New York Typographical Union No. 6

NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 New York Typographical Union No. 6 and Clark & Fritts, Inc. Cases 2-CB-6550--I and 2-CB-6550-2 May 24, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHIY On January 19, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings, and conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, New York Typographi- cal Union No. 6, New York, New York, its officers. agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. In affirming the Administrative L.aw Judge's dismissal of those allegl- tions of the complaint alleging that Respondent iolated Sec. 8(b)( I)(B) and (3) of the Act. we rely on, in addition to Resilient Floor and Derorariv, Covering Local Union No. 1247 of Brotherho(od of Painters and .41 ied Trade., AFL CIO (Linoleum Studio. Inc.), 233 NLRB 980 (1977), cited be the Ad- ministrative Law Judge, our Decisions in Phocnir ,ir (Conditioning. Inc.. 231 NLRB 341 (1977), and Ted Hicks and .4rssliates, Inc., 232 NLRB 717 (1977). In each of the latter two cases. as in this case, the Board found that an employer, who was not a member of a multiemploser bargaining unit. had signed a memorandum agreement which bound it, absent timelk notice to the contrary, to future contracts negotiated hb the union and the mul- tiemployer association. We find the rationales set forth in Phoeni. lir (Con- ditioning and Ted Hicks and Associuates Inc., to he controlling in the case before us. Further, in the absence of exceptions thereto. we adopt. pro forrn,. the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent's maintenance of the provision in the 1975 contract with the Printers' League relating to an exclusive hiring hall violated Sec. 8(b)( IlA) of the Act. DECISION SFIATFM1NT OF THE CASE Ji l.l s COHIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at New York. New York. on May 12 and 13, 1977. Charges were filed on February 8, 1977, by Clark & Fritts. Inc., herein called the Company or the Charging Party,' which were consolidated by the Regional Director for Re- gion 2, who issued a complaint dated March 21, 1977. al- leging that New York Typographical Union No. 6, herein called Respondent or the Union. violated Section 8(b)( 1 )(B) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by forcing the Company to designate an agent other than itself as its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and by refusing to meet and bargain with the Company to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement. Thereafter, on May 4, 1977, the Company filed an amended charge, upon which the General Counsel served notice of intention to amend the complaint. At the hearing, by motion made and granted, the complaint was amended to allege that Respondent and Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., herein called the League. maintained an illegal hiring hall provision in its current collective-bargaining agree- ment. Respondent dull filed an answer denying the com- mission of unfair labor practices. The issues arising from the original consolidated com- plaint are dependent upon the resolution of the question whether the Company is bound to the terms and condi- tions of the existing contract between Respondent and the League. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. All parties submitted briefs which have been carefully considered. On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the fol- lowing: FuINuINGS OF FACT I THi RB SINFSS OF THF COMPANY Clark & Fritts. Inc., a New York corporation, maintains a principal place of business in the city of New York where it is engaged in operating a printing plant. During the past year, it has printed, sold, and distributed at its plant prod- ucts valued in excess of $50,000. of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from its New York City plant directly to States of the United States other than the State of New York. I find that the Company 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. I After the close of hearing. attornes for the (Charging Parts. (Carl A Schsarz. nmoed that Finles, Kumble. Wagner. leine. and I ndrhererg be substituted as atlornes of record in this proceeding for Fellner and Roylns There being no opposition. the moilron is herehs granted 236 NLRB No. 46 317 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11 THE lABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED A. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(l)(B) and (3J of the Act I. Facts The Company, as a corporation for the past 10 years and prior to that a partnership, is engaged in commercial print- ing, doing most of its work for large corporations. It em- ploys approximately 75 to 80 people in its shop, all of whom are represented by the major graphic arts unions, including Respondent, who represents the 35 composing room employees. The Company and Respondent have had collective-bargaining relationships since the 1920's. The League is an association of employers existing for the purposes of negotiating and administering collective- bargaining agreements with unions, including Respondent, which represents some of the employees of the employer- members of the League. Respondent and the League have been parties to successive collective-bargaining agreement over a long period of years. The current contract was effect from October 4, 1975, having succeeded a I-year agree- ment which ran from Octover 4, 1974, through October 3, 1975. The Company is not, nor has it ever been, a member of the League. However, it has always maintained and put into effect the wage scales and other terms and conditions of the agreements negotiated between Respondent and the League, including benefit and welfare funds to which it has contributed. It is advised by Respondent of the changes negotiated with the League, and a printed sheet containing new wage scales is given to the Company's bookkeeper and posted in the shop. Nevertheless, it has never signed a col- lective-bargaining agreement, as such, with Respondent. The only writing between Respondent and the Company covering the traditional composing room employees is a document executed on February 27, 1964, which provides. in pertinent part, as follows: It is mutually agreed that both parties shall be bound by and shall adhere to the terms of the existing agree- ment between the Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc. (party of the first part), and New York Typographical Union No. 6 (party of the second part), and to any amend- ments, modifications, supplements, renewals, and ex- tensions thereof, governing scale of prices, shop condi- tions, and length of contract, subject to the following conditions: 2 This agreement was executed by Charles Sackett, the fa- ther of the Company's president, Howard Sackett. At that time the Company was a partnership and Charles Sackett was its manager. Although Howard Sackett and the execu- 'The conditions referred to a provision for resolution of any controversy not previously determined by the league and the Union. tive vice president and director of labor relations, John Holt, stated that they were unaware until recently of the existence of the 1964 agreement, they agreed that the Com- pany observed the conditions of the various contracts be- tween Respondent and the League for many years. 3 Two other writings exist between the Company and Re- spondent. One is an agreement between the Company and Graphic Arts Associates, a division of Respondent, dated June 19, 1974, which relates to two specifically named em- ployees who are classified as composing room assistants and sets forth certain special provision such as wages which apply to them alone. Apart from such specific provi- sions, this agreement incorporates by reference the provi- sions of the existing basic agreement between the League and Respondent. A division of the Company called Express Graphics exe- cuted an agreement in 1975 with the Graphic Arts Associ- ates division of Respondent following a certification by the Board of Respondent as collective-bargaining agent of cer- tain designated employees. These employees constitute a unit not traditionally represented by Respondent and con- sequently a separate agreement was made to cover their specific terms and conditions. Incidently, this agreement contained a provision binding the parties to the existing agreement between Respondent and the League. The only time that the Company and the Union negoti- ated any separate agreement or provision with respect to the composing room employees occurred in 1968 when the Company introduced new equipment. At that time Holt negotiated with Powers concerning the use of that equip- ment, and it was agreed that the Company would pay one- half of I percent of the wages of employees operating such equipment into a special automation fund. Such a fund was later adopted and established by the Union and the League in their ensuing collective-bargaining agreement to which the Company contributed. By letter dated June 20, 1975, the Union wrote to Clark & Fritts, as it did to other employers who were not mem- bers of the League, advising it of the desire of the Union to amend the collective-bargaining agreement with the League. The letter also recited that the existing memoran- dum obligated the Company to adhere to the terms of any successor agreement the Union reached with the League and further stated that the Union will apply the terms of the settlement with the League to the Company in accor- dance with past practice. During the hearing, Sackett and Holt denied receiving a copy of this letter. However, the testimony of Powers describing how these letters were mailed in the normal course of the Union's business by certified mail to the Company and other non-League mem- bers, together with a post office receipt showing that the Union mailed a certified letter to the Company on June 20 and received a return receipt from the Company dated June 24, requires the conclusion, and I so find, that it re- ceived the letter dated June 20. The Company did not reply to the letter. They testified that the Company did not abide by all of the contractual provisions such as arbitration. However, it appears that Respondent and the Company have had no opportunity to arbitrate any disagreements because no dispute has gone to that step in the arbitration procedures as set forth by the contract. 318 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 Sackett testified that in late November he began to learn about some of the provisions being negotiated by the Union and the League for the October 1975 agreement. Among these was the creation of a fund financed by em- ployer payments of 10 percent of wages in order to guaran- tee payments to employees in the unit who were laid off. Actually this new fund represented a consolidation of two other funds provided for in the 1974 to 1975 contract plus an additional payment bringing the total contribution to 10 percent into one fund to be called the benefit and produc- tivity fund (B.A.P.). In addition, Sackett learned of a new committee composed of union and League members which would have additional powers respecting the arbitration procedures and negotiation of contract changes. He also heard that the new agreement would be for a long term but subject to modification at any time at the request of the Union. In December, Sackett attempted to attend a League meeting held for informational purposes but was refused admittance because the Company is not a member. Sackett said that in December he saw a printed draft of a proposed contract. The League did not ratify the proposed contract effec- tive October 4, 1975, until late January 1976, its member- ship having rejected it in December. However, on Decem- ber 24, 1975, the Union sent a notice to the Company advising it of the changes in wages and fund payments, the latter December 1, 1975, and the former January 1, 1976. The Company put the new rates into effect immediatel? but refused to make payments to the B.A.P. fund. On Jan- uary 23, 1976, Sackett and Holt met with Union Represen- tatives McGuiness and Delanni. According to Sackett, he told them that the Company was not bound by the Union's contract with the League, and he wanted to negotiate an agreement of his own. McGuiness replied that they were bound, and, unless the Company commenced making the 10-percent payments to the B.A.P. fund, a work stoppage would be called. The Company then proceeded to make the payments under protest. Sackett protested the fund payments by letter dated Feb- ruary 2, 1976, to Union President Powers in which he also stated his understanding that the Union would contact the Company for the purpose of contract negotiations. He wrote again on March 18 asking the Union to negotiate. In response to this letter, Powers arranged to meet with Sack- ett and Holt. At this meeting Powers told them that he considered the Company to be under contract. However, Sackett said that he wanted to negotiate a new contract which would contain employment guarantees in lieu of the B.A.P. fund. Powers insisted that the Company was bound to the League contract but did say that, if the Company came up with something advantageous to the employees, the Union might agree to a separate contract. The Company continued to make payments to the B.A.P. fund under protest through the balance of 1976 and, of course, adhered to the other provisions of the League contract. It made no concrete proposals to the Union, nor was there further communication regarding a contract. The Company received a notice dated December 27, 1976, from the Union informing it that the B.A.P. fund payment was increased to 13 percent effective as of De- cember 1, and the Company would be required to pay $25.17 to the fund for each daily hire. Holt called Mc- Guiness and again told him that the Company was not bound by the League contract and had decided not to pay the additional 3 percent. McGuiness replied that the Com- pany was bound and, if it did not make the payments, chapel meetings would be held (work stoppages). Sackett confirmed by letter dated January 26, 1977, that the Com- panvy was not party to the League agreement and it would not make any increased payments to the fund. Shortly thereafter. Sackett and Holt met with John Gary, a union representative, who showed them the 1964 memorandum and insisted that this document bound the Company to the League contract. Gary also told them that the B.A.P. fund was not negotiable hut the daily hire payment was as this was only designed to penalize large shops who were abus- ing the privileges. On February 3, they met with Powers and asked him to negotiate. However, Powers reiterated that the Company was bound, and he would take whatever action necessary. including a work stoppage, if it did not pay the 3-percent increase. That same day McGuiness held a 15-minute chapel meeting among the composing room employees. 2. Discussion The issue is whether Respondent, by engaging in work stoppages in January 1976 and February 1977, forced and coerced the Company to comply with a collective-bargain- ing agreement it did not execute and further coerced the Company to designate a representative other than of its own choosing for the purposes of collective bargaining. Determinative of these issues is the response to the ques- tion whether the Company is bound to the collective-bar- gaining agreement between Respondent and the League dated October 4, 1975. In the circumstances described above, I find the Company to be so bound. There has been a long history of the Company following and adopting collective-bargaining agreements negotiated between Respondent and the League both before and after its execution of the 1964 memorandum agreement. In any case, that agreement specifically binds the Company to "amendments, modifications, supplements, renewals, and extensions" of the then existing agreement between Re- spondent and the League. Following this memorandum in 1964, the Company routinely implemented the provisions of subsequent successive collective-bargaining agreements between Respondent and the League as soon as it received notification of them. The letter dated June 20, 1975, from Respondent to the Company put the latter on notice of the Union's desire to amend the agreement; refers to the ex- isting memorandum obligating the Company to any suc- cessor agreement; and, finally, advises that the Union will apply the terms of the settlement with the League to the Company without further action. The Company made no response to this letter.4 ' I hare found abose that the C ompan? received this letter. and further I lend no credence to the testimonS of the Companrs witnesses to the effect that it wa.ss not aware of the 1964 agreement No question was raised with Continued 319 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Apparently, the first time it occurred to the Company to raise some question concerning the 1975 negotiations was when Sackett heard rumors to the effect that the League and Respondent were about to enter an agreement provid- ing for changes in the funds, handling of grievances and arbitrations, and duration of the agreement, all of which he considered drastic. The only action he took was his vain attempt to attend a League meeting. At no time during this period did Sackett or anyone else on behalf of the Compa- ny try to communicate with the Union concerning the pro- posal or negotiations apart from the question of whether such action would have been timely. In short, the Compa- ny took no affirmative steps toward a separate agreement prior to its being advised of the agreement between the League and Respondent. Without question, the Company put into effect the new wage rates, but refused to make the payments to the B.A.P. fund as provided for in the agree- ment. As a result, Respondent's representative visited the Company and conducted a chapel meeting (work stop- page) on January 23, 1976, to enforce the contractual pro- vision for payment to the B.A.P. fund, which the Company began to pay "under protest." 5 The chapel meeting held in February 1977 was of course timely with respect to the date of the filing of the charge, which brings us back to the basic question, as previously stated, whether the League agreement is binding on the Company. I find that the Company was bound by its agreement of 1964 to all modifications, extensions, or renewals of the then existing contract; that since that time it has adopted and abided by the successive collective-bargaining agree- ments between the League and Respondent: that it failed to respond to the letter of Respondent advising it of the negotiations to be conducted with the League; that despite the protestations of the Company that it is being forced to adhere to the terms of League contracts with Respondent in perpetuity, it could have withdrawn from its arrange- ment with the Union by timely notice either before or after receipt of the June 20, 1975, letter and by request that the Union bargain separately with it; that, during the course of the 1975 negotiations, the Company's only communication which might barely be considered a protest was made to the League rather than to the Union. In similar circum- stances the Board recently said: . . . Respondent could reasonably have interpreted the Employers' lack of response as meaning that the latter parties intended to adhere to the practice of letting the Associations handle negotiations and to accept the contract that resulted therefrom. 6 respect to the authenticily of that document, and actually Iolt admitted to his being aware of its existence at least a year prior to the 1975 negoti;alls. 5I he complaint alleges (par. 15 and 17, as amended) that b.y this conduct Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)( I )(B) and (3) of the Act. Even assuming that the Company was not hound to the October 4. 1975, agreement, alleIgations as to such conduct swould certainly be barred by Sec. 0I(b) of the Act, having occurred more than I sear before the filing of the charge herein .nid I so find. 6 Resilient Floor and Decorative (Covering Lo(al Unitn .V. 147 f Berether- hood ,,f Painters and 4/lid ied rades. . FL ('10 (Linoleum Studio. In ., Jalowtc (4Woruik. Inc.. it alL). 233 NLRB 980. 981 (1977). In Linoleum,l as in the instant case. General ( Counsel and the charging party relied on Retail ( 'IrAk Therefore, I find for all the above reasons the Company is bound to the 1975 agreement. Accordingly, apart from Section 10(b) considerations, I would find no violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) or 8(b)(3) of the Act by virtue of Re- spondent's conducting a chapel meeting on January 23, 1976, in order to enforce the provisions of the contract. By the same token, I find that the chapel meeting on February 3, 1977, held by Respondent's representatives also does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) or 8(b)(3), as alleged, because they were engaged in legitimate enforcement of the con- tract provisions.7 Nor do I attach any significance to the statement of Powers at his meeting with Sackett on Febru- ary 3, 1977, to the effect that he would listen to any propo- sition set forth by the Company. As Powers testified, it was possible that the Company would make him an offer he could not refuse in the interest of the employees. In any event, no offer was forthcoming from the Company. In addition, the references to the two agreements between the Company and Respondent's Graphic Arts Associates divi- sion do not appear to be relevant. Those agreements apply to different units of employees and, indeed, incorporate the League agreement as the "basic" agreement. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of those alle- gations of the complaint alleging violations by Respondent of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the Act. B. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(b)(l)iA) of the Act The October 1975 contract contains the following provi- sion relating to the establishment of an exclusive hiring hall: It is agreed that effective with ratification, no new em- ployees will be hired to perform work under the terms of this agreement until all unemployed members from the Printing Utilities Branch are employed. Thereaf- ter, new miscellaneous composing room employees shall be hired exclusively through a hiring hall. The legality of this provision was challenged by the Gen- eral Counsel in a prior unrelated case involving this Re- spondent. Printing Utilities Branch of Netw York Typograph- ical Union No. 6 (Pandick Press, Inc.), 228 NLRB 1360 (1977). In that case, I had indicated that the above-quoted provision appeared to be illegal and discriminatory but had declined to find a violation of the Act as it had not been pleaded or litigated. The Board agreed that there had been no independent allegation of a 8(b)( )(A) violation based on this contract clause and that the parties had not litigat- ed the issue. Shortly after the issuance of that Decision, the General Counsel in the instant case served a notice of in- tention to amend the complaint by alleging, in effect, that l nion. IIl 770, Retail ( lerks International A4ssciation, AFIt C10 (Fine's F,,od (o ). 228 NLRB 1166 (1977). As the Board stated, that case is distin- guishable. In Fine's Fo,,d the Board found that the union therein. by strik- ing, coerced employers into signing interim agreements by which they agreed to be bound by the associations' negotiations at a time before it had reached impasse with the associations and when further bargaining propos- als had been agreed to be considered. Thus. the union there violated Sec. 8(bh( I )(B) and (3). In our case, "the interim agreement" is the 1964 agree- ment which 'as not coerced. I do not find this allegation. as contended by Respondent. also Ito be barred by Sec. I0(b) as these events occurred within 6 months prior to the filing of the charge herein. 320 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 Respondent violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act by coercing the Company in January 1976 and February 1977 to comply with and be bound by the 1975 agreement with the League. That motion was granted at the hearing. Neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party of- fered any evidence to indicate that the hiring hall provision in the contract was illegally enforced in any manner; both relied on its existence as creating a per se violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(A). Respondent denied the allegation, and Powers testified as to the genesis of the hiring hall in this agreement. Under the B.A.P. fund, all unemployed work- ers would receive a guaranteed income from the fund. The hiring of new employees instead of unemployed members would subject the fund to continuous strain and depletion. It was thought that the hiring hall would be the best way to insure that unemployed members obtained employment and thereby ease the burden on the fund. Powers stated that the employers were concerned that they would be re- quired to increase contributions to provide income guaran- tees to unemployed members while new people were being hired. The hiring hall would make certain that senior em- ployees who had been unemployed would go to work be- fore new ones came in. The idea, according to Powers, was to provide an industrywide seniority system by the mecha- nism of the hiring hall provisions in the 1975 agreement. However salutary the purpose to protect the B.A.P. fund from depletion may have been, it is clear that the clause quoted above requires that employers through the hiring hall give preference in employment to members of Respon- dent over nonmembers. The mere maintenance of such an agreement violates the Act.8 Although Respondent has contended that the disputed provision for the hiring hall was intended to create an industrywide seniority system, a concept not in and of itself illegal, the attempt to do so was at least imperfectly expressed as preference in referrals keyed to union membership. I find that, bv maintaining the provisions for the exclusive hiring hall in the October 1975 contract, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)( 1)(A) of the Act. I do not, however, find that Respondent violated the Act, as alleged, by coercing and forcing the Company to abide by and adhere to an agreement containing an illegal provision; to wit, the hiring hall clause. The Company at no time expressed any dissatisfaction or objection with the hiring hall provision but rather was concerned with the payments to the B.A.P. fund and the portions of the agree- ment relating to the joint management and union commit- tee and its powers. In any case. I have found that the Com- pany was not unlawfully coerced by Respondent but was bound to the 1975 agreement for the reasons stated above. The fact that 2 years later it finds that such agreement contains an illegal hiring hall provision does not relieve the Company of its relationship with Respondent under the contract. The remainder of the agreement is still viable.9 8 Plasters' Local Union No. 32 (Mc( roir, and (Co., In ). 223 Nl RB 486 (1976). 9 See Bechtel Power (Corporation 223 NI.RB 925 19761 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re- spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, 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. , THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent's agreement with the League contains an illegal hiring hall provision. I shall rec- ommend that it be ordered to cease maintaining such pro- vision in the collective-bargaining agreement. CON('LUSIONS of LA%' I. Clark & Fritts, Inc., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining an agreement with the League which requires the hiring hall established by said agreement to give preference in referrals to applicants who are members of Respondent as against other applicants for employment, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow- ing recommended: ORDER "a The Respondent. New York Typographical Union No. 6, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining the hiring hall provisions of its agree- ment with Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York. Inc., which requires the hiring hall established by said agreement to give preference in referrals to applicants who are members of Respondent as against other applicants for employment. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- In the e\ent no exceptlm. are filed as proided h, Sec 102.46 of the Ruler and Regulations of the National I .bhor Relations Boaird. the findings, cnihlusiols nd. rad reecmmended Order herein shall, a pro'ided in Sec 11!2 4S of the Rules and Regul.lons he .adopted hi the Board and hecome Its fdiding,. conclusiolis alid Order. mid all objetlions thereto shall he deemed ,,aied for ;ll puirpo ,cs 321 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees or prospective employees of employer-members of the League, or any other employers bound by Respondent's contract with the League, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1[ Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by a representa- tive of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other mate- rial. (b) Sign and mail to said Regional Director sufficient copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the premises of Clark & Fritts, Inc., or other signatories of the contract with the League, if willing. " In the event that Ihis Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na;tional .ahbor Reltiaons Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the l nited Staltes Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Natirenal I.abor Rel:tions Board." (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violation of the Act not specifically found. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT maintain the hiring hall provisions of our agreement with Printers League Section, Printing Indus- tries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., or Clark & Fritts, Inc., which requires the hiring hall established by said agreement to give preference in referrals to applicants who are members of New York Typographical Union No. 6 as against other applicants for employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce em- ployees or prospective employees of employer-members of the League or Clark & Fritts, Inc., or any other employer bound to that agreement, in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 6 322