International Typographical Union

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees by discharging or failing to reinstate any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with assault or reprisal in connection with union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist United Steelworkers of America , CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Thomas McClelland immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the inter- ference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination against him. All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remain- ing members in good standing in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conform- ity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. JOSEPH MANSBACH, SAMUEL MANSBACH, SYLVIA MANSBACH, HANNAH MANSBACH, MINNIE RAE AUERBACH, SOPHIA POCKROS, GERTRUDE WEBER, AND GERALD MANS- BACH, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS MANSBACH METAL COMPANY, Employer. Dated ............. By................................................................................ .... (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND ITS AGENTS, WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, LARRY TAYLOR, ELMER BROWN AND DONHURD and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION. Case No. 9-CB-5. May 6, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On March 11, 1953, the Board' issued its Proposed Supple- mental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter the charging party filed a brief in support thereof, and the Respondents filed excep- tions thereto and a supporting brief. ' The Respondents also requested oral argument. As the briefs and record adequately i Members Peterson and Styles not participating. 2 Pursuant to timely request of the Respondents for an extension of time within which to file exceptions, the Board granted all parties an extension to April 20, 1953. The charging party's brief and the Respondents' exceptions and brief were filed with the Board on April 20, 1953. 104 NLRB No. 117. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 807 reflect the Respondents' position, we hereby deny their re- quest for oral argument. The Board has considered the Proposed Supplemental Find- ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Respondents' exceptions , the above-mentioned briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts as its Supplemental Decision and Order herein, the said Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, a copy of which is attached hereto, with the following additions: 1. The Respondents object to the proposed unit findings for the reason, among others, that because the "units" are de- fined by reference to agreements 3 entered into more than 5 or 6 years ago, they are "inapropos and outdated." Respondents, however, have apparently misconceived the purport and effect of our unit findings. Our holding that the Respondents' failure to bargain during the 1947 negotiations occurred with respect to employees comprising a unit appropriate reflects the Board's view of the situation existing at the time of the refusal to bar- gain. Nothing in 'such holding was intended, or is to be re- garded, as a direction to the parties to conduct their bargaining at this date on the 1946 unit pattern, if in fact changed cir- cumstances have made such patterns "inapropos or outdated." 2. As to those cities where the Respondent Union's officials did not physically participate in the negotiations,4 the Re- spondents con en that "no finding can be made of a request to bargain" addressed to the ITU, and hence they cannot be held to have refused to bargain collectively. We find no merit to the contention. For we believe that at all times here material, the local negotiators represented the interests of the Inter- national and exercised the bargaining powers granted it. In concluding, in the Chicago case, with court approval, 5 that the International was also a duly designated bargaining repre- sentative of the employees, we relied in part on the internal laws governing the relationship between the International and its locals. Thus, we found that under these laws "there is no stage of negotiations in which the International does not ac- SThe Respondents' brief apparently suggests that in Hammond, Indiana, no agreement was available upon which reliance could be placed in determining the unit involved in the 1947 negotiations. It is true that in Hammond the parties had historically conducted their relations on an oral basis, pursuant to a basic understanding that the Employer would be bound by the terms negotiated by the Union with the Chicago Publishers Association, in operating the composing room, for the duration of the Chicago contract. There is no question that this historical mode of oral agreement for a term definite clearly covered the conventional kind of composing- room employees . Nor was there any doubt expressed by either party to the 1947 negotiations here involved as to the unit for which the Employer sought to make a separate bargain when the Chicago negotiations failed . We therefore reject, as without merit, the Respondents' exceptions to our finding that the refusal of the Union to bargain in Ham- mond occurred with respect to an appropriate unit. 4The Respondents concede that ITU representatives participated physically in the negotia- tions conducted in Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. The record also shows, as was found by the Trial Examiner, that an ITU representative was present at the negotiating conferences held in New Bedford, Massachusetts (86 NLRB at p. 998). No ITU officials appeared at the Sioux City, Iowa, Albany, New York, or Hammond, Indiana, conferences. $The portion of the court's opinion referred to appears at 193 F. 2d 804- 805. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tively participate, even though its officials may not physically be present." Such active participation by the International-- even without its physical presence--in any given bargaining negotiations obviated the necessity for any prior request to bargain directed expressly to the International. The fact that the International exercised its inherent powers to supervise, control, and direct bargaining negotiationsI in which its locals participated, and that locals followed such direction and control, convinces us that representatives of those locals which bar- gained without the physical presence of officials of the Inter- national were acting as agents of the International as well as agents of the locals.? 3. In excepting to the proposed cease -and-desist provisions of the Order, the Respondents contend, in effect, that the re- fusal-to-bargain issue here under consideration has been mooted, and no refusal-to-bargain order should now issue be- cause: (1) The particular bargaining strategy here condemned was discontinued after March 1948; (2) no complaints have issued against the Respondents since that date; and (3) it offered to comply with the cease-and-desist provisions of the Order heretofore issued in this case. They further contend, for the same reasons, that in any event the Proposed Order is too broad both substantively (by including the phrase "by any other means") and geographically (by making it applicable to the entire newspaper industry). We find no merit to these exceptions. It is well settled that the discontinuance of the particular un- fair labor practices found does not render the matters litigated moot, nor prevent the Board from issuing an appropriate order designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.s As we pointed out in the Printing Industry of America case, the records in the ITU cases, including this one, indicate strongly the Re- spondents' disposition to use the bargaining table as a means of obtaining "closed-shop" conditions by one device or another. We have ample reason presently to believe that this disposition still exists. For, notwithstanding the Union's- asserted "dis- continuance" of the bargaining strategy here found specif- ically unlawful, the very same "closed-shop" policy it was designed to implement still forms an essential part of the aims of the Union, as expressed in its general laws. We cannot but reasonably infer, therefore, that it is possible, if not highly probable, that the Respondents may resort to other devices to 6It is very clear from the ITU laws that it was contemplated by all parties bound by such laws that negotiators designated by the locals in the first instance would represent the interests of the International and exercise bargaining powers granted to it . For the laws contain carefully spelled out substantive and procedural specifications relating to the conduct of bargaining by local-designated negotiators and the terms they must insist upon as a condition of cooperating in the establishment of a collective relationship. 7 In addition to the agency evidence provided by the laws there is specific evidence that at Sioux City, Iowa, and Albany, New York. the reason given by local negotiators for rejecting the employer 's proposals was that such proposals were unacceptable to the ITU (86 NLRB at pp. 993, 998). 8See, for example, Printing Industry of America , Inc., 87 NLRB 1418 (and cases there cited), enforced 193 F. 2d 782 (C.A. 7); N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U.S. 563; N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 179 F. 2d 221, 222 (C.A. 2). INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 809 effectuate their "closed-shop" objectives in future negotiations with employers in the industry, unless effectively restrained. Illustrative of this possibility also is the fact that: (1) The change from the "Conditions" strategy to the 60-day contract proffer followed the issuance of a complaint charging the Re- spondent International with unfair labor practices because of its employment of the "Conditions" strategy, and (2) the abandonment of both this device and the 60-day contract oc- curred only after the Federal district court issued its injunc- tion in March 1948. Moreover, the conduct specifically found violative of the Act herein goes to the heart of the collective-bargaining obligations imposed on unions by Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. This is so, as we pointed out in the Chicago case,9 not only because of the illegality of the objectives sought to be attained, but also be- cause , wholly apart from such objectives, the Respondents sought by their insistence on the unilateral promulgation of the conditions of work, and/or by their proffer of P-6A, to pre- clude a truly mutual basis for the stabilization of employment conditions. In the light of the foregoing , we find that the policies of the Act can best be effectuated by enjoining the Respondents from refusing to bargain not only by devices designed to establish unlawful closed-shop conditions, but also by any means tending to interfere with the establishment of genuine collective bar- gaining on a basis of mutuality. #° So far as the Respondents' challenge of the geographic breadth of the Proposed Order is concerned, there is only one phase of its objections that the foregoing remarks or the Pro- posed Supplemental Decision do not completely answer. This is that there are portions of the industry which, either by custom or by consent of the parties involved, do not operate under written agreements, and hence that the Board's Order may preclude continuation of such agreements even though they are in no respects unlawful. However, as we have pointed out in another ITU case," the violation of the duty to bargain imposed under the Act where a proposal is made that an agree- ment be in oral rather than in written form, arises only if the proposing party adamantly insists upon such form. Our Order does not purport to reach proposals which would not support refusal-to-bargain findings. SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: 1. Respondent International Typographical Union, and its officers , agents, and representatives, and 886 NLRB 1041, at pp. 1042-1044. ie We note also, so far as the compliance- offer contention is concerned , that the Decision and Order initially issued in this case did not involve refusal-to- bargain violations. u Daily Review Corporation, et al., 87 NLRB 1263. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don Hurd, their agents and successors, shall: (a) Cease and desist from refusing specifically, or by in- sistence, upon a 60-day cancelable contract, or by any other means, to bargain collectively and in good faith with any em- ployer in the newspaper industry, where the employees of such employer comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and a majority of such employees have designated or selected the Respondent ITU to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. (b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act: Post immediately in conspicuous places at all halls and offices of the Respondent ITU and its locals, and all other places where notices to mem- bers are customarily posted, and publish in the Typographical Journal, official paper of the Respondent ITU, a copy of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."ti These notices shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the Re- spondent ITU, and by the individual Respondents herein or their successors in office, and shall remain so posted and main- tained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. 13 (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Supplemental Decision and Order what steps the Respondents have respec- tively taken to comply therewith. t4 12In the event this Order is adopted by a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ," the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , Adopting an Order." 13 The Respondents claim that at great expense to themselves and as part of their asserted compliance with other Board orders , they have already issued notices to all local unions substantially in the form here required , andtpathence the Respondents should not be required at this time to do more than publish the notices in the Typographical Journal. In the event the Respondents have in fact circulated such notices to the local unions, the Regional Director of course will not require the Respondents to repeat the circulation of such notices to the local unions. to We inadvertently omitted this conventional paragraph from our Proposed Supplemental Order. We have added it here, in accord with our usual practice. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT refuse, by specific refusal , or by in- sistence upon a 60 -day cancelable contract , or by any other means , to bargain collectively and in good faith with INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 811 any employer in the newspaper industry, where the em- ployees of such employer comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and where a majority of such employees have designated or selected the Inter- national Typographical Union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, By President Woodruff Randolph Elmer Brown Larry Taylor Don Hurd Dated This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by other material. PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 21, 1947, based upon charges filed by American Newspaper Publishers Association, herein called the ANPA, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the above-named Respondents 1 al- leging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (b) (2), 8 (b) (6), and 8 (b) (1) (A), and 8 (b) (1) (B) of the Act. On October 28, 1949, following the usual proceedings, the Board issued its Decision E in which, inter alia, it sustained certain of the 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (B) allegations of the com- plaint, dismissed the entire 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (6) allegations of the complaint, and issued an order consistent with its De- cision. Thereafter the case was considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, ] upon the Board's petition for enforcement and the ANPA's petition for review of the Board's Decision and Order. On December 27, 1951, the court issued its decision,4 in which it sustained the Board's I International Typographical Union (herein referred to as the ITU) and its agents , Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don Hurd. 286 NLRB 951. 3Referred to hereafter as the court , or as the court of appeals. 4N. L. R. B. v. International Typographical Union et al., 193 F. 2d 782, enforcing 86 NLRB 951, 86 NLRB 1041, 87 NLRB 1418. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Decision and Order, with one exception: it held that the Board committed error in failing to "make findings and an appropriate order on the allegations of the complaint that the ITU and its agents had failed and refused to bargain collectively in good faith," because such refusal was alleged in the complaint to be a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) rather than of 8 (b) (3). The court specifically affirmed the Board's holding that, as a matter of law, a union's refusal tobargaindoes not come within the proscriptions of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). It ruled, however, that as the complaint alleged an unlawful refusal to bargain by the Respondents which, if supported by the evidence, would consti- tute an unfair labor practice violative of Section 8 (b) (3), and as the Respondents recognized this to be one of the charges against them, the failure of the complaint to specify the correct subsection of the Act that was violated did not justify the Board's dismissal of the allegations in question without con- sidering the sufficiency of the proof. The court therefore re- manded the case to the Board for the purpose of considering and deciding the refusal to bargain charged in the complaint, on the merits. On May 9, 1952, the ITU filed in the United States Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, which sought among other things that tribunal's review of the above rulings of the court of appeals. On October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court denied this petition.5 Thereafter, pursuant to the court's remand, the Board° re- viewed anew the record made at the hearing held before Trial Examiner Arthur Leff, for the purpose of determining whether the evidence there adduced will support a finding that the ITU has engaged in violations of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. The Board determined further that, as a matter of procedure, the exercise of its powers for purposes of determining the issues as directed by the court should be accomplished in the manner provided for by Section 102.50 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 6, as amended. Accordingly, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the order herein are issued in proposed form, so that the parties to these proceedings may have the opportunity to exercise the right to file exceptions (and briefs in support thereof) to these supplemental findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and order. The Board hereby grants to any party to the proceeding a period of twenty (20) days following issuance of the instant Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, for the purpose of filing exceptions thereto and supporting briefs, and to request permission to argue orally before the Board. The form of such exceptions and briefs as may be filed shall be in accordance with the provisions of 5344 U. S. 816. On the same date, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the ANPA's petition for review of so much of the court of appeals' decision as sustained the Board's dismissal of the 8 (b) (6) allegations of the complaint . 344 U.S. 812. On March 9, 1953, the Supreme Court affirmed this part of the court of appeals ' decision, American Newspaper Publishers' Association v. N. L. R. B. , 345 U. S. 100. 6Members Peterson and Styles, who did not participate in the original decision , are also not participating here. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 813 Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT In enforcing the Board's decision in the Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association, and Printing Industry of America,7 cases, the court has approved certain of the Board's findings and conclusions which are here controlling. Thus, the court has approved our view that Section 8 (b) (3) proscribed the application against employers, by unions having representative status, of the 1947 "ITU Collective Bargaining Policy" 8 in the "Conditions of Employment" and 60-day (P-6A) contract forms which the ITU commanded its locals to use between August 22, 1947, and March 27, 1948.8 The court also sustained the Board's conclusion that, under the intraunion scheme of the rules and regulations governing the relationship of the ITU to its subordinate locals, and establishing the assent of the individual union members to the relationship there disclosed, the ITU could be held responsible, under Section 8 (b) (3), for local representatives' applications of the 1947 ITU "Policy," even though no international agent participated physically in the negotiations being tested in any one case. In enforcing the Board's decision in the instant case, the court also approved the Board's finding that in its negotiations in the newspaper industry, the ITU had in fact applied the "Policy" in the "no-contract" and/or 60-day contract forms. This finding was based, in part, upon evidence of the negotiations in the following cities, which disclosed no deviation from the "no-contract" or "60-day contract" strategy mandated by the ITU "Policy": Chicago, Illinois; Albany, New York; Sioux City, Iowa; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Hammond, Indiana; and Detroit, Michigan. In some of these cities, as the enforced Board decision indicates, international representatives partici- pated physically, together with local agents, in the conduct of the negotiations. In all, the International exercised substantial control over the bargaining relationship, whether or not its agents directly participated. As it has been held that the appli- cation of the "Policy" by labor organizations representing a majority of employees in appropriate units constitutes a vio- lation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, the sole remaining question is whether the record establishes that at the time the bargaining negotiations in the above-described cities occurred (1) the em- ployees on whose behalf the bargain was sought comprised a unit appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the t 86 NLRB 1041 , 87 NLRB 1418. $Hereinafter called the "Policy." 9 The initial date coincided with the effective date of the Act. The later date is that on which application of the "Policy" was stayed by the United States district court's issuance of a temporary injunction. Evans v. ITU, 76 F. Supp. 881 (U. S. D. C., S. D., Ind.). 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act; to and (2) whether a majority of such employees were members of the ITU or had otherwise established their designa- tion of the ITU as their representative. Appropriate Units The record shows that the unit question, as such, was not separately and specifically treated by the parties except as to the Chicago phase of these proceedings. There, under a separate complaint, consolidated with the instant one for pur- poses of hearing only, the General Counsel sought the issuance of an affirmative bargaining order. However, the record does contain evidence as to the employee units for which the bargain was sought in each of the other aforementioned cities. As the record also establishes that all parties to the long-established bargaining relationship in these cities not only clearly under- stood the precise scope of the units for which they were bar- gaining, but also--with the possible exception of the inclusion of foremen- -implicitly treated such units as appropriate and agreed that any "bargain" reached between them would cover such units, we are satisfied that we may properly resort to such evidence, in complying with the court's order of remand." More specifically, the record shows that, with the exception of foremen, the units which formed the basis of the bargaining negotiations referred to herein were composing-room or mail- room units of the kind the Board has usually found to be appropriate in the newspaper industry. 12 The scope of the unit bargained for in each case here under consideration had been established by a course of negotiations and agreements between the parties going back several years. Accordingly we find that, subject to the statutory exclusion of foremen, the bargaining negotiations in the various cities here under consideration covered the following units, each of which is appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act: Chicago, Illinois: The employee group comprising the appropriate unit in this case is the same as that heretofore found appropriate by the Board in the Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association case, 86 NLRB 1041, 1060, which the court enforced in N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association, cited supra. Detroit, Michigan: Two units are here found appropriate, both extending in scope to the employer members of the Detroit Newspaper Publishers Association, who are, respec- tively, the publishers of the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit Times. One unit is comprised of all "composing room" employees, except foremen, in the work classifications covered by the to In United Mine Workers of America, et al ., 83 NLRB 916, we pointed out that appropriate unit findings are essential predicates to the disposition of 8 (b) (3) allegations. 'ICE N. L. R. B . v. Somerville BuickCo., 194 F . 2d 56 (C. A. 1), enforcing 93 NLRB 1603. 12E.g. Citizen-News Co., 8 NLRB 997, 1005; Lloyd Hollister , Inc., 68 NLRB 733; Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association. et al. , supra Cincinnati Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, 55 NLRB 571 ; Register and Tribune Co., 60 NLRB 360; Cincinnati Printers League, 61 NLRB 595. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 815 November 1946 to October 1947 collective contract between the above publishers and Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, a subordinate local of the ITU , as ratified by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU . The other unit is comprised of all "mail room" employees , except foremen , in the work classifications covered by the November 1946 to October 1947 contract between the above -named publishers and Detroit Mailer ' s Union No. 40 , a subordinate local of the ITU, as ratified by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU. Albany, New York: The unit is comprised of all "composing room" employees , except foremen , of the Employer (who are, respectively , the publishers of the Albany Times Union and the Knickerbocker News ), in the work classifications covered by the November 1946 to October 1947 collective contract between such publishers and Albany Typographical Union No. 4, a subordinate local of the ITU, as ratified by Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU. Sioux City, Iowa : Two units of employees of the Journal Tribune Publishing Co., herein called the Publisher , are here found appropriate : ( 1) A "composing room" unit of the em- ployees of the Publisher , except foremen , in the work classifi- cations covered by the January 1947 to December 1947 collec- tive contract between the Publisher and Sioux City Typo- graphical Union No. 180 , a subordinate local of the ITU, as ratified by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU; and (2) a "mail room" unit of the employees of the Publisher, ex- cept foremen , in the work classifications covered by the September 1946 to September 1947 collective contract between the Publisher and Sioux City Mailer ' s Union No. 97, a sub- ordinate local of the ITU, as approved by the Respondent Woodruff Randolph for the ITU. New Bedford , Massachusetts : Two units of employees of the publisher of the New Bedford' Standard Times are here found appropriate : ( 1) A "composing room" unit of the employees, except foremen, in the work classifications covered by that contract between the Publisher and New Bedford Typographical Union No. 276 , a subordinate local of the ITU, which expired during or immediately before the conduct of the negotiations here considered ; and (2 ) a "mail room" unit of all employees, except foremen , covered by that contract between the publisher and New Bedford Mailer ' s Union No. 115, which expired during or immediately before the conduct of the negotiations here considered. Hammond, Indiana: The unit is comprised of all " composing room" employees , except foremen , of the Hammond Times Publishing Co., herein called the Publisher , in the work classifications covered by the agreement between the Publisher and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, a subordinate local of the ITU, which expired during or immediately before the con- duct of the negotiations here considered. 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Majority Representation of the I.T.U. Proof of the majority status of the local unions respectively engaged in the negotiations for the employees in the units the Board has respectively found appropriate above is supplied in all cases (except those involving the New Bedford negotiations) by stipulations entered into by the Respondent ' s counsel and the remaining parties to the case . These stipulations admitted that all the employees covered by the most recently effective con- tracts between the publishers respectively involved on the one hand , and the local unions respectively involved , on the other, were at all times here material members of the respective local unions involved. Proof of the majority status of the two local unions involved in the New Bedford, Massachusetts, ne- gotiations is supplied by undisputed record facts, establishing that the most recent effective contract between the publishers and the local unions respectively involved imposed , as did all of the other contracts , " closed - shop " union-membership re- quirements on the employees these contracts covered, as a condition of employment. In view of the foregoing facts, the Board finds that at all times here material a majority of employees in the respective units hereinabove found appropriate were members of the applicable local union. Because the record here establishes, as it did in other cases where we have considered 8 (b) (3) complaints involving the ITU , that the members of the sub- ordinate ITU locals here involved, and their negotiating agents, subscribed to and followed at all times here material the bargaining procedures set forth in the ITU "laws" as amended at the 1947 ITU convention , we find , for reasons set forth in the Board ' s judicially enforced decision in the Chicago Pub- lishers case , that the ITU was, at all times here material, a duly designated bargaining agent within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act of the employees in the units herein found appropriate.ta We find, further, for reasons previously expressed, that the adamant insistence of the union negotiators that any substantive terTns agreed to in the course of the negotiations must be cast either in the "conditions " or "60 -day" contract forms mandated by the ITU " Policy," constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain. We conclude , therefore , that the Respondents and each of them , on and after August 22, 1947, unlawfully failed and refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the above- named Employers or their bargaining agents, for the employees in the units herein found appropriate. THE REMEDY Selection of the appropriate remedy for the unfair labor practices found herein involves consideration of the General Counsel's request , made on the record during the litigation of 13 Members Houston and Murdock, who dissented from this finding in the Chicago Publishers case (86 NLRB 1041 , 1052), now consider themselves bound by that decision. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 817 the complaint, that no affirmative bargaining order be issued, but rather that a broad injunctive order be framed which would preclude the Respondents from in any manner unlawfully im- peding the operations of the bargaining process in the news- paper industry. While we have found specific refusals to bargain with only seven Employers, we believe the requested remedy to be appropriate here. For, as has been found, (1) the "Policy" was deliberately framed as a means of promoting union ob- jectives in conflict with the provisions of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act; (2) the "strategy" set forth in the "Policy" was pe- culiarly designed for use in the conduct of all collective-bar- gaining negotiations with all employers whose employees were members of the ITU; (3) it was in fact repetitiously applied in various localities during the period here material, in violation of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act, at times when the Respondent ITU's relationship to the Employers was that of a statutory representative of employees of newspaper publishers com- prising a unit or units appropriate. 14 From these facts, it is reasonably inferable that, unless effectively restrained, the Respondents will continue to attempt effectuation of their unlawful objectives, wherever they may participate directly or indirectly in the conduct of collective- bargaining negotiations as the representatives of a majority of employees comprising appropriate units, and without regard to the obligations imposed upon statutory representatives by Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we believe and find that fully to effectuate the policies of the Act, the Board's order here, like that issued in the earlier decision, should be broad enough in scope to prevent the Respondent's commission of the unfair labor practices found throughout the newspaper industry. We shall therefore order the Respondents, as the statutory representative of employees in appropriate units, to cease and desist from refusing to bargain in goodfaithwith any employer in the newspaper industry.15 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: 1. Respondent International Typographical Union, and its officers, agents, and representatives, and 14Although the General Counsel adduced evidence of the detailed day-to-day conduct of negotiations in specific portions of the newspaper industry, the proceeding , as a whole, was aimed at curbing the application of the "Policy" throughout the newspaper industry. The de- tails of specific sets of negotiations were spread upon the record on a "sample" basis to form a concrete picture of the "Policy" in operation and the deleterious effect of its applica- tion. To establish the uniform application of the "Policy " in all negotiations held in the newspaper industry, the General Counsel relied upon the testimony of Woodruff Randolph, noted in the Intermediate Report (86 NLRB 1006-1008), that with relatively few exceptions the bargaining conducted by the ITU and/or its locals during the period between August 22, 1947, and March 27, 1948 , was either conducted on the "no-contract" (Conditions of Em- ployment) or "60-day contract" (P-6A) basis, or was consistent with the objectives thereof. 15Cf. N. L. R. B. v. United Mine Workers, 202 F. 2d 177 (C. A. 7), enforcing 96 NLRB 1389. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Woodruff Randolph, Larry Taylor, Elmer Brown, and Don Hurd, their agents and successors, shall: (a) Cease and desist from refusing specifically, or by in- sistence , upon a 60-day cancelable contract, or by any other means, to bargain collectively with any employer in the news- paper industry, where the employees of such employer com- prise a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, and a majority of such employees have designated or selected the -Respondent ITU to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. (b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds,will effectuate the purposes of the Act: Post immediately in conspicuous places at all halls and offices of the Respondent ITU and its locals, and all other places where notices to mem- bers are customarily posted, and publish in the Typographical Journal, official paper of the Respondent ITU, a copy of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."18 These notices shall be signed by a duly authorized officer of the Respondent ITU and by the individual Respondents herein or their successors in office, and shall remain so posted and maintained for a period of 60 days. 16In the event this Order is adopted by a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words . "Pursuant to A Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , Adopting an Order." THE HULL BREWING COMPANY and WILLIAM LAWRENCE THE HULL BREWING COMPANY and WILLIAM LAWRENCE. Cases Nos. 1-CA-1062 and 1-CA-1241. May 6, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On March 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Dent D. Dalby issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find- ing that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 104 NLRB No. 103.