Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1656 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation , Wheeler-Van
Label Company, its Subsidiary and Grand Rapids
Typographical Union Local 39, International
Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. Case
7-CA-6248
August 21, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged 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 certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. 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
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Stecher-Traung-
Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label Com-
pany, its Subsidiary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON , Trial Examiner : This proceed-
ing, brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136),
herein called the Act, was heard at Grand Rapids,
Michigan, on January 17, 1968, pursuant to due
notice. A complaint, issued by the Regional Director
for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan) as the representa-
tive of the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel
and the Board) on December 8, 1967, and based
on charges filed by Grand Rapids Typographical
Union Local 39, International Typographical
Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the
Charging Party), on September 6, 1967, alleged
that Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation,
Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary, the
Respondent herein , had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in an ap-
propriate unit.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material herein Respondent has been
a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan main-
taining an office and place of business in the city of
Grand Rapids , Michigan ,' where it has been at all
times material engaged in the commercial printing
business . During the calendar year 1966 which is a
representative period, Respondent , in the course
and conduct of its business operations, manufac-
tured, sold, and distributed at its Grand Rapids,
Michigan, installation products valued in excess of
$100,000 of which products valued in excess of
$50,000 were shipped from the said installation
directly to points located outside the State of
Michigan. During the same period of time it pur-
chased and caused to be transported and delivered
at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation, paper
and other goods and materials valued in excess of
$100,000 of which $50,000 worth were transported
and delivered to its installation in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, directly from points located outside the
State of Michigan. At all times material Respondent
has been engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39, In-
ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, at all
times material herein has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Herein called the Grand Rapids installation and the onl) one imohed
in this proceeding
172 NLRB No. 186
STECHER-TRAUNG-SCHMITT CORP. 1657
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges and the answer admits
that:
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued January 27, 1967, by the Regional
Director of the Seventh Region of the Board in
Cases Nos. 7-RC-7785 and 7-RC-7787, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on
March 1, 1967, among the following two vot-
ing groups of Respondent's employees at
Respondent's Grand Rapids, Michigan, instal-
lation:
Voting Group (1): All journeymen press-
men, apprentice pressmen, assistants, and
helpers employed in the Employer's press-
room and rotogravure department em-
ployees, production scheduling employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
Voting Group (2): All production and
maintenance employees, including quality
control employees, and the shipping em-
ployees, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, production control employees, art
department employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, and em-
ployees in Group 1 above.
The labor organizations involved in the
aforesaid election were : Grand Rapids Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union, Local No. 13,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper
Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Local Union No.
216, International Brotherhood of Bookbind-
ers, AFL-CIO.
*
Subsequent to the election referred to in
paragraph 8 above, on March 13, 1967, the
Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the
Board issued a "Supplemental Decision on Ob-
jections and Certification of Representative
and Certification of Results of Election,"
wherein the Employer's (Respondent herein)
Objections to the election were overruled; the
Grand Rapids Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union, Local No 13, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, was certified as ex-
clusive representative of the employees in Vot-
ing Group (1), and it was certified that no
labor organization was selected as bargaining
representative of employees in Voting Group
(2).
* *
The composition (or Composing area) em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at its
Grand Rapids, Michigan, installation, were in-
cluded among the employees in the larger
production and maintenance unit described as
Voting Group (2) in subparagraph 8(a) above
The complaint also alleges that-
All composition employees employed by the
Respondent at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, in-
stallation, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
and all other employees, is a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
This allegation is denied by Respondent and con-
stitutes a key issue in the case
There are five composition or composing area
employees which make up the total complement of
the disputed unit. By June 8, 1967, all five had
signed cards authorizing the Union to represent
them as their collective-bargaining agent On Au-
gust 4, the Union by letter notified the Company
that it represented the majority of its composing
room employees and requested recognition. On Au-
gust 9, the Company replied by letter declining to
recognize the Union and stating that
The best and most reliable method of knowing
how a majority of the men in the Composing
Room feel about union representation is a
Board-Conducted secret ballot election
This group of employees participated in such
an election in March 1967 and it is our un-
derstanding that a year from that date should
go by before another is scheduled.
The Union answered this with another letter dated
August 17, repeating its request for recognition and
offering to prove its representative status by an im-
partial card check. The Company rejected this
request by letter dated August 29 as follows:
You will recall that in my letter of August 9th
to Mr. Gutowski I explained the Company's
position on the matter of recognition and
negotiation of a contract. It is our wish to
comply with the requirements of the National
Labor Relation's [sic] Act and accordingly we
must decline the suggestions set forth in your
letter of August 17th.
On September 6, the Union filed refusal-to-bargain
charges against the Company.
Shortly after the cards had been signed and prior
to any of the foregoing correspondence, Respon-
,dent's foreman, Valentine, was informed by one of
the employees, Paul Cobb, that all five of the com-
posing room employees had signed authorization
cards. Another of the compositors, Richard Van
Ess, also told Valentine a couple of weeks after
they had signed the authorization cards that "all the
boys joined the union on the cards." Similarly,
compositor Leonard Sweeris not only told Valen-
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 33
1658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tine that he had signed a card but also told two
other supervisors and indicated to at least one of
them (Walter Pedley, foreman of the cutting de-
partment) that others had also signed
After the above correspondence exchange, in
order to make sure that the Company knew that the
employees wanted the Union to represent them
they sought a meeting with Respondent's then pre-
sident, Joe Martin, but settled for a meeting on
September 29, with Plant Superintendent Bernard
Kochanowski. Four of the five employees attended
this meeting where they informed Kochanowski
that, speaking for themselves and their absent col-
league, they wanted the Company to know that it
was their desire to have the Union represent them
as their collective-bargaining agent. Kochanowski
said, "Okay Fine. I'll let it be known to the proper
authorities."
On the basis of the foregoing evidence (plus
testimony as to the duties of the composing room
employees in the instant hearing and the transcript
taken at the hearing in Cases 7-RC-7785 and
7-RC-7787) the General Counsel contends that
Respondent lacked the good-faith doubt about the
Union's representative status necessary to excuse
its failure to bargain with the Union and thus has
violated Section (8)(a)(I) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent's defenses are that (a) the unit is not
an appropriate unit and (b) even if it were to be so
considered, absent an affirmative showing by the
General Counsel of bad faith on the part of
Respondent in insisting on an election, Respondent
cannot be said to have violated the Act.
The Unit
The composing department (or plate department
as it also has been referred to) comprises about 500
or 600 square feet on the second floor of one of the
two buildings at Respondent's Grand Rapids instal-
lation. The press department is also located on the
same floor and practicably surrounds the compos-
ing department with no walls or partitions separat-
ing the two departments. The bulk of the work in
the department (performed by a classification
known as compositor stoneman) consists of making
up forms for the presses by assembling printing
plates2 on a patent base "which is locked up with
patent base hooks" by key. In the course of this
work the compositors use a variety of tools and
equipment used by no other department in the
plant .' The only department that the composing de-
partment has any close contact with is the press de-
partment. This contact for the most part involves
lining up a printed sample impression taken by the
pressmen before the job is run to see that
everything is in order and pointing out to the press-
men specific things to watch for in running any
given job
The work of the department is supervised by a
separate foreman. Skills adequate for performance
in the bindery, coating, and press departments are
not adequate for performance of the work in the
composing department. Thus, although there is a
job-bidding procedure in effect in the plant, no one
from other departments ever works as a composi-
tor-stoneman on a temporary basis and no one ever
transfers from other departments to the composing
department in that classification on a full-time
basis-all such accretions to that department dur-
ing the last several years having been acquired from
the outside.' All of the compositor stonemen in-
cumbents had experience in composition work
prior to working for Respondent and by their esti-
mates it would take anywhere from "over a year"
to 5 years for any of the other employees to acquire
the skills necessary to satisfactorily perform the
work in the composing department.
From the undenied and credited testimony of
Frank Cremonesi, administrator of the Charging
Union's International Training Center in Colorado
Springs' who has had experience in this field for
over 30 years, the work performed by Respondent's
composing department involves "typical composing
room skills" employed in the printing of
newspapers; ". . . basically, the skills are the same.
The practices may be different but the basic skills,
the basic operations are the same "
It also appears from Cremonesi's testimony that
the Union has approximately 2,000 collective-bar-
gaining contracts with printing establishments
throughout the United States and Canada and that
the bulk of them pertain solely to composing room
employees. The Union, it appears, also accepts into
membership people who have not gone through
formal apprenticeship training as such upon demon-
stration that they have had experience equivalent
to the Union's apprenticeship requirements and
can pass a union examination showing that they
have acquired skills necessary for a journeyman's
standing.
The General Counsel cites several cases to show
that units composed solely of composing room em-
ployees are proper' and maintains that such is the
2 These plates are not made by Respondent but are obtained from out-
side sources in accordance with Respondent's or its customers ' specifica-
tions
' So used are (I) cyclinder routers for routing curved plates , (2) hand
routers used for flat plates, (3) hand shoots for shooting ( i e ) planing
plates down , ( 4) large saw for cutting plates, ( 5) line gauges for measure-
ment , ( 6) tooth press , ( 7) a large and small stone for makeup work, and (8)
a lineup table for lining up all sheets This table can actually be called a
machine with vertical and horizontal sliding bars and ink roller for marking
purposes with lights underneath that illuminate the cork through the
table's translucent top
' In the 12 years of incumbent Thomas J Impens' tenure with Respon-
dent four compositor stonemen were hired -all from the outside
3 " the training center has been set up by the International Typo-
graphical Union to teach new methods that are coming into the printing in-
dustry, to teach the operation of the machines and new techniques, and
preparation of type for printing -
" Worzella Puhhcluug Comparic, 121 NLRB 78, The Meredith Puhhslung
Conipan%, 140 NLRB 509, Leslie F Clarke & Co , /tit , 147 NLRB 1240,
Frie & Smith, Ltd, 151 NLRB 49
SECHER-TRAUNG-SCHIMTT CORP. 1659
situation here Respondent contends that neither on
,a departmental approach nor a craft approach can
it be said that the composing department con-
stitutes an appropriate unit.
As for the departmental approach, Respondent
cites the fact that all the employees in both the
composing department and other departments are
hourly paid, report for work and leave at the same
time, and have a common lunch period and that all
of the department supervisors report to the plant
superintendent "through who [sic] coordination is
achieved" as reflecting the "highly interdependent
functioning among the departments" and maintains
that "violence would be done to this productive in-
tegrity if any unit other than a plant-wide produc-
tion and maintenance unit were found ap-
propriate. "
I see nothing in this record that would establish
such "highly interdependent functioning among the
departments" that would preclude the finding of a
separate appropriate unit for the composing depart-
ment. About all that can be said in this respect is
that, as observed by the General Counsel, the com-
posing room employees "are about as isolated from
the other employees as could be expected in any
plant. They do their work in their own area, and
have very minor. . contact with other employees.
They have their own training and skills...."
As for the craft approach, Respondent maintains
that because there is only a minor amount of
typesetting done in the department (and this by
only one of the compositors) "the very essence of a
traditional composing room is absence." While it
may be true that the composing skills here are not
identical to the skills originally forming the basis for
composing room units, I believe that the facts here
are such as to support the conclusion that a
separate unit for the composing department con-
stitutes an appropriate unit. As stated by the Board
in Frye & Smith, Ltd., supra, 52, which also in-
volved methods different from traditional compos-
ing room methods,
.. the employees involved herein are a
distinctive group of employees with a sufficient
community of interests and skills to constitute
an appropriate unit. We are mindful of the fact
that technological changes in composition
methods have to some extent modified the
skills required of composition employees, but
we are satisfied that these employees exercise
sufficient skills in common with those em-
ployed in traditional "hot metal" composing
rooms to be entitled, like the latter, to separate
representation.'
Accordingly, I find that the bargaining unit as al-
leged in the complaint constitutes an appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
Respondent's Motive
As indicated, Respondent's alternative defense is
that, even if it be determined that the unit is ap-
propriate, its failure to recognize the Union and its
insistence upon an election does not amount to a
violation of the Act. In oral argument at the hearing
the General Counsel relied largely on Snow & Sons,
134 NLRB 709,710. In its brief, Respondent relies
chiefly on Aaron Brothers Company of California,
158 NLRB 1077. Both cases involve a refusal to
recognize a union's demand for recognition on the
basis of a card majority and the insistence on an
election for the purpose of determining the em-
ployees' desires in a context free of any indepen-
dent violations of the Act. In Snow, when the
union's demand for recognition was made the com-
pany refused to recognize on the grounds that it
doubted the union 's majority. Later the same day,
the company agreed to a card check which
established the majority status of the union.
Although not questioning the accuracy or propriety
of the card check the company nevertheless still
refused to recognize the union maintaining that it
did not consider the card check binding on it. On
essentially those facts the Board held that the com-
pany had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act stat-
ing:
The Board has held that the right of an em-
ployer to insist upon a Board-directed election
is not absolute. Where, as here, the Employer
entertains no reasonable doubt either with
respect to the appropriateness of the proposed
unit or the Union's representative status, and
seeks a Board-directed election without a valid
ground therefor, he has failed to fulfill the bar-
gaining requirements under the Act. [Foot-
notes omitted.]
In Aaron Brothers the union, with a card majori-
ty, demanded recognition by letter and filed an RC
petition about the same time. Receiving no reply to
its demand it then filed refusal-to-bargain charges
and withdrew the RC petition. Thereafter, it orally
sought recognition as majority representative of the
employees. The company, denying that the union
represented a majority, urged the union to. reinstate
the RC petition and have the majority status deter-
mined by a secret ballot. The Trial Examiner found
"good faith" on the part of the company missing
here because it offered no evidence "warranting a
conclusion that the Union's claim (of majority) was
inaccurate or unsupportable." The Board reversed
the Trial Examiner stating (158 NLRB at 1078):
While an employer's right to a Board elec-
' One of the factors that the Board gave weight to in reaching the above
result was the fact that the company, as here, had to recruit its composing
room employees from experienced people outside of its own organization
1660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion is not absolute, it has long been
established Board policy that an employer may
refuse to bargain and insist upon such an elec-
tion as proof of a union's majority unless its
refusal and insistence were not made with a
good-faith doubt of the union's majority. An
election by secret ballot is normally a more
satisfactory means of determing employees'
wishes, although authorization cards signed by
a majority may also evidence their desires Ab-
sent an affirmative showing of bad faith, an
employer, presented with a majority card
showing and a bargaining request, will not be
held to have violated his bargaining obligation
under the law simply because he refuses to rely
upon cards, rather than an election, as the
method for determining the union's majority.
[Footnotes omitted.]
The Board further stated that bad faith can be in-
ferred from conduct which does not constitute an
unfair labor practice but which nevertheless shows
a "rejection of the collective bargaining concept"
and cited the employer's repudiation of the card
check in Snow as such an example. In a separate
concurring opinion, Board Member Jenkins ob-
served that bad faith on the part of an employer in
this connection can be established by, inter a/ia, the
"independent knowledge of the employer that the
Union has a majority."
Respondent contends that the General Counsel's
reliance on Snow is misplaced because there the
employer "admitted the appropriateness of the unit
and having verified the authorization cards, could
not be heard to claim a good faith doubt" while
here "the employer strongly contests the ap-
propriateness of the unit and further neither in-
spected the authorization cards nor agreed to so in-
spect." The flaw in Respondent's position vis-a-vis
its good faith is that no where in the record is there
any question raised about the appropriateness of
the unit until the filing of its answer to the com-
plaint on December 20, 1967. In any event it is well
settled that refusal to recognize a union on the basis
of a good-faith but erroneous belief about the ap-
propriateness of the unit is no defense to a refusal-
to-bargain charge. Independent Inc., d/bla The Daily
Advertiser, 165 NLRB 405; The Sinclair Company,
164 NLRB 261. Moreover, that Respondent did not
participate in a card check here avails it nothing in
view of the fact that Respondent was put on notice
by the employees themselves on at least two occa-
sions (once shortly after they signed the authoriza-
tion cards and again on September 29) that they all
had selected and desired the Union to represent
them as their collective-bargaining agent . Clearly,
this evidence shows the "independent knowledge of
the employer" that the Union had a majority and
amounts to the "affirmative showing of bad faith"
on the part of the Respondent that the Aaron
Brothers case requires the General Counsel to
establish an order to prove his allegation of refusal
to bargain. In this connection, there is no question
(as shown by the filing of the changes) that the
Union's request for recognition was a continuing
one.
One other aspect of Respondent's position
remains to be disposed of. That has to do with the
effect, if any, of the Board election here within 12
months of the Union's demand for recognition. It is
now well established that Section 9(c)(3) of the
Act" does not "provide a 1-year period of repose
from the bargaining demand of unions." Rocky
Mountain Phosphates, Inc., 138 NLRB 292; Con-
ren, Inc., d/b/a Great Scot Super Market, 156
NLRB 592, enfd. 368 F.2d 173 (C.A. 7); and
General Tire and Rubber Company dlbla Astoria
General Tire Co., 170 NLRB 591. Any thought that
Respondent might have had that it was not
obligated to recognize the Union because of the
prior election is no defense here either. See General
Tire and Rubber Company, etc., supra.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(I)
and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take the
usual affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record herein, I make the fol-
lowing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Stecher-Traung-Schmitt Corporation,
Wheeler-Van Label Company, its Subsidiary, is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local 39,
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
' Sec 9(c)(3) in pertinent part provides No election shall be directed
in any bargaining unit or subdivision within which, in the preceding 12-
month period a valid election shall have been held
SECHER-TRAUNG-SCHMITT CORP.
3. All composition employees employed by the
Respondent at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installa-
tion, excluding office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees, is a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the
above Union as the representatives of the em-
ployees in the above bargaining unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record
in this proceeding, I recommend that Stecher-
Traung-Schmitt Corporation, Wheeler-Van Label
Company, its Subsidiary, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith
with the Charging Party as to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment covering
employees in the unit herein found to be ap-
propriate.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the
policies of the Act-
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the
Charging Party as the representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit in good faith and in
sincere effort to reach agreement and embody in a
written and signed memorandum any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, installa-
tion, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith. "'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless, within
the aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent notify
the Regional Director in writing that it will comply
1661
with the Order recommended herein , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring
Respondent to take the action recommended.
" 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 cords "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 went that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, in w ntmg , w ithm 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 refuse to bargain collectively
with Grand Rapids Typographical Union Local
39, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all the employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such an un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is all of our composition
employees employed in our Grand Rapids,
Michigan, installation, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
STECHER -TRAUNG-
SCHMITT CORPORATION,
WHEELER -VAN LABEL
COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
1662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. communicate directly with the Board's Regional
If employees have any question concerning this Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street,
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 374-5181.