Indiantown Printing, Inc.

150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Indiantown Printing, Inc.I and West Palm Beach Typographical Union No. 709, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-3804 JANUARY 15, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 28, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 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 and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the finding, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.2 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 Respondent, Indiantown Printing, Inc., Indiantown, Florida, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The record shows clearly that Respondent had been dealing with the Union on an informal basis for its composing room employees only. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the unit requested by the Union was appropriate , and the Union had a majority in that unit. In finding that majority, however, we do not , contrary to the Trial Examiner, pass upon whether the "membership dues payment records" of William Hays, Geor- gia Symons, and Foster Littrell suffice to establish that those employees had authorized the Union to represent them for purposes of a majority showing. The Union did not include them in its list of those it claimed had so authorized it, and without them it still had a majority in the appropriate unit. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing was held before me in the above-entitled proceeding on July 18 and 19, 1967, at West Palm Beach, Florida, upon com- plaint of the General Counsel against Indiantown Print- ing, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company. The charge was first filed on April 5, 1967, and the com- plaint issued on May 23. The sole issue litigated is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Briefs were filed after the close of the hearing by the Respondent and the Union. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Indiantown, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of printing books. It annually purchases and receives at its Florida plant materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Florida, and annually per- forms services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State. I find that the Respondent is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exerciseju- risdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED West Palm Beach Typographical Union No. 709, In- ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ILLEGAL REFUSAL TO BARGAIN This Company runs a printing shop. When first taken over 4 or 5 years ago by a New York City concern, not identified on the record, it also printed and bound trade magazines; for 2 years now it has done nothing but print books. All its order work is received in manuscript or tape form from New York City customers. The entire plant consists of the standard two-part arrangement - a composing room and a pressroom. There is an elusive his- tory of communications over the years between the Com- pany and ITU Local 709, with each party today variously claiming vague rights and estoppels flowing from things that were said or done some time ago. If anything defini- tive can be gleaned at all from certain old correspondence and from ambiguously articulated statements of position at the hearing, it is that the Company believes the Union foreclosed itself from any right to represent the compos- ing room employees, while the Union argues it has in fact been recognized for several years as the bargaining agent. The only meanin ful light all this evidence of past commu- nications seems to cast upon the issue of the complaint now under consideration, is a very significant indication of the Company's attitude generally towards the principle of collective bargaining. Beyond that, it is in no real sense important for determination of the merits of the Govern- ment's case. Whatever may have happened in the past, certain ob- jective facts are clear on the record as to how matters stand now. During the months of January, February, and March 1967, there were 19 nonsupervisory employees at work in the composing room, and 6 in the pressroom. This is established by stipulation of the parties. 169 NLRB No. 20 151 INDIANTOWN PRINTING, INC. Ten employees then in the composing room testified at the hearing and authenticated proper union authorization cards received in evidence, which they signed on various dates between January 4 and February 15, 1967. Also placed in evidence are authorization cards signed by Howard Strain, Lewis Goldenberg, and Martin Foster, the first two dated January 4 and the third January 25. Strain's and Goldenberg's cards were authenticated by Charles Edwards, a linotypist who worked on the night shift at the time. Edwards testified that these men worked with him on the night shift, and that he gave these cards to the men, who returned them to him signed and dated.' As to Foster's card, there is the testimony of John Hryhor, secretary of Local 709, who said he mailed the card to this employee on request, and received it back in the mail, signed and dated, a few days later. The Re- spondent did not dispute the testimony of these witnesses that they signed the cards, that all 13 employees whose cards were offered were in fact then employed in the composing room, and that all the signatures are genuine. There were also received into evidence agreed on co- pies of the Union's membership dues payment records for William Hays, Georgia Symons, and Foster Littrell. These records show that each of these persons, all linotypists, were paid up members of Local 709 during the months of January, February, and March 1967. Nor did the Respondent dispute Edwards' further testimony that all three of these were also employed, in one capacity or another, by the Respondent at the time in the compos- ing room. It thus appears, and I find, that during the month of February, 1967, 16 of the 19 rank-and-file employees in the Respondent's composing room had authorized the Union to represent them in collective bargaining vis-a-vis their then employer. On February 24, 1967, Milton Wickles, president of Local 709, and John Jensen, its vice president, called on Donald Hoffman, a labor relations consultant acting for the Respondent. James Fleming, the president of the Company, said at the hearing that he spends most of his time in New York, that Hoffman always speaks on his be- half, and that anything Hoffman said or did during the events here reviewed, reflected the thinking of manage- ment. Wickles handed Hoffman an envelope containing a letter and a separate one-page statement. In pertinent part the letter stated: We enclose herewith a statement listing the majori- ty of your employees who have designated the Union as their bargaining representative and requested that you recognize and bargain a contract with the Union. We will also offer for your inspection the authoriza- tion cards recently signed by a majority of the em- ployees in that unit designating the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. The letter also precisely defines the bargaining unit sought, limited strictly to the composing room employees. The statement accompanying the letter read: The following employees of the Indiantown Print- ing' Co. have designated West Palm Beach Typo- graphical Union No. 709 as their collective-bargain- i Hunter Engineering Co., 104 NLRB 1016. Edwards , a linotypist himself, and long a member of the Union, started with the Company as a rank-and-file employee in the summer of 1966 He was offered the job of night shift foreman in December , but refused to ac- cept the position. He changed his mind on January 16, 1967, and became a supervisor foreman that day At the hearing the company representative objected to receipt of the cards of Strain and Goldenberg , as well as of em- Ing representative, and request that the Indianapolis Printing Co. continue to recognize the Union as their representative and commence negotiations im- mediately toward a collective -bargaining agreement. The statement then listed 15 names; these were the 13 employees whose authorization cards are mentioned above, plus Edwards and Riehl, supervisory foremen of the composing room. Hoffman read the letter, looked at the enumerated names, and returned the name list to the union agents. According to Jensen, Hoffman said he was "not,prepared to accept a proposal" from the Union. When Hoffman returned the list of names, Jensen and Wickles offered to show him the cards themselves, which Jensen was carry- ing. To this Hoffman said: "I don't want to see the list. .. I don't want to know who you've gotten involved in your Union out there." As Wickles recalled the conversa- tion, Hoffman said "he didn't want to know what was in the letter, whose name was on it," and as to looking at the cards "he didn't want any part of them." Hoffman was in attendance at the hearing throughout but did not testify. There is no reason for not crediting the testimony of the union agents. On February 27 Hoffman replied by mail. He re- minded the Union he had refused to accept the list of names, or to look at the signed cards. The letter then added: At this writing I would be inclined to venture a question as to your proposed unit being sufficient for this type of operation and whether or not you represent the required precentage of all the em- ployees in the Company. These questions could be readily determined at an NLRB hearing where testimony can be given and the Regional Director determine these matters for both of us. Hoffman also wrote that he had forwarded the Union's demand letter to Fleming. By letter of May 2, the Union again told Hoffman that a bargaining unit limited to the composing room was ap- propriate in the circumstances. That same day the Union also sent a letter to Fleming personally at his New York City address, with return receipt requested. In the en- velope were placed both the February 24 letter handed to Hoffman and the February 27 followup also sent to Hoff- man. The letter to Fleming was, returned by the-Post Of- fice marked "Refused." ANALYSIS, UNIT FINDING, AND CONCLUSION It is difficult to state, on the record as a whole, precise- ly what reason the Respondent gave the Union in justifi- cation of its refusal to bargain when the demand was unequivocally made on February 24, nor, indeed, what is its defense to the complaint now. On February 27, 3 days after telling the Union flatly he did not want "any part" of the authorization cards and would not consider any proposal the Union might submit, Hoffman for the first time hinted at a possible question concerning the ap- propriate unit, and even then he was not sure of what he had in mind. "I would be inclined to venture a question as to your proposed unit." At the hearing, 4 months later, ployees Wall, Leyland, Shivers, and Mendiburo, because all of these per- sons had been solicited by Edwards, now a supervisor. Apparently the theory here is that because Edwards had been offered the supervisory post, the cards he solicited, before deciding to accept , and while he was still an ordinary workman, are tainted by management interference, and may not be counted now. I find no merit in this contention, repeated in the Respondent's brief 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gutwein, also speaking for the Respondent, offered evidence obviously intended to prove that a unit limited to the composing room was inappropriate in this situa- tion. This question of the appropriate unit had never before February 27 been advanced to the Union as a reason for refusing to negotiate a contract. In fact, Jensen testified without contradiction that Hoffman gave no reason at all for his refusal on the 24th. There had also been two earlier meetings, one on December 16 with both Hoffman and Fleming present, and another on December 21, with only Hoffman. Secretary Jensen's testimony that at neither of these - where the Respondent also refused on each occa- sion to bargain with. the Union - was any question raised as to the unit, in uncontradicted, and perfectly creditable. Nor is it claimed now that the unit was ever a subject of discussion until after the repeat refusal to recognize on February 24. What contributes to the confusion, and makes the Company's position throughout almost unin- telligible, is that both in December 1966 and again at the hearing, the Respondent's representative seemed to be saying that there was no obligation to negotiate condi- tions of employment because the Union had agreed not to "interfere" with the Company's affairs. This amounted to an estoppel theory, which is not only foreign to any ap- propriate unit defense, but also carries an implied asser- tion that the parties were in agreement - necessarily a form of union recognition - that for a period of time the Union would represent the employees in name only, with bargaining about terms of employment to await the time that Fleming might deem the profits sufficient and the em- ployees unjustly treated by their Employer. With the Company's representative at the hearing objecting to evidence tending to show Fleming in fact refused to bar- gain even after February 24, the Trial Examiner offered at one point to adjourn the hearing to afford the parties an opportunity to negotiate then and there, if they were so minded. The Respondent rejected the suggestion. It would appear, then, that despite the ambiguities and inconsistences in the Respondent's statements of position - direct or implied - consideration of the merits of the complaint must start with certain plain facts. On Februa- ry 24, 1967, the Union represented a majority of the rank-and-file employees in the composing room, it de- manded recognition and bargaining in that unit, and the Respondent refused to deal with it. In so doing, did the Respondent fail to comply with the statutory mandate to recognize and negotiate with the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit? More appropriately restated for purposes of this case, the question is whether the record as a whole proves that the refusal was grounded upon a fundamental rejection of the principle of collective bargaining. And I think the answer is yes. In this printing plant work starts with book manu- scripts, or manuscripts already reduced to tape, going from the office to the composing room. The manuscripts are edited or marked by a markup man. This work con- sists of indicating on the manuscript the width and the length of the pages, type size to be used, bold or italics letters, and such things. It then goes to the linotypists, who operate six standard hot metal linotype machines. One of the machines is automatic; it sets regular type from tape, and is also operated by a linotypist. The resultant letter forms are called galleys and are placed into a chase, a form which holds the hard letters in place. Proofreaders then examine the galleys at what is called the dump, a large flat examining table. A single proof copy is run off on a small press, and the galleys then returned to the linotypist for corrections. With this the galley goes to the bank, where space, line, and page number slugs are placed into the galley or chase, as re- quired. After another proof copy is made the chase goes to the lockup section where it is finally fixed in place so that it will hold still in the presses. There is also a Lud- low machine which machine casts large letters and an Elrod machine which casts line and blank slugs for spac- ing. All this work is performed in the composing room, by composing room employees, and nowhere else in the plant. A further proof copy taken from the final chase is then sent to the office for approval by the customer, and then goes to the pressroom. Here the pressmen and their assistants run off the printed pages. There are skilled journeymen in the composing room and learners. Some called themselves apprentices at the hearing and said they learn the various operations in an informal manner. They are supervised by a foreman on the day shift and another on the night shift. None of these employees ever works in the pressroom, where there is a third foreman who has no authority outside his own sec- tion. In the normal operation of the two departments neither group does any of the work of the other or leaves its physical location, and two rooms separated by swing- ing doors. There is no transfer of employees between the departments. There have been occasions when, because of insuffi- cient work in the pressroom, the Company assigned pressroom employees to do work in the composing room requiring lesser skills. James Shivers and Billy Wall, com- posing room employees, recalled that in about the month of January 1967, several pressroom persons.worked a day or two at a time over a period of 2 weeks or so in the composing room, distributing type and breaking up old galleys for reuse. Shivers even recalled that one of the pressmen worked setting up an ad. Richard Leyland, 4 years with the Company, testified the last time he saw pressmen working in the composing room was "a year and a half ago, somewhere around there." And Charles Cloud, the plant superintendent called by the Respondent for the very purpose of proving interchange of employees between the departments, placed the incident at "last summer," which would be sometime in 1966. He ex- plained several men, including the pressroom foreman, worked temporarily in composing because of a rush job: "we couldn't find enough floormen to expedite the work." In any event, it is clear there has been no such in- terchange, even on a temporary or emergency basis, for at least 6 months before the hearing, and that in the regu- lar operations of the business the pressmen work at their presses and the compositors operate the composing room. I find that the following unit, as set out in the Union's letter to the Respondent on February 24, 1967, and as defined in the complaint, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All composing room department em- ployees including makeup employees, machine operators, teletypesetters, floormen, bankmen, dumpmen, proofreaders, and all other employees performing typesetting functions, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.2 2 Florence Printing Co., 145 NLRB 141; George Grady Press Inc., 74 NLRB 1372. INDIANTOWN PRINTING, INC. 153 I also find, as set out above, that at all times since February 24, 1967, and continuing to date, the Union has been the representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and , by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is now the exclusive representative of all the em- ployees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment. The record would not warrant a finding that the reason the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union was because it doubted the appropriateness of the unit limited to the composing room employees . Had this really been its purported justification then, the refusal would nevertheless constitute a direct violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.3 For sometime up to February 24, Hoffman attempted to persuade the Union that the parties had agreed there would be no demand by the Union for a signed contract, for actual bargaining over terms and conditions of em- ployment, that the Union had promised to leave the Com- pany "alone." As early as March 1965, Hoffman wrote to Union President Wickles and said: "It was stated by you and your representatives in April 1964 that L. 709 would not interfer with this company for at least between 18 and 24 months in matters regarding wages, hours, con- ditions of employment or any active organizing campaign ... I am quite sure you will agree that verbal agreements are as binding as any written agreement." In his testimony about the meeting between the Union and Company representatives on December 16, 1966, Secre- tary Jensen of Local 709 said "the prime topic of the en- tire meeting was whether the Company was recognizing the Union as the bargaining representative of the em- ployees." At that time the Union was claiming it had al- ready been recognized in the past. At this point of the hearing, Mr. Gutwein, for the Respondent , stated on the record: The purpose of the meeting, as I understand it, was that there has been a history here of the Union not wanting to get involved or deal with the Company in- volving working conditions , hours, rates and so on, and they had a verbal understanding that they were going to leave hands off, and this was coming back, and this is why the meeting was discussed as to whether they were going to put hands on or off again. Five days later, on December 21, 1966, the parties met again. Still according to Jensen: At the start of that meeting, I said that I understood that we were there to reconcile the apparent dif- ferences we had, and I said our position was that the Company had recognized the Union in the past, had dealings with the Union, and that the Company should recognize the Union as the bargaining agent. Mr. Hoffman was rather noncommital in his an- swers, until he asked us if we had copies of this cor- respondence I was referring to. And, at this time we had mislaid this correspondence, so Mr . Wickles and I had to say that we did not have copies of the cor- respondence at that time. And then Mr. Hoffman then said that he did not feel that the Company had any obligation to bargain with the Union. Inexplicably inconsistent with all this, Fleming testified for the Respondent, and insisted he never had any agree- ment with the Union. "As far as I was concerned, I had no understanding ... the meetings that I sat in on were just meetings where they said that they wanted to represent the people , and I still maintain that it was not an appropriate time for me to get involved in that sort of thing." Again, despite all this, despite the attempts by Re- spondent's representative at the hearing to win admission from union witnesses that there had been an agreement "not to interfere," I do not understand that the defense really argues estoppel against the Union now. And again, in any event, assuming such was its position, it fails of adequate defense to the complaint. The short answer is that any waiver of the statutory right to bargain col- lectively through a union of the employees' choice, must be in clear and unequivocal terms.4 There is no such evidence in this case. A reason for the refusal there must have been, and I find, on the record in its entirety, that it was the Respond- ent's simple opinion that for the employees of this plant, at this time, it was not obligated to bargain with any union, regardless of what the law may be or how it may apply in other circumstances. An employer is not free to flaunt the statutory mandate in this fashion. By its refusal to bargain with the Union on February 24, 1967, and thereafter, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Hoffman did not care how many employees had authorized the Union, he refused to look at either the list of names or the cards. There is not the slightest indication anyone on behalf of management doubted either the authenticity or currency of the authorization signatures. There are some things that simply will not go away, no matter how much, or how often, we refuse to admit their existence. This question of the appropriate unit was pure- ly an afterthought; it had never been raised before and no mention was made of it at all at the time of the demand and refusal. The light starts showing as far back as 1964, when, as appears in the minutes of a meeting Fleming had with the employees , he said: "I will not negotiate a contract ... You obviously don't want anything but a union contract. I will not sign a Union contract ... I will not sign a con- tract with ITU. The company cannot stand it economi- cally. We can't come up with costs and then compete with prices in the north , where there is a lower pay scale. There are certain benefits which I think you should have. ... Now as far as the future is concerned, I would give as many benefits as are consistent with our progress. It would be stupid to expect people not to go forward as the company does. A union is not needed until such time as it can be proven that the company is making money and still not giving benefits to the workers." In December 1966 Hoffman spoke to the union agents in terms of "keeping hands off" the Company, revealing clearly that in the Company's view a union represents in- trusion upon the prerogatives of management. In an April 20, 1967, letter to the Labor Board's Regional Director, apparently in response to the filing of the charge, Hoff- man listed a variety of reasons why the refusal to bargain should be excused. Among these he said the 1966 payroll "was in excess of 80 percent of the total sales dollars," the Company had a 3-year old "group hospital and in- surance coverage ," "it [the Company] has had to main- 3 H & W Construction Company, 161 NLRB 852. 4 Hekman Furniture Company, 101 NLRB 631. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tain, higher than or equal to, wages and benefits that com- panies in smaller towns and even metropolitan areas of Florida have not had to meet, in order to stay in produc- tion and not suffer even greater losses." Here was virtual admission the Company had refused to bargain because it believed it could not afford to bargain with a union. And Fleming himself, as a witness later at the hearing, kept stressing how the Company's financial position is poor. That the Respondent looks upon the Union as pure an- noyance, without regard to any other consideration - in- cluding the desires of its employees - is also strongly in- dicated by the language of its representative at the hear- ing. While pressing the Union's secretary on cross-ex- amination as to the intendment of the purported old agreement to defer any demands for a contract, Mr. Gut- wein asked as follows: "The only reference that I have ever found in any of these exhibits that have been made so far is that the contract we are talking about is people living up to their word, that they are not going to bother us anymore. This is all I can see in the transcripts. Do you agree?" Again later, while examining Wickles, the union president: "were you referring to an understanding that the Union was not to interfere or make claims for representation, or to negotiate for wages, hours and work- ing conditions? Is that the verbal agreement you are talk- ing about?" The policy of the Act is to promote the practice of col- lective bargaining, not to view it as interference with in- erstate commerce. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, the Respondent will be ordered to bar- gain collectively with the Union in the unit found ap- propriate, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.5 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record in its entirety, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All composing room department employees of the Indiantown Printing , Inc., at its Indiantown, Florida, printing plant, including makeup employees , machine operators , teletypesetters , floormen, bankmen, dump- men, proofreaders, and all other employees performing type setting functions , but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. West Palm Beach Typographical Union No. 709, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, was on February 24, 1967, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on and after February 24, 1967, to meet with the above-named labor organizations and to bargain with it for purposes of collective bargaining the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, I recommend that Indiantown Printing , Inc., Indiantown, Florida, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with West Palm Beach Typographical Union No . 709, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exericse of the rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with West Palm Beach Typographical Union No. 709, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above, with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in Indiantown , Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional S At the close of the hearing , counsel for ITU Local 709 stated tthat in the event a bargaining unit limited to the composing room should not be found appropriate in this case , the Union would represent and faithfully bargain on behalf of all the production employees of the Respondent in a single unit, joining both the composing and the pressroom personnel. The clear majority enjoyed by the Union in the composing room suffices to establish it also, in that event , as the exclusive representative of both groups of employees . There is no occasion to pass upon such an eventuali- ty here, for the composing room bargaining unit is clearly appropriate. 6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall b^ substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." INDIANTOWN PRINTING , INC. 155 Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative , shall be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspic- uous places , including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.7 7 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in wasting , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with West Palm Beach Typographical Union No. 709, In- ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bar- gaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other ,mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such ac- tivities. WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with the Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, and if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All composing room department employees including makeup employees , machine opera- tors, teletypesetters , floormen, bankmen, dump- men, proofreaders , and all other employees per- forming typesetting functions , excluding all other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated By INDIANTOWN PRINTING, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa , Florida 33602, Telephone 228-7711.