The Hartford Courant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 213 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of THE HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY and HARTFORD
PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS ' UNION No. '83, AFFILIATED WITH
PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS ' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
(A. F. L. )
Case No.1-C-4460.Decided October 15,19.15
Mr. Robert E. Greene, for the Board.
Day, Berry cfi Howard, by Mr. Cyril Coleman, of Hartford, Conn.,
for the respondent.
Mr. Anthony J. DeAndrade, of Boston, Mass ., for the Union.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by Hartford Printing Pressmen & Assistants'
Union No. 83, affiliated with Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union
of North America (A. F. L.), herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its
complaint dated November 22, 1944, against The Hartford Courant
Cownpany,.herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and '(7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint, together .with notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to, the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
(1) that from on or about July 11, 1944, the respondent refused to-
bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated repre-
sentative of the employees of the respondent in an appropriate unit;
and (2) that from on or about June 13, 1944, the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (a) by inquiring of its
employees their reasons for joining the Union and stating to them
04 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
213
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they were foolish to join and would'receive no benefits therefrom;
(b) by threatening its employees with diminution of earnings and loss
of pension rights and sick benefits if the Union were successful in an
election to be conducted by the Board on August 18, 1944; (c) by
,offering its employees increases in pay if they did not join the Union
and would vote-against it at the election; (d) by granting promotions
and wage increases to employees in consideration of their withdrawal
from membership in the Union; and (e), by attempting to have cer-
tain persons not in the employ of the respondent approach its em-
ployees for, the purpose of discouraging them from becoming or,
rein "lining members of the Union.
The respondent did not file an answer to the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Walter Wilbur, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, at
Hartford, Connecticut,- on Januaiy, 4, 5, and. 6, 1945. The- Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by an
international representative. All parties participated in the hearing
and, were given full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At
the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof with, respect to formal matters. The motion
was granted. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various rulings on motions and on objections to the - admission
of evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 24 , 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port. copies of which'were duly served upon the parties . He found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. He
also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act by the particulars set forth as
2 (b), (c), and ( d), above. Thereafter , the respondent filed exceptions
to the. Intermediate - Report and a supporting brief. Neither counsel
for the Board nor the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
. port. Oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., was not
requested, and none was held.
The Board has considered the entire record , including the brief and
the exceptions filed by the respondent , and finds that the exceptions
.have merit.
Upon the entire - record in the case, the Board makes the following :
THE HARIFORD COURANT COMPANY, 215'
FINDINGS • OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Thee respondent, a Connecticut corporation, having its principal
office and place of business in Hartford, Connecticut, is engaged in
the business of printing and publishing a daily newspaper known
as "The Hartford Courant." In the year ending June 30;'1944-7 the,
net` paid circulation of the' daily edition of The Hartford Courant
totaled 45845 copies, of which approximately 3 percent was sold
outside the, State of Connecticut. The'net paid circulation of the
Sunday edition of The Hartford Courant for the same period totaled
81,022 copies, of 'which approximately 2 percent was sold.outside the
State'of Connecticut. 'In 1943, the respondent purchased rdw mate-
rials, consisting of newsprint, machinery, type, stereotype metal, ink,
and office equipment valued at aboi.it $200,000.' A substantial part of
these raw'materials was purchased' outsi de the State of Connecticut and
was shipped to the respondent's place • of business 'in Hartford. The
total advertising in The Hartford Courant for the year 1943 exceeded
$950,000 in value, of which approximately 20• percent consisted of
advertising placed with,the respondent by advertisers located outside
the State of Connecticut. The respondent is a member of-the Asso-
ciated Press and purchases the news service of the North American
Newspaper. Alliance. Of the news regularly printed in The Hartford
Courant, the respondent receives approximately 15 percent from these
services. The respondent also furnishes news to, the Associated Press
which distributes by wire such portion of this news as'it desires to re-
cipients outside the State of- Connecticut. The respondent subscribes
.to, and regularly receives at its plant in Hartford,.Con ecticut, news
features, photographs, and related material from news feature and
photographic,sprvice agencies located outside the State of Connecticut.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Hartford' Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the -International Printing Pressmen &
Assistants' Union of North America (A. F. L)., admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A.-,The, alleged. interferenee, restraint, and coercion
1. Chronology of, events '
During the early part of June 1944, the Union inaugurated,a cam-,
paign to organize the pressmen. It succeded in .obtaining applica-
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions for membership in the Union from 11 of the 14 employees
eligible for membership. On July 11, 1944, the Union advised the
respondent that it represented a majority of the pressmen and re-
quested a conference for the purpose of bargaining collectively. The
respondent replied by suggesting that a Board election be conducted
to determine the question of representation. Thereafter, on August
1, 1944, the Union filed with the First Regional Office of the Board a
petition for certification of representatives and, on August 8, 1944,
the Union entered into a consent election agreement with the re-
spondent, which provided that the appropriate' unit for collective
bargaining should consist of "All, employees of the Press Room
Department except for the fly boys." 1 The election, held on August
18, 1944, was not determinative because, of a total of 14 ballots cast,
7 were in favor of the Union and 7 were opposed. Five days later,
the Union filed objections to the election based upon certain alleged
acts of unfair labor practice committed by the respondent prior to
the election, acts which generally correspond with the unfair labor
practices' alleged in the complaint herein. On November 21, the
Regional Director for the First Region issued his report in which
he sustained the objections to the election, declared the election' null
and void, and vacated the results thereof. The complaint- in the
instant case was issued olrthe following day.
2. The statements made by Fred Salzer to Alfred Simpson
A few weeks prior to the election of August 18, Alfred Simpson,
an 18-year-old boy who was employed part time in the pressroom
as a fly boy visited the office of Fred Salzer.2 Simpson testified that
he was told by Salzer that he had heard that Simpson had either
joinedror intended to join the Union; and Salzer then advised Simp-
son that he would be wasting his money by joining the. Union because
the Union would be of little value to him in view of the fact that he
was only a part-time worker.. ' Salzer admitted the substance of this
conversation. Salzer testified that it was the respondent's policy to
maintain strict neutrality on all labor matters.' He further testified
that he had observed this policy at all times with the exception of
his conversation with Simpson. In this, Salzer is supported by the
'As of the date that the bargaining request was made , the pressroom employees were
subdivided as follows : 1 foreman , 1 assistant foreman , 12 pressmen , and 2 fly boys In
accordance with the custom of the printing industry , supervisory employees were included
,in the bargaining unit. At the request of the Union , fly boys were excluded from the unit
In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that the unit , as described in the
consent election agreement , was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
2 The respondent admits' that Foreman Salzer has authority ; to hire and discharge
pressmen.
I Salzer testified that he had been advised of this policy several years before by the then
president of the respondent The, record , however , does not show that this policy was
communicated to non-supervisory employees.
THE HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY 217
record, so far as appears . The reason that lie had given Simpson
this advice, according to Salzer, was 'because of Simpson 's_ extreme
youth and the fact that he was a part-time employee.
Under the terms of the consent-election agreement, Salzer and Simp-
son were, respectively, included and excluded from the bargaining unit.
The respondent contends, among other things, that Salzer was en-
titled to express" his views with respect to self-organization of em-
ployees, particularly in view of the fact that he was a member of the
bargaining unit.
In a recent case involving the printing industry,4 we were con-
fronted with the problem of employer liability for coercive statements
made by supervisors who were part of the bargaining unit. We then
stated, in pertinent part, "... the foreman in their capacity of mem-
bers of the bargaining unit had the same freedom of action as all other
employees with respect to joining or not joining unions and expressing
their opinions on the subject. Consequently, the liability of the re-
spondent for the anti- union statements and conduct of the foremen
stems, not from their foreman status as such, but from the fact that,
as the record establishes, the respondent encouraged,' authorized, or
ratified their activities or acted in such manner as to lead the em-
ployees reasonably to believe that the foremen were acting for and on
behalf of management." Inasmuch as the instant record, as herein-
after set forth, does not show that the respondent encouraged, author-
ized, or ratified Salzer's statement, or that the respondent acted in any
mariner as to lead the employees reasonably to believe that Salzer
acted for and on behalf of management, we find that the respondent
did not violate Section 8 (1) of the Act by Salzer's statements to
Simpson. '
3. The statements made by Andrew Patrizzi to Ernest Stevens, Philip'
Opinsky, and others
Pressman Stevens testified, without contradiction, that about a week
before the election, he saw Patrizzi, superintendent of the mailing
room, in his office, and that Patrizzi told Stevens, "The Union will
never get you anything. The Courant can give you anything that the
Union can. . . . The Union never will be any good down there any-
way because the Courant will never grant you a closed shop."
Pressman Philip Opinsky testified, without contradiction, to numer-
ous conversations between Patrizzi and various pressmen in Opinsky's
presence. These conversations took place both before and after the
election iii the respondent's shop or in a restaurant where the em-
ployees commonly gathered. The substance, of Patrizzi 's remarks.
"Matter of R R Donnelley and Sons Company. 60 N L R B 635
1, 1
218 DECISIONS. OF, NATIONALLABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
was that, the Union, although generally . "a good thing ," was no good
for'the pressmen ; because.". _ , yon can 't do'anything , the Courant.. ^ ,^..,;_,,; • . . 1. , , ,,.
will not give a closed shop .. the Courant is going to fight it to 'the
end, ... all they [the management ] want , to do is drag it , out and
the fellows will get disgusted. . ."
The respondent contends that Patrizzi 's statements should not be
attributed to it becau'se _ he exercised no, control over the pressmen.,
The respondent further contends that Patrizzi 's statements are priv-
ileged because it has not encouraged , authorized, or ratified them. We
agree with this contention . Even though the Union made no attempt
to organize , the eniployees , in the mailing-room, had it or another union
done so, even under the rule in the Maryland D7Vdocle case,e.the fore-
man, of - mailers would have been included within an appropriate
bargaining unit of , mailers. The situation then is essentially the same
as the one in which the foreman of pressmen voiced his, opinion on
union matters to his subordinate . We therefore find that the respond
ent, by, the expressions, of Patrizzi , did not violate Section 8 (1) of
the Act. -
4. Other ' alleged acts of interference , restrailit , and' coercion
,At the hearing counsel for the Board introduced evidence to sustain
allegations of the complaint 'that the respondent had violated Section
8 (1;) of the Act (1 ) by threatening its employees with diminution of
earnings and loss of pension rights and sick benefits if the Union were
successful in the election of August 18, 1944; ( 2) by offering its em,
ployees increases , in pay if they did not join the Union and, voted
against it at the election ; and (3 ) by granting promotions and wage
increases twits employees, in consideration of their withdrawal from
membership in the Union. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial
Examiner found that the allegations were not supported by 'credible
testimony . In view of the fact that neither the Union ,nor counsel for
the Board filed ' any exceptions to the Intermediate Report, we shall
adopt such findings of the Trial Examiner without setting forth in
detail the evidence referred to above. In addition, •no evidence was
introduced to sustain the,allegation of the complaint that the respond-
ent attempted to have certain persons not employed by it approach the
pressmen for the purpose of discouraging them from becoming or
remaining members of the Union . We therefore find that the respond-
ent did not interfere with , restrain , or coerce its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteediunder Section 7 of the Act by any acts
or statements hereinabove referred to in this paragraph.
6 The record shows that Patrizzi was a supervisory employee in charge - of the respondent's
mailers and that his authority to hire and discharge was limited to the mailing department.
No special significance is attached to Patrizzi ' s title of "Superintendent " We find that
his authority is on it par with that of Fred Salzer . '
6 Matter of Maryland I)rydock Company, 49 N L It B 733
THE HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY 219
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
As stated above, on July 11, the Union claimed to represent 11 of
the 14 'employees within the respondent's pressroom. When the re-
spondent suggested that the question as, to representation be deter-
mined by an election, the Union filed 4 ,petition for certification of
representatives. Thereafter, pursuant to a consent-election agree;
ment, an election was held among all the employees of the respondent's
pressroom except fly boys. The election failed to establish that the
Union was the majority representative of such employees. Thereafter,
the Union filed charges alleging in effect that the respondent had
engaged in unfair labor, practices which destroyed the Union's major=
ity. Inasmuch as we have found that the respondent did not violate
Section 8 (1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint, we find that the
respondent is not responsible for any defection from the Union's ranks.
In view of the fact that the election did not affirmatively establish that
the Union represented a majority of the pressmen, the respondent was
under no obligation to bargain with the Union. We find, therefore,
that the respondent; by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
on July 11, 1944, and thereafter,, did not engage in, any unfair labor
practice Within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
Since the evidence does not sustain any allegation of the complaint,
we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Upon the entire record'in the case, the Board makes the following:
CO\ CLUSZONS OF LAW
1. Hartford Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 83, affiliated
with Printing' Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America
(A. F. L.), is-a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act. '
2. The operations of the respondent, The Hartford Courant Com-
pany, Hartford, Connecticut, occur in commerce, within the' meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. '
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plannt against The Hartford Courant Company be,, and, it hereby is,^
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERzOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
I