New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union (AFL-CIO) and Alco- Gravure Division of Publication Corporation. Case 22-CC-329 January 11, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FAN- NING AND ZAGORIA On March 21, 1967, Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich issued his Decision in the above-entitled 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 brief in support thereof, and the Charging Party filed an answering 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. 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 as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent, New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union (AFL-CIO), its officers} agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. Delete from paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms provided ...." ' Scanned positives are produced through an electronic process which requires less employee production hours than by the more costly manual process. Had Alco manufactured positives by the scanning process TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed by Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corpora- tion, herein referred to as the Charging Party or Alco, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the Board, on behalf of the Board by the Acting Regional Director for Region 22, on December 9, 1966, issued a complaint and notice of hear- ing. New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo- Engravers Union (AFL-CIO) was named Respondent. The gist of the complaint was that the Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act, in that Respondent had induced and instructed the employees of Alco to refuse to use or work on for production scanned positives purchased from Copper- plate Gravure Corporation herein referred to as Copper- plate. The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the un- fair labor practices alleged and as an affirmative defense alleged that the Respondent was engaged in a lawful pri- mary dispute with Alco, relating to unit work at Alco. The case came on for hearing before Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich in Newark, New Jersey, on January 4, 1967, at which hearing the General Counsel, the Charg- ing Party, and the Respondent fully participated. At the close of the General Counsel's evidence, the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint which motion was over- ruled. At the close of all the evidence, the Respondent's motion to dismiss was renewed, ruling on which was reserved by the Trial Examiner until after an examination of the briefs and arguments of counsel. For the reasons hereinafter stated the motion is denied. The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent have submitted briefs supporting their respective positions. The briefs have been carefully con- sidered by the Trial Examiner. The issue before the Trial Examiner is whether the Respondent's inducement of Alco's employees to refuse to use or process a scanned positive' purchased from Copperplate was in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Upon the whole record and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYING ENTERPRISES Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation is engaged in the business of rotogravure printing at its plant in Hoboken , New Jersey , where it employs photoen- gravers represented by the Respondent under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement in effect until June 1968. The agreement is between Employing Gravure Printers of New York City and Vicinity and Employing Gravure Engravers of New York City and Vicinity and (which it did not) some of the unit work performed by the Respondent's members would have been eliminated. 169 NLRB No. 25 NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS & PHOTO-ENGRAVERS 119 New York Lithographers and Photo-Engravers Union No. 1-P, L.P.1.U.2 The agreement was executed on March 24, 1966. Copperplate Gravure Corporation is located in Naper- ville, Illinois, where it, among other things, is engaged in the production of positives produced both by the manual and scanning processes. During the times material herein, Alco has been a purchaser of positives produced by Cop- perplate. 'The parties stipulated that "the collective bar- gaining agreement involving Copperplate reflects that it is with Chicago Photo-Engravers Union, Number Five-P, and it was entered into April 1, 1965, and expires March 31, 1967, and that sometime during the term of the contract the name of the Union was changed to Local 245." During the past year, Alco, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be purchased, trans- ferred, and delivered to its Hoboken plant photographic materials, ink, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods valued in excess of $50,000 were transported to the Hoboken plant in in- terstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. Copperplate, an Illinois corporation, during the preced- ing 12 months, sold to Alco products valued in excess of $300,000, of which products valued at approximately $6,800 were shipped to Alco's Hoboken plant from Il- linois. The Respondent admits and the Trial Examiner finds that Alco and Copperplate, at all times material herein, were employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo- Engravers Union (AFL-CIO), has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.3 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES First: On or about April 20, 1965, the photoengraver members of the Respondent Union who were employed by Alco, upon specific instructions from the Union's pres- ident and chapel chairman, refused to handle scanned positives purchased by Alco from Printing Develop- ments, Inc., herein referred to as P.D.I., a New York cor- poration. During the time of the various refusals by Al- co's employees the Respondent Union was in active negotiations with P.D.I. and was demanding as one of its prime targets that P.D.I. discontinue the production of scanned positives. Thereafter a contract was executed between the Respondent Union and P.D.I. which pro- vided, among other things, that P.D.I. would be allowed to continue to produce scanned positives for other seg- ments of the printing industries, but could not produce scanned positives for the gravure industry, in which Alco was engaged, without the specific consent and permission of the Respondent Union.4 After such agreement became effective Alco did not process or attempt to process scanned positives (except for experimental purposes) until it procured a scanned positive on or about November 9, 1966, from Copperplate. When Marcel L'Heritier, chapel chairman, learned of the declared use of scanned positives he advised Alco Supervisor Munz, "you know the situation that we have. I don't think we are going to touch them but before we do this, I will check with my president." L'Heritier alerted the Respondent's president, Frank A. McGowan, and informed him that the Respondent "had received a set of scanned positives from Naperville, Illinois" and "specifically mentioned the fact that it had a union label on it." McGowan told him that he would think about the matter and call him back. In the meantime McGowan checked with the Respondent's attorney whom he asked whether the Union could handle Copperplate scanned positives. According to McGowan the attorney answered, "[n] o dice" and opined that these scanned positives were not covered by the prior Board Orders McGowan then called L'Heritier and told him the scanned positives could only be used for "copy."6According to L'Heritier "Mr. Munz wouldn't use them for copy." Munz informed Charles Cullinane, assistant to the vice president in charge of the Hoboken operation, who tried unsuccessfully to contact McGowan. However, he reached L'Heritier, who informed him that the employees were refusing to work on scanned positives upon orders of the president of the Union. Later Cullinane reached McGowan by telephone. McGowan said that the em- ployees would not work on scanned positives. Cullinane reminded McGowan of the Board's prior Decision and the stability of the employer's work force and commented that he could not "see his objections." McGowan replied that "the jobs of the men would be jeopardized." Where- upon McGowan responded that the Union had less to fear in this regard than any other union in the country in- asmuch as the Union had a job guarantee.7 McGowan said that "it made no difference, that the men would refuse to work on these positives." According to L'Heritier, his initial objection to the em- ployees working on scanned positives was derived from the Union's policy established by past practices which prohibited members from working on scanned positives. He said that he was aware of the P.D.I. situation in 1965 and was "aware of it ever since." On April 20, 1965, L'Heritier had directed a letter to Munz as follows: This is to re-affirm the letter of 8 April 1965 con- cerning an International order to all locals notifying them that scanned positives are to be used as copy. 2 Employers named in the agreement were: Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation, Art Color Printing Company, Neo Gravure Printing Company, The Ullman Company, Inc , Intaglio Service Corpora- tion, International Color Gravure, Inc., and Supertone, Incorporated 3 The Respondent' s answer admits that Respondent is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act. 4 The foregoing facts are drawn from the Trial Examiner's Decision in New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No One-P, Lithog- raphers & Photo-Engravers International Union, AFL-CIO (Alco- Gravure, Division of Publication Corporation), 160 NLRB 1222 5 The prior Board Order referred to was in the case of New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-Engravers International Union , AFL-CIO, supra. 6 Use of the scanned positive as "copy" would have required the manu- facture of a manually made positive from the scanned positive. The manually made positive would then have been processed instead of the scanned positive Thus, the Union's position would have required the duplication of all scanned positives by the manual process and work ex- pended in manufacturing scanned positives would have been for naught 7 The contract provides, among other things, Each Employer signatory hereto agrees to employ during the life of this contract at least the number of regular photo -engravers employed by him on January 1, 1966 However, the necessity of the Employer to lay off regular em- ployees for economic reasons such as loss of work, or when unusual or emergency circumstances occur, is hereby recognized. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We must now follow through with this order and stop two jobs in May 23, 1965, named Klopman, Alco Job #2439 and Cone Mills, Alco Job #2447. We feel that ample time was given to the company so that these jobs could have been stopped and another method should be used until this problem is settled by the International and Local #1-P. L'Heritier testified that the letter was sent for the pur- pose of verifying the International's order" that scanned positives should only be used as copy. L'Heritier testified that thereafter he had received no "countervailing in- structions from Mr. McGowan or the International with regard to their position on scanned positives" or that "they had changed their position." 0 Alco manually manufactures positives at its Hoboken plant. However it is unable to produce all the positives it needs at the Hoboken establishment . For this reason, it has been the practice of Alco for many years to contract out a certain amount of its positive-making work to out- side suppliers. During the calendar year 1966 Alco purchased about 44 percent of the positives which it processed. These. positives were procured from about 10 suppliers including Copperplate. Of these suppliers Cop- perplate is the only company operating an electronic scanner. All positives whether manufactured by Alco or obtained from outside suppliers are processed in the same manner by Alco's employees and proceed through the same 10 postpositive steps in Alco's photoengraving process. Thus the work performed on a scanned positive by Alco employees is the same as that performed on a manually made positive.10 However, the use of the elec- tronic scanners eliminates the camera work in the produc- tion of the positive and thereby dispenses with some of the steps necessary in the manufacture of the positive by the manual method. Thus the work of a number of clas- sifications would be eliminated if the positives manufac- tured by Alco in its own plant were made by an electronic scanning device. There is no credible evidence in the record that such circumstance would have come to pass within the predictable future. Nor is there record support that Alco had in any manner changed its method of opera- tion or that unit jobs would have been actually affected by the purchase of scanned positives from Copperplate. Second: Had the instant case been one of first impres- sion it may have been that the Trial Examiner would have reached a different result; however, the Trial Examiner deems himself bound by the decision of the majority of the Board in New York Lithographers & Photo-En- gravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-En- gravers International Union , AFL-CIO (Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication Corporation), 160 NLRB 1222. The same parties were before the Board. Like the instant case, such case involved a refusal of Alco employees, upon the inducement of Respondent , to work on scanned positives furnished to Alco by a supplier. Like the instant case, such case did'not involve a change in operations of Alco but merely concerned a continuation of the practice of purchasing positives from a supplier as it had done in the past. The Board found that the Respondent engaged in unlawful secondary conduct within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act." A union's inducement of an employer's employees to refuse to use or process another employer 's products which has for its object the preservation of the work in the bargaining unit represented by the union is primary action protected by the Act. However, similar action, where an object thereof is to preserve work for union members generally , exceeds the legitimate interests of the union in the bargaining unit and, therefore, constitutes un- lawful secondary conduct within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union, Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, (Alco-Gravure, Division of Publication Corporation), 160 NLRB 1204. In his case-in-chief, the General Counsel presented credible proof that Alco's attempted use of the scanned positive purchased from Copperplate did not constitute a change in Alco's operations which affected Alco em- ployees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union, but reflected only the purchase of a positive produced by the scanned process rather than by the manual process. In this respect the situation is no different than that described in New York Lithographers & Photo-En- gravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-En- gravers International Union, AFL-CIO (see footnote 1). Since, from the evidence-in-chief adduced by the General Counsel, it may only be inferred that the refusal to use or process Copperplate's scanned positives was for some object other than to preserve work for Alco's employees, the General Counsel has established a prima facie case that the object of such refusal was to preserve work for union members generally ; 12 that the Union's conduct was 8 According to L'Heritier the order referred to P.D.I. scanned posi- tives. 0 McGowan testified that the position taken on the Copperplate scanned positives was his decision and that there was no "international policy regarding scans from Copperplate." 10 Because a scanned positive is produced mechanically, Alco's retouchers are likely to have slightly more work to perform on it than a manually made positive. 11 The pertinent portions of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) provide: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents - (4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual em- ployed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise han- dle or work on any goods, articles , materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce , or restrain any per- son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: w (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling, handling, transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor , or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . .: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful , any primary strike or primary picketing. I' It is self-evident that the elimination of the production of positives by electronic scanning devices would preserve work for union members generally, since the scanned process requires less man hours for the production of positives than the manual process. (See also Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union, Local 2-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, supra, and New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-Engravers International Union , AFL-CIO, supra.) NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS & PHOTO-ENGRAVERS 121 a protest against the rotogravure printing industry's use of the scanned process for the production of positives; and that the Union's action constituted unlawful second- ary conduct within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). (See New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-Engravers In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO, supra). To conclude otherwise would presume that the Union acted without cause, a presumption which is not supported by the record. Upon the establishment of the General Counsel's prima facie case the burden to go forward shifted to the Respondent. As an affirmative defense the Respondent asserted that "it was engaged in a primary dispute with Alco." To sup- port this defense the Respondent contended that it was engaged in a primary dispute because (1) "scanned posi- tives constituted a serious threat to unit work at Alco."13 (2) "[T]he Respondent, by its President, acted only to protect unit work at Alco, because it believed that Alco was violating its collective bargaining agreement with Local 1-P,"14 The Trial Examiner in the above-referred case an- swered these contentions with Board approval in these words: But, there is no record support that Alco had in any manner changed its method of operation or that unit jobs were actually affected by the purchases of P.D.I. scanned positives. Alco had always purchased about 30 percent of its positives. There was no change from this practice. Thus, even con- ceding that the Union thought that Alco had changed its practices and had subcontracted in violation of the contract between the Union and Alco, no union jobs have been affected, no loss of work shown by the Union. While it is true that in a proper case a union, fearful of loss of work for its members, does not have to waitfor actual loss of work before seeking redress by refusing to handle, nevertheless some overt act in- dicating a change in the Employer's operation would have to be shown to justify as primary activity what would otherwise be proscribed secondary activity. In the instant case there has been no change in opera- tions. Alco merely continued to purchase positives from a supplier as it had done in the past. Thus in accordance with New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-Engravers International Union, AFL-CIO, supra, the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 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 the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un- fair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel submits that "a broad cease-and- desist order including employers other than Alco and sup- pliers other than Copperplate is warranted." In view of the Respondent's disregard of the Board's teachings in New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union No. One-P, Lithographers & Photo-Engravers International Union, AFL-CIO, 160 NLRB 1222, the Trial Examiner recommends a broad cease-and-desist order as effectuat- ing the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo- Engravers Union (AFL-CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Copperplate Gravure Corporation is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Alco- Gravure Division of Publication Corporation, in the course of their employment, to engage in a refusal to use or process scanned positives manufactured by Copper- plate Gravure Corporation, an object thereof being to force and require Alco to cease doing business with Cop- perplate, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 5. By the acts described above in paragraph 4, for the objects set forth above in said paragraph, Respondent did threaten, coerce, and restrain, and is now threatening, coercing, and restraining , Alco, a person engaged in com- merce and in an industry affecting commerce, and thereby has engaged in and is now engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 13 In its brief, page 36, the Respondent recites, "This was shown in large degree by proof as to how scanned negatives had been used by Alco to encroach upon unit work and by proof that scanned positives were simply a further extention or improvement on scanned negatives" and by footnote "There was no evidence in 160 NLRB 1222 relating to scanned negatives " It is the opinion of the Trial Examiner that such evidence would not have altered the Board's Decision in 160 N LRB 1222 since the Board did consider (and the Union argued) that the future use of scanned positives would result in a diminution of unit work. 14 The Respondent refers to the following provisions of the agreement. Sec. 5. Any material entering the photoengraving department to be reproduced shall serve as copy for the initial photographic process and shall be processed and completed under the terms of this con- tract It is not intended by this provision to change present practices. Sec. 9. The following branches are recognized : 1. Photographers, scanner. 2 Etchers, re-etchers, stagers, sensitizers, carbon punters and laydown 3 Retoucher-layout. 4. Cylinder Grinders, Polishers, Plate Depositors and 5 Engravers. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent , New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union Number One-P, International Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union (AFL CIO), Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or en- couraging any individual employed by Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation or any other persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting com- merce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials, or com- modities or perform any services ; or to threaten, coerce, or restrain Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Cor- poration or any other persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce where, in either case, an object thereof is forcing or requiring Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation or any other persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting com- merce to cease doing business with Copperplate Gravure Corporation or any other employer. 2 Take the following action which is found will effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its office and meeting halls and at the Hoboken, New Jersey , plant of Alco- Gravure Division of Publication Corporation and at all places where Respondent customarily posts its notices, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative , shall be posted by Respond- ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to' comply herewith. is 's In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " '6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith." NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS OF AND TO ALL MEMBERS OF NEW YORK LITHOGRAPHERS & PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION NUMBER ONE-P, INTERNATIONAL LITHOG- RAPHERS_& PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION [AFL-CIO] 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 you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, or com- modities or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain Alco-Gravure Division of Publi- cation Corporation or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing and requiring Alco-Gravure Division of Publication Corporation or any other persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry af- fecting commerce, to cease doing business with Cop- perplate Gravure Corporation or any other em- ployer. NEW YORK LITHOG- RAPHERS & PHOTOEN- GRAVERS UNION NUMBER ONE-P , INTERNATIONAL LITHOGRAPHERS & PHOTO- ENGRAVERS UNION [AFL-CIO] (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 645-2100. APPENDIX