N. A.Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc.

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 clays from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any ocher 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. 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modification : Substitute the following for para- graphs 1(a) and (b) : ["(a) Discouraging membership in United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. [" (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act of 1959."] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner Herman Tocker, in Baltimore, Maryland, on June 3 and 4, 1965, on the complaint of the General Counsel and the answer of N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc., the Respondent. On February 18, 1965, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, the Union, filed the charge. The complaint alleged that Section 8 (a) (1) (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, were violated by the dis- criminatory discharge , on or about February 17, 1965, of one Alberta G. High. During the hearing, over objection on the part of the Respondent , it was amended to include ' an additional Section 8(a)(1) charge to the effect that the Respondent, by its president , unlawfully interrogated an employee , in his office, concerning the Union. The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged and the Position of the Respondent It is alleged that the Respondent discharged High and "failed and refused to rein- state [her] to her former or substantially equivalent position because of her member- ship in, assistance to, or activity on behalf of the union or because she engaged in concerted activities with other employees ... for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ." The amendment, as already stated, was to the effect that the Respondent "did on or about November 15, 1964 , interfere with, and coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by Rude Sweren, President of Respondent , questioning an employee in his office concern- ing the Union." Respondent admits all jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It denies that High's discharge was because of her union activities and it denies also the alleged unlawful interrogation brought into the case by the amendment. It denies also all the conclusionary allegations as to the commission of unfair labor practices . During the hearing it became clear that the denial of that portion of the complaint having to do with High's discharge was limited to the alleged unlawful aspects and that she, actually had been discharged on February 17, 1965. The Respondent contends that she was discharged because of her failure to detect and separate as many as 1,350 booklets which had been stapled defectively by a stapling (or stitching ) machine. N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 221 Her duties were to observe the booklets as they came through the stapling operation, stack them in piles of 15, and set these piles on a skid in crisscross arrangement, at= the same time separating and removing those which had not been stapled properly. An improperly stapled booklet was one which did not have two staples about 43/4 inches apart, through its middle fold, along the left side. (The staples did not go' through all the pages at some flat portion; they went through at the fold of the middle page creating a booklet which required no other binding. A properly stitched book- let would have the closed length of each staple easily visible when the booklets were stacked one on top of the other with the folded sides facing the viewer. The bent or clamped prongs would be inside at the middle page.) The operation was such that the stapling machine could become jammed so that either or both staples might not be properly tacked into the booklet or either or both of them might miss so that only one instead of two was tacked into it. An operator such as Miss High had the obligation to detect defectively stapled booklets. She was required not only to separate them from the properly stapled booklets but also promptly to stop the machine and report its defective operation so that it could be corrected. Respondent's defense and its reason for High's discharge was that, while it would be normal and excusable for a number of improperly stapled booklets to come through without detection, perhaps 15 or 30, only gross negligence and inattention on the part of an operator or deliberate and malicious misconduct could permit as many as 1350 defectively stapled booklets to accumulate without having the machine stopped and corrected. Respondent's president, Rube Sweren, stressed his assumption that High intentionally had allowed that great quantity of defective booklets to pass through her machine. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is engaged in the business of finishing and binding books. The allega- tions as to the extent of business done in interstate commerce and its participation therein are admitted. ' It is admitted also that the Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) of the Act. The National Labor Rela= tions Board has jurisdiction over it in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL=CIO, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act: III. THE CHRONOLOGY OF UNION ACTIVITIES On November 27, 1964, the Union filed a petition that it be certified as a collective- bargaining agent on behalf of Respondent's employees. A hearing was held on December 29, 1964, and on January 11, 1965, an election was directed. The election was held on January 22, 1965. A total of 94 ballots were cast, 46 for the Union, 45 for "no labor organization," and 3 being challenged. On January 29, 1965, the Employer filed objections to the election. On February 17, 1965, High was dis- charged. On April 22, 1965, it became known that the Union had lost the election and the official certification of this result was issued April 28, 1965. A. High's activities on behalf of the Union It is quite clear that High was the primary protagonist of the Union. Respondent admits it knew of her activity.' She started working for the Respondent in April 1964 and started her activities on behalf of the Union "about the last of October" 1964. She, in fact, initiated the Union's organizational activities at Respondent's plant. This came about because of what might have been a chance meeting with representatives of the Union at a time when she was visiting a girl friend with whom she had been employed in another establishment. She took it upon herself to obtain from the 1 Transcript references and exhibit references are intended mainly to be illustrative and the fact that any such reference is made anywhere in this decision should not be regarded as making it all inclusive. All findings are made on the whole record. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union "a pile of mailbacks" (not more particularly described but obviously union authorization cards of one kind or another), distributed them among the girls at the plant, got them back signed or got the girls to mail them back directly. She was able to get "between 15 and 20 back." She was active in talking to the employees to induce them to join the Union or authorize it to act on their behalf. She attended all the union meetings in November and December 1964 and in January 1965. Her activi- ties included plant solicitation, telephone solicitation, visits to employees' homes, and arranging of rides for them to union meetings. Respondent's president made a point of emphasizing his knowledge of her union activity. For example: On the day before the election, when he was distributing sample ballots to the employees, he taunted her by offering her one. He blamed her for starting the union activities after he had denied her a wage increase. He regarded her activity on behalf of the Union as an evidence of personal animosity to him for he admitted that he had told another employee that he thought she hated him. Sometime before the election, when he observed another employee talking to her, he interrogated this other employee in a manner, suggesting his assumption that the conversation had been about the Union. When another girl was having difficulty with coemployees, he injected High's name into his investigation as the possible cause of her trouble and, by a subsequent ques- tion, suggested the possibility that the Union was the cause of the trouble. Considering High's numerous activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent's president's conduct toward her and the admission of Respondent's awareness of her union activities, I have come to the conclusion that, regardless of what shortcomings she might have had as an employee, a substantial proportion of Respondent's presi- dent's contacts with her were conditioned by his preoccupation or obsession about her union activities. B. High's work record and conduct or attitude as an employee High, as an employee, left very much to be desired. She was shifted from job to job because of her lack of proficiency, or her failure to observe rules, or her excessive trips to the ladies' room despite the fact that there were morning and afternoon rest periods in addition to the lunch period. She impressed me as very likely having been a more or less "smart-alacky" employee even to the extent that during or at the conclusion of a meeting of employees addressed by Respondent's president, she openly snickered or laughed in his face. While it may be that more than one occasion presented itself when High might and should have been discharged, we are concerned here only with her discharge on February 17, 1965. C. The issue arising from. High's discharge If High did, in fact, allow as many as 1,350 improperly stapled booklets to accum- ulate and then placed them on the skid for further processing without stopping the machine to have its operation corrected, she was either grossly negligent or delib- erately and, as Respondent says, maliciously passing defective work, and she deserved to be discharged. If, on the other hand, as she says, a relatively small number of defective booklets were piled on the skid,, this was nothing unusual, was something which could and did happen during normal operations, was not regarded by the Respondent 'ordinarily as cause or reason for discharge, and she should not have been discharged. Her discharge under such circumstances, bearing in mind that all her other deficiencies had been borne patiently by the Respondent and are not claimed as the reason for the discharge, can be attributed only to the Respondent's effort to get rid of her because of her union activities. Respondent's version of the manner in which it became aware of the alleged misconduct and made the decision to discharge her is: At 3:15 p.m., which'is just before the end of the day shift, Danny Moneth, the operator of the stapling machine, reported to President Sweren that there were a lot of booklets on the skid that did not have staples in them. He did not report the precise quantity. Because Sweren was busy doing something else, he casually directed Danny to pull them out and restaple them. Just before the beginning of the night shift, at about 3:30 p.m. the night operator came to him and reported that there were booklets on the skid without staples. His reaction was to dismiss it lightly because there were enough properly stapled booklets without including those which might have been stapled improperly. The night operator persisted however in telling Sweren that the quantity was much greater than he thought and said, "You got half a skid." It was only then that Sweren went to inspect the skid and found that fully one-third of the booklets on the skid, as many as 1,350 had only one staple instead of two. He pointed this out to High and asked her whether she had seen the booklets coming out without staples. N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC. 223 He says , that she replied that it was not her job, she was just supposed to count them and put them on the skid and had been too busy counting them. He says this was untrue because the machine had its own counter and she was supposed to inspect the work. He concluded-that she intentionally had allowed the booklets to go by. He then directed his son to get her check and he discharged her. Sweren then testified that, following the discharge, he took the skid over to the cutter for trimming, that the cutter pulled out 1,350 booklets without staples, and that those without staples were then handstitched that night by another girl. The Respondent failed to call in support of its claim that there were as many as 1,350 improperly stapled booklets either Danny Moneth, the day operator or George Taylor, the night operator. Its failure to call either of these two individuals (the ones who reported the alleged excess of defective booklets), without explanation for such failure, is surprising indeed. Obviously they would have been the best witnesses to corroborate the claim that such a large quantity had been stapled improperly. Instead, the Respondent called the cutter whose job was to trim the booklets. He, contrary, to President Sweren's testimony, testified that with a full awareness of the date of Miss High's. discharge he came to work the following morning and that it was on the following morning that he saw from 1,200 to 1,500 booklets improperly stapled out of a total of about 3,000 on the skid. Apart from Respondent's failure to call either the day operator or the night operator, it failed also to produce any work records showing who had handstitched the allegedly defective booklets, and when they had been handstitched; and how long it had taken. It is possible, of course that this has little significance because such records may not have been maintained but, in any event, it failed also to call the girl who had done the handstitching. In view of the Respondent's failure to call the day operator, the night operator, and the handstitcher to testify as to the number of booklets improperly stapled, its failure to produce any record of the handstitching of the improperly stapled booklets (which last is not too significant ), and the striking conflict in testimony of the only two witnesses, its president and the cutter , as to the time when the defective booklets were separated and handstitched , I just do -not believe any of the Respondent's evi- dence as to the quantity of defectively stapled booklets.. Additional reason for discarding the testimony to the effect that there were as many as 1,350 booklets improperly stapled; is the fact that, after first evading an answer to a question concerning an alleged statement two days after the discharge that only two hundred booklets had been misstapled, Sweren finally took the position that he did not "think that (he) did (state a figure as to the number of improperly stapled booklets) because (he didn't) think that (he) knew then how many there were involved." If the improperly stapled booklets had been separated and correctly stapled either on the day that High was discharged (as Sweren testified ) or on the day following (as the cutter testified), then certainly 2-days after the discharge Sweren should have known precisely how many booklets had been stapled improperly and had been corrected. Furthermore, the investigation of the discharge as early as two days.following should have placed the Respondent in the favorable position of being able to marshall and preserve its evidence of the alleged negligent and malicious performance of her duty by High. Respondent seeks to make much of (1) High's alleged rejoinder to Sweren's direc- tion of her attention to the alleged improperly stapled booklets thatshe was busy counting and stacking them, and (2) that she had testified that she did not have adequate opportunity to count the precise number of booklets improperly stapled. As to the alleged rejoinder, Respondent says that the machine had an automatic counter and that High did not have to count the booklets, but it overlooks the fact that High had to count the books in order to put them in crisscross stacks of 15 each on the skid. Certainly the automatic counter on the machine did not do that. Then as to High's testimony that she was unable to count the number of improperly stapled booklets at the time she was discharged, it is true that High testified that Sweren "didn't give (her) a chance to count them," but I do not regard this particular answer as significant. If there were as many as .1,350 booklets improperly stapled, there would have been no need to count them; that quantity would have been obvious. High's answer about not having had an opportunity to count them was directed not to whether there were as many as 1,350 booklets improperly stitched but as to the precise and specific number of books "less than 30" which had not been properly stapled. It seems to me that to find the precise number of booklets, less than 30, on a skid containing more than 3,000 would have required book by book counting. This would have been taken considerably more time than was available at the time of the almost instantaneous discharge , as testified by Sweren. 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After careful consideration of all the . testimony .and my observation of the wit- messes it is my conclusion that High's discharge on February 17, 1965, was motivated not by the fact that she had negligently or maliciously permitted 1,350 improperly stapled booklets to pass without stopping the machine but by the fact that the Respondent's president , having discovered or found some improperly stapled book- lets, seized upon this as a pretext for discharging her because of. his obsession with respect to her union activities and whatever might have been her personal reasons for actively initiating and supporting the union movement within the shop. By so discharging High because of her activities in support of the Union , Respond- ent discriminated against her in her employment and thereby discouraged member- ship in the Union and at the same time, interfered with, restrained, and coerced her and its other employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The additional charge based upon alleged interrogation of an employee concerning the Union This additional charge, it will be recalled , was brought into the case by amendment to the complaint, over objection by the Respondent, during the course of the hearing. It is to the effect that Rube Sweren , Respondent's president, on or about November 15, 1964, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee in his office concerning the Union. The General Counsel in his brief fails to refer to this additional charge and this suggests, possibly, that he either has abandoned it or assumes that there is inadequate evidence to support it. I disregard , however, this failure by the General Counsel to refer to it and I dispose of it on its merits. The alleged interrogation and violation of Section 8(a) (1) involved only one employee, Truvine Henery. Henery testified briefly and her entire testimony is to the effect that she wanted to be transferred from one job to another because of some difficulty she was having with the girls with whom she was working. This resulted either in her going voluntarily to Sweren to talk about it in his office or his calling her there as a result of a complaint she had made . The conversation was brief and its objective was to ascertain just what might be causing the trouble . On the stand she seemed like rather a timid girl but she was quite firm and clear that the con- versation in Sweren's office was concerned solely with her own personal unhappiness at the station where she was working. She gave me_ the impression that Sweren was making a sincere effort to get at the cause of her unhappiness and, in doing so, asked whether it was because of High that she wanted to change her job or whether she was upset because of the Union . I am unable to conclude that anything that hap- pened in Mr. Sweren's office as far as Henery was concerned involved any interroga- tion which can be interpreted as an interference with , a restraint of, or a coercion of employees in the exercise of 'any rights vested in them by Section 7 of the Act. Regardless of whether Henery went directly to Sweren's-office of her own volition or'whether 'Sweren had her come there , the fact is that her presence there resulted only from her own unhappy situation in the department where she was employed. Sweren tried only to ascertain the cause with a view possibly to eliminate it. This allegation should be dismissed because of the failure of the General Counsel to support it with that necessary preponderance of the evidence to justify a finding. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activity of Respondent as set forth above , occurring in connection with its operations described above , has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I recommend that it be directed to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Alberta G. High, I recommend that it be directed to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position , and make: her whole for any loss of earnings and benefits she may have suffered thereby by restoring her to all benefits from which she may, have been deprived and payment to 'her of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages she would have earned from the-date of her discharge N. A. •GOSSMAN FINISHING :& BINDING, INC. . 225 to the date of the offer of reinstatement, together. with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, and that the loss of pay and interest be computed in accord- ance with the formulas and methods prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties hereto are expressly referred. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. The inference is warranted that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect to the protection of employees in general. It is, accordingly, recommended that Respondent be directed to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. N. A. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc., is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Alberta G. High, as found above, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)• and (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with and restraining her and its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing. findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent,. N. A.. Gossman Finishing & Binding, Inc., its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in United Papermakers and .Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees or dis- 'charging any employees for engaging in protected concerted activity or in any similar manner discriminating against any individual in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) oftheAct. ' . (b) In any other manner interfering with or restraining employees in the, exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor. organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary, to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer-to Alberta G. High immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay or benefits she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner provided above in the section entitled, "The Remedy." (b) Notify Alberta G. High if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to' the Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to an analysis of the backpay due. 2 May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376; Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641. •226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Post at its usual place of business, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be -furnished by the Regional Director for Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board, after being signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- ent to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region •5, in writing, within 20 days from receipt by Respondent'of a copy of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith? It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent notifies the Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid. 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be subbtituted 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." 'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(e) thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." 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 NOT discourage membership in United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees or dis- charge any employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, or in any similar manner discriminate against any individual in regard to hire, tenure, of employment, or any term or condition of employment except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Alberta G. High immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings and benefits she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with or restrain our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except.to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of 'employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. N. A. GOSSMAN FINISHING & BINDING, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, AFL-CIO, ETC. 227 If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street , Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100. The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO and Cleveland News- paper Guild No. 1, The American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO and The E. W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleve- land Press" and Lithographers and Photoengravers' Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Lithographers and Photoengravers' International Union, Local No. 24-P, AFL- CIO. Case No. 8-CD-67. December 21, 1965 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on July 13, 1965, by The E. W. Scripps Company, as publisher of "The Cleveland Press," referred to herein as the Employer, alleging that The Ameri- can Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Newspaper Guild No. 1, the American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Guild, violated Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act by threatening to strike the Employer, for an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign particular work to employees represented by the Guild, rather than to employees represented by Lithographers and Photoengravers' International Union, AFL-CIO, and Cleveland Lithographers and Photoengravers' International Union, Local No. 24-P, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Photoengravers. There- after, a duly scheduled hearing was held on September 28 and Octo- ber 5, 1965, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Hearing Officer Charles J. Con- siglio. . All parties appeared at the hearing and were provided full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hear- ing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by the Employer, the Guild, and the Photoengravers. Upon the entire record, the National Labor Relations Board i makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is an Ohio corporation which publishes "The Cleveland Press," a daily news- '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 [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 156 NLRB No. 37. 217-919-66-vol. 156-16