Portland Stereotypers' Etc., No. 48

I PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' ETC., NO. 48 15 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 notify you that: WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Roofers Local 36, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association as the repre- sentative of our roofing employees. WE WILL honor and sign the contract executed between roofing Contractors' Association of Southern California, Inc. and Roofers Local 36, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association for the period August 15, 1963, through August 15, 1967, covering a unit of all roofers employed by members of said Association. WE WILL make whole the appropriate sources for any unpaid fringe benefits provided in the above contract. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above -named or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all 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. JOSEPH T. STRONG D/B/A STRONG ROOFING & INSULATING CO. Employer. Dated------------------ - By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the 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, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Portland Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48 and In- ternational Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Journal Publishing Co. and Oregonian Publishing Co. Case No. 36-CB-244. April 20,1965 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On October 18, 1960, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had violated Section 8(b) (1) (B), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by adamantly insisting upon, during bargaining negotiations and then striking for, certain terms and conditions in a new collective-bargaining agreement. He recommended that Respondents cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents, the Charging Parties, and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 152 NLRB No. 5. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On June 25, 1962, the National Labor Relations Board' issued its Decision and Order 2 which in part affirmed and in part reversed the Trial Examiner's findings. Specifically, the Board found, in accord with the Trial Examiner, that Respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (B) and (3) of the Act by insisting upon and striking for a clause requiring that the foremen, who were involved in the grievance process, be members of the Union. The Board did not, how- ever, adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (2) and (3) of the Act by insisting upon and striking for certain clauses which, taken together, would constitute an illegal closed shop, or by further insisting after the strike had begun, upon pro- visions that all employees who respected Respondents' picket line be rehired and that all contracts signed by the employers with all em- ployee representatives have the same expiration date. On June 26, 1962, the Charging Parties filed a petition for review of the Board's Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On motion by the Charging Parties, the court remanded this case to the Board on February 8, 1963 ". . . for the purpose of entertaining an offer in evidence of an article by James A. Thompson, published in the International Stereotypers' and Elec- trotypers' Union Journal, December 1962, for the receipt of such further evidence as the [Board] may desire, and for such other pro- ceedings as may be ordered by the [Board]. . . ." On June 10, 1963, the Board issued its order reopening record and remanding proceeding to Regional Director for further hearing. Pursuant to this order the article by James A. Thompson, published in the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Journal of De- cember 1962, was received into evidence and made a part of the record, and a further hearing was directed before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett to permit the introduction of such further evidence as the parties might desire to produce, in view of the evidence now offered. A hearing was held on June 25, 1963. On September 20, 1963, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Decision in which, based upon the new evidence, be reaffirmed his original findings that Re- spondents had violated Section 8(b) (1) (B), (2), and (3) of the Act, and recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Supplemental Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Sup- plemental Decision and a supporting brief. The Charging Parties also filed briefs in support of the Supplemental Decision and in an- swer to Respondents' exceptions. i Member Rodgers dissenting and Member Leedom not participating. s 137 NLRB 782. PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' ETC., NO. 48 17 The Board has revieived 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 Supple- mental Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record of the reopened hearing, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent that they are consistent with the following. At the reopened hearing, the only evidence introduced was the aforementioned article by James A. Thompson which the Charging Parties contended demonstrates that, during the collective-bargaining negotiations in 1959, Respondents insisted upon, and subsequently struck for, contract proposals that would establish an illegal closed shop in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and (3) of the Act. On the basis of this evidence, the Charging Parties' request that the Board over- rule its prior finding that Respondents were motivated by economic considerations in seeking and ultimately striking for these clauses. The article, published in the December 1962 issue of the Inter- national Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union Journal, is set forth in relevant part in the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision. Under the caption "Strike Town, U.S.A.," it purports to explain what caused the Portland strike. According to the article, "the Portland Strike was not an economic strike . . . [it] was caused because the members were UPHOLDING THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS ON WORKING CONDITIONS . . . . [I] f it were not for certain provisions of working conditions, there would have been no strike. To put it another way, there would have been no strike if certain work- ing conditions had not been demanded." There is no definition or elaboration in the article as to the specific working conditions referred to repeatedly as "working conditions" and juxtaposed with the term "economic strike." The article does conclude with a comment that the strike was in its fourth year of a battle to "maintain a union shop in Portland" and with a plea for financial assistance. Thompson, the writer of the article, is chapel chairman of the Jour- nal, and a member of the Local's executive committee, its official strike committee, and the negotiating committee. He attended all the negotiating meetings. The Trial Examiner found that the Thompson article was an admis- sion fully consistent with his original findings that the strike had been "for the purpose of obtaining a contract embodying within its four corners an elaborate closed shop hiring system," and inconsistent with our view "that illegal conditions of employment were not a factor in causing the strike." . This conclusion of the Trial Examiner as to the 789-730-66-vol. 152-3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD article's significance was reached without consideration of the Board's original Decision disposing of the issues in this case. Such con- sideration is required to determine the relevance and weight of the article. We conclude for the reasons set forth below that the article is of limited significance and does not require revising the findings we have already made in this case. As we found earlier, in the course of the 1959 negotiations for a new collective-bargaining contract : "It rapidly developed that the principal issues between the parties were : (1) whether the foreman of the stereo- type department could be required to be a union member; (2) the ex- tent to which the bylaws and constitutions of the Respondents were to be incorporated in any new contract; (3) the manning of equipment, and (4) the right to substitute." The Trial Examiner originally found, and reiterated in his Supplemental Decision, that Respondents' posi- tion on these four issues constituted, individually and collectively, an attempt to maintain closed shop conditions of employment in viola- tion of the Act. In making this finding, the Trial Examiner relied on certain provisions in Respondents' constitutions and bylaws, which Respondents allegedly sought to include in the contract. The Board found, however, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in the News Syndicate case,' issued subsequent to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion, that Respondents' proposal called for inclusion in the contract only of those provisions of the constitutions and bylaws which were lawful. The Board further concluded that the proposal requiring union membership for foremen did not have as its target an unlawful condition of employment proscribed by Section 8(a) (3), because it was coupled with a willingness to exempt foremen from union discipli- nary action for carrying out the orders of the publishers; 4 that the manning issue was an economic one although a union bylaw fixed the number of employees who were to operate certain machines; and that Respondents were not insisting on the continuance of the past practice of hiring only union members as substitutes. With this as background, we turn to the relevance of the Thompson article. The article is general in its terms. It nowhere states exactly what the strikers were seeking to obtain. Thompson asserted that the strike "was not a greedy strike for an unreasonable demand." It was S N L R B. v. News Syndicate Company. Inc., et al, 365 U.S. 695. For the reasons set forth in our prior Decision, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's comments in his Sup- plemental Decision regarding the validity of savings clauses under the News Syndicate decision The Trial Examiner again concluded that the savings clause in the instant case has no force or effect. This , in our view, violates not only the spirit but also the language of that Decision. * The Board did find, however , that Respondents' insistence that foremen who handled grievances be members of the Union was a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (B ) and (3). PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' ETC., NO. 48 19 not an "economic strike." Thompson was not a lawyer and he was not writing for an audience of labor lawyers. It is likely that "economic" here meant nothing more than "monetary." The strike was to uphold the "International laws on working conditions." But these are not necessarily unlawful. Some union constitutional or bylaw provisions, for example, fixing the number of employees to man given machines, may lawfully be incorporated in collective-bargaining contracts as working conditions and may lawfully be insisted upon as a condition to entering into a bargaining contract.' Finally, the article refers to the battle to "maintain a union shop in Portland." Insistence upon a union shop is lawful. The term is not synonymous with closed shop.' The sum of it is that the Thompson article speaks in terms of ambiguous generalities.' It casts no light upon, and certainly does not undermine, the specific findings of the Board that the Union's con- tract proposals called for inclusion in the contract only of lawful bylaw and constitutional provisions, and that the proposals relating to membership of foremen in the Union, the manning of equipment, and the right to substitute, were also lawful. Therefore, based upon our original Decision and Order (137 NLRB 782), we adhere to our original Order. MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. s Armored Car Chauffeurs and Guards Local Union No 820, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( United States Trucking Corporation), 145 NLRB 225 , 229, and cases cited therein 6In our original Decision, we found that a union shop , in fact, became an issue, and one of the overriding issues, between the parties as the strike continued. The issue arose after the strike began because the publishers, having replaced strikers, became reluctant to grant any form of union security. Account should also be taken of the fact that since the article is an appeal by a local official to a national audience for money to help the strikers, the article not unexpectedly stresses, perhaps to the point of exaggeration , the national features of the issues involved in the Portland strike. TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE The original Board Decision and Order in this matter issued June 25, 1962, and is reported at 137 NLRB 782. On June 26, the Charging Parties filed a peti- tion for review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . On motion by the Charging Parties, the court remanded the case to the Board on February 8, 1963, with a modified order of remand , issuing on May 6, 1963, and stating as follows: The case is remanded to the National Labor Relations Board for the purpose of entertaining an offer in evidence of an article by James A. Thompson, published in the International Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union Journal, December 1962, for the receipt of such further evidence as the respondent may desire, and for such other proceedings as may be ordered by the respondent. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This Court retains jurisdiction of the case, and upon conclusion of the above- ordered proceedings each party shall have the right to file whatever amended pleadings and papers it may think advisable or appropriate.' On June 10, 1963, the Board issued its order reopening record and remanding proceeding to Regional Director for further hearing. Therein, it received in evidence said article by Thompson and directed that a further hearing be conducted before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett, the original Trial Examiner in the case; that such further evidence as the parties might desire be received; and that a Supple- mental Decision be prepared with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recom- mendations upon the evidence received. A hearing was accordingly held at Portland, Oregon, on June 25, 1963, and all parties were represented. Upon such record, upon a consideration of the evidence received pursuant to the Board Order, and upon a reevaluation of the issues before me, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Initially, I construe the remand as directing me to reevaluate and reappraise the issues raised in the complaint, including those dismissed by the Board, in the light of this newly developed evidence. A contrary view would render meaningless and nugatory the Board's Order that I make "recommendations upon the evidence received . (1) Turning to the Thompson article, the Charging Parties urge that it constitutes an admission that the strike was one for illegal closed-shop working conditions and not an economic strike, contrary to Respondents' claim that the article merely reflects the personal opinion of Thompson.2 Thompson's active role in the negotiations is set forth in the original Decision. Suffice it to say, as the reopened hearing discloses, that Thompson is a member of the Local's executive board; the Union's official scribe; chapel chairman of the Journal; and a member of the negotiating committee who attended every negotiating meeting. Manifestly, Thompson is strongly qualified and competent to make an admission binding upon Respondents. I would assume that the Board would find a state- ment by an assistant industrial relations director of a company concerning bargaining negotiations in which he participated to constitute an admission concerning his em- ployer's position and directly relevant to an evaluation of a Section 8(a)(5) refusal- to-bargain case. Applying the same single standard here, I find that Thompson similarly may bind Respondents. Indeed, the Board in its original Decision did not question Thompson's representative role in the negotiations. Moreover, in similar fashion, he had previously written articles in relation to the strike and at no time did any union officials repudiate or challenge his authority to make same or to write the instant article The fact that Thompson did not clear this article with any union official is of little weight, in terms of the law of evidence, for Thompson was writing specifically in terms of his own representative role in the negotiations, an area in which he was singularly qualified and presumptively au- thorized to speak (2) This presents for consideration the content of the Thompson article. It was written by him alone and was submitted for publication in the December 1962 issue of the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union Journal, a monthly pub- lication. It is captioned "Strike Town, U.S.A. by James A. Thomson [sic], Port- land, Oregon, Local No. 48," and is 1'h pages long. As Thompson testified, the article is based on the facts as I interpret them." The first page is devoted to a not directly related matter, namely, the extent to which strikes should be under- taken and supported. The article then goes on to state as follows: If, however, we want people to support union conditions and union laws and union shops, then we better take another look at what is being condoned as good union principles. Strikes occur under varying conditions and for reasons 'The original order of remand was modified only to the extent of providing for reten- tion of jurisdiction by the court. It would seem that Respondent Unions had also filed a petition for review on June 26, 1962, in the Court of Appeals for the District of Colum- bia, but had been beaten to the punch as it were, by some hours. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Kohler ^Co., 47 LRRDI 2609, and Kohler Co. v. N.L.R B., 47 LRRDI 2662 (CA. 7), decided Novem- ber 23, 1960, and January 18, 1961, respectively 21 originally found that Respondents struck for such unlawful objectives and that the strike was not essentially economic in nature, but the Board held otherwise. PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' ETC., NO. 48 21 unknown to me there are those who chose to forget what instigated the Port- land strike. It was not a greedy strike for an unreasonable demand, it was not for selfish gains of the Portland members alone, if these were the issues, and a strike was called , and unresolved because of unreasonable demands, then it would be a case of poor judgment on the part of the members and the mem- bers would have to suffer the consequences resulting from that poor judgment. The Portland Strike was not an economic strike. As the International Officers know, as every ex-officio delegate to all International Conventions since 1959 knows, as do every member who reads the Journal know, that the Portland Strike was caused because the members were UPHOLDING THE INTER- NATIONAL LAWS ON WORKING CONDITIONS . I won't elaborate fur- ther at this time. The laws are International Laws, if strikes are forced on locals because of an insistence of upholding these working conditions, then it is the responsibility of the International Union and its representatives to sup- port this stand indefinitely . All know the outcome of strikes are a grave gam- ble. If because of implied instructions that leave the members under the impression that to accept a condition into a contract would be contrary to certain interests then the parties making the implications have no contrary rebuttal to unlimited support of the parties who are sufferers of the decision. One thing that is not remembered by a few, is that , if it were not for certain provisions of working conditions, there would have been no strike. To put it another way, there would have been no strike if certain working conditions had not been demanded. [Emphasis supplied.] The article concludes with a comment that the strike was in its fourth year of a battle to "maintain a union shop in Portland" and with a plea for financial assist- ance .3 [Emphasis supplied ] Manifestly, the admission in the article by Thompson is fully consistent with the findings originally made by the Trial Examiner concerning the purposes of the strike and is contrary to the finding of the Board that "the Trial Examiner did not sufficiently consider what may have been the causes of the strike . As Respond- ents argue, there were great differences between the parties on purely economic issues .. " 4 Consistent with my original findings, as now buttressed by the Thompson admission , I again find, as the General Counsel originally alleged, and the supplemented record divulges no abandonment of this claim , that the strike was for the purpose of obtaining a contract embodying within its four corners an elaborate closed-shop hiring system, as specified in chapter and verse in the original Decision and that a preponderance of the evidence supports the original findings made herein.5 (3) As the Board noted , the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in N.L .R.B. v. News Syndicate Company, Inc., and New York Mailers ' Union No. 6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, 365 U.S. 695, subsequent to the is- suance of the original Trial Examiner's Decision herein. The Trial Examiner originally found that a so-called savings clause of the type involved in the News Syndicate case, then a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was not a defense. Hence, on that posture, it was superfluous to evaluate on its face the purported savings clause in the instant contract demanded by Respondents and I did not do so. It will be helpful to restate certain relevant facts at this point. In News Syndicate, the proposed contract contained no illegal language on its face and the labor organ- ization sought to incorporate by reference its general laws. The Supreme Court held that an expressed condition that only those laws "not in conflict with this contract or with federal or state Law" were to be incorporated , was not per se unlawful. A brief consideration of the instant contract proposal for which Respondent struck will suffice to demonstrate that this purported savings clause is intrinsically and in- 3 The prime issue in this case is not whether a union shop was sought, but rather whether Respondents struck for closed -shop working conditions. 4137 NLRB 783 at 786 . But note prior language by the Board , on pp 783-784, that " . . the principal issues between the parties were - ( 1) whether the foreman of the stereotype department could be required to be a union member ; ( 2) the extent to which the bylaws and constitutions of the Respendents were to be incorporated in any new contract ; ( 3) the manning of the equipment , and (4 ) the right to substitute " [Emphasis supplied I 6 As noted, there is no evidence that Respondents have ever disavowed or repudiated the statements made by Thompson in this or in his earlier articles relating to the strike, al- though the precise content of the latter is not disclosed I find that they have not. 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD herently of a totally different nature and purport. In the first place, Respondents demanded that certain specified provisions of the constitution , general laws and local laws be specifically incorporated in the body of the contract . These clauses , for the reasons set forth in the original Trial Examiner's Decision, "establish an elaborate closed shop hiring system." In the News Syndicate case, there was a condition precedent, as it were, that unlawful language was not to be incorporated . This is a far cry from the present case where the unlawful language was to be incorporated in its entirety, if Respondents had their way, in the very body or the four corners of the contract. Secondly, the only condition here was in the nature of a condition subsequent, if it may be so termed , that "The language and meaning of these sections are not to be changed in any way other than to bring them into conformity with the intent of the Labor Laws of the United States of America." Stated otherwise , the illegal language was to be set forth on the face of the contract if Respondents had their way. The content of the contract was not to be changed except if and when a party to the contract persuaded the other party to change of the language to conform with "the intent of the Labor Laws of the United States of America." I determine it unneces- sary and entirely speculative to decide at this point the precise meaning of "intent" or whose construction of "intent " was envisaged by Respondent Unions. To sum up, by no stretch of the imagination is this a savings clause within the mean- ing of the News Syndicate case. Respondents flatly wanted everything specified on the face of their written demand to be included within the four corners of the con- tract, in haec verba, without exception or reservation . And, as previously found, Re- spondents struck for this objective . Thus, they unquestionably struck for a patently unlawful contract, which was subject to future change under vague conditions not specified therein and not permitting of a precise resolution herein. See N.L R.B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (The Refinery Engineering Co.) 321 F. 2d 126 (C.A. 9). The Board pointed out in its original Decision in this case that, consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in New Syndicate, "savings clauses are to be given their face value." Giving the purported savings clause in this case its "face value," I find that it does not constitute a savings clause and that in no way was it intended or designed to prevent inclusion within the four corners of the contract the language sought by Respondents which has been previously found, in the original Trial Examiner's Decision, to be unlawful in various specified respects. I find for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons previously stated in the original Trial Examiner's Decision, that, in the respects there and here enumerated, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1)(B ), ( 2), and ( 3) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 6 1. Portland Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48 and International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. All employees of the stereotype departments of Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co., excluding foremen and supervisors, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Portland Stereotypers ' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48 and International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers ' Union of North America , AFL-CIO, at all times material herein , have been and now are the exclusive representatives of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co., Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 6 While these appear in the original Decision, they are repeated here for convenience. The Recommended Order appearing below, as is Board practice , does not appear in the printed volume of Decisions and Orders. PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' ETC., NO. 48 23 6. By demanding contract clauses and by engaging in a strike for same, in order to cause or attempt to cause Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Re- spondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. 7. By demanding contract clauses and by engaging in a strike for same to force Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. to hire only foremen who are union members, Respondents have restrained and coerced said employers in the selec- tion of representatives for the adjustment of grievances, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Respondents, Portland Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48 and International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL- CIO, their officers, agent, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. in behalf of the employees in the above appropriate unit by demanding and striking for (1) contract clauses requiring foremen to be union members covered by the contract, (2) acceptance of Respondents' manning and substitute laws, and (3) acceptance of Respondents' constitutions and laws, so long as Respondents are the representatives of the employees in said unit.? (b) Demanding contract clauses or engaging in a strike for the purpose of forc- ing Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. to execute a contract (1) covering union foremen, (2) including Respondents' constitutions or laws, manning laws, or substitute laws, or (3) otherwise requiring union membership as a condition of employment, except to the limited extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) Restraining or coercing Oregonian Publishing Co. or Journal Publishing Co. in the selection of representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Oregonian Publishing Co. and Jour- nal Publishing Co. as the representatives of the employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate; (b) Post at the business offices of Portland Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48 and International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and at all other places where notices to members of Respondent Local No. 48 are customarily posted, including the stereotype departments of Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co., said publishers willing, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being signed by duly authorized of- ficers of Respondent International and Respondent Local, be posted by them im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 7 This recommendation, as well as those listed below, is not intended to be applicable to contract demands concerning manning or the use of substitutes standing alone which are distinct and divorced from demands involving physical incorporation in the contract of the constitutions and laws of Respondents 8In 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 is 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." 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner 's Supplemental Decision, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.9 It is recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision , Respondents notify the aforesaid Re- gional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondents to take the action aforesaid. 9In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION No. 48 AND INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF OREGONIAN PUBLISH- ING CO. AND JOURNAL PUBLISHING CO. 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, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL, upon request, in our capacity as bargaining representative of all employees of the Stereotype Departments of Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co., excluding foremen and supervisors, bargain collectively in good faith with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the above employers by demanding and striking for contract clauses requiring foremen to be union mem- bers covered by the contract; for acceptance of our manning and substitute laws; or for acceptance of our constitution and laws. WE WILL NOT demand contract clauses or engage in strike action for the purpose of causing or attempting to cause Oregonian Publishing Co. or Jour- nal Publishing Co. to execute an agreement requiring membership in Portland Stereotypers' and Electrotypers' Union No. 48, AFL-CIO, as a condition of employment, except to the limited extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Oregonian Publishing Co. or Journal Pub- lishing Co. in the selection of their representatives for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. All employees of the stereotype departments of Oregonian Publishing Co. and Journal Publishing Co. who are represented by us are hereby advised that they are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of our labor organizations, except as such right may be affected by an agreement executed in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. PORTLAND STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION No. 48, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By----- ------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS' AND ELECTROTYPERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the 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, 327 Logal Building, Fifth and Union Streets, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any question concerning this notice of compliance with its provisions.