bad faith in Jem Ufg, Inc, 156 NLRB 643
13 Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 185 F.2d 732 (CAD C ), and cases following this decision. But
in Strydel, Inc, 156 NLRB 185, the Board found no bad-faith refusal to bargain although
interferences violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act were committed These were not of
such serious nature as to warrant finding that they were designed to dissipate the union's
majority status Also see Ben Dutliter, Inc., 157 NLRB 69.
1862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since, under these circumstances, a secret ballot would not be a reliable reflec-
tion of employees' true desires, a count of the authorization cards is utilized to
ascertain these desires. Of course, the Board could order a new election following
the posting of a notice of noninterference, but in practice that remedy may not
altogether remove the effects of the intimidation and restore the status quo; and
where an election has been conducted under circumstances of intimidation, it may
be negated and majority status determined by a count of authorization cards.14
An authenticated signature on an authorization card is prima facie evidence
that it is what it purports to be-a designation of the union as the employee's bar-
gaining representative, unless it is shown that the employee was induced to sign
the card through beguilement or serious misstatement of fact Evidence to vary the
written and unequivocal designations by the employees on an authorization card
is strictly construed, and the Board has held that representations that the card is
"to get an election " is not a false representation or a misstatement of fact, but
that a representation that the card is "only for an election" is a misstatement of
fact.l5
It was, of course , the intention of the Guild , in the absence of the possibility
that voluntary recognition could be obtained , to have an election . It was Respond-
ent's unfair labor practices that destroyed the reliability of an election and brought
about the need to use a card check as a substitute . Thus, in consideration of this
fact, the objective of giving impetus to the true desires of the employees as nearly
as they can be ascertained under the circumstances, the policy of the Act "to
encourage collective bargaining ," and the reluctance in law to vary a written docu-
ment by parol evidence, the signed designation of the Guild as bargaining agent is
deemed to constitute just that, irrespective of what an employee thought or was
led to believe because of the emphasis placed on an election by the solicitor and
his failure to mention any other purpose of the card , as long as the solicitor does
not make a significant false statement or misstate a fact and expressly say that the
card's only use is for an election or say that the card has no other purpose. A
person who commits himself to sign a clear and unequivocal document is deemed
to have some responsibility for his act.
I find no misstatement of fact or beguilement warranting rejection of cards
because of representations made to Peterson , Rinehart , Gray, Baylor, or Erickson.
However, such statements were made to Cole and Ceder . Cole was told to forget
the language on the card ; Ceder was asked to sign "at least for an election" and
"simply to bring about an election ." Ceder was thereby induced to sign the card
and I conclude and find that his card should not be counted . Cole, on the other
hand, was not induced to sign the card by the above-quoted statement . He testified
that he was pretty well sold on what they were trying to do and he also expressed
on the card his willingness to serve on committees of the Guild . I conclude that
his card should be counted as a designation of the Guild . 16 The Guild, therefore
had 14 valid authorization cards on April 26, 1965.
As to the unit , Respondent contends that its question of appropriateness of unit
is in good faith since the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director in Case
31-RC-18 was different than that contended for by either Respondent or the Guild.
The difference of opinion , however, was not so much as to the scope of the unit as.
to the eligibility of certain employees-whether they were supervisors or nonsuper-
visors. On the Guild's majority status, Respondent bases its doubt on ( 1) the fact
that on a prior occasion the Guild claimed to represent a majority of employees
in another unit but lost in an election ; (2) in the representation petition in Case
31-RC-18 the Guild represented that the unit consisted of 20 employees , whereas
the Regional Director found appropriate a unit of 25 employees , and Respondent
contended that it contained 28 employees ; and (3) no employees came to the pub-
lisher with any complaints . Respondent also contends that Schrader did not use the
word "majority" in his telegram of April 25 or 26 , 1965, requesting recognition
nor in his conversation with Curry on April 28 , whereas the word was used by the
Guild in its telegram concerning the circulation department on the prior occasion.
Although the word "majority" was not used by Schrader in the instant situation,
14 Bernel Foam Products Company, 146 NLRB 1277; Irving Air Chute Co , Inc, 149,
NLRB 627
15 Conren, Inc., 156 NLRB 592 ; Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co , 149 NLRB 862, enfd.
359 F. 2d 684 (C A. 2) ; Engineers & Fabricators , Inc., 156 NLRB 919, General Steel Prod-
ucts, Inc, 157 NLRB 636
is Engineers & Fabricators, Inc., supra.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1863
he did claim to have been designated by the "editorial dept. employees" as their
representative. I reject Respondent's contentions, and based on the extent and nature
of Respondent's unfair labor practices found herein to have occurred between the
dates of the filing of the petition and the election, I find that Respondent's doubt
on the unit and the Guild's majority status was not in good faith.17
D. Pay raises
During the several years prior to 1965, Respondent has had a policy of review-
ing performance and wages of employees in the editorial department about every
6 months and granting wage increases where warranted. The reviews and recom-
mendations are made by Managing Editor Moon and are approved or disapproved
by Publisher Curry. In June 1965, these reviews resulted in wage increases for 24
of the 25 employees in the appropriate unit-Sports Editor Richard White being
the only employee not to receive one. Normally, all employees do not receive
increases at each review, although in the second half of 1963, all but approximately
three employees in the editorial department received wage increases.
In News Editor Johnson's written report during the election campaign to Pub-
lisher Curry and other supervisors as to his appraisal of employee positions on the
Guild, he repeatedly suggested that a raise in pay would sway employees away
from the Guild. As to employee Jim Cole, he reported that "Money is the key";
as to employee Charles Cole, he reported "He can be won with money"; as to
employee Don Erickson, he reported "Like Chuck Cole, said he wants to see what
the pay changes would be"; as to Eugene Hall, he reported that "a last minute
promise of more money from me would weigh heavily on his decision"; as to
Lloyd Rinehart, he reported "Is more concerned with a future with money than
just a future."
In view of the fact that I have found herein that Respondent did not have a
good-faith doubt as to the Guild's majority status, has committed unfair labor
practices in an effort to dissipate its majority , and has refused to recognize and
bargain in good faith with the Guild since April 26, 1965, I conclude and find that
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) by granting wage increases to employ-
ees on June 28 and July 1, 1965, without consultation and bargaining with the
Guild and by doing so for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the pending representation election.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, 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 thereof.
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees regarding union activities, threatening discharge of
employees because of their union activities , promising wage increases and recti-
fication of inequities , and granting wage increases to discourage union activities,
soliciting an employee not to attend a union meeting under circumstances as
occurred herein , giving employees impression of surveillance of union activities,
threatening employees with a stringent and heartless application of work rules if
represented by the Union , and threatening employees with lack of opportunity for
promotion to managerial positions and blacklisting because of their union activities,
Respondent thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices as proscribed by Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
17 Oafner Automotive & Machine, Inc., 156 NLRB 577; Southland Paint Company, 156
NLRB 22; also see United Aircraft Corp. (Hamilton Standard Div) v. N.L.R.B. (C.A. 2),
56 LRRM 2678 , cert. denied 58 LRRM 2496.
1864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By engaging in unfair labor practices as described in paragraph 3, Respondent
engaged in conduct which improperly affected the results of the election on July 20,
1965.
5. All editorial department employees at Respondent's Torrance, California, plant,
including the librarian and excluding all other employees, part-time contract
reporters, 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.
6. The Guild has been at all times since April 26, 1965, the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees of Respondent in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
7. Commencing on April 27, 1965, and continuously thereafter, Respondent has
refused to recognize and to bargain collectively with the Guild in June 1965, uni-
laterally granted wage increases to employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act nor did it improperly affect the results of the representa-
tion election as alleged in paragraphs 12(b) vi and x, 12 (c) u, 12 (f), and 12
(g) of the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom,
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent's conduct improperly affected the results of the
representation election conducted on July 20, 1965, I shall recommend that said
election be set aside.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire
record in this case, it is recommended that South Bay Daily Breeze, a Division of
Southern California Associated Newspapers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities or the union activities of
,other employees.
(b) Threatening discharge of employees because of their union activities.
(c) Promising employees wage increases and rectification of inequities and
granting wage increases for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union
or support thereof, and soliciting said employees not to attend union meetings.
(d) Giving employees impression of surveillance of union activities.
(e) Threatening employees with a stringent and heartless application of work
rules if represented by the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with lack of opportunity for promotion to mana-
gerial positions and with blacklisting as a consequence of union activities.
(g) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper
Guild, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all its employees in the appropriate unit.
(h) Granting wage increases to employees in the appropriate unit without
prior consultation and bargaining with the above-named Union, or any other union
that may be selected as their exclusive bargaining representative.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right 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 it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper
Guild, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclusive representative
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 1865
of all editorial' department employees at Respondent's Torrance, California, plant,
including the librarian and excluding all other employees, part-time contract report-
ers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its Torrance, California, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by Respondent, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60'
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to,
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from
the date. of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.is
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the election conducted on July 20, 1965, in Case
31-RC-18 be set aside.
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that paragraphs 12(b) vi and x, 12(c) ii, 12(f),
and 12(g) of the complaint be dismissed.
>s In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
is In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read ' "Notify said Regional Director, 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union activities or the-
union activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten discharge of employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT promise employees wage increases and rectification of inequi-
ties nor will we grant wage increases for the purpose of discouraging mem-
bership in the Union or support thereof, nor will we solicit said employees not
to attend union meetings.
WE WILL NOT give employees the impression of surveillance of union
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with a stringent and heartless application-
of work rules if represented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with lack of opportunity for advancement
to managerial positions or with blacklisting as a consequence of union
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 69, Los Angeles
Newspaper Guild, American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the exclu-
sive representative of our employees in the following described appropriate
unit nor will we grant wage increases to employees in said unit without prior
consultation and bargaining with said Union. The appropriate bargaining
unit is:
All editorial department employees in our plant in Torrance, California,
including the librarian, and excluding all other employees, part-time con-
tract reporters, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organization, or any
1866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from
any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right 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 National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as
the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described
above, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
All of our employees are free to become or to remain or to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining members of the above-named Union or any other union except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE, A DIVISION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS, INC,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 312
North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Telephone 688-5840.
Lincoln Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Local Union No. 503, Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association , AFL-CIO. Case 25-
CA-P2345. October 12, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging 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 cer-
tain 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, and the General Counsel
filed limited exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a mem-
orandum in support thereof.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Zagoria].
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
160 NLRB No. 146.