Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc.

SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 639 Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc.; Wrap- Arounds, Inc. and Springfield Electrotypers Union, Local No. 44, International Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-5558 June 30, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On March 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Herbert Sil- berman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not en- gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending dismissal of the com- plaint in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or- ders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and amended charges of unfair labor practices filed by the above-named Union on July 7, November 1, and ' General Counsel filed a motion, dated January 19, 1967, to correct the transcript of record. No opposition having been filed to said motion, the motion is hereby granted 2 The record is not clear as to whether the new production activity was an enterprise which Cheney and Powers embarked upon in their personal capacities or was an enterprise of Springfield. It is not uncommon that the business activities of individuals who operate through a closely held cor- November 8, 1966, an amended complaint was issued on November 3, 1966, which was further amended during the hearing herein, alleging that the Respondents have en- gaged in and are engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondents filed an answer to the complaint which generally denies that they have engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Springfield, Massachusetts, on various days between November 15 and 23, 1966, at which all parties were represented. Subsequent to the hearing, the parties filed briefs which have been carefully considered.' Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESSES OF RESPONDENTS Springfield Electrotype Service, Inc. (herein called Springfield), a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged in the production of letterpress duplicate printing plates in its plant in West Springfield, Massachusetts . In the con- duct of its business operations , Springfield annually purchases raw materials and other supplies valued in ex- cess of $50,000, which are shipped to its West Springfield plant from places outside the Commonwealth of Mas- sachusetts . Springfield admits, and I find, that it is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges that Wrap-Arounds, Inc. (herein called Wrap-Arounds), which also is a Massachusetts corporation, and Springfield are affiliated business enter- prises and together constitute a single employer under the Act. The two companies are engaged in the production of re- lated products . Springfield for many years has been producing letterpress duplicate plates which are used in the printing industry . Its principals are Roger Powers, who is its president and owns 33 - 1/3 percent of its out- standing shares of captial stock, and A. Emerson Cheney, who is its vice president and owns 66-2/3 percent of its outstanding shares of capital stock . Powers and Cheney are the only directors of Springfield . Early in 1965 Powers and Cheney began to investigate the feasibility of producing printing plates by means of equipment and a process developed by the Eastman Kodak Company. The promotional literature prepared by Kodak refers to this plate as the Kodak relief plate. Ultimately the decision was made to produce such plates and commencing in May 1965 orders for the necessary equipment and sup- plies were placed with Kodak and other vendors.2 An ex- tension to the building where Springfield conducts its business was built and the equipment for producing the Kodak relief plates eventually was set up in the new space. The extension is contiguous with , and under the same roof as, the existing Springfield plant . There is an outside door leading into the new addition , but there also is access between the two sections of the building through potation are sometimes confused and indistinct in regards to whether such individuals are acting in their personal capacities or in their representative capacities as officers, directors , and owners of the corporation Cheney testified that most of the equipment for the Kodak relief plate process was purchased by Springfield , but that he personally purchased some such equipment. Io6 NLRB No. 43 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an inside door. Because the process for producing Kodak relief plates requires a relatively constant temperature, the new addition is air-conditioned. However, the air- conditioning machinery is located in the older portion of the plant along the dividing wall which is penetrated by the ducts through which the cool air is circulated into the new addition.- Similarly, the machinery which provides compressed air for the Kodak relief plate operation is also located in the older portion of the plant behind the divid- ing wall. The extension to the Springfield plant was completed in the summer of 1965 and most of the equipment required to produce the Kodak relief plates was delivered by September 1965. Also, in September 1965, Henry Wilk, who has had more than 27 years' experience work- ing for lithographic companies, was hired by Springfield to take charge of the production of the Kodak relief plates.3 By December 1965 limited production of Kodak relief plates was begun. Wrap-Arounds was incorporated about February 4, 1966. Its officers are Cheney, Powers, and Wilk who are, respectively, the president, treasurer, and vice president of the company who comprise its board of directors. All the outstanding shares of capital stock of Wrap-Arounds are owned by the same three persons: Cheney and Powers each own 49 percent while Wilk owns 2 percent. Wrap-Arounds is engaged in the manufacture of Kodak relief plates in the described extension of the Springfield plant.4 There is no lease between Springfield and Wrap- Arounds and Wrap-Arounds did not begin to pay rent to Springfield until May 1966. Utilities, including telephone services, are furnished to Wrap-Arounds by Springfield. At the time of the hearing, Wrap-Arounds employed two production employees (Donald and Eagan) in addition to Wilk and a part-time clerical employee. There is no in- terchange of production employees between Wrap- Arounds and Springfield and the clerical work of Wrap- Arounds is performed by its own clerical employee. However, sales functions for both companies are per- formed by substantially the same people. In addition, Springfield's delivery truck is used, as occasion demands, to make deliveries for Wrap-Arounds. Henry Wilk is in charge of the day-to-day operations of Wrap-Arounds, while Cheney exercises such responsi- bility for Springfield. Although Wilk hired the two production employees now working for Wrap-Arounds and directly supervises the production activities of that Company as well as its clerical activities, his authority is subject to the direction and control of the principals of the Company, in particular Cheney. Thus, he does not have authority to incur any extraordinary expenses nor would Wilk discharge the clerical employee now working for Wrap-Arounds, who was hired by Cheney, without first consulting Cheney. Furthermore, Cheney has retained responsibility for the financial activities of Wrap- Arounds. 3 Wilk testified that prior to the incorporation of Wrap-Arounds his sal- ary was paid by Springfield i The record is not clear as to how Wrap-Arounds acquired the Kodak relief plate equipment and its capital. Presumably they were acquired from the three shareholders in consideration of the shares of capital stock is- sued to them. However, it is clear from the record that the Kodak relief plate operation, which was begun prior to February 1966 in the new addi- tion to the Springfield plant, was acquired by Wrap-Arounds after such corporation was formally organized Both Springfield and Wrap-Arounds are engaged in the production of printing plates. They are housed in a single building owned by Springfield with convenient inside ac- cess between the two. The cost of maintaining Wrap- Arounds' premises, including utilitities and telephone services, is absorbed by Springfield with an indefinite ar- rangement for reimbursement by Wrap-Arounds. There is a substantially common sales force for the two compa- nies. Wrap-Arounds makes some use, at least to the ex- tent of its delivery services, of the facilities of Springfield. Ownership of the two companies is in the same two peo- ple (Cheney and Powers with only a nominal participa- tion by Henry Wilk in the ownership of Wrap-Arounds). The direction of both companies is in the same two people.-5 in these circumstances I find, in agreement with General Counsel, that the relationship between Wrap- Arounds and Springfield is such that they function to a substantial degree as a single enterprise and therefore constitute a single employer under the Act.6 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Springfield Electrotypers Union, Local No. 44, Inter- national Stereotypers & Electrotypers Union of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The complaint, as amended, alleges, in substance, that since April 6, 1966, Respondents have unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Union, that on July 6, 1966, the employees of Springfield went on strike, which strike was caused and has been prolonged by Respondents' unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union, that 15 of said striking employees on October 31, 1966, unconditionally offered to return to work, and that on November 7, 1966, they were unlawfully refused rein- statement by Respondents. Underlying the controversy in this proceeding is Respondents' refusal to recognize the Union as the representative of the employees engaged in the produc- tion of Kodak relief plates for Wrap-Arounds. For more than 25 years Springfield, together with other employers, engaged in the manufacture of electrotype printing plates in the Springfield, Massachusetts, area has engaged in joint bargaining with the Union. Customarily, the out- come of the collective-bargaining negotiations was reflected by a single contract executed by all parties. The last such contract, which was for a term of 2 years, was executed on February 7, 1964. The contracting parties named in the agreement are "the Home City Electrotype Cheney and Powers are the sole directors and officers of Springfield. These two individuals plus Wilk are the directors and officers of Wrap- Arounds Because Wilk is a minority on the board of directors and owns only a negligible part of the capital stock of Wrap-Arounds, his position as director and officer is at the sufferance of the other two "N L.R B. v Stowe Spinning Company, 336 U.S 226, 227, N L R.B v Sc hnell Tool & Die Corp, 359 F 2d 39 (C A 6), United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1390 SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. Works ... the Springfield Electrotype Service Inc., and The Holyoke Electrotype Company, employing Electro- typers in the Cities of Springfield and Holyoke in the State of Massachusetts, hereinafter called the Party of the First Part, and the Springfield Electrotypers Union Local #44 called the Party of the Second Part."7 The em- ployees covered by the agreement are the "Electrotypers employed by the Party of the First Part." The agreement contains a union-shop provision applicable to "all Elec- trotypers, whether apprentices or journeymen," and pro- vides wage scales for electrotype journeymen and ap- prentices.8 Thus, the contractual unit is limited to electro- type journeymen and apprentices and the agreement specifically excludes from the unit other production em- ployees of the contracting employers.9 Thus, during all times material hereto, laborers, shipping clerks, and drivers were excluded from the contractual unit represented by the Union. As soon as Thomas Keating, president of the Union, learned that Kodak relief plates were going to be produced as an adjunct to Springfield's operations, he claimed jurisdiction over such work for the Union. Thus, in June 1965, before the addition to the Springfield plant was completed, before any of the equipment for the production of the Kodak relief plates had been delivered, and before any employees had been hired to do such work, Keating spoke with Powers about the Union's ju- risdiction over the work. Powers referred Keating to Cheney who told Keating that it was too early to discuss the matter. In September 1965 Henry Wilk was hired and was placed in charge of the production of the Kodak relief plates. Not until after the incorporation of Wrap- Arounds, about February 4, 1966, was any rank-and-file employee hired to do Kodak relief plate work. Thereafter, William Eagan was hired on March 4, 1966, and Richard Donald was hired on May 2, 1966. Apart from Wilk, Eagan and Donald are the only production employees of Wrap-Arounds. The General Counsel's contention, which is disputed by Respondents, is that Wrap-Arounds' ' Charles Van Vlack Company is named in the instrument as one of the contracting employers, but did not sign the agreement. There is no dispute that only the three employers listed above were involved in joint negotiations with the Union during the times material hereto 8 The agreement contemplates that its terms will cover not only em- ployees (molders and finishers) engaged in the production of conventional leadbacked electrotypes but also employees who may be engaged in the manufacture of molds for other types of duplicating plates The provision in question reads as follows It is agreed between the Party of the First Part, and the Party of the Second Part to this Agreement, that, where the elestrotyping em- ployers install a machine to manufacture moulds for rubber and other process duplicating plates, this work shall be done under the jurisdic- tion of the members of Springfield Electrotypers' Union No. 44 It is further agreed that all work necessary for the registering or pre-registering of four color originals , electrotypes, shells or molds, or other printing plates, shall be performed by members of the Spring- field Electrotypers' Union No 44. See N L R.B. v Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No 84, 291 F 2d 381 (C A 8). The quoted provision does not cover the work performed by the employees engaged in the production of Kodak relief plates and ap- pears to relate only to letterpress duplicate plates. The agreement also contains the following provision. The Union reserves to its members the right to refuse to execute all struck work received from or destined for unfair employers of Elec- trotypers, Stereotyper%, Rubber and Plastic plate makers, subject to the provisions of Federal Law It is noted that this struck work provision also does not apply to Kodak relief plates but relates to letterpress duplicate plates. 641 production employees are accretions to the historical craft unit of electrotypers at Springfield's plant. 10 B. Conclusions Regarding the Accretion Issue Wrap-Arounds is engaged exclusively in the produc- tion of Kodak relief plates,'' while Springfield is engaged exclusively in the manufacture of letterpress duplicate plates. The production activities of the two companies are conducted in separate and divided sections of a single building and there is no interchange of employees between the two companies. Neither company uses the production equipment, materials, or supplies of the other.12 Except for a bending machine (used to curve printing plates) and a guillotine (used to trim printing plates), which perform relatively minor finishing func- tions in the production of printing plates, there is no similarity between the production machinery of the two companies. While both companies produce printing plates, the parties are in dispute regarding the extent to which the products of either are functional substitutes for the products of the other and also regarding the similarity of production skills involved in the manufacture of their respective products. Although in the record the parties refer to the printing plates manufactured by Springfield as electrotypes, that is a loose use of the term. More precisely, Springfield manufactures letterpress13 duplicate plates. "The four most important kinds of letterpress duplicate plates are: (1) stereotypes; (2) electrotypers; (3) plastic plates; and (4) rubber plates."14 Springfield manufactures electro- types and rubber plates. Such duplicate plates are made from (that is, they duplicate) photoengravings, type, or both, which materials are furnished to Springfield by its customers and which are referred to as the originals. The original has raised type or a raised image, or both, which is duplicated precisely in the letterpress duplicate plates. The first operation in the manufacture of any letterpress duplicate plate is to prepare a mold from the original. The Section 16 provides: It is agreed that laborers may do the following work Fill cases, carry forms, scrub casts, wash pans and dead forms, lift casts from backing- up stands, sweep floors, turn on and off metal pots, dynamos, and steam, and do such other work not properly the work of a Jour- neymen I agree with and adopt the following assertion made by General Counsel in his brief- "It is undisputed that the Union at no time represented any employees working in the Kodak Relief operation Moreover, the record does not disclose that either Keating or Cheney used the legal term 'accretion' However, it must be presumed that the Union based its request for recognition on the contention that the Kodak Relief operation was an accretion to the existing unit." 11 Prior to the incorporation of Wrap-Arounds in February 1966, Kodak relief plates were being produced on a limited scale in the same premises now occupied by Wrap-Arounds. All such production activities were then being performed by Wilk alone After the incorporation of Wrap-Arounds with an increase in orders for Kodak relief plates, two rank-and-file production employees were hired for that work. 12 For some months until Wrap-Arounds acquired its own bending machine and guillotine , Wrap-Arounds used Springfield' s bending machine and guillotine. " There are three major printing processes now in use, namely, letter- press, photogravure, and photolithography. The oldest of these is letter- press, stemming from the ancient art of the woodcut and the invention of movable type by Johannes Gutenberg about 1450 In this process raised type or a raised image is inked and pressed with great force into the paper 14 18 Enc. Brit 504 (1964 ed.). 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD subsequent operations differ depending upon the kind of letterpress duplicate plate that is being made. At the hearing the manufacture of electrotypes was described in some detail . The first step is to prepare a mold of the original. This is accomplished by pressing a sheet of preheated vinylite against the original in a hydraulic molding machine. The mold is then sprayed with a silver nitrate solution which is electrically conduc- tive. A copper connection is affixed to the mold which acts as an electrical terminal . The mold is then placed in a nickel or copper depositing tank and by electrolytic ac- tion a nickel or copper shell approximately fifteen one- thousandths of an inch in thickness is deposited on the mold. The shell is an exact duplicate of the original and is the printing surface of the finished electrotype. The mold is then removed from the depositing tank and is stripped from the shell . A lead alloy backing is applied to the shell to give it rigidity and strength . This is performed by plac- ing the shell in a heated pan and pouring hot molten lead onto the back of the shell . The operations to this point are performed in the section of the plant referred to as the foundry.15 The next series of operations is referred to as finishing. Excess surface is cut from the plate and the plate is leveled by shaving lead off the back. Nonprinting areas on the shell side of the plate (sometimes called dead material) are removed by use of a routing machine which is guided by hand . The plate then goes to the finisher's bench where imperfections such as dents and nicks are removed by use of handtools and the plate is manually leveled. When necessary, letters are also repaired at the finishing bench by using instruments such as engraving tools, hammers, punches , and burnishing tools. The final operations involve shaving the back of the plate on a ro- tary shaving machine to the thickness specified by the customer and beveling the edges of the plate when requested by the customer . If the plate is going to be used on a rotary press by the customer it also will be curved on a mechanical bending machine. Springfield also manufactures a lightweight , plastic- backed electrotype. This plate is similar to a conven- tional electrotype except that the back is of nylon or other plastic material . A shell is prepared in the same manner as for an electrotype. The backing is applied by use of special machines . These plates do not require as much finishing as do electrotypes. The process by which rubber plates are manufactured is simpler. A mold (matrix) is prepared by pressing a pre- heated molding sheet against the original in a hydraulic press. (An electrolytic shell is not prepared from the mold.) The plate is then made by pressing rubber material (natural or synthetic) against the mold in a hydraulic press at an elevated temperature (vulcanization). The rubber plate after being stripped from the mold is mounted for printing. The manufacture of Kodaxhibit 4, the "Kodak Relief Plate is a thin, flexible relief plate designed for letterset printing (dry offset)16 and for low-relief direct rotary let- terpress." These plates are used on lithographic (offset) presses and particular types of letterpresses. 17 The evidence adduced at the hearing is to the effect that Kodak relief plates cannot normally be used on letter- presses which use the kind of letterpress duplicate plates produced by Springfield , although there are some such letterpresses which can be modified to accommodate Kodak relief plates . Thus, as a practical matter the products manufactured by Wrap-Arounds and by Spring- field are not functional substitutes for one another. The equipment used , processes involved, and skills required to produce Kodak relief plates and to manufac- ture letterpress duplicate plates bear almost no resem- blance to one another. First, there are significant dif- ferences in the premises where the respective production operations are conducted. Wrap-Arounds ' premises con- sist of a series of small , separate rooms where a con- trolled air-conditioned atmosphere is maintained which is necessary for the satisfactory manufacture of its product. On the other hand, Springfield 's production operations are performed in relatively large areas'8 in which machinery generating heat, some fumes, and metal shavings are in regular operation. Second, the material which Wrap-Arounds receives from its customers for reproduction is paper copy (a photograph, an advertising layout, etc.), "' not original plates (photoengravings or type) which are the materials duplicated by Springfield for its customers . Furthermore, Wrap-Arounds makes no molds. Nothing done by Wrap-Arounds bears any resem- i'The electrotypers represented by the Union are divided into two sub- classifications One are molders who do the work performed in the foundry and the other are finishers who do all work after the plates leave the foundry While both molders and finishers are electrotypers, their skills differ and theiriobs are not normally interchangeable i^ In offset printing (lithography ) the printing plate surface is smooth, with both image and nommage areas on the same level Lithography is based on the principle that grease and water do not mix The image areas of the plates are coated with a substance to which the greasy printing ink will stick On the press, the plate is moistened with water before each ink- ing, so that only the image areas take up the greasy ink from the inking roller In offset lithography the plate never comes in contact with the paper The inked plate prints off onto a special rubber roll, called a blan- ket, from which in turn the still ink-wet image is lightly transferred or "off- set" onto paper. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1966-67 ed . Bulletin No. 1450. United States Department of Labor, at 515 " Dry offset is in- direct relief printing , the term dry offset is used to distinguish this process from the usual form of lithographic printing, commonly known as offset. Dry refers to the fact that indirect relief printing dispenses with the dam- pening necessary in offset lithography " 18 Encyclopaedia Britannica 504-505 ( 1964 ed ) " Letterset" is a new name for "dry offset " New Developments in the American Printing Industry. Publishers Weekly, vol 184, p 78, Aug. 5, 1963 lr Wrap-Arounds produces Kodak relief plates in three thicknesses Then respective functions are described in Union Exhibit 4 as follows Type $-17 This thin, steel-backed plate can be used for letterset (dry offset) printing on most litho presses, particularly those without undercut cylinders Over-all thickness of 017 inches , of which the steel support is 008 inches thick Maximum practical depth of relief- 008 inches Type 13-25 Used for letterset (dry offset) on litho presses where cylinders are sufficiently undercut Can also be used for direct letterpress on Har- ris Wrap-Around presses Over-all thickness of.025 inches , including 010 inches steel support Maximum practical depth of relief 012 inches Type 18-30 Used for direct letterpress printing on Harris Wrap-Around, Heidelberg, Koenig and Bauer Rptafolio . and other such presses designed to print from flexible low-relief plates Also can be used for letterset (dry offset) on conventional litho presses where cylinders are sufficiently undercut. Over-all thickness 030 inches , including .010 inches steel support. Maximum practical depth of relief 017 inches. 18 The only division of the Springfield plant is a partition which separates the foundry from the finishing room " The first step in the production of a Kodak relief plate is to make a photographic negative of the copy Sometimes the customer furnishes Wrap- Arounds with the negatives of the copy instead ofthecopy itself SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 643 blance whatsoever to the foundry operations at Spring- field. The first step in the production of a Kodak relief plate is to make a camera negative or negatives (for multicolor printing) of the customer's copy by a conventional photo- graphic process.20 The negatives are checked for quality and certain imperfections, if present, may be corrected on the negatives.21 The negatives are then duplicated. The number of duplicates required depends upon the customer's specifications. The customer usually furnishes a so-called vinyl sheet (usually copied from a die) which indicates how the job is to be laid out and from which can be determined the number of copies of each negative that is required. The duplicates of the negatives are made in Wrap-Arounds' darkroom by its employees and involves conventional photographic processes. On multicolor jobs (where the customer will use the plates for multicolor printing), different types of film and different light sources may be used in the darkroom to make the duplicates of the negatives. The next step after the duplicate negatives have been prepared is referred to as stripping which is performed in the stripping room. The vinyl copy of the die sheet is spread on the stripping table .22 A sheet of translucent material is placed over the vinyl. The duplicate negatives are affixed in position on this sheet. This is called a flat. For multicolor jobs there will be a separate flat for each color. In such cases the negatives must be positioned ex- actly on each flat so that the plates made from each flat will be in register.23 In doing this it is sometimes necessa- ry to cut the negatives into parts and to reassemble and to reposition the negatives on the flats.24 At this stage other changes or corrections are made in the negatives if neces- sary. Also, if the customer wishes a preliminary check of the work, through what Wilk described as a color-key proving process, proofs can be made for the customer which would be considerably faster and less costly than a press proof. After the stripping operation is completed the flat is ready for exposure. Wrap-Arounds purchases from East- man Kodak Company unexposed relief plates.25 These plates consist of an enameled steel base on which is a modified acetate layer and then a photosensitive emulsion layer. The exposure process is performed in a separate room illuminated by lights which do not affect the photosensitive emulsion of the unexposed plates. The flat is cleaned with solvents and then is taped upon the sur- face of an unexposed relief plate. The plate is then posi- tioned on a rotary unit exposure and a vacuum is generated which causes a -very close contact between the flat and the unexposed plate. The unit is rotated before a light generated by arc lamps which produces the latent image on the plate. After exposure, the flat is removed from the plate. The plate is developed in a special activa- tor solution and then is sprayed with warm water to wash away the unexposed emulsion. The exposed portions of the emulsion have become hardened and and act as a re- sist to the solvents in the Kodak relief plate processor. The plate is dried and then curved on a manually operated bending machine26 in order that it may be attached to the magnetic drum of the processor. The processor, which is in a separate room, is a machine developed and sold by Eastman Kodak Company and bears no resemblance whatsoever to any piece of equipment in Springfield's plant. The plate, after being dried and curved, is attached to the drum of the processor which, after being set, works automatically. The processor by solvents and physical scrubbing action removes the acetate not protected by the exposed and hardened emulsion. When the plate is removed from the processor it is normally ready for print- ing. The finished plate may be curved or straightened to meet the customer's requirements. Minor defects in the relief of the plate may be corrected manually. However, nothing approaching in complexity the routing operation routinely done on electrotypes is done to the Kodak relief plates. Furthermore, the Kodak relief plates are not leveled or shaved, and the relief (bad letters, etc) cannot be built up as in the case of electrotypes. Wrap-Arounds employs only two production workers in addition to Wilk, each of whom, like Wilk, had con- siderable prior experience with lithographic companies in the manufacture of offset (lithographic) plates. The manu- facture of offset plates also involves the use of photo- graphic processes. William Eagan, who was hired in March 1966, is classified as a stripper. Eagan previously had worked under Wilk's supervision for a period of 5 or 6 years as a stripper in the manufacture of offset plates. According to Wilk's uncontradicted testimony, it requires approximately 4 years to train an inexperienced in- dividual to become a journeyman stripper. Richard Donald, who was hired on May 2, 1966, is classified as a contact man or darkroom technician. Donald previously had worked a total of 12 years under Wilk's supervision at other locations. He then worked primarily as an offset platemaker. According to Wilk, it requires approximately 4 years to train an inexperienced individual to satisfac- torily operate a reproduction camera. In addition to stripping, Eagan also makes contact prints (duplicates) and, on occasion, activates (develops) the Kodak plates. Donald, in addition to making the contacts in the dark- 20 Although Wrap-Arounds owns a camera which can be used to make such negatives (Wrap-Arounds has an equipped photographic darkroom in operation), because of space limitations the camera is not set up so that Wrap-Arounds presently uses outside concerns to make the negatives 21 At this stage the correction may be to cover with an opaque sub- stance any parts of the negative which permit light to be transmitted but which should have been dark Sometimes the tone value is changed which may involve complicated processes including a process called dot etching 22 The principal construction feature of the stripping table is a large horizontal translucent glass surface lighted from below 23 "The production of multicolored impressions . requires a se- ries of printing plates, one for each color, bearing only that portion of the total impression to be printed in that color. The correlative positioning or adjustment of such a series of plates on the printing press so that in opera- tion the colored image produced by each plate will apear in its proper posi- tion on the printed surface without overlapping the images produced by other plates in the series, is known in the trade as registration of the colored plates " N L.R.B v Des Moines Electrotypers' Union No 84, 291 F 2d 381, 382 (C A 8). 24 Where letterpress duplicate plates are used for multicolor printing, such plates also must be in register In that case the operation is done by a mechanical rather than a photographic process after the punting plate has been substantially completed See N L R.B v Des Moines Electro- typers' Union No. 84, supra 21 In the manufacture of letterpress duplicate plates, Springfield starts with materials which in the raw state bear no resemblance to the finished product Wrap-Arounds, however, purchases completed but unexposed plates from Eastman Kodak Company which only require development (of a photographic nature) to be converted into the finished product. 26 All Kodak relief plates are curved before insertion in the processor The fully developed plate may later be curved further or straightened to meet the customer's specifications The electrotypes and plastic plates produced by Springfield are sometimes curved to meet customers' specifi- cations However, a much heavier bending machine than the one used by Wrap-Arounds is required to curve electrotypes or plastic plates 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD room, also helps in stripping and exposes and activates the Kodak relief plates. Neither Eagan nor Donald is a member of the Union nor has designated it as his collec- tive-bargaining representative. In his brief General Counsel argues that the two com- panies manufacture products which have the same func- tion and that the skills of their respective employees are similar. The contention regarding function is that (1) both companies produce "multi-impression printing plates" and (2) both "manufacture plates to be used on a letter press." The first point, while true, is without significance. Color reproduction by any of the major printing processes (letterpress, photogravure, and photolithog- raphy) is from what the General Counsel refers to as "multi-impression printing plates." I do not understand that the General Counsel's argument purports to obliterate the functional differences among letterpress duplicate plates, gravure plates, and offset (lithographic) plates. Thus, as "multi-impression printing plates" are in- digenous to all forms of commercial color printing, the fact that such number of plates are required where color printing is to be done with Kodak relief plates or letter- press duplicate plates does not reflect any greater func- tional similarity between Kodak relief plates and letter- press duplicate plates than between Kodak relief plates and offset plates or gravure plates. The second point, namely, that Wrap-Arounds and Springfield both manu- facture plates for letterpress use, when measured against the evidence, emphasizes not the functional similarity but rather the functional disparity between the products of the two companies. Only about 5 percent of the Kodak relief plates produced by Wrap-Arounds is used for letter- press printing and then only on presses "designed to print from flexible low-relief plates." Regarding similarity of skills, in his brief, General Counsel asserts that he "does not dispute the fact that there are some skills and techniques employed in the Kodak operation which are not used in the electrotype operation. However, General Counsel does maintain that many of the skills and techniques used in the Kodak operation are similar to those employed in the electrotype unit." This statement, while not technically incorrect, tends to obfuscate the facts. From the description of the production processes of the two companies it readily can be seen that the principal and significant skills and techniques used by Wrap-Arounds' employees are not used by Springfield's employees -rather than the attenu- ated concept suggested by General Counsel that merely "some" differences exist between the skills and techniques required for the respective production opera- tions. Furthermore, such similarity as may exist between the skills and techniques used in the production opera- tions of the two companies relate only to relatively unim- portant phases of their work. Illustrating the incon- sequential similarity between such skills and techniques are the very examples given by the General Counsel to bolster his contrary assertion. In his brief, General Coun- sel points to five factors which purportedly demonstrate that the employees of both companies employ many skills and techniques in common, these are: a. The number of negatives to be produced, as well as their position on the Kodak Relief plate, is often determined from the "die sheet" submitted by the customer. Likewise, a "die sheet" is also used to determine the number and position of electrotypes. However, as pointed out above, an early step in the production of a Kodak relief plate is the preparation of a vinyl from a die sheet. The vinyl is then used to position the duplicate negatives on the flat which is the medium through which the unexposed Kodak relief plate is ex- posed to the arc light. While a vinyl prepared from a die sheet is an integral and early step in the Kodak relief process, according to Charles Maurer, a witness called by General Counsel, electrotypers use a die sheet only two or three times per week and then only for the purpose of assembling a number of otherwise finished electrotype plates in one unit. Thus, the disparate use of die sheets by each company emphasizes a difference rather than a similarity between their two production processes. b. Colors in a job to be printed by a Kodak Relief plate are separated into their basic colors, so that dif- ferent plates are made for each basic color. Likewise, "color-separation" is also necessary in producting electrotypes. General Counsel is here saying no more than that mul- ticolor printing requires more than one plate. This not only applies to multicolor printing jobs where electro- types are used or where Kodak relief plates are used, but also to multicolor printing jobs using the photolitho- graphic or photogravure processes. Thus, this common factor points to no significant similarity between the production of Kodak relief plates and electrotypes or other letterpress duplicate plates and, moreover, has no bearing upon the skills involved in the respective produc- tion processes. c. The negatives used to produce the Kodak Relief plate are lined up or "registered" by color. Likewise, colors are "registered" in producing electro- types-indeed, at times using photographic nega- tives. The need for insuring proper register of plates for mul- ticolor printing is common to all printing processes and therefore indicates no significant similarity in the skills in- volved in the production of Kodak relief plates and elec- trotypes. The reference to photographic negatives in the record indicates that to the limited extent that they are used by electrotypers it is merely to make proofs, while the use of negatives is an integral feature of the Kodak re- lief plate process. d. In the Kodak Relief process, it is necessary to perform "dot-etching," i.e. reducing the size of the dots comprising that which is to be printed so as to change the tone-value of a color. Likewise, tone- values in the electrotype process are similarly changed by "dot-etching." However, what General Counsel does not state is that in the first case the work is done through photographic processes and in the other through mechanical processes and there is no resemblance in the work itself or the skills required to perform the work. e. When "finishing" the Kodak Relief plates, the plates are visually inspected for imperfections and corrected by sharp instruments. Moreover, the plates are "trimmed" to desired size, and measured with micrometers. Likewise, in finishing electrotypes, the plates are visually inspected and many of the same tools used to correct the Kodak plates are also used to correct the electrotypes. Indeed, Maurer testified without contradiction that he observed employees in the Kodak operation using various finishing tools be- longing to Respondent Springfield. Also the electro- types are similarly trimmed and measured with micrometers. What General Counsel ignores is that finishing an electro- SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 645 type is an involved and complicated process requiring a great deal of training and skill while only slight "finish- ing" operations can be done to a Kodak relief plate. Such operations as trimming and bending are relatively un- skilled. Thus, while a journeyman electrotype finisher can readily do such finishing operations as might be required on a Kodak relief plate, the contrary does not hold true-a person well trained in producing Kodak relief plates cannot by virtue of such training do finishing work on electrotypes. General Counsel's reference to the use of micrometers in finishing electrotypes and Kodak relief plates again emphasizes the lack of similarity between the two production operations. In finishing electrotypes it is necessary to shave lead alloy off the back of the plate to reduce the thickness of the plate to the size specified by the customer. The shaving machine is equipped with a micrometer which controls the thickness. Although not generally the practice, sometimes a hand micrometer is used to check the thickness of an electrotype.27 On the other hand, the thickness of a Kodak relief plate cannot be altered. Thus, the only possible reason for measuring the finished Kodak relief plate would be to ensure that the wrong size plate had not been selected by accident.28 Both General Counsel and Respondents rely on the A & P case 29 to support their antithetical arguments regard- ing the alleged accretion of Wrap-Arounds' production employees to the craft unit of electrotypers employed by Springfield. In that case, the Board described the applica- ble principles, as follows: Whether or not a particular operation constitutes an accretion or a separate unit turns, of course, on the entire congeries of facts in each case. In deter- mining that a newly established facility or operation is an accretion to an existing unit, the Board has given weight to a variety of factors, such as integra- tion of operations; centralization of managerial and administrative control; geographic proximity; similarity of working conditions, skills and functions; common control over labor relations; collective-bar- gaining history; and interchangeability of employees. Obviously, cases in which all of these, or only these, positive accretion factors are present are rare. For, the normal situation presents a variety of elements, some militating toward and some against accretion, so that a balancing of factors is necessary. Contrary to General Counsel, despite the fact that I have found Wrap-Arounds and Springfield constitute a single employer, I find that the production employees of Wrap-Arounds are not accretions to the unit of Spring- field's electrotypers which have been represented by the Union.30 In arriving at this conclusion I rely principally on the following: (1) The unit herein represented by the Union is of limited scope; namely, a craft unit of electro- typers (journeymen and apprentices) excluding all other production employees; (2) the employees of Wrap- Arounds have none of the craft skills of an electrotyper; (3) electrotypers similarly do not possess the skills required of a qualified Kodak relief platemaker;31 (4) the production employees of the two companies are not in- terchanged; and (5) the products made by each company are not functionally interchangeable. C. The Union's Representation Demands In June 1965 Union President Thomas Keating ad- vised Springfield that the Union claimed jurisdictiction over the Kodak relief plate work. Between September and December 1965 there were various communications and meetings between representatives of the Union and of Springfield concerning the subject. The discussions not only covered possible recognition of the Union as the representative of such employees but also the wages and other conditions of employment which would be applica- ble to them. However, no agreement with respect to such matters was reached.32 D. The 1966 Negotiations Negotiations for a contract to supersede the multiem- ployer agreement expiring on February 7, 1966, were in- itiated by the Union in December 1965 when the Union sent to each of the three employers, who were parties to the existing agreement , a written proposal setting forth the changes the Union wished in their contract. The Union's proposal contained no reference to jurisdiction 27 Cheney testified that micrometers can be used to check the relief of the plate, but that is not the practice at Springfield 28 wrap-Arounds purchases unexposed plates in three different thicknesses from Eastman Kodak Company. 29 The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 140 NLRB 1011, 1021. 35 fames L. Bernoudy, d/b/a Marvel Electric Company, 150 NLRB 473; Industrial Siderurgica, inc., 147 NLRB 975, Photype, Inc., 145 NLRB 1268 31 Sebastian Petrillo, a witness called by General Counsel, testified that he is ajourneyman electrotype finisher and he learned to make Kodak re- lief plates in a relatively short period of time However , on further ex- amination, he testified that his experience in the Kodak process was limited to exposing and activating (developing ) the plates and operating the processor and that he only sometimes helps with strapping or other work relating to negatives. Furthermore, while the import of his testimony is that he was able to learn to operate the exposure unit , activator, and processor quickly, he did not testify that an electrotyper uses equipment that in any respect is similar to such machines , or that the skills and techniques necessary to produce electrotypes are in any respect similar to the skills and techniques required to operate the Kodak relief plate equip- ment 32 Thomas Keating testified that at a meeting held on September 2, 1965, Cheney agreed to recognize the Union as the representative of the employees who would be hired to do Kodak relief plate work and the parties discussed the conditions of employment for such employees . Inter- national Vice President Charles W Miller testified that at a meeting held on November 5, 1965, at which Springfield was represented by Cheney and Floyd Larson , the latter agreed on behalf of Springfield to give the Union jurisdiction over the Kodak relief plate work and to submit a proposal to the Union . Cheney categorically denied any agreement was made on the part of Springfield to give the Union jurisdiction over the Kodak relief plate work Upon consideration of all the evidence on the subject, Ifmd that the General Counsel has not proved that an agreement was reached between Springfield and the Union whereby Springfield recognized the Union as the representative of any employees it might em- ploy for production work in connection with the Kodak relief plate process. The discussions between the two parties were more broadly directed, namely, towards an understanding covering the terms and condi- tions of employment , as well as recognition of the Union , for the em- ployees who would perform the Kodak relief plate work I credit Cheney to the extent that he testified that no separate agreement was reached ac- cording the Union recognition as the representative of the Kodak relief plate employees Cheney's testimony finds corroboration in Larson's letter of November 18, 1965, to Miller in which Larson informed Miller, "I will do what I can as soon as 1 can on that contract and we 'll see if we can come up with something which will have some appeal both to you and Mr Cheney if he should decide that he wishes to make a union operation out of that plant." 308-926 0-70-42 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD over Kodak relief plate work. There were four bargaining sessions between December 1965 and March 7, 1966.33 The discussions centered about the Union's December proposal. Before the March 7, 1966, meeting concluded the employers made a package offer for a 2-year contract. According to Keating, he advised the employers' group that the Union's negotiating committee would present the employers' offer to the union membership for their ac- ceptance or rejection.34 Keating then asked Cheney if he wished to discuss the Kodak relief plate operation. Cheney replied that Henry Wilk was in charge of the Kodak operation and that the Union should talk to him about the matter.35 As the 1966 negotiations, in accordance with long- established practice, related to a multiemployer craft unit of electrotypers, the employers' offer made to the Union on March 7, 1966, was indivisible in that it purported to cover the entire multiemployer unit and not the electro- typers of the individual employers separately.36 On March 13, 1966, a membership meeting of the Union was held to vote upon the acceptance or rejection of the em- ployers' offer. According to the minutes of the meeting: A motion made and seconded to accept the offer made by the Employers but to hold in abeyance the signing of the contract until the Wrap-Arounds process is resolved. The motion was passed unanimously.37 Thereafter, the Union prepared three separate agree- ments, one for each of the employers who were parties to the multiemployer negotiations with the Union.38 The three contracts incorporated the terms of the employers' offer made to the Union on March 7, 1966, and in this respect the language of the three drafts is identical. How- ever, in addition, the three contracts contained a lengthy article relating to the Union's work jurisdiction.39 Theju- risdiction article in the contracts for Home City and Holyoke are identical, but the jurisdiction article in the contract prepared for Springfield contains two paragraphs which do not appear in the other two contracts.40 The subjects convered by the jurisdiction article had not been included in the employers' offer which was given to the Union on March 7, 1966, for acceptance or rejection and furthermore had not even been discussed during any of the bargaining sessions. On March 29, 1966, Keating and International Vice President Miller visited each of the employers separately to obtain execution of the respective contracts. In the cases of Holyoke and Home City, after some protest and discussion of the jurisdiction article by the companies' representatives, they signed the contracts. However, because of the inclusion of the jurisdiction article, Cheney refused to sign the contract for Springfield. E. Further Dealings Between Springfield and the Union Representatives of the Union and Springfield met together on April 4 and 6, 1966, but neither meeting produced any agreement. At the April 6 meeting, Spring- field's counsel took the position that Springfield had a contract with the Union. On April 8, 1966, Keating delivered to Cheney a letter which, in pertinent part, read: Local 44 has considered the objections which you expressed at the meeting in Boston on Wednesday to the proposed agreement concerning your Kodak Re- lief Printing Plate operation. We feel that the objec- tions which you raised are without merit However, in order to seek an area of mutal agreement which will provide adequate job security to the molders and finishers, Local 44 now proposes, in lieu of the proposal on the Kodak relief area, that the Company grant the molders and finishers - 1. Severance pay of one month's pay per year of service in the event of layoff; 33 The three employers were represented by Cheney and Powers for Springfield, Walter Anders, its treasurer, for Holyoke Electrotype Com- pany , and Charles Hamilton , its president , for Home City Electrotype Works The Union's negotiating committee consisted of Keating , Ronald Gendron, the Union's secretary-treasurer, Joseph Hickson, chapel chair- man at Springfield's plant ; Richard Pyne , chapel chairman at Home City, Richard Montagna, and Charles Maurer. 34 The employers understood that their offer was acceptable to the Union's negotiating committee The offer related to the same unit covered by the 1964 contract There had been no discussion during the bargaining sessions about jurisdiction over Kodak relief plate work 35 Keating testified that he said , "we will have to complete the Kodak discussion before we can complete our master contract " I do not credit Keating in this regard Not only was this testimony contradicted by Cheney, Anders , and Hamilton , but it is inconsistent with the Union's later actions in entering into contracts with Home City and Holyoke despite a failure to reach any agreement about the Kodak relief plate work with Springfield Furthermore, it would have been illogical for the parties to conclude their bargaining and for the union representatives to take back the employers' offer to their membership for acceptance or rejection if an essential subject of the negotiations was still unresolved 36 At no appropriate time did either party to the 1966 negotiations give notice to the other of a desire to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining See Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc, 156 NLRB 210, enfd. 364 F.2d 293 (C.A. 2), cert denied 385 U S 971, N L.R.B v. Sheridan Crea- tions, Inc., 257 F 2d 245 (C A 2) 37 There is conflicting testimony as to what transpired at the union meeting However, what happened at the union membership meeting is largely immaterial because the Union acts only through its authorized representatives and is bound by such representatives ' conduct within the scope of their actual or apparent authority M & M Oldsmobile, Inc., 156 NLRB 903. 38 This was contrary to prior practice Prior to 1966 the procedure had been for the Union and the participating employers to sign a single con- tract 39 In his brief General Counsel asserts "The contracts prepared by Miller and Keating contained the economic changes to the 1964 contract negotiated by the parties In addition, language was inserted into the con- tracts' Jurisdiction Clauses granting the Union jurisdiction over photosen- sitized plate making , such as the Kodak Relief process This was the ju- risdictional language which Keating had discussed with the employers in August 1965, which Miller and Keating obtained from the Union's Inter- national constitution and its amendments " While Keating testified that in August 1965 he separately informed the three employers who were parties to the 1964 contract that the succeeding agreement would include language granting to the Union jurisdiction over photosensitive platemak- ing processes, which testimony was denied by each of the employers, con- trary to General Counsel, there is no evidence that, at any time prior to March 29, 1966, Keating showed or discussed with the employers the specific language that the Union desired to be incorporated in the new contract 40 The two paragraphs read as follows The employer agrees that any present employee or owner working in the Kodak Relief Plate department as of this date shall become a member of the union after thirty (30) days employment It is further agreed that said employees shall not perform operations outside of the Kodak Relief Printing Plate department The Union agrees that the employer may utilize employees from either the molding or finishing departments to perform any and all operations in the processing of the Kodak Relief Printing Plates Further any unemployed member of Springfield Electrotypers' Umon No 44 shall be fully employed in his respective craft or the Kodak Relief department, before the union is obligated to furnish additional journeymen for the Kodak Relief Printing Plate department SPRINGFIELD ELECTROTYPE SERVICE, INC. 647 2. Two month's notice of layoff; 3. A pension plan. Local 44 is prepared to meet you at your earliest convenience to discuss these subjects. Therefore, we are contacting the mediators who were present at Wednesday's meeting to arrange another conference. On April 11, Springfield, by its counsel, replied to the letter of April 8 by communicating with the Union through its counsel and informing it that the request for a meeting was being denied because: (1) the parties have a contract relating to the terms and conditions of employ- ment of Springfield's employees and the letter of April 8 merely was a request to reopen this contract, which Springfield was refusing; and (2) Springfield had no legal obligation to bargain with the Union about the Kodak operation because that operation was not an accretion to the existing electrotype operation and the Union did not represent a majority of the employees working in the Kodak operation. On July 5, 1966, Keating went to Respondent Spring- field's plant and asked Cheney if there was any possibility that they could resolve their differences. Cheney replied, "I am not going to break my back for these son of ... any longer. In fact I am going to New York tomorrow and sell my electrotype accounts." Cheney told Keating to come by in a few days and that he would advise Keating "how I made out." The meeting then ended.41 F. The Strike On July 6, 1966, Miller met with Springfield's em- ployees in the parking lot outside the plant Miller ex- plained what had transpired to that time and asked the employees to vote upon whether they wanted to strike. The men voted to strike and a strike commenced on that date. The strike was still in progress as of the time of the hearing. On October 31, 1966, the Union, by letter signed by Keating, unconditionally requested Springfield to rein- state the striking employees. On November 7, 1966, Respondent Springfield refused the request stating that "its present work force was suitable for its needs."42 G. Conclusions General Counsel advances alternative arguments to support his contention that the Respondents have unlaw- fully refused to bargain with the Union. His principal ar- gument is that "the employees of Wrap-Arounds con- stitute an accretion to Respondent Springfield and thus to the multiemployer bargaining unit. Therefore, there is an obligation to bargain concerning this new operation and the Union in good faith, commencing in 1965, attempted to obtain a contract including the Kodak relief process." This contention is disposed of by my contrary findings as to the alleged accretion. General Counsel's alternative argument is even more tenuous. He asserts that "if it is determined that the Kodak relief process is not an accretion to the existing unit it is submitted that Respondent had refused to bar- gain concerning the issues raised in the April 8 letter, since these issues were local in nature, created by the in- stitution of the new operation, and by Cheney's threat to close the plant. See The Kroger Co., supra (148 NLRB 569)." 1 find no merit in this argument. Springfield, together with the two other employers constituting the multiemployer bargaining group, had engaged in negotia- tions with the Union as to the terms upon which the con- tract that expired on February 7, 1966, would be renewed. During the negotiations there was no discussion about enlarging the Union's work jurisdiction. Uni- laterally the Union, after its negotiating committee had received the employers' last offer at their final bargaining session held on March 7, 1966, added to the proposed agreement an elaborate article relating to its work ju- risdiction. The Union made no effort to submit its addi- tional work jurisdiction demands to the employers' negotiating committee for their consideration.43 Instead, the Union bypassed the employers ' negotiating commit- tee44 and sought to obtain from the employers in- dividually their separate concurrence to its new demands and their separate execution of the Union's proposed contracts, contrary to past practice pursuant to which the successive contracts between the parties had been em- bodied in single instruments signed by the Union and all the employers constituting the multiemployer group. These tactics on the part of the Union were designed to isolate Springfield, who was the employer most strongly opposed to the Union's work jurisdiction demands, from the remaining members of the multiemployer group in order that the Union might wrest from the employers singly greater concessions than it probably could have ob- tained from them collectively through the established channels of multiemployer negotiations. By such depar- ture from prior practices and by disregarding its obliga- tion to deal with the employers on a multiemployer basis, the Union violated the collective-bargaining duties im- posed upon it by the Act. On the other hand, Springfield had the right to refuse to treat with the Union on any other than a multiemployer basis. As applied to Springfield the jurisdiction article in the Union's proposed agreement, as well as the union-securi- ty clause convering the Kodak relief plate production em- ployees, was unlawful. These employees were on the payroll of Wrap-Arounds. They had not designated the Union as their representative and they were not accre- tions to the unit of electrotype employees whom the Union then represented. Thus, if Springfield had signed the contract submitted to it by the Union on March 29, 1966, both Springfield and the Union would have been engaged in violations of the Act unlawfully infringing upon the statutory rights of Wrap-Arounds' employees.45 The Union in its April 8, 1966, letter demanded that Springfield renegotiate the terms of the bargain tentative- 41 International Vice President Miller testified that during a telephone conversation with Cheney on March 29, the latter threatened that he was going to "close the .. doors " 42 The employees ' right to reinstatement in this case depends upon whether, at the time they made their unconditional application for rein- statement, they were unfair labor practice strikers 43 The Union's work jurisdiction demands related to all the employers composing the multiemployer bargaining group although at the time these demands were submitted only Springfield would have been immediately affected by the Union's proposal. 44 To deal with members of the employers ' bargaining committee in- dividually and separately is not the same as negotiating with the commit- tee as a group representing its membership. 45 "[T]here can be no more direct deprivation of [Section 7] rights, particularly of the right to choose their own bargaining representative or to refrain from so doing, than to impose upon employees a collective-bar- gaining agent they have not chosen " Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corpora- tion, 122 NLRB 1289, 1292-93, enfd 280 F.2d 616 (C.A D.C ), affd. 366 U S 731 Accord: Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. N.L.R B., 370 F 2d 205 (C.A 9). 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ly reached on March 7, 1966.46 This the Union had no right to do. As the appropriate bargaining unit was a mul- tiemployer unit and as no action had been taken at an ap- propriate time by either Springfield or the Union to withdraw from such unit '41 the Union had no right to de- mand that Springfield bargain with it separately. General Counsel' s argument that the Union was seeking merely to bargain about local issues, within the meaning of the Kroger case, is completely unrealistic The Union's de- mands as reflected by its April 8 letter constituted sub- stantial augmentations of the economic provisions of the employers' March 7 offer Unlike the situation in the Kroger case these demands did not relate to "limited mat- ters of peculiar concern" to only one employer of the mul- tiemployer group. Severance pay,48 layoff notice, and pensions are not matters of interest only to the electro- type employees of Springfield to the exclusion of the elec- trotype employees of Holyoke and Home City The con- tention that with respect to job securt,y Springfield's elec- trotype employees were in greater jeopardy than the elec- trotype employees of the other two employers is not of significance in creating a so-called local issue warranting substantial economic concessions because such fact even if true in 1966 could readily and radically change soon thereafter Neither did Cheney's alleged threat that he might go out of business create a "local issue" justifying the Union's demand that Springfield renegotiate the terms of the multiemployer agreement The concept in the Kroger case of "negotiating separately on limited matters of peculiar concern to the individual employer" does not cover an effort to change substantially the economic terms of an agreement In addition, contrary to the situation here, normally. before the Board sanctions individual and "local" bargaining within the structure of a multiemployer bargaining relationship the situation should be such that "the parties mutually understood that individual variances in the agreement could be negotiated by the individual parties "49 Furthermore, it is clear from the Union's April 8 letter and the other circumstances described above that the Union was pressing Springfield for additional economic concessions for Springfield's electrotype employees because Springfield had refused to accede to the Union's improper demands regarding Wrap-Arounds' employees In these circumstances, it is my opinion, and I so find, that the Union's conduct after March 7, 1966, particularly as reflected by its letter of April 8, 1966, was lacking in the good faith that the Act seeks to exact from employers and Unions in their dealings with one another. Specifically, the Union was seeking to compel Springfield to enter into an unlawful agreement and was seeking further to compel Springfield to bargain separately with respect to its electrotype em- ployees when the appropriate collective-bargaining unit was a multiemployer unit.50 Respondents' refusal to suc- cumb to the Union's pressures does not, in these circum- stances, constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith as al- leged in the complaint. Accordingly, I find that General Counsel has not proved that the Respondents have vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As the remaining allega- tions of the complaint are premised upon the vitality of the 8(a)(5) allegations, I shall recommend that the com- plaint herein be dismissed in its entirety CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondents have not violated Section 8(a)( 1), (3), and (5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety ',General Counsel acknowledges that the Union and the multiem- ployer group had effectively and successfully concluded their negotiations on March 7 , 1966 In his brief he states " in the instant case , the issues common to all members of the Association excluding the Kodak relief process had been agreed to on March 7, subject to ratification There remained only local issues concerning jurisdiction of the Kodak relief process and the effect of such a process on Respondent Springfield's employees " However, because Wrap-Arounds' production employees were not accretions to the multiemployer unit which included Spring- field's electrotypers and the Union otherwise was not designated as their representative, Respondents were under no duty to discuss the so-called local issues referred to by General Counsel For the L coon to refuse to enter into the agreement otherwise reached with the muluemployer group because of Springfield's refusal to negotiate relative to a nonmandatory bargaining subject was to evade its statutory obligations N L R B v Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp , 356 U S 342 349 " General Counsel in his brief contends 'Negotiations took place with Respondent on [March 29] as well as on April 4 and April 6, and these sessions can be interpreted as individual bargaining Furthermore, these meetings amounted to clear acquiescence by Respondent as to bargaining on an individual basis, and there was acquiescence by Home City and Holyoke as indicated by their actions Contrary to General Counsel. separate discussions between a labor organization and an individual member of a multiemployer group directed towards resolving a difference between them does not alone effect a withdrawal of the member from the multiemployer group , particularly if such discussions do not occur at a time that would be appropriate for withdrawal from the group Also, in the circumstances here present, the fact that Home City and Holyoke signed separate but substantially identical agreements was not a manifestation of a desire on their part to abandon multiemployer bargaining a" The Union's December 1965 proposals to the employers ' group in- cluded the following "Should a shop close members shall receive 3 weeks severance pay " This demand was abandoned by the Union during the negotiations after some discussion 19 The Kroger Co, 141 NLRB 564, 568, affd 330 F 2d 210 (C A D C ) The court in affirming the Board 's decision pointed out It was from these facts , and not from any legal abstraction , that [the Board] inferred an understanding between the parties that these group discussions need not result in identical agreements and that, ac- cordingly , an individual employer or an individual local might, by timely action taken in good faith, reserve its position on a particular matter in such manner so as not to be bound at all events by what a majority of their associates might agree to 10 In the circumstances here , the muluemployer unit was not dissolved because Home City and Holyoke signed the contracts offered to them separately by the Union on March 29 , 1966, under threats to the effect that they otherwise would be involved in Springfield's difficulties ice Cream, Frozen Custard industry Employees, Local 717, 145 NLRB 865 See Henry I Siegel Co, Inc v N I R B, 340 F 2d 309 (C A 2)