Local 511, St. Louis Offset Printing Union, Etc.

324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Brotherhood , Council, and Local are, respectively, organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining agreements with The Refinery Engineering Company and Montana Contractors Association , Inc., containing hiring and other union-security clauses more restrictive than is permissive under the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Brotherhood and Council , respectively, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. 4. By the maintenance of the said agreement, Brotherhood and Council have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed them in Section 7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Local 511, St. Louis Offset Printing Union , AFL-CIO, and John H. Myers, International Representative, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union , AFL-CIO [Mendle Press, Inc.] and Local 5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America. Case No. 14-CB-865. February 16, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On November 9, 1960, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. i Respondents have excepted to the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner. We do not overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions of credibility except where the clear pre- ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the Trial Examiner's resolution was incorrect. No such conclusion is warranted in this case . We therefore adopt the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544. We find the remarks made by Respondent Myers , as credited by the Trial Examiner, to be coercive without regard to any presumed inability of Respondents to carry out these threats. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 309, CIO, et at. (Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc.), 81 NLRB 886 , at footnote 3; and Melvin Rupp, d/b/a Rupp Equipment Company, 112 NLRB 1315. 130 NLRB No. 21. LOCAL 511, ST. LOUIS OFFSET PRINTING UNION, ETC. 325 ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Local 511, St. Louis Offset Printing Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and John H. Myers, International Representative, Inter- national Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, AFL-CIO, shall jointly and severally : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Threatening employees of Mendle Press, Inc., or Bardgett Printing and Publishing Company, St. Louis, Missouri, with dis- charge because of their adherence to or support of Local 5, Amalga- mated Lithographers of America, or any other labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at the office of Respondent Local 511 in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by both Respondents, be posted by Local 511 immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of Local 511 are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local 511 to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting, if they so wish, by Local 5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Mendle Press, Inc., and Bardgett Printing and Publishing Company. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Local 511's representative and by John H. Myers, be forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such posting. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 2 This notice shall be amended by substituting the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" for the words "Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of 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 , Enforcing an Order." 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER The complaint herein , as amended, alleges that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, between about June 25 and July 21, 1960, by threatening employees of Mendle Press, Inc., and Bardgett Printing and Publishing Company with discharge because of their adherence to and support of Local 5. The answer denies the allegation of threats. A hearing was held before me at St. Louis, Missouri, on September 19, 1960. At the close of the hearing, counsel were heard in brief oral argument. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE COMPANIES' BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted and I find that Mendle Press, Inc., and Bardgett Printing and Pub- lishing Company (Mendle and Bardgett), Missouri corporations, are engaged in the business of commercial printing in St. Louis, Missouri; that they annually jointly ship goods valued at more than $50,000 from their places of business to points out- side the State of Missouri; that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act; and that they are associated for purposes of collective bargaining as a single employer. It was also admitted and I find that Local 511 is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act; and that Myers is its authorized agent and representative. II. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(b)(1) (A) Whether or the extent to which Myers, although an International representative of the parent Union and not a representative of the Employer Companies and not authorized by them to hire, fire, and effect changes in employees' status, could ac- complish his alleged threats that those found to be opposed to Local 511 would lose their jobs, we need not determine. If he made the statements attributed to him, it is clear that he thereby threatened and tended to restrain and coerce employees, in violation of the Act. The issue here is one of fact: Did Myers make those state- ments? (There is no issue as to Local 511's responsibility for the statements made by Myers, who had been called to help it.) With a 2-year collective-bargaining agreement between Local 511 and the Com- panies expiring on or about August 15, 1960, Local 5 on June 14, 1960, filed with the Board a petition for an election among the Companies' employees. The elec- tion, held on July 12, resulted in a vote of 26 for Local 5, and 24 for Local 511, with I vote challenged. Thereafter followed objections by Local 511, a report on the objections, and exceptions to the report; at the time of the hearing herein, the representation proceeding was awaiting decision by the Board. Brewer, an employee of Mendle and president of Local 511 for approximately 9 months, testified that Local 5 commenced to organize these employees in May and that he signed a card for Local 5; at a meeting with Myers in a hotel room on June 24, also attended by the secretary-treasurer of Local 511, who was a Mendle employee, and another Local 511 member, who was employed by Bardgett, the dis- cussion was of ways to win the election, and Myers said, "Within the next year we would find out who our friends are and they would be the only ones employed at Mendle's within the next year." Myers testified that he had been called by the others to assist Local 511 win the election. He denied generally and specifically that he had made threats at any time but declared that he may have said, "We will know who our friends are." (The question mark should not appear at the end of line 10, page 3 of the transcript; it is hereby stricken. Myers later repeated that statement with a variation, as we shall soon note.) He further testified that there was some discussion on June 24, but that he did not recall what he said at that time. Brewer further testified that at a special membership meeting of Local 511 on July 2 Myers made the same statement and threat as on June 24. According to Myers, he did not threaten any employee with discharge; he said, "After the results of the election we would know who our friends are and/or how many we had." Testifying that on more than one occasion he said, "We would know who our friends were," Myers explained that he meant "how many," not "who." An error or confusion in this connection does not itself prove that a threat was made. On the other hand, difficulty in identifying the respective adherents does not prove that threats were not made. Brewer also testified that on July 7 Myers spoke with him and five other employees in the Mendle stockroom and again threatened that only Local 51 1's friends would LOCAL 511, ST. LOUIS OFFSET PRINTING UNION, ETC . 327 be employed at the end of the year. Myers' testimony concerning this was the same as with respect to the alleged threat of July 2. He later declared that at the membership meeting he said little more than "We have it won [lines 1 and 2, page 38, of the transcript are hereby corrected], just hold on"; and that on July 7 he urged that they "keep talking" for Local 511. Finally, according to Brewer , at a meeting of Local 511 's executive board, at- tended by Brewer and four others on July 21, Myers repeated his threat of July 7 and added, "We have lost the election but we also won." This latter presumably referred to the unhappily acquired knowledge of the extent of the disaffection. Hav- ing denied this threat, Myers testified that the executive board met to check on the status of members and dues; there was no "important " discussion concerning the election, which had already been held, and he did not recall that anything was said concerning this situation. If, as counsel for the Respondents argue, Myers may have meant that only those who proved at the end of the year (some might be "converted") that they were not the Respondents' friends would no longer be employed, that is not the meaning or evident implication of his words. Uttered during the election campaign and imme- diately afterward, as testified and as it appears in a statement verified by Brewer, Myers' remarks were clearly a threat. Kelly, another Mendle employee and a member of Local 511, testified that he asked Myers on June 28, as the latter was going through the shop, how the election was going, and that Myers, visibly disturbed, replied that if he found anyone who voted for the Amalgamated (Local 5) that person would not last at Mendle's a year; anyone could join Local 5 if he wanted to, but he would not work for Mendle's. Myers had no clear recollection of his conversation with Kelly but definitely denied that he had threatened Kelly or anyone else. Admittedly Myers was seeking to strengthen Local 511's position and, except for the single incident after the election, to win support for it in the election. That a substantial number of employees supported Local 5 was apparent from the mere showing of interest by that Union to support its petition for election. Whether, as. Brewer testified on cross-examination, Myers correctly "knew" that the three who. met him on June 24 actively supported Local 511, we do not know. Brewer, its president, turned against it at some time. We can safely assume that on July 2, 10 days before the election which Local 511 lost, Myers knew that there was oppo- sition to it among the employees. But we need not speculate whether Myers feared serious disaffection. Whatever he thought, the issue is whether he said what he is charged with having said. In short, Myers' reasons for making threats, if he did that, are not our direct concern. Certainly it is not beyond belief that he may have suspected a loss of support among the very ones to whom he spoke on the various occasions or that he may have hoped that his words would be passed on to other employees. The question before us is whether he did in fact make the threats as alleged. He testi- fied that he did not know that Brewer or Kelly supported Local 5. This might sug- gest that he would direct his threats, if any, to those who he knew were on the other side. But, although he did know that some employees supported the rival union, it does not appear that he knew that any given employee favored Local 5. There- fore the argument that he would have made his threats to known supporters of Local 5 is not here available. On the issue of credibility concerning this he-did-I-didn't issue, the record indi- cates that Myers had no clear recollection of what he said on the five occasions de- scribed. He testified with assurance that he did not utter the threats charged to him. But that assurance was based, not on recollection, but his knowledge that be should not, hence would not threaten. That he should not, I agree. But having observed these witnesses, I find more reliable the testimony by Brewer and Kelly that he did, in violation of the Act. As for the failure of the parties to call other witnesses, clearly others were present on the various occasions mentioned, and many at the meeting of July 2. Whether other members of the executive board besides Brewer, and which members of Local 511 now favor that Union, we do not know; or how they would testify concerning what Myers said. They were apparently available to both sides, and I draw no conclusion as to how they would testify. The findings herein are therefore based on the testimony presented. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Companies set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondents, by threats of discharge because of adherence to and support of Local 5, restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and from any like or related conduct. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 511, St. Louis Offset Printing Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. John H. Myers is, and at all times relevant has been, an authorized agent and representative of Local 511, within the meaning of Sections 8(b) and 2(13) of the Act. 3. Local 5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By threats of discharge, thereby restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Local 511 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. By threats of discharge, thereby restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Myers has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor-Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge because of their adherence to or support of Local 5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local 5, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 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 col- lective 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 organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. LOCAL 511, ST. LOUIS OFFSET PRINTING UNION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) Dated-------------------- ---------------------------------------- JOHN H. MYERS, International Representative, International Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants Union, AFL-CIO. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.