Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 355

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 984 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters . Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America;
Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 , Interna-
tional Typographical Union , AFL-CIO; Baltimore
Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International Stereo-
typers' and Electroplaters ' Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web Press-
men's Union No. 31, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO and A. S. Abell Company. Cases
5-CC-458, 5-CC-459, 5-CC-460, and
5-CC-461
June 23, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN
On November 28, 1969, Trial Examiner Joseph I.
Nachman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent Unions
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Unions filed
exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in sup-
port of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent Unions violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act on March 14, 1969, by acting in concert'
to threaten the A. S. Abell Company, publishers of
the Baltimore Sun newspapers, that the Sun's em-
ployees, represented by the Respondent Unions,
would withhold the services required of them in the
production and distribution of the Sun newspapers
if the Sun attempted to distribute the insert printed
by Knight Press, a nonunion shop. As the object of
the Respondents' threats was not the labor relations
between the Sun and its employees, but the labor
relations of Knight Press, the Respondents' conduct
was secondary in nature.' In these circumstances,
unlike the Trial Examiner, we find it unnecessary to
rely on "right of control" considerations in finding
the above violations.
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 Respondents , Truck Drivers and
Helpers Local Union No. 355, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Baltimore
Typographical Union No. 12, International Typo-
graphical Union , AFL-CIO; Baltimore Stereo-
typers' Union No. 10, International Stereotypers'
and Electroplaters ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen's
Union No . 31, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO;
their officers , agents, and representatives , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom-
mended Order.
' See Frisch Contracting Service Company, Inc , 149 NLRB 29
2 In addition to the reasons adverted to by the Trial Examiner for finding
that the Respondents ' threats were directed to the labor relations of Knight
rather than of the Sun, we rely on the admissions of Bowerman, their
spokesman , that the Respondents called the March 14 meeting with the
Sun for an object of protesting a nonunion plant doing the work
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Trial Examiner: This
proceeding, with all parties present and represented
by counsel, was tried before me at Baltimore,
Maryland, on September 26 and 30,1 on a com-
plaint2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act),
which alleges that Truck Drivers and Helpers Local
Union No. 355, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America (herein Teamsters or Local 355),
Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12, Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (herein
Typographical Union or Local 12), Baltimore
Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International Stereo-
typers' and Electroplaters' Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO (herein Stereotypers or Local 10),
and Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen's Union
No. 31, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO
' These and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1969
x Issued July 16, on a charge filed March 24, and amended July 14
183 NLRB No. 99
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355
(herein Web Pressmen or Local 31), said unions
collectively being referred to as Respondents,
threatened, coerced, and restrained A. S. Abell
Company, publishers of the Baltimore Sun papers
(herein Sun), with an object of forcing or requiring
Sun to cease using , selling, handling, transporting,
or otherwise dealing in the products of Interstate
Department Store (herein Interstate of Topps), or
Knight Press (herein called Knight), or to cease
doing business with Interstate and/or Knight, in
violation 'of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. By
answer, Respondents admitted certain allegations
of the complaint, but denied the commission of any
unfair labor practice. The principal issues litigated
are (1) whether Respondents, or any of them,
threatened, coerced, or restrained Sun; and (2) as-
suming an affirmative answer to the first question,
did Respondents' conduct have the proscribed
secondary object, or was it primary conduct
designed to protect the Union's work jurisdiction.
For reasons hereafter stated, I find and conclude
that Respondents threatened, coerced, and
restrained Sun, and that such conduct had the
proscribed secondary object, and recommend the
usual remedial order.
At the trial all parties were afforded full opportu-
nity to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the
record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was
waived. Briefs submitted by the General Counsel,
Charging Party, and Respondents, have been duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following:
' No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The com-
plaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish these junsdic-
tional elements I find these facts to be as pleaded Moreover, the Board
has heretofore asserted jurisdiction over Sun See A S Abe!! Company, 137
NLRB 238
' The current contract with the Typographical Union , negotiated in a
multiemployer unit of Sun and News American , which also publishes a
newspaper in the Baltimore area, contains inter aha, the following provi-
sions
The loaning , borrowing or purchasing of matter in the form of type
or matrices by any newspaper party to this agreement is prohibited, ex-
cept upon conditions that such matter be reproduced within five days
following its use It shall be the duty of the foreman and the chairman
of the Chapel to see that these conditions are complied with Provided,
this section shall not be construed as prohibiting the transfer of matter
of any kind between morning and afternoon newspapers , weekly,
semi-weekly or monthly newspapers or magazines when they are
owned by the same person or company and printed in the same office,
and provided further, this rule shall not be enforced in the case of ex-
traordinary emergency as defined in Section 57 of this scale of wages
The office shall not be required to reset borrowed matter at overtime
rates
It is the intention of the reproduction clause that national (general)
advertisements , plates and supplement matter, punted supplements,
type plates and all matrices other than local advertisements are ex-
empt from reproduction
The advertising of a manufacturer who sells the product advertised
exclusively through retail stores owned by the manufacturer is general
or national advertising within the meaning of this reproduction provi-
sion and therefore such advertising should not be reproduced
For example , in the case of a clothing manufacturer who sells suits
FINDINGS OF FACT'S
Background
985
For many years Sun has recognized and bar-
gained with Respondent Unions as the representa-
tive of its employees in separate units engaged in
the production and distribution of its newspaper.4
Topps, a division of Interstate Department Stores,
operates a chain of some 60 retail discount stores,
including some 4 or 5 stores in the Baltimore area.
In March, Topps was to open a new store in Bal-
timore, and to give such opening wide publicity, In-
terstate arranged with Sun to have a circular of
some 12 full size newspaper pages distributed as an
insert with all editions of the Evening Sun on
March 18. Arrangements for the preparation and
distribution of the insert were made by Interstate
through Advertising Production Services (herein
APS), its advertising agency, the sole function of
the latter being to bung about the production of the
inserts and cause them to be delivered to Sun for
distribution with the proper issues of its newspaper.
Except for the fact that proofs were to be submitted
for approval by Interstate, APS had full authority
to, and did decide all questions as to the method
and means of producing the inserts. To bring about
the production of the insert, Interstate advised APS
in a general way of the results it wished to accom-
plish, and provided APS with the photographs it
wished used in the preparation of the insert, leaving
it to APS to prepare the material for the insert and
arrange for its reproduction in the form of an in-
sert. In the instant case, APS decided that the
through a store owned by the manufacturer The advertising of the
suits would not be reproduced
However , the advertising by this store of men's shirts, ties or other
accessories which are made by another manufacturer would be subject
to reproduction
Another example of advertising by a manufacturer of the products
sold exclusively through his own retail store would be such home im-
provements as storm windows , screens, awnings, etc
It is understood that all of the advertising of stores such as Mont-
gomery Ward, Sears Roebuck and the like handling a widely diver-
sified class of merchandise including some carrying their own brand
names would be subject to reproduction
Advertising exempt from reproduction shall not be made subject to
reproduction by the addition or insertion of local names , addresses,
telephone numbers, store hours, tax lines, etc Hand-lettered matter is
not subject to reproduction
Neither the contract with Stereotypers, nor the contract with Web Press-
men, contains a similar provision The contract with Teamsters is not in
evidence, and the parties stipulated that none of its provisions are pertinent
here
With respect to the foregoing contract provisions, generally known as
the reproduction clause, Typographical Union President Bowerman ad-
mitted that the practice under the contract was that reproduction or so-
called bogus work must be performed or reproduced within 5 days after it
comes into the shop, and that such reproduction need not be performed
if it has to be done at overtime rates Bowerman also conceded that
because of full employment at Sun, so-called reproduction work pursuant
to the contract had not been performed for 5 years or more , and that
neither the Union nor the chapel chairman at Sun has insisted on such
reproduction for at least that period of time
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Topps insert should be produced by the offset
process.5 After doing the necessary work for the
preparation of the insert, APS sent the material to
Avco Systems for the setting of the type.6 In the
meantime, APS contracted with Knight to print the
insert by the offset process and to deliver 225,000
copies thereof to Sun's plant.7 Knight, after receiv-
ing the type set by Avco, printed and delivered the
inserts in accordance with its contract from APS.
Late in the day on February 28, Sun Business
Manager Becker, during his customary daily staff
meetings with his top personnel, was told by
Raymond P. Maher, assistant retail advertising
manager at Sun, and who handles the Topps adver-
tising account for Sun, that Topps had made reser-
vations for the distribution of the insert by Sun as a
part of its evening papers on March 18, and that
the insert had been or would be printed at Knight.
Because Becker on a prior occasion experienced
some difficulty in connection with a supplement
printed by Knight,8 he directed Maher to contact
APS and endeavor to persuade the latter to agree
to have the printing done at the Sun plant. Maher
telephoned APS Vice President Smith on or about
March 3 and sought to convince Smith to give Sun
the contract for the printing of the Topps insert.
Smith refused, giving the following reasons: (1)
Because Topps was using photographs, the desired
effect could be obtained only with the offset
process, using a 100-line screen;9 (2) that a con-
tract had already been awarded Knight for the
work; and (3) Sun's unwillingness to print the ap-
proximately 145,000 copies needed for distribution
by Advertising Distributors of Maryland. Maher ad-
vised Becker of Smith's refusal to permit produc-
tion of the Topps' insert in the Sun plant, but
Becker took no further action in the matter
The Current Dispute
During the morning of Friday, March 14, Bower-
man, Parks, Shurkin, and Sullivan, presidents of
Typographical, Stereotypers', Pressmen, and Team-
sters unions, respectively, were at News American
on other business, and while there learned that the
Topps insert produced by Knight, was in the Sun
plant in preparation for its distribution on March
18, and decided to seek a prompt conference with
Becker. Through John Banach, Sun's personnel
manager, who functions under Becker's supervi-
sion, Bowerman arranged to meet with Becker at 2
p.m. that afternoon. When the meeting opened,`
Bowerman produced a copy of the Topps insert and
asked where the document had been printed.
Becker replied that the printing was done at Knight
Press, and explained that through Maher he had
tried to persuade APS to permit the work to be
done in the Sun plant, but that APS had refused.
Becker reminded Bowerman that numerous supple-
ments not produced in the Sun plant had been dis-
tributed with Sun papers in the past, and that
Bowerman had not therefore protested. To this
Bowerman replied, "Never in a rat shop; we are not
going to have a rat shop doing our work." Becker
told Bowerman that Sun could not dictate to its
customers where to have their printing done but
Bowerman insisted that the insert printed by Knight
could not be distributed with Sun's papers, ad-
ding,". . . if you are going to try to put this out with
your papers on Tuesday [March 18], there isn't
going to be any paper on Tuesday." Neither Parks,
Shurkin, nor Sullivan, who had by this time arrived
at the meeting, voiced any objection or dissent to
what Bowerman had said.
After about an hour of discussion, the four union
representatives left the room to discuss the matter
among themselves. In about 15 minutes Sullivan
returned and, after telling Becker that some area of
agreement should be found, asked the latter what it
would cost Sun to produce the Topps insert in its
plant." Becker replied that he was guessing, but
that the costs would probably run from $700 to
$800. Sullivan then asked, "Wouldn't it be worth it
to pay [that amount] to get peace of mind to get
your Tuesday paper out?" Before Becker could
answer, Bowerman, Parks, and Shurkin returned to
the room. Bowerman, visibly excited and angry,
asked if Becker and Sullivan had reached any
agreement. When Becker replied in the negative,
Bowerman told Becker that the Typographical
Union would require Sun to "set this section [in]
type in the composing room, have it proofed and
' APS Vice President Smith testified that he chose this method and
specified a 100-line screen background because , particularly when photo-
graphs are used, the reproductions are clearer and more faithful Smith ad-
ditionally testified that while rotogravure is also an accepted and satisfacto-
ry method for producing the insert here involved, he did not select that
method in this instance because when only about 300,000 inserts are to be
punted , as was the case here, rotogravure is much too expensive
6 Avco is located in Connecticut , and does all typesetting required by
APS The evidence shows that Avco is under contract with a local of Inter-
national Typographical Union.
' Total printing by Knight was to be 368,681 copies Of the 143,681 co-
pies not delivered to Sun , 1,300 copies were to be delivered to the store,
the opening of which was being announced , and the remainder to Advertis-
ing Distributors of Maryland Arrangements had been made for the latter
to mail a portion of these under its postal permit , and distributed the
remainder by hand, both into areas where Sun did not have the distribution
Topps desired The copies delivered to Sun bore the legend, "Supplement
to Evening Sun, March 18, 1969 " Sun provided APS with a plate necessa-
ry to make that legend appear , and APS pasted it into the prepared type
which it delivered to Knight On the copies delivered to Advertising Dis-
tributors of Maryland, the forementioned legend was blocked out, and on
those to be mailed , Knight substituted an imprint of a postal permit
6 Becker has been business manager of Sun for about 5-1/2 years, and the
incident referred to occurred during his prior employment as general
manager for News American
9 The evidence is uncontradicted that Sun has neither the equipment nor
the personnel to do printing by the offset process, that its printing is direct
letterpress, using a 65-line screen
10 Present were Becker and Banach, representing Sun, and Bowerman,
Parks, and Shurkm , representing their respective unions, Sullivan was
detained and arrived at approximately 2 30 p in
" Bowerman admitted that when the union representatives were meeting
privately, Sullivan suggested that he could talk to Becker and get the
matter settled, and that he (Bowerman) reluctantly agreed that Sullivan
could try
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355
corrected, and then you can throw it away," and
that such work "had to be done by Tuesday."
Bowerman then said that Stereotypers would
require Sun to have the pages molded and cast by
its employee members, and that what Pressmen
would require Sun would have to work out with
Shurkin. Again neither Parks, Shurkin, nor Sullivan
disagreed with Bowerman's statements. As Bower-
man was leaving the meeting which concluded at
this point, he remarked, "... either the Topps sec-
tion stays out of the Tuesday paper, or there won't
be any Tuesday paper. "12 Because certain arrange-
ments were made by Sun with the Unions involved,
except Teamsters, there was no disruption in Sun's
operations, and the March 18 editions of its papers,
with the insert produced by Knight as a part
thereof, were distributed in the usual manner.13
Contentions and Conclusions
The first issue is whether any statements made by
Bowerman at the March 14 meeting constituted the
threat, restraint, or coercion proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. In view of my findings that
Bowerman told Becker that if Sun tried to dis-
tribute the Topps insert with the editions of its
March 18 paper, there would be no paper on that
day, and Bowerman's admission that when he told
Becker that the insert had to be reproduced by
March 18, he meant that such would be advisable if
Sun did not want trouble, I must and do find and
conclude that Bowerman thereby threatened,
restrained, and coerced Sun, within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii ). Bowerman's statements, in
practical effect, were declarations that if Sun at-
tempted to distribute the Topps insert produced by
Knight, Sun's employees represented by Respond-
ent Unions would withhold the services required
of them in the production and distribution of Sun's
papers. That such a statement constitutes conduct
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii) is settled. Riss &
Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 943, 947; Lafayette
Building and Construction Trades Council, 132
NLRB 673. I further find and conclude, under the
facts of the instant case, that all four Respondents
are responsible for the threats made by Bowerman.
The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the
representatives of the four Unions requested and
went to the March 14 meeting with the common
objective of dissuading Sun from distributing the in-
" The findings in this section are based on the credited testimony of
Becker Although Bowerman initially denied that he made any statement
about there not being a paper on March 18, he finally admitted he could
not be certain about the fact because the discussion was quite heated on
both sides and a lot of things were said I also deem it significant that
neither Parks , Shurkin , nor Sullivan , the latter being present at the time,
denied that Bowerman made the statements attributed to him by Becker
Bowerman also admitted that when he told Becker that he wanted the
Topps insert reproduced in the Sun composing room, and that it would be
to their advantage to do that before March 18, he meant that if Sun did not
want trouble it would be to its advantage to have such reproduction done
by Tuesday To the extent that material aspects of the testimony of Bower-
man and Becker are in conflict, I credit the latter
987
sert produced by Knight. They either agreed in ad-
vance or tacitly acquiesced in Bowerman acting as
spokesman for the group, and, when Bowerman
made the statements heretofore found proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act, none of the other
three repudiated his statements , nor in any manner
indicated that they did not concur in what Bower-
man had said. Absent such repudiation, Becker
could reasonably infer that all four unions were
acting in concert for a common purpose, namely
that absent some acceptable resolution of the
problem, not only the Typographers, but the
Stereotypers, Pressmen, and Teamsters employed
by Sun to produce and distribute its paper, would
be induced not to perform the services required of
them.
The findings above made, however, are not
dispositive of the case; it being necessary to decide
whether such conduct had an object proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Stated differently, it
is necessary to determine whether the conduct
herein found had a proscribed secondary objective,
or was its objective limited to the preservation of
the work jurisdiction of at least some of the
Respondent Unions and, therefore, primary and
outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(B).
The starting point in determining whether
Respondents' conduct had a lawful primary or a
proscribed secondary objective is the Supreme
Court's decision in National Woodwork Manufactur-
ing Association v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612. In that
case the Supreme Court held, in substance, that
neither Section 8(e)14 nor Section 8(b)(4)(B) of
the Act had any application to union conduct
which did not have a cease-doing objective, and
that such objective does not exist where the union's
conduct is limited to preserving what may be fairly
said to be the "traditional tasks" of the union's em-
ployee members . In such a situation, the Court con-
cluded, the union's pressure is directed solely at the
pressured employer and, therefore, primary in na-
ture, On the other hand, if the union 's pressure may
be regarded as "calculated to satisfy union objec-
tives elsewhere" (386 U.S. at 644), the pressured
employer is a "neutral bystander" (id.) and the
pressure upon him has the proscribed objective and
is secondary in nature . The touchstone, said the
Court, is whether the pressure "is addressed to the
labor relations of the [pressured] employer vis-a-vis
his own employees" (id. at 645).
is Sun, in accordance with the demands of the Unions, other than Team-
sters, called in a crew of Typographers who set the type necessary to
produce the Topps insert , used the crew of Stereotypers that performed
other work for Sun on March 18, who, at overtime rates cast the plates, and
a crew of Pressmen to run the Topps insert However , as Stereotypers did
not complete their work until late on March 18, after all editions of that
day had been distributed , it became apparent that printing the insert would
be useless Hence , Pressmen did not "make ready " the presses, nor do any
punting About 2 hours after reporting the Pressmen were sent home, but
were paid for a full shift There is no contention that these facts in any way
violated the Act
" The so-called Hot Cargo provisions of the Act
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the record before me I must and do find and
conclude that in the instant case Respondents' pres-
sure upon Sun was not directed to the labor rela-
tions between Sun and its employees, but rather at
the labor relations of Knight and were for that
reason secondary in nature. I reach this conclusion
on the basis of the Board's decision in Local 742,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America (J. L. Simmons Company, Inc.), 178 NLRB
351. In that case Simmons had contracted for the
construction of a hospital building in accordance
with certain plans and specifications which, as ulti-
mately modified, provided that Simmons would in-
stall premachined plastic doors, i.e., doors which
had been cut, routed, trimmed, and mortised at the
factory. Simmons ordered the doors from Anderson
Wood Products Company. When these doors ar-
rived on the job, Local 742 informed Simmons that
its members would not install the premachined
doors and directed its members to act accordingly.
After finding that the Union's conduct constituted
restraint and coercion of Simmons, and inducement
of the latter's employees, the Board concluded that
such conduct had a cease-doing-business objective
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because:
The ... Hospital required in its specifications
that plastic faced doors premachined by the
manufacturer be installed.... While Simmons
Company had a choice, subject to approval by
the architect, as to the manufacturer of the
doors, it had no choice as to whether or not
the doors would be premachined by the manu-
facturer. The Hospital was responsible for this
decision and only it could change it. Simmons
Company was a neutral with respect to the as-
signment of this work. Hence the pressure ex-
erted against Simmons Company, the seconda-
ry employer, was for the purpose of forcing it
to cease doing business with the Hospital and
forcing the Hospital to cease doing business
with Anderson Wood Products for the furnish-
ing of premachined plastic faced doors; this
was therefore secondary action which was un-
lawful under Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B).
We so find. 15
The principles enunciated by the Board in J. L.
Simmons, supra, and Mechanical Contractors, supra,
are dispositive of the instant case. Through its
agent, APS, Interstate had full control over and
contracted the work of producing the insert to
is In reaching this conclusion the Board relied on its prior holding in
Local 636, Pipefitters ( Mechanical Contractors Association of Detroit, Inc ),
177 NLRB 189, where it stated that " until the Supreme Court explicitly de-
cides to the contrary, the Board will continue to use the 'right of control'
test in appropriate circumstances in determining whether an unlawful
secondary boycott existed " Respondents argue in their brief filed with me
that the Board 's "right of control" test is contrary to National Woodwork,
supra , and that three courts of appeals have so held , citing, N L R B v
Local Union No 164 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, 388 F. 2d 105 (C.A 3), Amencan,Boiler Manufacturing Associa-
tion v N.L.R B , 404 F 2d 547 (C A. 8), Beacon Castle Square Building
Corporation v. N L R.B., 406 F 2d 188 (C.A I) Respondents concede,
however , that "this argument might better be submitted to the Board than
Knight, because it decided that it wanted the insert
produced by the offset method with a 100-line
background screen. Not only had the work been
contracted to Knight, but Sun had neither the
equipment nor the personnel to do printing by the
offset process. While it is probably true, as Re-
spondents argue , that an insert could have been
produced by employees in Sun's composing room, I
must, agree with the General Counsel that it would
not have been a document which Interstate wanted
and had every right to insist upon. As Sun had no
control over the production of the insert, such
power residing only in Interstate and/or Knight, it
was without power to comply with the Union's de-
mands regarding production of the same. Hence,
Respondents' threats to Sun had the object of forc-
ing or requiring Sun to cease doing business with
Interstate and/or Knight, and violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. I so find and conclude.16
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sun, Interstate, and Knight are persons en-
gaged in commerce and an industry affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (6),
and (7) and 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
2. Respondents Stereotypers, Typographers,
Web Pressmen, and Teamsters are each labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Sections 2(5)
and 8(b) of the Act.
3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Sun,
as herein found, with an object of forcing or requir-
ing Sun to cease using, selling, handling, transport-
ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of In-
terstate and/or Knight, or to cease doing business
with Interstate and/or Knight, Respondents engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act, it will be recommended
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to the Trial Examiner," apparently recognizing that until such time as the
Board overrules the Simmons and Mechanical Contractors cases, supra, or
the Supreme Court holds to the contrary , I have no alternative but to follow
those decisions, irrespective of my personal views regarding their correct-
ness Insurance Agents' International Union, 119 NLRB 768 , 773, Iowa
Beef Packers, Inc, 144 NLRB 615, 616.
16 In view of the conclusion thus reached , I find it unnecessary to decide
whether , as the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, the
reproduction provisions of the Typographers contract are inapplicable to
the type of work here involved ; or to resolve the conflict in the testimony of
Bowerman and Becker , as to whether during the March 14 meeting Bower-
man relied on the reproduction provisions of the contract in support of his
claims that the work in question belonged to his members
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355
take certain affirmative action designed to remedy
its unfair labor practices and effectuate the policies
of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and the entire record in the
case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recom-
mended that the National Labor Relations Board
order that Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union
No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica; Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12, Inter-
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; Bal-
timore Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International
Stereotypers' and Electroplaters' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web
Pressmen 's Union No. 31, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, their respective officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing,
or restraining A. S. Abell Company, or any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or
require A. S. Abell Company, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, to cease using , selling , handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of In-
terstate Department Stores, Inc., and/or Knight
Press, or to cease doing business with Interstate De-
partment Stores, Inc., and/or Knight Press.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
and found necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post in their respective business offices and
meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. 1117 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 5 (Bal-
timore, Maryland), after being duly signed by the
respective Union's authorized representative, shall
be posted by them immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by them to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and furnish to the aforesaid Regional
Director, on forms to be supplied by him, sufficient
copies of the attached Appendix for posting by A.
S. Abell Company, it being so willing, at all places
where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Such copies, after being signed by the
authorized representatives of Respondents, respec-
tively, shall be forthwith returned to the aforesaid
Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
989
what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
'r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
1e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten , restrain , or coerce A.
S. Abell Company, or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , where an object thereof is to force
or require A. S. Abell Company, or any other
person engaged in commerce or an industry af-
fecting commerce, to cease using , selling,
handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in
the products of Interstate Department Stores,
Inc., and/or Knight Press or to cease doing
business with Interstate Department Stores,
Inc., and/or Knight Press.
TRUCKDRIVERS AND
HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 355, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
BALTIMORE
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
No. 12, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
990
Dated
Dated By
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355
By
(Representative ) (Title)
BALTIMORE
STEREOTYPERS' UNION
No. 10, INTERNATIONAL
STEREOTYPERS'AND
ELECTROPLATERS' UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
BALTIMORE NEWSPAPER
WEB PRESSMEN 'S UNION
No. 31, INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND
ASSISTANTS' UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, Federal Building , Room 1019,
Charles Center, Baltimore , Maryland 21202,
Telephone 301-962-2822.