Local 154, Int'l Typographical Union, Etc.

LOCAL 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ETC. 991 Board has a provision similar to that in the instant case before it. The last sentence of paragraph 3.01 of the National Agreement in that case reads as follows: Any units for which IUE shall hereafter be recognized shall automatically be included and covered by this Agreement. In that case, the company had signed a stipulation recognizing IUE as the sole collective-bargaining agency for a group of clerical employees . Thereafter, the Office Employees International Union, AFL, filed a petition for representation of the group. The company and the IUE contended that immediately on signing of the stipulation, the National Agreement with IUE became effective and was a bar to the OEIU petition, although a supplementary local agreement had not yet been negoti- ated. The Board upheld the Company 's position in the IUE case. The IUE case differs from the present one in one respect , and that is, that the local in that case did not object to coverage by the National Agreement. However, that National Agree- ment was with the International of JUE and if it was effective as against another union, the OEIU, so as to bar an election, it would seem to be equally effective against a local of IUE. Certainly, applying the same holding to the present case , if the Na- tional Agreement of the International IBEW would be effective immediately upon certification of Local 11 as against another union , so as to bar an election, it would also be effective to bind Local 11, when the applicable provisions of the IBEW con- stitution are taken into account. The instant case is not like the case of N.L.R.B. v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 356 U.S. 342, in which it was held to constitute an unfair labor practice for the employer to insist on excluding from the contract the International which had been certified. In that case the employer was seeking to exclude a certified repre- sentative from the collective-bargaining agreement . Here, there is no refusal to bargain or to sign an agreement with the certified Local . The Company asks only that the Local Agreement , signed with Local 11 , IBEW, be consistent with, and give respect to its National Agreement with the parent of, Local 11, IBEW. The Board and the courts, since the earliest days of the Act, have recognized the legal effect of constitutional provisions and rules of international unions upon local unions of the same International ,3 and this relationship of the local to its International is one of the foundation stones upon which many procedures of collective bargaining are based. If the respective positions of the parties here are analyzed, we find that at all times the Company was ready and willing to bargain on the terms of a Local Agreement; and in fact did bargain on that subject . However, the Company made it clear to Local 11, IBEW, that it felt obligated to honor its National Agreement with IBEW, and to refrain from making any contract not consistent with the National Agreement. This position the Company was required to take by its contract with IBEW. On the other hand , Local 11 , IBEW, stated that it refused to honor the National Agreement of its parent , and repudiated its duty to cooperate with its parent, as clearly defined in the constitution of IBEW. Thus, as a local of IBEW, it sought a contract in terms which could not be approved by its parent , and which ran contrary to the action of its sister locals. As stated previously , such conduct, if condoned, would unhinge many orderly procedures of collective bargaining which are the basis of our administration of the Act. Upon all the evidence, I am constrained to find that upon the facts here presented, the Company did not refuse to bargain as alleged in the complaint . Therefore, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 8 American Newspaper Publishers Association v. N L R.B , et al , 193 F . 2d 782 (C.A 7) ; The Cessna Aircraft Company, 123 NLRB 855. Local Union 154, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council and Ypsilanti Press, Inc. Case No . 7-CC-159. February 13, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On November 14, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 135 NLRB No. 96. 992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Re- spondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Respondents filed a brief in support of its exceptions. 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 Respondents, Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, restraining, or coercing any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require such person to cease ,doing business with or cease handling the products of Ypsilanti Press, -Inc., or forcing or requiring that company to recognize Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the repre- sentative of employees of Ypsilanti Press, Inc., unless the labor or- ganization has been certified as such under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their respective business offices and meeting places copies of the notices attached to the Intermediate Report as ap- pendixes,' that marked "Appendix A" to be posted by Respondent 'These notices are hereby amended by substituting for the words "The Recommenda- tions of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be sub- stituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a LOCAL 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ETC. 993 Local and that marked "Appendix B" to be posted by Respondent Council. Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Board's' Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents' authorized representatives, be posted by Re- spondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to union members and council members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part : I disagree with my colleagues' holding that the Respondents' hand- billing activities were not violative of the Act. The Respondents' dispute here was with Ypsilanti Press, a pub- lisher of a daily newspaper, Ypsilanti Daily Press. In furtherance of that dispute, and in addition to picketing various retail clothing stores-action here found to be violative of the Act-Respondents dis- tributed handbills in front of two clothing stores.2 The handbills stated that Respondent Local was on strike against Ypsilanti Daily Press and that these clothing stores advertised in that newspaper. The only relationship between the handbilled clothing stores and Ypsilanti Press is that the clothing stores placed advertisements in the newspaper published by Press. The clothing stores did not in any sense sell or "distribute" the newspaper Ypsilanti Daily Press or any other "product or products" produced by Press. For this reason, the so-called publicity proviso to Section 8(b) (4) is clearly inapplicable, and the Respondents' handbilling was clearly violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). See my opinions in Lohman Sales Company, 132 NLRB 901; Middle South Broadcasting Co., 133 NLRB 1698; Edi- torial "El Imparcial," Inc., 134 NLRB 895. Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order ." The following paragraph is added to each of the notices: Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office ( 232 W Grand River, Detroit 26 , Michigan : Telephone Number, 962-3830 ) If they have any ques- tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 2 The picketing here ended prior to the Respondents ' handbilling of the two retail cloth- ing stores . Accordingly, I need not consider whether a union which simultaneously and in conjunction with proscribed picketing engages in handbilling can claim the protection of the proviso to Section 8(b) (4) for its handbilling activities. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, against Local Union 154, 634449-62-vol. 135-64 994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, and Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council, herein called the Respondents, upon charges filed by Ypsilanti Press, Inc. 'Pursuant to these charges a complaint was issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein referred to as the General Counsel and the Board), on behalf of the Board's Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), alleging that Respondents had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) ( B) of the Act. In its answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon due notice a hearing on the matter was held before Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon at Detroit , Michigan, from September 19 to 21 , 1961 . The parties were all represented by counsel and full opportunity was afforded each to be heard, to intro- duce relevant evidence, to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED Ypsilanti Press, Inc., the Charging Party herein, is a Michigan corporation main- taining its principal office and place of business in the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, where at all times material it has been, engaged in the business of publishing a daily newspaper. During the calendar year 1960, the Charging Party, in the course and conduct of its publishing operations, held membership in, or subscribed to, various interstate news services, including Associated Press and United Press International, advertised various nationally sold products, including, Ford, General Motors, and Rambler automobiles, Pepsi-Cola beverage, and products of General Foods, pur- chased and received directly from suppliers in Canada paper valued in excess of $18,000, and derived gross revenues from said publishing operations in excess of $200,000. S. S. Kresge Company is a national chain of variety stores with over 700 establish- ments in the United States and Canada, one of which is located at Ypsilanti, Michigan. During the calendar year 1960 the Ypsilanti store purchased in excess of $50,000 worth of goods from outside the State of Michigan. During the same period the volume of sales for the entire chain was approximately $400,000,000. Smith Furniture of Ypsilanti, which handles carpeting and furniture, made out-of- State purchases in 1960 in excess of $30,000. Dixie Shops of Ypsilanti, selling men's wear and children's wearing apparel, made out-of-State purchases during 1960 in excess of $200,000 and had gross sales for the same period in excess of $500,000. Marsch Office Supply of Ypsilanti made purchases of $120,000 worth of mer- chandise from outside the State in 1960 and had gross sales during the same period of about $175,000. Mellencamp's of Ypsilanti, dealing in men's clothing, purchased from outside the State of Michigan during 1960 approximately $200,000 worth of merchandise and had sales during the same period in excess of $400,000. Hayward's Men's Wear of Ypsilanti made purchases in 1960 from outside the State of Michigan of approximately $52,000 and during the same period had sales in excess of $150,000. Schaefer Hardware of Ypsilanti made purchases from outside the State of Michigan in 1960 in excess of $50,000 and had sales during the same period in excess of $150,000. I find that all of the foregoing business establishments are either engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act or engaged "in an industry affecting commerce" within the meaning of the Act. See S. M. Kisner & Sons, 131 NLRB 1196. On these facts it is clear that the Board has jurisdiction over the matters herein. I so find. If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The facts are clear, concise, and undisputed. In 1958 Respondent Local sought recognition as the bargaining representative of the mechanical and production em- ployees of the Ypsilanti Press, Inc., the Charging Party herein. Unsuccessful in its plea after several more attempts to gain the status of bargaining agent of the em- ployees, the Union began picketing Press in September -1958, which picketing was still in progress at the time of the instant hearing. LOCAL 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ETC. 995 In the summer of 1961, for a period of several weeks the Respondents 1 extended this picketing about the dispute with Press to several Ypsilanti stores that were currently advertising in. the Charging Party's daily paper.2 This picketing usually took place for 1 or 11A hours commencing around 7:30 or 8 o'clock on Friday evenings when the stores were open for business. Four or five pickets would walk in a circle at a public entrance of the store being picketed carrying either or both of the following signs: (1) Notice to Consumers This merchant advertises in the unfair Ypsilanti Daily Press. Local 154 Inter- national Typographical Union and Washtenaw County AFL-CIO council .3 (2) The ten thousand workers of the Washtenaw County AFL-CIO Council are in sympathy with the striking Ypsilanti union printers. (on one side) and Mr. Business man, our dollars cannot be used to support a scab printed paper. (on the other side) In addition to the above picketing, on the evening of September 18, 1961, the Respondents passed out the following handbill at Mellencamp's and Dixie Shops in front of the respective stores while they were open for business: TO THE PUBLIC! Local 154 of the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO is on strike against the Ypsilanti Daily Press DIXIE SHOPS4 advertises in the Ypsilanti Daily Press Local No. 154, ITU, AFL-CIO Washtenaw County AFL-CIO Council There is no question and I find that neither Respondent had any dispute with any of the picketed establishments herein except the Charging Party. It is also clear and I find that the information on the picket signs and on the handbills was true and correct. I also find that at the time of the foregoing picketing and hand- billing and at all times material, Press had contractual agreements with the stores in question for given amounts of advertising on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis at corresponding rates. At no time did the picketing or handbilling affect this re- lationship. Moreover, at all times the picketing and handbilling was peaceful and there was no interference with anyone in connection therewith. Several if not all of the picketed places of business indicated that the majority of their customers were union members or in families of union members. It further appears that no services or deliveries were refused them because of the picketing or handbilling and no employees withheld their services for those reasons. Two other findings complete the facts: (1) In the transcript of the injunction hearing held in the Federal district court pursuant to Section 10(e) of the Act, Dennis Vaughn, president of Respondent Local, was asked the following questions by the Judge and gave the following answers: 'It is admitted that the Council aided the Local in its dispute with Press and joined in the picketing and the conduct involved herein as a party thereto. 2The following establishments were picketed on various dates: S. S. Kresge Company Marsch Office Supply Dixie Shops, Inc. Smith Furniture Shaefer Hardware Hayward's Men's Wear Mellencamp's . 8 Frank Handy, publisher of the Charging Party, testified only that the Council's name appeared on the sign at Mellencamp's. Charles M. Karge of Smith Furniture testified that both the Local and the Council were mentioned in the sign in the picketing of Smith Since there was no denial of either testimony, I find the sign in question to be as set forth in the text. * At Mellencamp's the handbill named that establishment while at Dixie Shops it named the latter. 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Mr. Vaughn, as head of your local, was it not part of your intent when you picketed these stores, since they carried advertising in the Ypsilanti Press, that these stores would then cancel their advertising with Ypsilanti Press and so support your position? Now wasn't that part of your intent, yes or no? A. Well I guess it might have been. The Cou1T: Might have been? A. Yes, sir, I suppose it was. (2) In the same hearing Vaughn also admitted that the secondary picketing was engaged in "to win a labor dispute." Contentions and Conclusions On the basis of the foregoing facts, particularly in view of President Vaughn's admissions in the Federal court that an object of the picketing was to get the sec- ondary establishments to cease advertising with the primary employer and "to win a labor dispute," there is no doubt, and I find, that the picketing described therein at the premises of the named secondary establishments threatened and coerced those establishments with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with the Charging Party and to force the Charging Party to bargain with Respondent Local thereby violating Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. Perfection Mattress & Spring Company, 129 NLRB 1014; Gilmore Construction Company, 127 NLRB 541; Minneapolis House Furnishing Company, 132 NLRB 40. Respondents' constitu- tional defenses, of course, will not be considered by the Board. Bluefield Produce & Provision Company, 117 NLRB 1660, 1663. As for the handbilling, Respondents rely on Jack M. Lohman, d/b/a Lohman Sales Company, 132 NLRB 901; Shop-Rite Foods, Inc., d/b/a Piggly Wiggly, 133 NLRB 307; Packard Bell Electronics Corporation, 132 NLRB 1049; and Minneapolis House Furnishing Company, supra, in their contention that the handbilling herein was lawful. In the Lohman case handbills were passed out by a respondent union at stores which sold products purchased from the Lohman Sales Company (a distributor as distinguished from a manufacturer) with which company the union had a primary dispute. The handbills stated truthfully that the employees of Lohman were on strike and that products on sale at the places being handbilled were distributed by Lohman. They also made the plea that the products in question not be purchased in the stores in question. A majority of the Board, Member Rodgers dissenting, held that this handbilling (which but for the proviso to Section 8(b) (4) "might constitute restraint and coercion" under that section of the Act) was legal. Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act provides in part that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an in- dustry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9: * * * * * * * Provided further, That for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only, nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the purpose of truthfully advising the public, including con- sumers and members of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are distributed by another employer, as long as such publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual employed by any person other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods, or not .to perform any services, at the estab- lishment of the employer engaged in such distribution. In deciding the Lohman case, the main issue between the majority and Member Rodgers was whether the literal language of the proviso governed the result there LOCAL 154, INT'L TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, ETC. 997 as contended by Member Rodgers or whether the words "product or products" in the proviso could be applied to distributors such as Lohman who do not "produce" a "product" but merely distribute as middlemen the products of others. The majority concluded that: A wholesaler, such as Lohman, need not be the actual manufacturer to add his labor in the form of capital, enterprise, and service to the product he fur- nishes the retailers . In this sense, therefore, Lohman, as the other employers who "handled" the raw materials of the product before him, is one of the producers of the cigarettes distributed by his customers. A contrary view would attach a special importance to one form of labor over another and attempt to isolate fabricators of products from those who otherwise add to its value. Excluded as nonproducers might be those companies engaged in the assembly of machine parts; the soft drink bottling industry; communications, such as newspapers, magazines , and TV stations, which produce products of an abstract rather than physical nature. If our dissenting colleague is right, vast numbers of our working population produce nothing. Their thought, labor, or business enterprise is not a "product." We do not believe that the plain meaning of the words "product" and "produced" requires the Board to draw an uncertain line between those employers engaged essentially or only incidentally in the fabrication of products; between those employers who create a new product or embellish an old one ; between products of the imagination and those that can be seen, touched, or smelled. In the Shop-Rite Foods case the Board further augmented its interpretation of the words "product" and "produced" as used in the proviso to include purely a servicing function by a primary employer to a secondary employer. Notwithstanding the foregoing Board decisions, in his brief the General Counsel states: The plain language of the proviso permits handbilling at a secondary site only when the secondary employer is distributing a product produced by an employer involved in a primary labor dispute. Further, the Congressional intent in amending 8(b) (4) was to close all loopholes in that Section which permitted secondary boycotts by direct pressure on secondary employers, except to the extent of the explicit reservations incorporated into the proviso.22 Accord- ingly, the established rules of statutory construction do not sustain Respondents' contention. 22 NLRB Legislative History of Labor 'Management Reporting and Disclosure Sec- tion of 1959, pp 1377(2), 1384(1). In support of this contention the General Counsel would distinguish the three Board cases from the case at bar on the grounds that: In each of these cases, the secondary employer distributed (sold to consumers or permitted to be performed on the secondary premises) a product (cigars, television sets, service policies or refrigeration servicing) of the primary em- ployer. The Ypsilanti Daily Press, of course, does produce a product (news- paper) which is distributed (sold to consumers) by secondary employers (stores and newsstands). But the handbilling in the instant case did not take place in front of these stores or newsstands. In the instant case, the primary employer does not furnish the secondary employers involved herein with a product for distribution. On the contrary, the product-flow is from the secondary employers to the primary employer. The merchants who were handbilled place advertisements in the Ypsilanti Daily Press, which prints and literally distributes the advertisement. Hence, the primary employer distributes (prints and literally distributes) a product (advertisements) of the secondary employers. Conversely, the secondary em- ployers do not, in any sense of the word, distribute a product of the primary employer. Essentially the same contention was rejected by the Board in Middle South Broad- casting Co., 133 NLRB 1698. In that case the facts were substantially the same as here except that the primary employer there was, instead of a newspaper, a radio station which carried the secondary employers' advertisements. There the Board said: This concept was recently rejected by the Board in Lohman Sales. As found in that case, labor is the prime requisite of one who "produces," and therefore 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an employer who applies his labor to a product , whether of an abstract or physical nature, or in the initial or intermediate stages of the marketing of the product, is one of the "producers" of the product. Accordingly, the Board held in that case that a primary employer wholesaler , by adding his labor in the form of capital, enterprise, and service to a product manufactured by someone else, became one of the producers of that product . Similarly here , the primary employer radio station , by adding its labor in the form of capital , enterprise, and service to the automobiles which it advertises for the secondary employer retail distributor of the automobiles , becomes one of the producers of the auto- mobiles. Indeed, by adding such labor in the form of advertising in order to make the automobile saleable, the radio station becomes a very important pro- ducer in the intermediate stage leading toward the ultimate sale or consumption of the product . And of course the secondary employer retail distributor of the automobiles clearly "distributes" such product within the meaning of the proviso. For the foregoing reasons, and the additional reasons fully explicated in Lohman Sales for not drawing any arbitrary distinction between different kinds of "producers of products," we find that the publicity proviso is applicable to the service-type situation present here . Accordingly, we find that Respond- ent's leaflet circulation and distribution was protected by the publicity proviso to Section 8(b) (4), and therefore was not violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). On this basis I shall recommend dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge pertaining to Respondent 's handbilling here. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ypsilanti Press, Inc., S . S. Kresge Company, Smith Furniture, Marsch Office Supply, Mellencamp's, Hayward's Men's Wear, and Schaefer Hardware, all of Ypsilanti, Michigan, are engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. Washtenaw County, AFL-CIO, Council at all, times material herein has been the agent of the above Local Union within the meaning of the Act. 4. The above Local and Council, Respondents herein, have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. 5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force of require such person to cease doing business with Ypsilanti Press, Inc., or forc- ing said company to recognize or bargain with Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, unless said organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. LOCAL UNION 154 , INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. 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. LOCAL 592, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 999 APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or an industry ' affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require such person to cease doing business with Ypsilanti Press, Inc., or forc- ing said company to recognize or bargain with Local Union 154, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO , unless said organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WASHTENAW COUNTY AFL-CIO COUNCIL, Agent of Local 154, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO. 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. Local Union No. 592, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO [Brunswick Corporation] and Russell L. Johnson Central Indiana District Council of Carpenters, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Russell L. Johnson. Cases Nos. 25-CB-436 and 25-CB-439. February 13, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 30, 1961, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b). of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, recommendations, and conclu- sions, only to the extent that they are consistent with our conclusions and order herein.- 135 NLRB No. 99.