Williams Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Williams Press, Inc. and Theodore Compagnone and
Martin Claydon
Albany Printing Pressmen, Assistants' and Offset
Workers Union Local 23, AFL-CIO (Williams
Press, Inc.) and Theodore Compagnone and Martin
Claydon . Cases 3-CA-4401-1,-2 and 3-CB-1635
-1,-2
June 18, 1973
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On February 13, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
John M . Dyer issued the attached Supplemental Deci-
sion in this proceeding . Thereafter , the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent Union filed exceptions and
supporting briefs, and the Respondent Union filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Supplemental Decison in light of the excep-
tions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
' In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the arbitrator's
award rendered in 1969 finding that Compagnone and Claydon are entitled
to perpetual supersenionty is not controlling , we rely on the fact that the
agreements upon which the award was based was abrogated by Respondent
Company in 1970 with the approval of the state court, and that the existing
contract pertinent herein between the parties contains no such provisions In
addition , we hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent error
in finding that the new seniority list was posted in January 1971 rather than
February 1971.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: Theodore
Compagnone and Martin Claydon, the Charging Parties in
this proceeding , filed 8(a)(1) and (3) and 8 (b)(1)(A) and (2)
charges on March 11, 1971, alleging that Williams Press,
Inc., herein called Respondent Company or the Company,
and Albany Printing Pressmen , Assistants and Offset Work-
ers Union Local 23, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or
Respondent Union, discriminated against the Charging
Parties for reasons other than their failure to pay dues or
initiation fees , on or about February 1, 1971, by demoting
them on the priority (seniority) list from positions to which
they felt they were entitled, resulting in change regarding
overtime and causing them to be laid off. The original com-
plaint was issued on July 9, 1971, and a hearing was held
on September 20, 1971. The Union did not file an answer
to the complaint and a decision by Administrative Law
Judge Buchanan issued on November 16, 1971, finding that
Respondent and Respondent Union had violated the Act as
alleged.
On March 15, 1972, the Board issued its Decision and
Order and sought enforcement by way of summary judg-
ment against the Union (Respondent Company having
complied with the Board's decision) in the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the
Board's motion without opinion on June 13, 1972. The
Board accepted the Court's Remand and on September 6,
1972 ordered the record opened for a further hearing and
Supplemental Decision.
The Regional Director for Region 3 issued an amended
consolidated complaint and notice of further hearing on
September 20, 1972, alleging in addition to the standard
commerce and jurisdictional statements that the Company
delegated to the Union exclusive control over the priority
list which is maintained for the offset prep (Preparation)
room employees and governs the order of preferences for
shifts, vacation, overtime work, and order and duration of
layoffs. It is alleged that Respondent Union is in control of
this list and on February 18, 1971, placed charging parties
Compagnone and Claydon in a lesser status than that to
which they were entitled but that Respondent Employer
restored them to their proper positions on or about March
24, 1972, following the issuance of the Board's first decision.
It is further alleged that following the court's refusal to
enforce the decision, Respondent Union on June 14, 1972,
caused Respondent Company to place the charging parties
in a lesser status than they were due on the list and that as
a result of this inferior status they were laid off on June 23,
1972. It is alleged that Respondent Union's acts were done
arbitrarily, capriciously, and for unfair, irrelevant, and in-
vidious reasons thus breaching it's duty to fairly represent
the employees in the unit. Violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and
(3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act are
alleged.
Respondent Employer's October 4, 1972, answer to the
amended consolidated complaint admits all the allegations
of the complaint except that it denies the conclusionary
allegations until such time as the evidence has been adduced
at trial. Respondent Employer requests that if any pecuni-
ary losses are ordered remedied, that such should be as-
sessed against Respondent Union which, it asserts , should
be held primarily liable under the facts and circumstances
of the case.
Respondent Union admits the commerce and various ju-
risdictional allegations but denies that it in any way violated
the Act. It admits that Charles Moore is president of the
Union but denies knowledge or information of the balance
of the allegation regarding agency and authority of its as-
204 NLRB No. 33
WILLIAMS PRESS, INC.
serted agents.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine the witnesses , and to argue oral-
ly at the hearing held on November 20 and 21, 1972, in
Albany, New York. Respondent Union has submitted a
brief which has been carefully considered . There are rela-
tively few conflicts in the testimony.
It is General Counsel's position that the Union was op-
posed to the men who were hired from the "outside" for the
prep room and was therefore illegally motivated and did not
properly represent the employees when it twice changed
their position on the priority list in the face of an arbitrator's
award rendered on his interpretatimn of the "super-priority"
provision in the 1968-70 training agreements.
Under the facts and circumstances in this case, I have
concluded that the Act was not violated and '"ill dismiss the
complaint.
Under the entire record in this case I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I COMMERCE AND JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
Respondent Company is a New York Corporation with
its plant in Menands , New York where it is engaged in
commercial and periodical printing . Respondent Company
annually purchases and receives goods and materials direct-
ly from points outside the State of New York valued in
excess of $50,000.
Respondent Company admits and I find that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
Respondent Company and Respondent Union admit and
I find that Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
Respondent Company prints magazines for companies
such as Time and Business Week and does legislative print-
ing for New York State.
In its June 30, 1967, decision in Albany Printing Pressmen
and Assistants ' Union No. 23, AFL-CIO (Williams Press,
Inc.), 166 NLRB 639 (a decision on a 10(k) proceeding
following an 8(b)(4)(D) charge filed by the Company) the
Board described the history of the dispute between the par-
ties which has led up to the present case . In summary the
Board said that the Company had been a large letterpress
printing establishment with groups of employees repre-
sented by Respondent Union, the typographers union, and
the stereotypers union, when in January 1966 it changed a
press to offset and had the offset plate work done by anoth-
er Company. By mid-1966 the Company decided to do its
own preparation work and formulated plans for a prep
room to employ about 26 men . The Company conferred
with the three unions and reviewed work assignments to
determine which employees would be transferred to the new
prep room and in September 1966 awarded substantially all
the work to the Respondent Union. The typographers and
217
Respondent Company went to arbitration over this assign-
ment (the other two unions not being parties to that pro-
ceeding) I and the arbitrator in March 1967 entered an
award of a substantial amount of the work to the typogra-
phers . The Respondent Union threatened to strike if such
award was implemented and the charges in the case were
filed.
The Board held that the 1965-68 contract between Re-
spondent Union and Respondent Company clearly provid-
ed for offset preparatory work and was a specific
assignment of the disputed work to Respondent Union
which antedated the dispute and that the typographer-Com-
pany contract did not provide otherwise. The Board further
noted that the Company was not satisfied when some of the
prep room work was done by the typographers and stereo-
typers and that the Company believes the assignment to
Respondent Union is more desirable . With little else to
guide it the Board assigned the work to the employees repre-
sented by Respondent Union.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Union
President Moore , following the Board 's award there were
negotiations between the Company and the Union which
centered on manning of offset presses and manning of the
prep room . Moore testified that the Company maintained
it could hire from the "outside" while the Union wanted
present employees to be trained for the jobs . Moore said the
Company would not discuss arrangements for training and
manning and after several months the Union sought the
help of the New York State Mediation Board . The Union,
noting that where operations were switched to offset presses
there was a consequent substantial drop in the complement
of employees , was fearful such would happen at the Compa-
ny and sought to have the then present employees trained
and placed in the prep room . The Company in 1967 had
approximately 250journeymen pressmen and some 70 to 80
semiskilled or unskilled employees in the pressroom area.
At the time of this hearing , with the exception of one press,
all the presses were offset and there were about 120 to 130
journeymen pressmen and some 70 semiskilled or unskilled
employees in the pressroom area.
In November 1967, without any notification to the
Union, the Company hired five "outside" men and opened
the offset prep room for operations . Moore received this
information between 8 and 9 a.m. from various employees
and went to the prep room and told the five men about the
manning negotiations and said that some problems could be
resolved if they left . When they refused , Moore informed
the chapel chairmen and the pressroom employees walked
out. This strike lasted less than one shift when union agents
were served with an injunction.
Shortly thereafter the Company instituted a damage suit
against the Union and the presiding state court judge indi-
cated to the parties that the dispute should be resolved by
mediation or arbitration. A local arbitrator was chosen and
stated he would mediate the problems and if they couldn't
reach agreement he would arbitrate it. Work started then on
a training agreement which had as its main issue job securi-
1 The Board noted that neither Respondent Union nor the stereotypers
consented to or participated in the arbitration proceeding and that the award
did not bind them.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ty. One training agreement was signed in May 1968 and
after some problem a second training agreement was signed
July 16, 1968.
The five men hired from the "outside " in November 1967
included Martin Claydon , and in January 1968 Theodore
Compagnone was hired to replace one of the original five.
They worked through this period , and there being only one
priority list maintained for the pressroom area , they were on
the bottom of the list. They acted as instructors when two
separate groups of eight employees were transferred to the
prep room prior to agreement on the training agreements
and in each case the Union protested such assignments.
Under the terms of the training agreements both groups
were returned to the pressroom.
The training agreements were for 18 months and con-
tained provisions as to how the men were to be selected for
positions in the prep room and their rights of transfer into
and out of the prep room and layoff rights . Instructors were
defined in the agreements as employees whose function was
to train other employees and not to replace them as part of
a working crew . It was also provided that instructors did not
have the right to bid for overtime or production work. The
agreements provided the following on priority.
Priority-Employees in the Offset Preparatory De-
partment will be on a separate priority list for all pur-
poses . The Company represents that it has hired five (5)
Instructors, or highly skilled Journeymen to assist in
the training program and to work in the department.
These five (5) men shall be Numbers I thru 5 on the
priority list for the department according to their own
date of hire . All other men, Journeymen , or those who
become Journeymen , shall have priority on such list
according to their own date of hire by the Company,
subject to Numbers I thru 5 aforementioned.
The Union agrees to supply skilled men to the Com-
pany when and as needed in the Preparatory Depart-
ment.
The Union and the Company agree that as to the
first five men on the pnority list, the Company reserves
the right to assign those men to different shifts when
and as needed by the Company , priority notwithstand-
ing.
A priority listing of names and hiring dates for the prep
room in 1969 showed three men listed at the top with aster-
isks in front of their names . These three, Lampron 11-2
7-67, Claydon 11-27-67, and Compagnone 1-22-68, were
the only instructors left at that time. Twenty-nine of the
thirty names next on the list showed hiring dates from 1936
to 1964 and the 30th was 2-10-69.
Although the training agreements forbade overtime or
production work to the instructors , they apparently were
allowed to work overtime as instructors or in place of fore-
men.
Compagnone testified that after starting in Janury 1968
as a journeymen , he became an instructor in April 1968 and
started receiving the $10 bonus as an instructor. On the
pressroom priority list he was on the bottom and never
protested or contested such position . After the training
agreements were signed , a separate priority list was pre-
pared for the prep room and his name was near the top of
the list.
Compagnone testified that in July 1969 , he told his super-
visor that he no longer wanted to be an instructor since he
was not allowed to work overtime and at his request was
moved to a production job.
The Union stated that on September 27, 1969 , the Com-
pany informed it that instructors could no longer work over-
time as substitute foremen or instructors and this prompted
Compagnone 's transfer request.
Somewhere about this time Compagnone tentatively
sought to move to another shift on the basis of his super
priority. The Union on October 7, 1969, informed the Com-
pany it considered Compagnone to have lost such position
when he gave up his instructor 's status . About or shortly
before that time Compagnone withdrew his transfer request
and stayed on the second shift. On December 5, 1969, the
Company filed a grievance against the Union regarding the
Union 's position on Compagnone 's placement on the priori-
ty list.
Neither Compagnone nor Claydon were parties or wit-
nesses nor were they present at the arbitration proceeding.
In his December 22, 1969 , decision the arbitrator found
that the phrase "for all purposes" meant that the instructors
had priority for all purposes and that there were "no excep-
tions under which a man 's position on the list would be
changed ." The arbitrator then stated:
There was no understanding that Instructors would
be on the list only as long as they remained Instructors.
In fact, Paragraph 6 states that the Company hired five
Instructors "or highly skilled Journeymen" to assist in
training "and to work in the department ." It is clear
that the preference was given to those five men regard-
less of whether they were Instructors or Journeymen or
whether they remained in their category . The reason
behind this was that the Company could not hire expert
Prep Room men unless it could assure them of perma-
nent status. This included the possibility of reverting
from Instructors to Journeymen since the training pro-
gram was not to be a permanent set-up.
Thus , it was the intention of the parties to give priori-
ty status to five men for all purposes so long as they
remained at Williams Press . The Union understood
and agreed to it.
Some of the arbitrator's statements appear to come from
outside of the agreement and it is not known whether there
was any testimony concerning reasons , history , or intent
during that proceeding.
Somewhat to the contrary , however , is the testimony of
Compagnone and Claydon. Compagnone testified that he
received more money and better fringe benefits when he
started with Respondent Company and that was the reason
he sought the job and went to work for the Company. He
also testified that he received no promises of permanent
status and Respondent Company was the first major Com-
pany he had ever worked for . He joined Respondent Union
within 30 days of his hiring.
Claydon testified he came from a subsidiary company to
Respondent Company and started in the prep room the
Monday after Thanksgiving 1967. He was on the bottom of
the single priority list maintained for the pressroom area
and there is no testimony he disputed such placement. Clay-
don offered no testimony that he had been promised perma-
WILLIAMS PRESS , INC. 219
nent status as a condition of his employment . Claydon
worked as a journeymen on production work and began
instructing other employees prior to the time the training
agreements were signed and continued until the agreements
were terminated , although near the end his instructing was
down to a few hours a week.
Both Claydon and Compagnone testified that the Union
accepted them as members (Claydon being the Union's
photographer) and were not discriminated against except
for their reduction on the priority list in 1971 and 1972.
In the summer of 1970 negotiations were begun by the
Company on changes it wanted in the training agreement.
Negotiations were not completed and around August 1970
the Company notified the Union and the arbitrator named
in the training agreement , that it considered the purposes of
the training agreement had been fulfilled and it was termi-
nating the agreements . Dean Stuart , who started with the
Company as the director of industrial relations in February
1971, testified that notices regarding layoffs were posted
late in 1970 and the Union brought a "Show-Cause" order
protesting the Company's termination of the training agree-
ments in the state court . The state court ruled that the
training agreements could be terminated unilaterally and
that as of November 27, 1970, the training agreements had
come to an end. According to the testimony from 30 to 40
employees were laid off during the week of November 27,
1970.
In January 1971 the Union posted a new priority list in
which Claydon and Compagnone (the only two left of the
original five instructors ) were placed on the list according
solely to their date of hire without any super priority. This
occurred shortly after Compagnone moved to the first shift
on the basis of his super priority. No one had been displaced
when he moved.
Following the publishing of this new list Compagnone
and Claydon filed grievances protesting their placement on
the list and that they had not received overtime that was due
them because of their reduced place. These grievances were
filled out by them , signed and given to a chapel chairman
who also signed them . Neither Claydon or Compagnone
heard anything further from the grievances and did not
query the Union or the Company concerning them.
Union President Moore testified that completed griev-
ances are signed by a chapel chairman who passes them on
to the Company for its answer . If the Company does not
answer the grievance it is considered that it has denied the
grievance . The question then reverts to the Union and the
individual as to whether to pursue the grievance further.
Since neither Claydon or Compagnone protested any fur-
ther on this matter and filed charges with the Board the
Union took no further action on the grievance. (These griev-
ances were contra to the Union's position in the matter.)
Compagnone and Claydon were shortly transferred to
another shift and both filed letters dated March 15, 1971,
stating they were moving to the second shift under protest.
According to Union President Moore these letters of protest
were discussed at a union executive board meeting and
tabled and neither Compagnone or Claydon, who both at-
tended union meetings , asked that the matter be brought up
before the union membership.
As noted above, the Regional Director issued the original
complaint and the case was heard by the Administrative
Law Judge who issued his decision on November 16, 1971,
followed by the Board's Decision on March 15, 1972.
In the interim , the October 1, 1965, to September 30,
1968, contract between the Respondents expired and a
memorandum agreement was signed May 20, 1969, retroac-
tive to October 1, 1968, in certain respects , and running
through September 30, 1971. Near the conclusion of this
second agreement the Company locked out the employees
while negotiations proceeded on another contract which
was finally agreed to by the parties on March 20 , 1972. This
last contract is dated October 1, 1971, and runs through
June 30, 1974. This contract in speaking of priority in the
prep room states : "The priority in the Williams Press Prep
Room shall be by date of hire in the bargaining unit." There
are no exceptions or provisions in this contract for any
special or super priorities for any employees.
When this agreement was concluded the Company began
calling back employees under the priority system. Under the
old priority list Compagnone and Claydon were at the bot-
tom of the list. Following the Board 's decision of March 15,
1972, the Company called Compagnone and Claydon first
under what it considered their priority should be by the
Board's decision.
There was testimony that the Company complied to some
extent with the Board 's decision and paid certain sums of
money due thereunder . Claydon and Compagnone were
accorded priority at the top of the list and worked from that
priority from then until June 1972.
On June 13, 1972, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit denied enforcement of the Board's mo-
tion for summary enforcement.
B. Contested Testimony
Dean Stuart, the Company's director of industrial rela-
tions, testified that on the day after enforcement of the
Board order was denied, Union President Moore came to
his office, told him about it, and in effect said that Compag-
none and Claydon should be placed on the bottom of the
seniority list and if they weren't, none of the prep room
employees would show up for work on Monday. Stuart also
testified that this "threat" was tempered when the parties'
attorneys were present at a meeting later that week, on
Friday. He admitted that at this Friday meeting the attor-
ney for the Union said that there would be no union work
stoppage and that the Union had no such intent.
Stuart's testimony was imprecise and he explained that he
could not give exact language and testified to his impression
of what was said. By his testimony Stuart placed the first
meeting on Wednesday, June 14, and the meeting with the
attorneys on Friday, June 16. It was stipulated that no strike
occurred on Monday, June 19.
Union President Moore testified that 1 or 2 days after the
circuit court refused enforcement of the Board's order he
told Stuart that the Union wanted the priority list to revert
back to it's status prior to the Board' s decision and wanted
the Company and union attorneys to get together on it. At
the meeting with the attorneys, one of the company officials
stated that they would get it over with and just fire Compag-
none and Claydon. Moore said they shouldn' t do that. He
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denied saying anything about a work stoppage in his two or
three conversations with Stuart during that week. He testi-
fied that Stuart repeatedly said he didn't want a work stop-
page and repeatedly asked what the Union was going to do
about it. Moore said he didn't answer Stuart because there
was no intention of striking over the issue.
Compagnone testified that on Monday, June 19 (which
would have followed the above-described meetings) Stuart
told him he was going to have to lay him off or there might
be a strike. On June 22, Stuart said he was being laid off as
of the following day. Basically Stuart said the same thing to
Claydon who was also laid off on June 23.
The parties are in agreement that work was slack at this
time and there were other prep room employees in layoff
status. Both Claydon and Compagnone were called back to
work in October 1972 and the parties agree it was because
of the Union's insistence to management that they were
returned to work.
As noted above Stuart confirmed that he could not re-
member exactly what was said and based his entire testimo-
ny on his impressions. Moore's testimony was specific and
uncontradicted. It is clear from the testimony that if there
had been any threat of a walkout to take place on Monday,
June 19 (which I doubt under these circumstances), that
such was negatived by counsel for the Union on the preced-
ing Friday. There does not appear, once such "threat" had
been made and countermanded, for there to be any reason
for the Company on June 19 to state that it was afraid of
a strike and blame the Union for its decision to lay off these
two employees on Friday, June 23. Actually all that the
Company did was agree to a change in the priority list,
placing these two employees on the list in accordance with
their hiring dates which apparently had the effect of laying
them off due to a reduced workload.
I do not credit Respondent Company's asserted reasons
for agreeing to the change in the priority list.
C. Analysis
General Counsel's case depends first on animus toward
the two employees, which he alleges was demonstrated by
the November 1967 strike, and secondly on the contraven-
tion of the arbitrator's award of the Company's 1969 griev-
ance. General Counsel claims that changing the priority list
in 1971 and 1972, following cessation of the training agree-
ments in which the priority was established, demonstrates
that the Respondent Union was not fairly representing its
members and discriminated against them for unfair and
invidious reasons.
The facts in the case do not support General Counsel's
theory and I will recommend that this complaint be dis-
missed.
The part-shift strike in November 1967 was an immediate
response by Respondent union members to the Company
hiring and partially staffing and initiating work in the prep
room without any notice to Respondent Union despite the
fact that the parties had been negotiating for several months
concerning the manning and operations of this room. The
Union's testimony indicated that the employees at the Com-
pany were fearful that starting up an offset operation at the
Company would decrease the amount of available work and
lead to layoffs of employees. The figures above conclusively
demonstrate that the employees had reason to fear such a
result and underscore the Union's keen interest in their
negotiations in regard to manning, training, and operation
of the prep room.
The November 1967 strike ended on that same first shift
and negotiations continued thereafter with the new employ-
ees operating in the prep room with no further hindrance
from the Union, and all were received into union member-
ship. The five prep room employees were placed at the
bottom of the priority list which was maintained as one list
for the pressroom area and none of them complained about
their placement on the priority list.
This strike action under the circumstances is too remote
to supply animus 4 years later, particularly when both Com-
pagnone and Claydon testified that the union and the offi-
cers never demonstrated any animosity toward them. In fact
the relationship appeared to be amicable with Claydon
being the unpaid official photographer for the Union.
I therefore conclude and find that no animus has been
competently proven.
The arbitrator's statement in his 1969 award that it had
been necessary to promise these five prep room men perma-
nent super priority status for as long as they remained at the
Company is contrary to the evidence in this case. Neither
Compagnone or Claydon were parties to the 1969 arbitra-
tion proceeding nor did they testify nor were they present
at the proceeding. That grievance was filed by the Compa-
ny, not by them.
Compagnone specifically testified that he was not prom-
ised any super priority or seniority or permanent status
when he became an employee. He testified affirmatively
that when he was hired he received more money and better
fringes than he had at his prior job and that is why he
accepted the job at Respondent Company.
Claydon acknowledged that he was placed on the bottom
of the priority list when he was first hired and did not offer
any testimony that he was at any time offered any super
priority or permanent status. He testified that in 1968,
Union President Moore told the prep room employees that
the Union was prepared to offer them super priority for a
period of time. This statement was made about the time the
training agreements went into effect.
With there being a difference in the parties to the arbitra-
tion proceeding and with the credited uncontradicted testi-
mony in this proceeding being diametrically opposed to the
arbitrators understanding of the history behind the super
priority clause, I find that I can not accord that arbitration
decision any weight where it specifies that the super priority
of the five instructors has perpetual existence.
The fact that Respondent Company changed the priority
list in March 1972 demonstrates that the Union did not
solely control the list. Making of a list either by hiring date
or entry into a job classification would appear to be a minis-
terial act based on information supplied by the Company.
The training agreements were ended by the unilateral
action of Respondent Company in the fall of 1970 with state
court approval after being contested by the Union. There is
testimony that the abrogation of the agreements changed
the job retention possibilities of great numbers of employees
in the unit, in that under the training agreement certain
WILLIAMS PRESS, INC. 221
employees had priorities for various jobs either in the prep
room or in the pressroom in the event of a layoff. When the
training agreements ceased, these essentially priority ar-
rangements were extinguished as all parties admit.
The uncontradicted testimony is that on and after the
termination of the training agreements priority in the prep
room was governed solely by date of hire with Respondent
Company. This priority system was included in the 1968
contract and was set forth specifically in the current con-
tract between the Union and Company. Adherence to this
contract clause meant that a large number of priorities
among people who had been in the pressroom were com-
pletely turned around. Priority in the pressroom was gov-
erned by date of entry into job classification such as helper,
assistant, journeymen, etc. The date of hire system in the
prep room meant that a number of journeymen who came
with the Company as journeymen on a specific date were
placed lower on the priority list than assistants or helpers
who had been hired previously by the Company. Since the
date of hire is now the sole controlling priority under the
contract, it would appear that is the single feature which
should govern the relationship between the parties and of
the employees.
The abrogation of the training agreements with its priori-
ty system left the parties to discuss and resolve between
themselves the question of priority for the employees. It was
determined between the parties under the then current con-
tract and specifically under the present contract that date of
hire in the prep room governs priority and in the present
contract there are no exceptions to that statement.
With the termination of the training agreements, and the
Company's claim that all the employees had been trained,
there would seem to be no reason to continue super priority
for the last two instructors since the retention formulas for
all other employees under the training agreements ceased
too. The question of priority was a matter of bargaining
between the Company and the Union and the decision
reached, date of hire for all, had serious consequences for
a large number of employees besides these two men. Placing
them on the list by date of hire seems eminently fair under
all the circumstances and is in keeping with the structure as
spelled out in the current contract.
I therefore conclude and find that no unfair labor practic-
es have been proven against either Respondent Union or
Respondent Company regarding the changes in the priority
listing and the effects that followed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER2
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
2'1n the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 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