Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc.

210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By the acts described above Respondent did refuse to bargain collectively and is refusing to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees concern- ing the establishment of job classifications and, in so doing, did interfere with, restrain, and coerce and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. 4. 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 omitted from publication.] Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. and New York Typograph- ical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO Newspaper Enterprises, Inc. and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co., Inc. and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO New York World Telegram Corp. and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO News Syndicate Co., Inc. and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO New York Herald Tribune, Inc. and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO The New York Times Company and New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO and Publishers' Association of New York City, Party in Interest. Cases Nos. 2-CA-10154, 29-CA- 63 (formerly 2-CA-10155), 29-CA-64 (formerly 2-CA-10156), 2-CA-10157,2-CA-10158, 2-CA-10159, and 2-CA-10160. Decem- ber 21, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 26, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- 17 ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- 156 NLRB No. 16. HEARST CONSOLIDATED PUBLICATIONS, INC. 211 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 brief in support thereof.' The General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, the answering brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. Respondents, who are members of the Publishers' Association of New York City, are parties to an agreement with the Charging Union, which was negotiated on their behalf by the Association, and which includes their respective composing room employees in a single collective-bargaining unit. Their latest contract's terminal date was March 30,1965. The contractual relationships between the Association and the Union covering a multiemployer unit of composing room employees extends back for many years. On June 26, 1964, the Union addressed identical letters to the Respondents advising them that the Union desired to negotiate a separate contract with each of them and no longer wished to bargain jointly with the publishers on a multiemployer basis. By letter of July 21, 1964, the Association replied to the Union with a flat and unqualified rejection of the Union's demand, and thereafter took the position, in part, that because of the long history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis, their individual composing room employees do not constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the Evening News Association case,2 wherein the Board was confronted with an almost identical factual situation to that presented in the instant proceeding, the Board held that a union could withdraw from multiemployer bargaining under the same conditions and circum- stances as apply to employer withdrawals from such multiemployer bargaining. In arriving at that decision, the Board noted that a multi- 'The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 'The Evening News Assoc,ation, owner and publisher of "The Detroit Neleaj' 154 NIEB 1494. 217-919-66-vol. 156-15 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employer unit is grounded on the consent of both parties, and that no logical basis- exists for denying the bargaining representative the opportunity to withdraw its consent while at the same time permitting employers to withdraw for any reason at a proper time and by giving proper notice. Without this foundation of mutual consent and mutual undertaking on the part of both parties, friction and instability in the bargaining unit is frequently the ultimate result.3 We cannot perceive how we would be fostering that necessary mutual desire on the part of all parties to make multiemployer bargaining work, by imposing on the union far more restrictive standards than are imposed on the employer for withdrawal from the unit once is is established. Here; as in The Evening News Association, the Union gave timely and unequivocal notice of its desire to withdraw from the multi- employer unit and to bargain with each Respondent individually, and such action, if taken by an employer, would have been an effective withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining without qualification or limitation. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in that case, we find that the Union's withdrawal in the instant case was effective, and that it was therefore incumbent on each of the Respondents to bargain in separate employer units, which we find are appropriate for bargain- ing purposes. Having refused to bargain in separate employer units, each of the Respondents committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order 4] MEMBER BROWN , dissenting: My colleagues are permitting the Union to withdraw from and thereby disintegrate a bargaining relationship which has existed for 8 Our dissenting colleague relies on the fact that the multiemployer bargaining relation- ship herein "has withstood the attenuating effects of strikes, technological innovations, changes in membership of the Association and replacements of union officers." In this regard, we note that recently the New York Herald Tribune announced its withdrawal from this bargaining unit with the statement that ". . . economic and other considera- tions make it impossible for us . to continue inside the Association" and that ". . . in this critical state of our history we must, for the future of the Herald Tribune and its employees, be free to follow our own judgement and to act independently as we think best." ( New York Herald Tribune, Monday, September 27, 1965. ) Similarly, in the spring of 1963, following a strike of some 83 days , the New York Post withdrew from this same multiemployer group bargaining to resume publication , according to publisher Dorothy Schiff, because "I think the strike has gone on long enough ; I don't see any possibility of an early settlement, and I think we should have at least one newspaper publishing in New York." ( Washington Post , March 1, 1963. ) The foregoing announce- ments and withdrawals indicate that the stability of industrial relations resulting from multiemployer bargaining is perhaps somewhat less than that attributed to it by our dissenting colleague. *The last paragraph appearing at the bottom of the Appendix is amended to read: "Employees may communicate directly with Region 2, Fifth Floor , Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500 ; and with Region 29, 16 Court Street , Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York, Telephone No. 596-5386 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions." HEARST CONSOLIDATED PUBLICATIONS, INC. 213 more than half a century and which, in the words of the Trial Exam- iner, "has withstood the attentuating effects of strikes, technological innovations, changes in membership of the Association, and replace- ments of union officers." The withdrawal of the Herald Tribune and New York Post referred to in the majority opinion, for reasons not detailed in the record but apparently stemming from a special situa- tion confronting each of them, serves to underscore this fact. For the Association continues to exist, and it demands adherence to the long- time bargaining pattern. The withdrawal of an employer from associationwide bargaining does not, of course, demonstrate that the community of interest among the others in the group has ceased or otherwise signal the end of It fruitful bargaining pattern. Recognition of this fact appears in such cases as Ice Cream, Frozen Custard Industry Employees, Drivers, Vendors and Allied Workers Union Local 717, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, etc. (Ice Cream Council, Inc.), 145 NLRB 865, where the Board held that "The voluntary withdrawal of the aforesaid employees from multiemployer bargaining, however, neither excused Respondents from its obligation to respect the integrity of the multi- employer unit to the extent it thereafter remained intact, nor released the Union from its duty to continue to recognize the Council's rep- resentative status for those employers who still desired to bargain on a multiemployer basis." (Pp. 870-871.) However, where the union withdraws, the bargaining relationship which has proved its worth by the test of time is dissolved. And where no justifitible''reason appears therefor, as none does in this case, the cause of industrial stability suffers. That is the situation before us. Accordingly, and for reasons more fully stated in my dissenting opinion in' 7'he Evening News Association, 154 NLRB 1494, I would find that the multiemployer bargaining relationship which has served the parties for more than 50 years ought not to be dissolved and indi- vidual employer bargaining substituted therefor. The complaint should be dismissed. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges duly filed on July 29, 1964, by New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL- CIO, herein called the Union,' against each of the above-named Respondents, an order consolidating the above-numbered cases, a consolidated complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly issued on October 28, 1964. In substance, the complaint alleges that each Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, because it has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated representative of its composing room employees. An answer on behalf of 1 At the hearing a motion was granted changing the name of the Union as it appears in the pleadings and other papers in this proceeding to read as stated above. 214 DECISIONS OF• NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents was duly filed which , in substance, denies that they had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, a hearing was held before Trial Exam- iner Herbert Silberman at New York, New. York, on November 23 and 24, 1964. Briefs have been received from all parties, which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:, . FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Respondents, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., Newspaper. Enterprises, Inc., Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co., Inc., New York World Telegram Corp., News Syndicate Co., Inc., New York Herald Tribune, Inc., and The New York Times Company are corporations engaging in printing and publishing newspapers of general circulation in the city of New York. During the past. year, which period is repre- sentative of their respective annual operations generally, each Respondent in the course and conduct of its publishing operations, separately and individually held membership in, and subscribed to, various interstate news services, published various syndicated features, advertised various nationally sold products, caused newsprint, ink, and other goods and materials to be transported to it in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York, published newspapers and caused them to be delivered in interstate commerce directly to pur- chasers in States of the United States other than the State of New York, and each derived gross revenues from said publishing operations in excess of $500,000. Each Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondents , who are members of the Publishers ' Association of New York City (hereinafter called the Association), are parties to an agreement, with the Union which was negotiated on their behalf by the Association and which includes their respective composing room employees , in a single collective-bargaining unit. The contractual relationship between the Association and Union extends back for longer than 50 years and 'until the present has withstood the attenuating effects of strikes, technological innovations, changes in membership of the Association , and replace- ments of union officers. Departing from this long-established tradition of associa- tion bargaining , the Union, on June 26, 1964, advised Respondents by an identical letter written to each that it desired to negotiate separate contracts with them and no longer wished to bargain jointly on a multiemployer basis. Respondents , through the Association, on July 21, 1964, replied with an unqualified rejection of the Union's demand. Respondents' refusals to bargain separately with the Union for their respective composing room employees is the gravamen of the instant complaint charging them with violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Denying these charges, Respondents contend that because of the long history of bargaining on a multi- employer basis their individual composing room employees do not constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and, furthermore, even if they are in error in this respect, as they entertain a good-faith doubt that the separate units of employees for which the Union is seeking to bargain collectively are appro- priate for such purposes their refusals to bargain with the Union, without a prelimi- nary resolution of the unit question pursuant to, the procedures under Section 9(c) (1) of the Act, are not violations of the Act. There is no dispute that Respondents have rejected the Union's bargaining demands .because of their genuine belief that the proposed units are inappropriate. General Counsel adduced no evidence whatsoever to impugn the bona fides of Respondents' assertions that they deem the subsisting, contractual multiemployer unit to be the only appropriate bargaining unit for their composing room employees. On the other hand, such evidence on the subject as appears in the record tends to establish that Respondents are' resisting the Union's demands not because they seek to avoid col- lective bargaining or to undermine the Union's position as representative of their composing room employees but to' preserve the integrity of the long established multiemployer bargaining unit. HEARST CONSOLIDATED PUBLICATIONS, INC. 215 Prior to 1959, the Board normally insisted that the procedures of Section 9(c) (1)- of the Act should be used to resolve questions concerning unit which were raised ine good faith. Accordingly, in Chalet, Inc., 107 NLRB 109, and similar cases, charges; of violation of Section 8(a)(5) were dismissed where the employer's refusal to bar-- gain was grounded upon his good-faith doubt that the unit for which the labor orga- nization was seeking recognition was appropriate.. Whether or not the requestedl unit was in fact appropriate was immaterial to the result in those cases. However, a contrary position was taken by the Board in Ton, Thumb Stores, Inc., 123 NLRB; 833, and the Board therein specifically overruled Chalet, Inc., and Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 1718, to the extent that the decisions in those cases are inconsistent with its opinion. Respondents contend that in Tom Thumb, and other cases following that decision, the employer had engaged in conduct "indicating a bad faith motive" and the Board rested its decision upon such fact so that Tom Thumb does not stand for the proposition that a good-faith doubt regarding the appropriateness of a requested unit is not a defense to a refusal-to-bargain charge. I do not agree with Respondents. Although there is language in the Tom Thumb decision suggesting that its principle is limited to cases involving a refusal to bargain "for a traditionally appropriate unit upon the bare claim that such unit is inappro- priate," I read the majority opinion to be broader in scope and to mean that an employer's good or bad faith in challenging the appropriateness of a unit does not affect the efficacy of a Section 8(a) (5) proceeding to determine that question. For the purpose of resolving unit questions Section 8(a)(5) is complementary of and not merely supplementary to Section 9(c). If an employer doubts whether the employees whom the union seeks to represent constitute an appropriate unit, he may, pursuant to Section 9(c)(1), petition the Board for a determination of the appropriate unit. Alternatively, the employer can simply refuse to bargain with the union; if an unfair labor practice charge is then filed, the Board is required by the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) to decide whether the union was seeking to represent an appropriate bargaining unit. Representation questions may be determined by either of these routes. Accordingly, Respondents' good faith in contesting the.appro- priateness of the separate units for which the Union is demanding recognition is not a sufficient defense to the instant complaint.2 The evidence adduced at the hearing establishes, and Respondents do not dispute, that the Union represents a majority of the composing room employees of each Respondent, that the Union made timely demand on each Respondent to bargain for such employees and that each Respondent has refused to enter into separate bargaining negotiations with the Union for its composing room employees. Further- more, General Counsel has adduced evidence which prima facie demonstrates that the composing room employees of each Respondent may constitute an appropriate collective-bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.3 The only remaining issue in this case is whether the Union may unilaterally dis- solve the existing multiemployer bargaining unit of Respondents' composing room employees. There is no controlling precedent which determines this question. In Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 394-395, the Board stated that it will "estab- lish in appropriate future cases . . . specific ground rules . . . to govern questions of representation in multiemployer bargaining units." Although the Board was not then prepared to issue a comprehensive formulation of the circumstances under which a labor organization may withdraw'from a multiemployer -bargaining unit, it stated that any policy which will be established, in addition to possible other factors, will require (1) the withdrawing party (whether union or employer) to give "adequate written notice . . . prior to the date set by the contract. for modification, or to the agreed-upon date to begin the multiemployer negotiations," and (2) such notice to be given before "actual bargaining negotiations based on the existing multiemployer unit have begun." Here these two conditions have been met by the Union. The Board has not yet announced its ground rules governing the circumstances under which a labor organization may withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining unit although now pending before the Board are two cases which it may use as vehi- cles for such pronouncement.4 Absent such rules it falls upon me to anticipate the 2 United Aircraft Corporation (Hamilton Standard Division ) v. 1NT.L.R.B., 333 F. 2d 819 (C.A. 2). 3 The composing room units , which I find are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, include: All composing room employees of the respective Respondents exclud- ing proof boys and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. 4 The Evening News Association, Owner and Publisher of "The Detroit News," et ano., 154 NLRB 1494; and The Evening News Association, Owner and Publisher of "The Detroit News," et ano., 154 NLRB 1482. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD course which the Board will follow in regard to the issue at hand. I believe that the Retail Associates case clearly indicates that there are circumstances under which a labor organization may, without the employers' concurrence, withdraw from a multi- employer unit; otherwise there was no reason for the Board to delineate the mini- mum, conditions which will govern such withdrawal. Furthermore, Retail Associates (and many other cases ) gives specific recognition to the fact that a multiemployer bargaining unit arises from a consensual arrangement between a group of employers and a labor organization. It would be unreasonable to hold, as Respondents in effect argue, that once having entered into such arrangement a labor organization completely and for all time deprives itself of opportunity for reconsideration and withdrawal, while freedom to make such choice remains with the employers. There is no equity, or basis,in the language or history of the Act, to Respondents' position that while in the first instance the consent of both parties was necessary to enter into their joint bargaining arrangement, the right to modify or dissolve such arrangement resides only in the employers. The Board will not lightly give its sanction to a multiemployer unit and insists upon a demonstration that such unit rests upon a relatively stable foundation before it will recognize the multiemployer unit as appropriate. Similarly, it will not lightly sanction the dissolution of such unit and intends "that reasonable control limit the parties as to the time and manner that withdrawal will be permitted from an estab- lished multiemployer bargaining ' unit." Retail Associates, Inc., supra, 393. While it does not follow that the controls should be identical for each such party, there is no reason to believe that the Board will impose greater restrictions upon the labor organization than upon the employers considered as a group. Quite obviously, the withdrawal of the labor organization from a multiemployer unit stands upon a dif- ferent footing than the withdrawal of any one employer. The withdrawal of the labor organization effects a complete dissolution of the multiemployer unit and can only be compared to a simultaneous withdrawal of all the employers. For the pur- poses of this decision it is unnecessary to consider the various situations under which the Board might refuse to sanction a labor organization's withdrawal from a multi- .employer unit. In this case, I find nothing in the "time and manner" of the Union's withdrawal which should militate against the Union obtaining Board confirmation of its action. Respondents attack the Union's motives for seeking to destroy the existing multi- 'employer unit of composing room employees. They argue that the Union's only purpose is to obtain added bargaining strength by isolating Respondents and depriv- ing them of the opportunity to engage in joint defensive action through the means of a lock out of their employees, as was done in the 1962-63 strike, should the Union call a strike against any one or more of Respondent's but less than all. In support of this position they also argue that the Union has no real intention to depart from its longstanding policy of seeking uniform terms and conditions of -employment for its members who work for Respondents. The evidence adduced at the hearing as to the Union's motives and objectives is inconclusive. On the one hand, Bertram Powers, the Union's president, testified that the Union is looking to improve its negotiating position, mentioning, among other factors, that joint bargaining impedes the resolution of demands which apply to only one or two newspapers but not to all and curtails the possibility of obtaining con- cessions from the financially more secure newspapers, and that the denial of Buffalo Linen [109 NLRB 447] lockout privileges to the Respondents is only a "side effect''" rather than the motivating consideration for its desire to withdraw from the multi- employer bargaining unit. On the other hand, Respondents. point to past conduct of and statements by the Union and the absence of evidence to show any significant change in circumstances as demonstrating that the factor which Powers testified as being only a "side effect," in truth is the dominant reason for the proposed change. Regardless of its specific objectives there is no question that, as Respondents con- tend, the Union's reason for demanding separate negotiations is to strengthen its bargaining position vis-a-vis Respondents. However, I do not consider that the motives or objectives of the Union have any bearing upon its right to withdraw from the multiemployer unit so long as the action taken by the Union is unequivocal and not otherwise unlawful. It is not a legitimate objection to the Union's proposed action. that it hopes to derive advantages or bargaining strenpth therefrom. Nor- mally, it is assumed that employers and labor organizations in dealing with each other employ tactics and adopt positions for their respective benefit. While unselfish considerations sometimes have a significant influence upon bargaining relationships, the Act does. not make unlawful or attach any disadvantage to conduct and tactics HEARST CONSOLIDATED PUBLICATIONS, INC. 217 which are not so motivated. "Nor does it contain a charter for the National Labor Relations Board to act at large in equalizing disparities of bargaining power between employer and union." N.L.R.B. v. Insurance Agents' International. Union, AFL- CIO (Prudential Ins. Company), 361 U.S. 477, 490. Thus, although it may be true, as Respondents contend, that a concomitant of the dissolution of the multiemployer unit will be to weaken their ability to resist future bargaining demands by the Union, such consideration in my view is not properly cognizable in arriving at unit deter- minations. Whether the Buffalo Linen principle should be extended in such man- ner that Respondents still will be permitted to take joint defensive action against strikes by the Union despite dissolution of the multiemployer unit is not properly before me in this case . I deem the availability or unavailability to Respondents of defensive lockout tactics as irrelevant to the issue here which is simply one of unit determination. Respondents also contend that the Union, upon the disestablishment of the multi- employer unit, will strive to continue uniform terms and conditions of employment for its members employed by Respondents. Such objective is not inconsistent with a sincere purpose to engage in separate bargaining. There is nothing unlawful in such objective, nor do Respondents claim that there is. That such objective may more readily be obtained, or in this case preserved, through multiemployer bargain- ing goes only to a judgmental evaluation and not to considerations which should" affect the unit determination. Once the multiemployer unit is dissolved the Union will be obliged to bargain in good faith with each employer separately. The deter- mination of the appropriate unit in this case should not depend upon the speculative possibility that the Union at a later date might fail in its duty to bargain collectively with each Respondent in the manner contemplated by the Act. I conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the Union effectively has with- drawn from the multiemployer bargaining unit and that Respondents were and are under an obligation to bargain separately with it for their respective composing room employees and by refusing to do so have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.5 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with their operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair. labor, practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondents have unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Union, I shall recommend that each Respondent bargain collectively with the Union, upon request, as the exclusive representative of its composing room employees concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi- tions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand- ing in a signed agreement. 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. All composing room employees of each Respondent excluding proofboys and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act constitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5 Neither the Union nor Respondents have indicated any intention to abrogate their subsisting collective-bargaining agreement prior to its expiration on March 30, 1965. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the bargaining order recommended herein upon the contract . Also, no issue has been raised as to whether the duty to bargain for separate units matured on June 26, 1964, when the demand was made by the Union , or matures on March 30, 1965, when the current agreement expires. Under all the circumstances, I consider that such duty matured on June 26 , 1964 , and Re- spondents' violations date from July 21 , 1964, when they rejected the Union's demand. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By refusing, since July 21, 1964, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the above-described appropriate unit each Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in such refusal to bargain, each Respondent has interfered with its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that each of the Respondents, their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All composing room employees excluding proofboys and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named Union to bargain collectively for the employees in the said unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclu- sive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit described above con- cerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its places of business in New York City copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 2 of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized repre- sentative of Respondent, be posted upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said' Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.? e In the event that this Recommended Order Is 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." 7In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date from this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 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 our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with New York Typographical Union No. 6, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargain- ing unit described below concerning rates of pay; wages, hours of employment, N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 219 and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All composing room employees excluding proof boys and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. 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, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500, if they have any questions with this notice or compliance with its provisions. N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc. and United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-3049-2. Decem- ber 17, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On July 7, 1965, Trial Examiner Herman Tocker issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respodent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommend- ing that is cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with 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, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 1 The Trial Examiner concluded , and we agree, that Respondent discharged Alberta G. High because of her union activities . In reaching this conclusion , he rejected , primarily on credibility grounds, Respondent's defense that it had discharged High for cause. Thus, the Trial Examiner discredited the testimony of Respondent's president , Sweren, and cutter operator, Caldwell, that High was responsible for the improper stapling of approximately 1350 booklets , based upon his observation of their demeanor , certain in- consistencies and evasions which he found in their testimony , and the fact that they were less competent to provide the pertinent evidence than other identified individuals whom Respondent did not call to testify. Respondent excepts to these credibility findings. We will not overturn the credibility findings of a Trial Examiner unless the party excepting to them demonstrates by a clear preponderance of the relevant evidence that the findings are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). Respondent, in our opinion , has not sustained that burden here. Accordingly , we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent discharged High in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. 156 NLRB No. 31.