The Associated Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1110 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Associated Press and William F. Achatz, Jr. and
John T. Cunniff, and Noel M. Yancey
Wire Service Guild , Local 222, Newspaper Guild,
AFL-CIO-CLC I and The Associated Press. Cases
2-CA-12159, 2-CA-12159-2, 2-CA-12159-3, and
2-CB-4880
October 27, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND
PENELLO
Upon charges duly filed by The Associated Press,
hereinafter AP, on August 20, 1970, in Case 2-CB-
4880, and upon charges duly filed by William F.
Achatz, Jr., John T. Cunniff, and Noel M. Yancey, in
Cases 2-CA-12159, 2-CA-12159-2, and 2-CA-121
59-3, on September 16 and 17, and October 8, 1970,
respectively, the General Counsel of the National La-
bor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 2, issued a consolidated complaint on Decem-
ber 16, 1970, against Wire Service Guild, Local 222,
Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO-CLC, hereinafter the
Union, in Case 2-CB-4880, and against AP in the
other cases.
In essence, the consolidated complaint alleges
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act by demanding that AP check off and forward
dues of employees who had prior thereto timely re-
voked their dues checkoff authorizations, and by at-
tempting to cause, and by causing, AP to discriminate
against certain employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by complying with the Union's de-
mand. The consolidated complaint also alleges that
AP violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
deducting certain employees' dues after they had re-
voked their checkoff authorizations, and violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act by thereby rendering unlawful
assistance and support to the Union.
The Union filed its answer on January 21, 1971,
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
In its answer filed on January 15, 1971, AP admits
committing the unfair labor practices alleged.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Sam-
uel M. Singer on January 6, 1972. During the hearing,
and prior to the taking of testimony, the parties stip-
ulated to certain facts on the record and requested
that the proceeding be transferred to the Board. They
also waived an evidentiary hearing before a Trial Ex-
aminer and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and recommended Order. The parties agreed to
submit the case to the Board for findings of fact,
1 The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
conclusions of law, and an order based on a record
consisting of the consolidated complaint, the AP and
union answers, the award of an arbitrator concerning
a dispute between the parties which issued on Decem-
ber 3, 1971, the transcript of the arbitration hearing
and the exhibits introduced thereto, a stipulation exe-
cuted by the parties in March 1971 in preparation for
this proceeding, and the stipulation on the record
made before Trial Examiner Singer.
The Trial Examiner accepted the stipulation and
closed the hearing on January 6. Thereafter, on Janu-
ary 19, the proceeding was transferred to and contin-
ued before the Board. On January 25 the Board
approved the stipulation of the parties. All parties
subsequently filed briefs.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
AP, a New York corporation, has maintained an
office and place of business in New York City, and
various other places of business in the States of the
United States and in several foreign countries, where
at all times material herein it has been engaged, as an
international news service, in providing world news
and photo services, and related services. During the
past fiscal year AP, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, has performed services valued in
excess of $500,000, of which services valued in excess
of $50,000 were performed in, and for various enter-
prises located in, States other than the State wherein
it is located. The parties admitted, and we find, that
AP is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admitted, and we find, that the Un-
ion has been at all times material herein a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
AP and the Union have engaged in nationwide
collective bargaining in a unit of editorial, newsphoto,
newsfeatures, radio news, business office, and photo
sales employees for about 30 years. None of their
199 NLRB No. 168
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1111
collective-bargaining agreements has contained a
union-security clause, but since 1954 the following
article governing dues checkoff has been included in
every contract, including the two agreements involved
in this proceeding:
ARTICLE II
CHECKOFF
1. Upon a regular employee's voluntary written
request, the Employer [AP] shall deduct such an
employee's monthly Guild [Union] dues, and/or
assessments , according to certified schedule to be
furnished by the Guild from time to time, from
his salary account, unless such authorization is
revoked in writing by the employee.
2. Such sums shall be paid to the Treasurer of the
American Newspaper Guild on or before the end
of the month in which the deductions are made.
3. Such request shall be made to the Treasurer of
the Associated Press on the following form, to be
supplied by the Guild:
Treasurer:
The Associated Press
I hereby voluntarily request and authorize The
Associated Press to deduct from my salary ac-
count for the first payroll in each calendar
month a sum equal to my regular Guild dues,
as certified by the Guild Treasurer to The As-
sociated Press.
I further authorize The Associated Press to de-
duct from my salary account from time to time
whatever sums are certified by the Guild
Treasurer to The Associated Press as my reg-
ular Guild assessments.
Such sums are to be paid to The Treasurer of
the American Newspaper Guild not later than
the end of the month in which the deduction
has been made.
This assignment and authorization shall re-
main in effect until revoked by me, but shall be
irrevocable for a period of one year from the
date appearing below or until the termination
of the collective bargaining agreement be-
tween yourself and the Guild, whichever oc-
curs sooner. I further agree and direct that this
assignment and authorization shall be contin-
ued automatically and shall be irrevocable for
successive periods of one year each from the
date appearing below or for the period of each
succeeding applicable collective agreement be-
tween the Employer and the Guild, whichever
period shall be shorter, unless written notice of
its revocation is given by me to the Employer
and to the Guild by registered mail not more
that thirty (30) days and not less than fifteen
(15) days prior to the expiration of each period
of one year, or of each applicable collective
agreement between the Employer and the
Guild, whichever occurs sooner. Such notice of
revocation shall become effective for the cal-
endar month following the calendar month in
which the Employer receives it.
This assignment and authorization supersedes
all previous assignments and authorization
heretofore given by me in relation to my Guild
membership dues.
Employee's Signature
Bureau or Department
Date
The parties referred to the above as form A. An alter-
nate form for dues checkoff, referred to as form B,
provides that the "authorization may be revoked ...
in writing upon 30 days' notice to both The Associat-
ed Press and the Guild."
The collective-bargaining agreements provide
that on the written demand of either party there shall
be submitted to arbitration "all disputes arising out of
the application of this Agreement," with certain ex-
ceptions not relevant here.
The parties' so-called old agreement was due to
expire on December 31, 1968, but it was extended by
mutual consent on a day-to-day basis until about Jan-
uary 4, 1969. On the morning of January 8 the Union
commenced a strike after being informed by AP that
the contract would not be in effect after January 7.
The strike terminated on January 17 and on April 25
the parties signed a new collective-bargaining agree-
ment which was retroactive only to January 15.
During the period when no contract was in force
governing the parties' labor relations (from about Jan-
uary 4 to January 15), and during the 10-day strike,
approximately 102 employee-members crossed the
Union's picket line and worked for AP. Many of these
members resigned from the Union and attempted to
revoke their checkoff authorizations during the 7- to
10-day hiatus between contracts.
After receiving the checkoff list for February
from AP, the Union on April 14 wrote AP that "you
failed to check off dues for 102 members who were
heretofore on checkoff." The Union requested that
AP check off and forward the February dues of the
102 enumerated members and continue future check-
offs. It asserted that "effective notice to revoke check-
off must have been given between and including
December 2 and 16, 1968" and that "a resignation
which does not specifically purport to revoke checkoff
is not a revocation of checkoff." AP replied that it
would not comply with the Union's request because
in each instance it had been notified by the member
during the hiatus to cancel or revoke his checkoff.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, on May 15 the Union demanded ar-
bitration of the dispute pursuant to the parties' collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. On June 5 AP replied that
the matter was not arbitrable. On June 17 the Union
filed a request for arbitration with the American Arbi-
tration Association. AP sought to stay the arbitration
proceeding, but on March 31, 1970, Judge Palmieri of
the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of New York denied AP's motion, and granted
the Union's motion to compel arbitration in part be-
cause the Union was "asserting a claim which on its
face is governed by the language of the arbitration
clause of the new agreement."'
Prior to the arbitration hearing, AP filed unfair
labor practice charges against the Union in Case 2-
CB-4880. Also, on September 9, 1970, AP informed
employees Achatz and Cunniff that pursuant to the'
Union's demand it would resume deducting their
monthly dues. A similar letter was sent to employee
Yancey on September 30. Since then, AP has contin-
ued to deduct and remit their monthly dues. These
employees filed unfair labor practice charges against
AP shortly after receiving AP's letters, and before the
arbitration hearing.
A hearing was held before Arbitrator Moskowitz
under the auspices of the American Arbitration Asso-
ciation on October 27. In an attempt to make manage-
able an otherwise unwieldy fact pattern involving 102
employee-members' resignations and checkoff revo-
cations, the parties stipulated to certain "types" as
being typical of all other cases and agreed that the
arbitrator's decision and award as' to them would gov-
ern all cases in the same class.
Types 1-4a dealt with form A authorizations.
Type 1 involved an employee whose annual revoca-
tion date was April 18' and who sent notices of revo-
cation to both AP and the Union during the hiatus.
In type 2, which included Charging Party Yancey, the
employee's revocation date was February 1, thus os-
tensibly permitting him to revoke during the January
4-15 hiatus period, but, although he sent a revocation
notice to AP, the employee only sent the Union a
resignation notice? The type 3 employee, who had a
late June revocation date, sent a revocation notice to
AP during the hiatus but no notice of any kind to the
Union. Type 4 involved an employee with a June 18
revocation date, who sent notices of resignation only,
to both AP and the Union during the hiatus; and, in
2 Associated Press v. Wire Service Guik>. Local 222, 73 LRRM 2908, 2910,
62 L.C. 10,778
3 By the terms of the form A checkoff authorization, the employee each
year has the opportunity to revoke his authorization during the period 30 to
15 days before the date on which his checkoff was initially executed.
Charging Party Cunniff, whose revocation date was March 5, sent a
revocation notice to AP and a notice of resignation to the Union during the
hiatus. None of the types considered by the arbitrator involved Cunndf's
class, although type 2 is analogous.
type 4a, the employee, who had a mid-November rev-
ocation date, sent a resignation notice to AP but no
notice of any kind to the Union.
Types 5, 6, and 7 all involved form B checkoff
authorizations which were revocable upon 30 days'
written notice to the Union and AP. In type 5, which
included Charging Party Achatz, the employee sent
notices of revocation to both parties during the hiatus.
The Union withdrew this type from the arbitration
and thus the arbitrator did not pass on its merits. In
type 6 the employee sent a revocation notice to AP
and resigned from the Union during the hiatus,
whereas the type 7 employee failed to send a notice
of any kind to the Union after sending a revocation
notice to AP on January 9, 1969.5
As noted, the consolidated complaint issued on
December 16, 1970, after the arbitration hearing. Ar-
bitrator Moskowitz apparently did not issue his opin-
ion and award in time and he was subsequently
discharged by the Union. The parties then on Novem-
ber 1, 1971, stipulated the record of the arbitration
proceeding to a second arbitrator, Simons, who on
December 3 issued an opinion.
In brief, Arbitrator Simons concluded that the
form A authorization which employees of types 1
through 4a executed gave them the right, inter alia, to
revoke their checkoff on any day during the period 30
to 15 days before the expiration date of the contract
(December 31, 1968), or the actual day of expiration
(January 4, 1969), that is, between December 2 and
16, or December 7 and 22, 1968, respectively. The
arbitrator further found that:
... it is sufficient for disposing of most of this
dispute to conclude and find that communica-
tions executed with the intent of revoking check-
off authorizations filed on or after the 15 day
span referred to ... were without force and effect
as they were not executed within the period pro-
vided for in that segment of the check-off author-
ization dealing with revocation.
In dealing with AP' s argument that during the
hiatus the revocation requirements of authorization
form A were of no force and effect, thus permitting
the involved employees to revoke at any time and in
any manner during that period, the arbitrator, in find-
ing no merit in AP's contention, reasoned that the
checkoff authorization was essentially a wage assign-
ment by the employee in favor of the Union which
existed apart from the collective- bargaining agree-
ment and therefore "survived the expiration of the
contract and the employees were bound by its terms
as was the employer." In this regard, the arbitrator
5 In the Board proceeding the parties' stipulations more fully detailed each
of the 102 situations . Also, owing to subsequent admittedly timely revoca-
tions the Union has withdrawn its demand for dues checkoff of about 43
members, including Charging Party Cunniff , but only as of the date of their
later revocations
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1113
further explained that, while termination of the con-
tract, if sooner than a year from the annual revocation
date, affords an employee the opportunity to revoke
in less than a year, the checkoff by its terms lawfully
required that this opportunity be exercised during the
specified 15-day period before contract expiration. Fi-
nally, the arbitrator found that Section 302(c)(4) of
the Act 6 only requires that the checkoff be revocable
at least once a year, and that one such time may be
measured by the contract's expiration date, if sooner
than the annual revocation date; however, the arbitra-
tor held that the statute does not require that the
authorization cease upon contract termination.
In sum, the arbitrator's award granted the Union
dues without interest from February 1969 until subse-
quent timely revocations were received, in all instan-
ces where AP honored untimely revocations (types 1,
3, 4, and 4a). In types 2,' 6, and 7 the attempt at
revocation was found by the arbitrator to be timely,
but since the employees in types 2 and 6, including
Charging Party Yancey, only resigned from the Un-
ion and "resignation is not revocation," the type 2 and
6 classes still owed dues to the Union from February
1969; in type 7, no notice was sent to the Union, and
thus dues were owed.
B. Contentions of the Parties 8
The General Counsel asserts that the Board
should defer to the arbitrator's award under the
standards set forth in Spielberg Manufacturing Com-
pany, 112 NLRB 1080, and dismiss the complaint ex-
cept where the award is "clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act." In particular, the
General Counsel asserts that the checkoff authoriza-
tions were revocable during the hiatus because the
"authorizations become terminable at will after the
contract expires." However, where even purportedly
timely hiatus revocations were sent, he would defer to
the arbitrator's award because the employees either
resigned rather than revoked (to the AP or the Union,
or both) or sent no notice to the Union, since, accord-
ing to the General Counsel, the arbitrator's finding
that such conduct does not constitute an effective
revocation under the terms of the authorization "is
6 Section 302(cX4) provides an exemption from Section 302's ban on em-
ployer payments to unions "with respect to money deducted from the wages
of employees in payment of membership dues in a labor organization • Provid-
ed. That the employer has received from each employee , on whose account
such deductions are made , a written assignment which shall not be irrevoca-
ble for a period of more than one year , or beyond the termination date of
the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner . ." The
parties stipulated that the Union's authorization forms comply with the Act
7 In this case , the revocation was timely because it was within the 30-15
day period before the annual revocation date.
In view of our disposition of this case , we need not at this time pass on
the Union's contention that the complaint is barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act.
deemed not to be inconsistent with established princi-
ples of Board law."
Thus, as to type 1 the General Counsel would not
defer and would find that the Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding that AP check off
the dues of employees who, during the hiatus period,
sent notices of revocation to the Union and AP. Since
for various reasons types 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 involved
ineffective although in some cases timely revocations,
the General Counsel would dismiss the complaint
with respect to conduct by the Union involving these
employees, including Charging Party Yancey. How-
ever, since the Union withdrew type 5 from arbitra-
tion, and there Charging Party Achatz assertedly
effectively and timely revoked his form B checkoff
authorization, the General Counsel would find a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). Also, since AP
resumed checking off Achatz' dues in September
1970, the General Counsel asserts that AP thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3). Finally, although
the arbitrator did not consider Charging Party
Cunniff's case, the General Counsel asserts that he
ineffectively revoked his checkoff during the hiatus by
only sending a notice of resignation to the Union, as
in type 2. However, the record indicates that in Feb-
ruary 1970 Cunniff effectively revoked his authoriza-
tion, the General Counsel asserts, and therefore AP
violated the Act by resuming Cunniff's checkoff in
September 1970.
The Union contends that the arbitrator's award
meets the Spielberg test in all respects and, citing Col-
lyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150, asserts that
the arbitration proceeding has resolved the unfair la-
bor practice allegations. On the merits, the Union
argues that the instant checkoff authorizations were
executed voluntarily, as opposed to situations where
contractual union-security clauses compel the execu-
tion of checkoff after a certain period, and thus oper-
ated according to their terms independent of the
collective-bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Un-
ion contends that the hiatus between contracts did not
affect the authorizations and hence all revocations
had to comport with the procedure outlined therein.
In short, the Union would dismiss the complaint in
Case 2-CB-4880 on either the merits or the Collyer-
Spielberg theory.
AP asserts that neither Spielberg nor Collyer is
applicable to the instant proceeding since it involves
the interpretation and application of basic Federal
labor law and not the interpretation of an existing
collective-bargaining agreement between the parties.
In this latter respect, AP asserts that, since the opera-
tive facts occurred during the hiatus when no contract
was in force, arbitration was improvidently ordered.
Also, it contends that the arbitration did not reach the
issues now before the Board. AP argues on the merits,
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that during an hiatus an employee may terminate his
checkoff at will without following any particular form
of communication to express his intention to revoke.
Thus it follows, AP argues, that the arbitrator's award
is patently repugnant to basic Board law and the
Board should find that the Union violated the Act as
alleged; it admitted the 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) allega-
tions.
C. Dicussion and Conclusion
We find merit in the contentions of the General
Counsel and the Union that where appropriate herein
the Board should defer to the arbitrator's award and
dismiss the complaint? And, as to those aspects of this
proceeding discussed above where the arbitrator did
not reach certain of the matters involved in the alleged
unfair labor practices, we find that deferral to the
arbitration process is warranted, although we shall
retain jurisdiction for the limited purposes described
in "The Remedy."
In Spielberg, the Board held that, where the arbi-
tration proceedings appear to have been fair and reg-
ular, all parties have agreed to be bound, and the
decision of the arbitrator is not clearly repugnant to
the purposes and policies of the Act, even though the
Board would not necessarily decide the issue as the
arbitrator did, the desirable object of encouraging the
voluntary settlement of labor disputes would best be
served by our recognition of the arbitrator's award.
In the instant case, the parties' collective-bar-
gaining agreement, which provides for the "arbitra-
tion of all disputes arising out of the application of
the" contract, including, of course, article II, check-
off, states that the "decision of the arbitrator in any
such arbitration shall be final and binding."10 And,
although AP initially opposed arbitration of the dis-
pute, it abided by the district court order directing
arbitration. It is clear, therefore, that all parties have
agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's award.
The arbitration proceedings appear to have been
fair and regular. Thus, prior to the arbitration hearing
the Union invited the affected employees to testify
and state their positions; all parties were ably repre-
sented by counsel who examined and cross-examined
various witnesses before the arbitrator; a stenograph-
ic record of the proceedings was made; the 102 mem-
bers who purportedly revoked their checkoff
9 AP's argument that Judge Palnuen improvidently ordered arbitration of
the dispute between the parties is clearly addressed to the improper forum.
AP did not appeal Judge Palmien 's decision to the appropriate Federal court
of appeals . See United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing
Co., 363 U.S. 564, United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Naviga-
tion Co, 363 U.S. 574, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel &
Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960)
10 In its brief, the Union asserts that AP has complied with the arbitration
award in all respects , but the stipulation fails to reflect this fact.
authorizations had their position presented by AP's
counsel; and the arbitrator issued a lengthy, well-rea-
soned opinion and award. It is clear, furthermore, that
in most respects the arbitration proceeding disposed
of the issues raised by the unfair labor practice allega-
tions.
Finally, we need not pass on the issue whether
the notices were effective to revoke the 102 AP em-
ployees' checkoff authorizations during the hiatus be-
tween contracts, because we find that the arbitrator's
award is not clearly repugnant to the purposes and
policies of the Act. Accordingly, except as noted be-
low, we shall defer to the arbitrator's award herein
and dismiss the complaint."
The record reveals that the Union withdrew from
arbitration the type 5 revocations, which included
Charging Party Achatz, and that AP resumed check-
ing off Charging Party Cunniff's dues in September
1970 despite his allegedly timely, effective revocation
in February 1970. As noted, the arbitrator found that
Charging Party Yancey ineffectively revoked his dues
during the hiatus, thus disposing of the issue in Case
2-CA-12159-3, and one aspect of the case in 2-CB-
4880. However, it would appear that as to Cunniff 12
and Achatz the arbitration award has not resolved the
issues in Cases 2-12159-2 and 2-CA-12159, nor with
respect to Achatz, Cunniff, and other similarly situ-
ated employees, certain aspects of Case 2-CB-4880.
Recently, in Norfolk, Portsmouth Wholesale Beer
Distributors Association, 196 NLRB No. 165, where
the employer ceased checking off employees' union
dues upon the expiration of the contract because, it
alleged, to continue to do so would violate Section 302
of the Act, the Board said:
The presence of the [checkoff authorization]
clause arguably gives the Union the right to ex-
pect the Respondents to carry out this service.
However, the clause requires deductions only if
pursuant to individual authorizations, and
whether the authorizations were valid will de-
termine in this case the ultimate question of
whether Respondents did or did not violate the
agreement by refusing to make the deductions.
That is clearly a contract issue fully capable of
resolution under the contractual procedures for
resolving such disputes.
Accordingly, and in reliance on Collyer, the Board
there deferred the matter to the agreed-upon griev-
ance procedure.
The same considerations are present in the in-
stant case. Thus the issue whether the Union wrong-
s 1 See N L R B v. Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 297 F.2d 286, 293-294
(CA. 3, 1961).
i2 The arbitrator found that type 2 revocations were ineffective , and the
General Counsel asserts that Cunniff's revocation was analogous to those of
type 2. However, the arbitrator did not specifically pass on the issue with
respect to Cunniff.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1115
fully demanded that AP check off and remit Achatz'
and Cunniff's dues essentially involves a contractual
controversy , as does the issue whether AP violated the
Act by complying with the Union 's request as to them.
Accordingly , and since we believe it to be consistent
with the Federal labor policy to promote peaceful
resolutions of contractual controversies through
methods agreed on by the parties , we shall not decide
the merits in Cases 2-CA-12159 and 2-CA-12159-2,
nor those aspects of Case 2-CB-4880 dealing with
employees Achatz and Cunniff, and certain other sim-
ilarly situated employees , but rather shall defer the
matter to be resolved in accordance with the agreed-
upon grievance-arbitration procedure.
over this dispute solely for the purpose of entertaining
an appropriate and timely motion for further consid-
eration upon a proper showing that either (a) the dis-
pute has not, with reasonable promptness after the
issuance of the Decision herein , either been resolved
by amicable settlement in the grievance procedure or
submitted promptly to arbitration, or (b) the griev-
ance or arbitration procedures have not been fair and
regular or have reached a result which is repugnant to
the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practice alle-
gations which were, in effect, resolved by the arbitra-
tion award , the complaint shall be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IV. THE REMEDY
Without prejudice to any party and without de-
ciding the merits of the controversy , with respect to
certain unfair labor practice allegations described
above in section III, c , we shall order that the com-
plaint herein be dismissed, but we shall retain jurisdic-
tion for a limited purpose . We are aware that the
parties herein have not resolved these aspects of their
dispute by the contractual grievance and arbitration
procedure and that , therefore , we cannot inquire
whether resolution of the dispute will comport with
the standards set forth in Spielberg Manufacturing
Company, as we did with the remaining unfair labor
practice allegations . In order to eliminate the risk of
prejudice to any party , we shall retain jurisdiction
1. The Associated Press is a person engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Wire Service Guild, Local 222, Newspaper
Guild, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board orders that the complaint herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed; provided, however, that:
Jurisdiction of this proceeding is hereby retained
for the limited purposes , and only in those cases, indi-
cated in that portion of our Decision and Order enti-
tled "The Remedy."