Superior Engraving Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY and CHICAGO PHOTO
ENGRAVERS UNION # 5, AFFILIATED WITH, THE A. F. OF L.
Case No. 13-C--2381.-Decided March 27, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 29, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act and that it had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto and that the complaint be
dismissed as to the remaining allegations. Thereafter, the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No
exceptions were filed by the respondent. Oral argument, in which
the Union and the respondent participated, was held before the Board
in Washington, D. C., on February 20, 1945. The Board has consid-
ered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed, except as hereinafter indicated.
The rulings, with theexception noted below, are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Union's exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the following additions and exceptions :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent dominated and
interfered with the formation of, and contributed support to, the En-
gravers Guild. The, respondent has taken no exceptions to this finding.
Accordingly, we find that the Engravers Guild'was a labor organization
during the period of its existence and that by dominating and interfer-
ing with its formation and by contributing support to it, the respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not violate
Section 8 (1) of the Act by reason of certain alleged anti-union state-
61 N. L. R. B., No. 4.
37
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meats and conduct of President Conforti . The Union excepts to the
Trial Examiner's failure to find that such statements and conduct con-
stituted an independent violation of Section 8 (1). The record shows
that the respondent, in order to explain the purport and meaning of
the alleged statements and conduct attributed to President Conforti,
sought to adduce evidence to the effect that the Union had induced its
employees to engage in a slow-down and to leave its employ -for work
elsewhere. The Trial Examiner did not permit the respondent to ad-
duce such evidence. We believe that the Trial Examiner's ruling is
erroneous and prejudicial to the respondent on this phase of the case.
In view of the present state of the record, we are unable to make any
findings with respect to the allegations in question and shall, accord-
ingly, dismiss the complaint in this respect.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Superior Engraving Com-
pany, Chicago , Illinois , and its officers , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Engravers Guild, or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Chicago Photo Engravers Union
#5, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other
-labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Refrain from recognizing the Engravers Guild should it ever
return to active existence as a representative of any of the respondent's
employees for the purpose of dealing with respondent with respect
to grievances , labor disputes , wages , rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, and refrain from recogniz-
ing any organization growing out of, stemming from, or succeeding
to, the Engravers Guild for any of the foregoing purposes ;
(b) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the . Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent 's representative , be posted
SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY 39
by the- respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges that
the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by urging, warning,
and persuading its employees to cease, refrain from and renounce their
union membership and activities , by questioning its employees about
their union membership and activities and by disparaging the Union
and its objectives , be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERALD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not recognize the Engravers Guild should it ever return to
active existence as a representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment and we will not recognize any successor to the Engravers
Guild for any of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or adminis-
tration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other
support to it.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Chicago Photo Engravers Union
#5, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All
our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or
any other labor organization.
SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY
Employer
Dated ---------------------- By ------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
- Mr. John Robert Hill, for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, of Chicago, Ill., for the Respondent.
Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs, of Chicago, 311., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed July 7, 1944, by Chicago Photo Engravers Union
#5, affiliated with the A. F. of L., herein called' the Union,' the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated July 7, 1944, against
Superior Engraving Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and 8 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, 'the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that in April 1937, the respondent participated
in and urged the formation of a labor organization of its employees known as
The Engravers Guild, hereinafter called the Guild, and thereafter entered into
collective bargaining agreements with the Guild and that the Guild ceased to exist
in July 1943; (2) that from June 1943 to the date of the issuance of the complaint
the respondent urged, warned, and persuaded its employees to cease, refrain from,
and renounce their union membership and activities and questioned its employees
about their union membership and activities and disparaged the Union and its
activities; and (3) that by the foregoing acts the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
On June 17, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted the allegations
in the complaint with respect to its business operations, but denied that it had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, from July 18 to
July 21, 1944, both inclusive, before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial Exam-
iner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent,
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the open-
ing of the hearing, the undersigned granted, over the respondent's objection,
a motion by counsel for the Board to strike part of the respondent's answer
on the ground that it related to matters not raised by the complaint.' At the
conclusion of the Board's case and again before the close of the hearing the
respondent moved to dismiss that portion of the complaint alleging that the
' That part of the respondent's answer which was stricken stated in substance that
the Union had been selected as the bargaining representative of the respondent's em-
ployees on October 11, 1943 ; that the respondent and the Union entered into bargaining
negotiations but thereafter reached an impasse ; that the Union induced the respondent's
employees to engage in a "slow-down" ; that the Union withdrew its members from the
respondent's employ ; that the Union lost its majority status ; and that the Union was
using the processes of the Board , in the instant matter, merely to harass the respondent.
SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY 41
respondent had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act. The undersigned reserved
ruling on these motions which are hereby denied. The respondent moved to
strike a portion of the testimony of Gus P. Grieger on the ground that such testi-
mony was not predicated on any allegation in the complaint. The undersigned
also reserved ruling on this motion. The motion is hereby denied. At the close
of the hearing the Board's attorney moved to conform the complaint to the proof.
On objection of the respondent's counsel, the undersigned reserved ruling on this
motion. The motion is hereby granted with respect to formal matters such
as the spelling of names, dates, and typographical errors which appear in the
complaint.2
At the conclusion of the hearing, opportunity was afforded all parties for oral
argument. The Board's attorney and the counsel for the Union each stated
that they did not care to present oral argument. Counsel for the respond-
ent argued orally on the record. The parties were advised that they might file
briefs with the undersigned. Briefs have been received from the respondent
and counsel for the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
Superior Engraving Company is an Illinois corporation, with its principal
office and plant located in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of printing plates for letter press printing. During the
calendar year 1943, the respondent used materials consisting of copper, zinc,
lumber, and film having an approximate value of $56,000, approximately 50 per-
cent of which was purchased by and shipped to the respondent from points out-
side the State of Illinois. During the same period of time, the value of the finished
products sold by the respondent was approximately $457,000. Approximately
50 percent of such finished products were shipped by the respondent to points
outside the State of-Illinois. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chicago Photo Engravers Union #5, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act which admits
employees of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with the formation of the Guild
Early in 1937, the Union made an attempt to organize the respondent's em-
ployees. On an undisclosed date in April 1937, meetings of the respondent's
employees were held in the locker room of the respondent's plant. The day shift
was called to a meeting in this room by the plant superintendent on the instruc-
tions of Edward J. Conforti, the respondent's president, and met immediately
following the lunch hour. Gus P. Grieger and Charles Schwartz, who were then
2 The complaint is accordingly amended to allege that the respondent participated in
and urged the formation of the Guild in April rather than in September 1937, and that
the Guild ceased to exist in July rather than In June 1937.
8 The foregoing findings are based on a stipulation entered into by the parties at the
hearing.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of the respondent, testified that President Conforti addressed the
employees, saying that he knew of union activity among the respondent's em-
ployees ; that he thought it would be of benefit to organize a company union ; and
that if a little group of their own was organized and presented a contract to him
he would give the respondent's employees anything that the Union could get
them, and that by such organization they would not have to pay the exorbitant
dues charged by the Union.
The employees of the night shift were similarly called and met at about 5: 30
p m. on the same clay According to the testimony of Paul W. Sydow, Stanley
Schiller, and Samuel Langert, who were then employed by the respondent, Wil-
liam Lessman, an employee, opened this meeting by stating that the day shift
had met previously that day and decided to organize "with a closed shop and
independent union." Conforti then repeated the statements he had made at the
previous meeting and in answer to a question regarding the payment of union
scale wages by the respondent, stated that he would pay the union scale, less the
amount charged by the Union for dues, which he said was $8 00 per week, and
advised the respondent's employees present to retain an attorney to draw up a
constitution and bylaws for an organization and present a \contract for his
approval. i
After each meeting, Confortr left when he had finished speaking and the meet-
ings continued without his presence The employees were paid for the time
spent at these meetmgs.4
Stanley Schiller testified that about one week after the locker room meetings
he was asked by Lessman and Huebscher to serve on a committee as a repro'
sentative of the night shift employees, to meet with a lawyer. He agreed to
serve and about one week later this committee retained a lawyer and arrange-
ments were made with him to perfect a labor* organization and prepare a con-
tract for presentation to the respondent At the lawyer's suggestion, a petition
endorsing the formation of an independent, "inside" labor organization was cir-
culated among the respondent's employees, on company time Schiller circulated
the petition among the night shift employees
During the first week in June 1937, a meeting of all the respondent's employees
was held off the respondent's premises The lawyer whom the committee had
retained was present The employees present at the meeting formed a labor
orgnization which they named the "Engravers Guild " At a subsequent meeting,
some two weeks later, the contract to be presented to the respondent was read
to those present and officers were elected. Lessman was elected president and
Huebscher vice president, and arrangements were made to apply for a State
4 Conforti testified that two of the respondent's employees, William Lessman and Walter
Huebscher had previously requested permission of the superintendent to form a social
club among the employees in order to promote harmony among the day and night shifts
and that he called these employees to his office to discuss the matter and then agreed to
present their idea to the employees Conforti admitted that he had the respondent's
employees called to the locker room meetings , that he attended the meetings and spoke
to the employees . that lie was the only speaker; that he was aware the meetings continued
after he left, and that the employees were paid for the time spent at the meetings Con-
forti, however, denied that lie made the statements attributed to him concerning the forma-
tion of a company -union , that he offered to meet the scale of union wages minus union dues,
or that he advised the employees to retain an attorney and present him with a contract
Lessman, who was employed by the respondent as assistant superintendent at the time of
the hearing was not called as a witness
In view of Conforti's partial admissions with respect to the meetings in question, the
failure to call Lessman as a witness, and the fact that the testimony of Grieger, Schwartz,
Langert, Sydow, and Schiller was in substance mutually corroborative as to the state-
ments made by Conforti , the undersigned does not credit Conforti 's denial in this regard
and finds that he made the statements attributed to him Grieger, Schwartz , Langert,
Sydow, and Schiller , as above set forth
SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY 43
character .` Schiller 's testimony as well as that of Sydow , Greiger, Schwartz, and
Langert, concerning the formation of the Guild following the locker room meet-
ings is entirely uncontradicted.
On or about ' June 15, 1937 , a group of employees who stated they were a com-
mittee representing the respondent 's employees called at Conforti ' s office and
presented him with a contract covering wages, hours , and working conditions,
in the name of the Guild . Conforti testified that he did not question their
authority , nor make any check as to the majority representative status of the
Guild ; that he did not discuss the terms of the contract with the committee,
nor did he again meet with the committee or any group of the respondent's em-
ployees to discuss the terms of the contract ; and that on the last day of June
1937, he called the committee to his office and signed the contract as submitted.
Thereafter , the Guild and the respondent entered into new contracts annually
until 1943 . The last contract entered into between the parties expired June
28, 1943, and each contract after the first contained a "closed shop " clause.
Shortly after March 15, 1943, the Guild submitted a contract to the respondent
to cover the period from June 28, 1943 to June 28 , 1944. The respondent , however,
did not sign this contract . In in id -July, 1943 , -the members of the Guild voted to
dissolve the organization and thereafter the Guild ceased to function.'
Conclusion
The record clearly shows that when its employees first showed an interest in
union organization the respondent embarked on a program designed to thwart
such organization. Conforti, the respondent's president called meetings of the
respondent's employees and urged the formation of a competing labor organ-
ization. As a result of these meetings, held on company time and property,
the Guild was organized. The undersigned is convinced and finds that the
impetus for the organization of the Guild did not come from the respondent's
.employees but came from the respondent by reason of the statements and acts
of the respondent's president.
After the Guild was formed, the respondent promptly recognized it, without
making any inquiry regarding its status as the representative of its employees
and entered into contractual relationship with it, signing the first contract as
submitted, without discussion and signing "closed shop" contracts thereafter
annually until the Guild ceased to function.
The undersigned therefore concludes and finds on the entire record that the
respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation of the Guild.
B Alleged interference, restrcaviat , and coercion
The complaint alleges, in substance, that from about June 1943, and at vari-
ous times thereafter, the respondent engaged in certain conduct in violation of
Section 8 (1) of the Act. In support of this allegation of the complaint, coun-
sel for the Board sought to show that President Conforti had made certain
anti-union statements to Foreman Sydow and employees Grieger, Schiller and
Schwartz ; and further had made such statements to a representative of the
Conforti testified that he knew of the organization meetings being held by respondent's
employees because either Lessman or Huebscher told him of them ; that he was aware
that the Guild resulted from the locker room meetings ; and that the respondent took no
steps to disavow any connection with the Guild.
P The fact that the Guild had ceased to function is borne out by testimony that on
October 4 , 1943, the Union and the respondent entered into a consent election agreement
and that pursuant to this agreement on October 11. 1944 , the 13th Regional office conducted
an election among the respondent 's employees , which was won by the Union. The Guild
asserted no claim at the time , and did not appear nor seek a place on the ballot.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union in the presence of employee Elmer Ashelby. The respondent introduced
evidence to the effect that Conforti's statements to Sydow were confined to
a caution by Conforti that Sydow was not entitled to engage in activities on
behalf of the Union to the extent that such activities would place responsibility
upon the respondent because of Sydow's position as foreman ; that the state-
ments made to Grieger related to his failure to pay proper attention to his
duties, and not to his union activities ; that the statements made to Schiller
and to Schwartz did not concern union matters and with respect to Schiller
were made to him at a time he was no longer employed, by the respondent ;
and that the statements made to a representative of the Union were only to the
effect that some of the respondent's employees had complained to Conforti that
the Union's representatives were bothering them at their homes. The record
shows that all of the alleged statements, with the exception of those made to
Foreman Sydow were made after the Union had, won a consent election and
had been designated the exclusive bargaining agent of the respondent's em-
ployees. While the matter is not free from doubt, the undersigned is of the
opinion that the state of the record in this case does not warrant a finding that
the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by reason of Conforti's
statements as above related. The undersigned will therefore recommend that
the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent from about
June 1943, and thereafter, violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, by urging, warning
and persuading its employees to cease, and refrain from and renounce their
union membership and activities, by questioning its employees about their
union membership and activities and the Union's membership and activities,
and by disparaging the Union and its objectives.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
that it take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate
the policies of the Act.
The effects and consequences of the respondent's domination and the inter-'
ference with, and support of the Guild, as well as its recognition of the Guild
have constituted an obstacle to the free exercise of the respondent's employees
of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of their own choosing. Because of the respondent's illegal conduct
with regard to the Guild, it was incapable of serving the respondent's employees
as a genuine collective'bargaining agency.
On or about October 23, approximately 3 months after the Guild's dissolution
meeting, a letter signed by the Secretary of State of Illinois and addressed to
the attorney for the Union, was posted on the respondent's bulletin board, and
remained so posted for a period variously estimated as between 3 weeks and 2
months. The record does not show who posted the letter or who removed it 7
The letter stated that the Guild had been dissolved on May 1, 1938, by action of
the Attorney General of Illinois for failure to file its annual report.
7 Conforti testified that the respondent did not post the letter on its bulletin board.
6
SUPERIOR ENGRAVING COMPANY 45
The respondent's counsel in oral argument before the undersigned and in his
brief contended that inasmuch as the respondent knew that the letter of October
23, 1943, stating that the Guild had been dissolved by action of the Attorney
General of Illinois, was posted on its bulletin board and inasmuch as the respond-
ent permitted it to remain so posted, the letter should be construed as a notice
of disestablishment on the part of the respondent and should operate as formal
disestablishment of the Guild by the respondent. Irrespective of the respond-
ent's contention, the undersigned is convinced that because the Guild has ceased
to function, formal disestablishment of it by the respondent will constitute no
more than an empty gesture and the undersigned will therefore not recommend
disestablishment. However, the voluntary dissolution of the Guild has no effect
upon the respondent's commission of unfair labor practices by its domination,
interference, and support of the Guild. Under these circumstances the under-
signed believes that the possibility of the revival of the Guild should be foreclosed.
The fact that the Guild is no longer in existence as a labor organization is
relevant only to the question of whether the respondent should be required to
disestablish it,' and not to the question of an adequate order which will foreclose
the possibility of its revivals The undersigned will therefore recommend that
an order be issued that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor
practices and refuse to give the Guild any recognition as a collective bargaining
agency, if it should ever return to active existence as a labor organization, and
refuse to give any recognition as a collective bargaining agency to any organiza-
tion growing out of or stemming from the Guild.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chicago Photo Engravers Union #5, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation of and contributing sup-
port to the Engravers Guild, the respondent has,engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. -
5. The respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by urging, warning
and persuading its employees to cease, refrain from and renounce their Union
membership and activities, by questioning its employees about their Union
membership and activities and the Union's membership and activities, and by
disparaging the Union and its objectives.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Superior Engraving Company, Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Engraver's
Guild, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization
of its employees ;
•
8 See Matter of Swift and Company , 13 N. L R. B. 992.
B See Carter Carburetor Corporation , 39 N. L. R. B 1269 , National Tool Company, 48
N. L R. B. 1254
639678-45-vol. 61-5
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
join or assist Chicago Photo Engravers Union #5, affiliated with the A. F. of L.,
or any other labor organization, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. -
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Refrain from recognizing the Engravers Guild should it ever return to
active existence as a representative of any of the respondent's employees for the
purpose of dealing with the-respondent with respect to grievances, wages, hours
of employment or any other conditions of employment, and refrain from recogniz-
ing any organization growing out of or stemming from the Engravers Guild
with respect to similar purposes ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Chicago, Illinois,
plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that respondent will not
engage in conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in
paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; and that respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of these recommendations;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing on
or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report
what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that from about June 1943, and thereafter, the respondent violated Section 8 (1)
of the Act, by urging, warning and persuading its employees to cease, restrain
from and renounce their union membership and activities by questioning its
employees about their Union membership and activities, and by disparaging the
Union and its objectives.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notify said Regional Director
in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a state-
ment in writing setting forth such exceptions to .the Intermediate Report or to
any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions
or objections), as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of
a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with
the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be
made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
f Louis PLOST,
Dated September 29, 1944. Trial Examiner: