Int'l Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union

842 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24; and their agent, Frazier Moore and Kelley & Jamison, Inc. and International Typographical Union and its Local No. 11, Party of Interest. Case No. 26- CD-15. January 7, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On November 3, 1964, Trial Examiner David London issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. . 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 entire record in the case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondents' exceptions thereto, and supporting brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondents, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to a charge by Kelley & Jamison, Inc., hereinafter designated as the Com- pany, filed on November 1, 1963, and amended November 19, 1963, the General Counsel, on June 24, 1964, issued the complaint herein alleging that International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24, hereafter jointly referred to as the Pressmen ; and their agent, Frazier Moore, all three being collectively referred to as Respondents, have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , hereafter called the Act. In substance, the complaint alleges that since on or about October 31, 1963, in violation of the above- 150 NLRB No. 76. INT'L PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS' UNION 843 mentioned section of the Act, Respondents threatened the Company with a strike of certain of its employees unless its camera and related work, including -stripping, opaquing, and platemaking at its Memphis, Tennessee, plant, hereafter referred to as the disputed work, was assigned by the Company to employees who are members of Respondent Unions, the object of said threats being to force and require the Company to assign the aforementioned work to employees who are members of, or represented by, the Respondent Unions,' and not to employees who are members of International Typographical Union and its Local No. 11, hereafter jointly- referred to as the ITU. By their joint answer, Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor practice and pleaded affirmative defenses which will be considered in later portions of this Decision. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing on the complaint and answer aforementioned was held before Trial Examiner David London on July 13, 1964, at Memphis, Tennessee, at which the General Counsel, Respondents, the Employer, and the 1TU were repre- sented by counsel. At that hearing, there was received in evidence, and made a part of the record herein, the entire record of, and briefs filed in, prior proceeding herein conducted pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. Upon the entire record herein, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, admitted by Respondents in their answer, and found by the Board in the Section 10(k) proceeding hereafter described, I likewise find that the Company is engaged in commerce within- the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies'of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondents' answer admits, and I find, that Respondent Unions and the 1TU are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that Respondent Frazier Moore was their duly authorized agent during all times relevant herein. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Company is engaged in the business of typesetting and printing at Memphis, Tennessee, a business requiring the performance of the disputed work described above in connection with its offset printing of newspapers. The Company has a collective- bargaining agreement with the ITU, expiring in June 1965, covering its composing room employees. It had a similar agreement with the Pressmen for its pressmen which agreement, however, expired on May 31, 1963. Notwithstanding the expiration of the latter contract, the Company has continued to recognize the Pressmen as the bargain- ing representative of these employees. Though the existing agreement with the ITU does not specifically cover the disputed work, the Company, in 1962, during negotiations for that contract, orally agreed that when changes in its operation then contemplated were initiated, the disputed work would be assigned to the ITU. When those changes were made effective, the disputed work was assigned to the composing room employees represented by the ITU. During negotiations with the Pressmen for an extension or modification of its con- tract expiring on May 31, 1963, the Company was informed by counsel for the Pressmen that the Respondent International would sign no contract unless it contained a provision assigning the disputed work to employees represented by that organization. At a "showdown meeting" between the same parties on October 31, 1963, Respondent Moore, vice president of Respondent International and an admitted agent of Respond- ent Local, expressly informed the Company that unless it agreed to the Pressmen's demand he would "pull the men out." When the Company's counsel asked whether this was "a threat to strike," Moore replied that it was, and again emphasized that unless the work was assigned as requested, the Company "would not have men work- ing in [its] plant." On the following day, November 1, the Company filed the charge which instituted this entire proceeding. Pursuant thereto, a hearing to determine the dispute described above was held at Memphis, Tennessee, between December 11, 1963, and January 7, 1964, as provided by Section 10(k) of the Act. On May 14. 1964,`the Board handed down its Decision and Determination of Dispute (146 NLRB 1614) finding "that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination." 844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By that Decision and Determination of Dispute, after carefully considering the evi- dence, the briefs of the Company, the Pressmen, and the ITU, the Board determined that "compositors employed by the Company who are represented by the [ITU] are entitled to perform [the disputed work, viz], the offset preparation work of camera, stripping, opaquing, and platemaking at the Company's Memphis, Tennessee, plant, [and that Respondents] are not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign the above work to Pressmen who are represented by them." On or about May 20, 1964, Respondent International made and filed a motion and supporting brief seeking reconsideration, and reversal by the Board of its Determination aforementioned which motion was denied on June 9, 1964. On June 25, 1964, Respondents International and Moore, by their attorney, advised the Board "that it is not the intention" of said Respondents to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute aforementioned. All three Respond- ents have adhered to that position ever since. By their answer to the complaint, Respondents admit that they made the threats found above but plead affirmatively that the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute "is without substantial evidence to support it [and] does violence to establish rules of decision established by the Board itself." There is no merit to this defense. It is now well established that an "award of disputed work made by the Board in a decision and determination of dispute is not open to review by a Trial Examiner in a proceeding on an 8(b)(4)(D) complaint." Local 1291, International Longshore- men's Association, etc. (Pennsylvania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Com- pany), 142 NLRB 257; N.L.R.B. v. Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Hinote Electrical Co.), 275 F. 2d 420, 421 (C.A. 5). Respondents by their answer further plead, and before me contend, that there was then pending before the Board a petition of Respondent Local 24, in Case No. 26-RC- 2192, seeking certification of a unit consisting of the Company's pressmen and an employee engaged in the disputed work. It was further pleaded and argued that if the unit sought to be established in that proceeding should be certified by the Board as the appropriate unit, and if Respondent Local 24 should prevail in the anticipated election, "the resulting certification from the Board will operate to immunize Respond- ents from Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act since such certification will contemplate the disputed work." There is no need for me to engage in any protracted discussion of this defense for the Board itself has provided the answer. On August 25, 1964, it handed down its Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 26-RC-2192 (148 NLRB 463) in which it held that by its prior Decision and Determination of Dispute in the Section 10(k) proceeding (146 NLRB 1614) it had determined that the employee engaged in the disputed work was properly in the appropriate unit then represented by the ITU, and it therefore refused to include that employee in the unit sought by the Pressmen. In view of the findings and conclusions entered above, there is only one issue remaining for determination by me-have Respondents, contrary to the Board's Deci- sion and Determination' of Dispute herein, engaged in conduct or means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) of the Act 1 to force or require the Company to assign the disputed work to pressmen who are represented by them. On the entire record herein, I find that the object of Moore's threat of a strike against the Company on October 31 was to force or require the Company to assign the disputed work to employees who are members of Respondent Unions rather than to employees who are members of the ITU. By those threats all three Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. N. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b),(4) (ii) (D) of the Act, my Recommended Order will require 1 That section reads as follows: (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (4) . . .(ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where In either case an object thereof is: • • * • • $ * (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to" employees In another labor organization or in another trade, • craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work: INT'L PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS' UNION 845 Respondents to cease and desist therefrom and to take affirmative action designed to remedy said unfair labor practices. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening, coercing, and restraining the Company, an object thereof being to force or require it to assign its camera and related work, including stripping, opaqu- ing, and platemaking at its Memphis, Tennessee, plant, to employees who are members of Respondent Unions rather than to employees who are members of, or represented by, the ITU, all three Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (D) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respondents, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24; and their agent, Frazier Moore, together with all other agents, officers, representatives, successors, and assigns of said Unions aforementioned, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Kelley & Jamison, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require said Company to assign its camera and related work, including stripping, opaquing and platemaking, at its Memphis Tennessee, plant, to employees who are members of Respondent Unions rather than to employees who are members of, or represented by, International Typographical Union and its Local No. 11. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the business office of Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, Local No. 24, in Memphis, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Unions and by Respondent Moore, be posted by Respondent Unions immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 26 for posting by Kelley & Jamison, Inc., it being willing, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date hereof, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.3 2In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 3If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to ,read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO; MEMPHIS NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESS- MEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 24; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF KELLEY & JAMISON, INC. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that: WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Kelley & Jamison, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require Kelley & Jamison, Inc., to assign its camera 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and related work, including stripping, opaquing , and platemaking to employees who are represented by us, rather than to employees who are represented by International Typographical Union or its Local No. 11. INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated ------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) MEMPHIS NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 24, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) FRAZIER MOORE This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days after date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone No. 534- 3161 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Paul Hardeman, Inc. and Wesley Warren, Paul Ozen , Steve Ozen. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1832-1, d3-CA-1839-91, and 23-CA-1832-3. Jan- uary 8, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Brown]. 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 Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom- 150 NLRB No. 77.