Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 355

984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 , Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International Stereo- typers' and Electroplaters' Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web Press- men's Union No. 31, International Printing Press- men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and A. S. Abell Company. Cases 5-CC-458, 5-CC-459, 5-CC-460, and 5-CC-461 June 23, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On November 28, 1969, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Unions had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Unions filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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, as modified below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Unions violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act on March 14, 1969, by acting in concert' to threaten the A. S. Abell Company, publishers of the Baltimore Sun newspapers, that the Sun's em- ployees, represented by the Respondent Unions, would withhold the services required of them in the production and distribution of the Sun newspapers if the Sun attempted to distribute the insert printed by Knight Press, a nonunion shop. As the object of the Respondents' threats was not the labor relations between the Sun and its employees, but the labor relations of Knight Press, the Respondents' conduct was secondary in nature.' In these circumstances, unlike the Trial Examiner, we find it unnecessary to rely on "right of control" considerations in finding the above violations. 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 orders that the Respondents, Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Stereo- typers' Union No. 10, International Stereotypers' and Electroplaters ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen's Union No . 31, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; their officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom- mended Order. ' See Frisch Contracting Service Company, Inc , 149 NLRB 29 2 In addition to the reasons adverted to by the Trial Examiner for finding that the Respondents' threats were directed to the labor relations of Knight rather than of the Sun, we rely on the admissions of Bowerman, their spokesman , that the Respondents called the March 14 meeting with the Sun for an object of protesting a nonunion plant doing the work TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, with all parties present and represented by counsel, was tried before me at Baltimore, Maryland, on September 26 and 30,1 on a com- plaint2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), which alleges that Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel- pers of America (herein Teamsters or Local 355), Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12, Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (herein Typographical Union or Local 12), Baltimore Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International Stereo- typers' and Electroplaters' Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO (herein Stereotypers or Local 10), and Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen's Union No. 31, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO ' These and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1969 x Issued July 16, on a charge filed March 24, and amended July 14 183 NLRB No. 99 TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355 (herein Web Pressmen or Local 31), said unions collectively being referred to as Respondents, threatened, coerced, and restrained A. S. Abell Company, publishers of the Baltimore Sun papers (herein Sun), with an object of forcing or requiring Sun to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Interstate Department Store (herein Interstate of Topps), or Knight Press (herein called Knight), or to cease doing business with Interstate and/or Knight, in violation 'of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. By answer, Respondents admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. The principal issues litigated are (1) whether Respondents, or any of them, threatened, coerced, or restrained Sun; and (2) as- suming an affirmative answer to the first question, did Respondents' conduct have the proscribed secondary object, or was it primary conduct designed to protect the Union's work jurisdiction. For reasons hereafter stated, I find and conclude that Respondents threatened, coerced, and restrained Sun, and that such conduct had the proscribed secondary object, and recommend the usual remedial order. At the trial all parties were afforded full opportu- nity to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submitted by the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondents, have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: ' No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented The com- plaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish these junsdic- tional elements I find these facts to be as pleaded Moreover, the Board has heretofore asserted jurisdiction over Sun See A S Abe!! Company, 137 NLRB 238 ' The current contract with the Typographical Union , negotiated in a multiemployer unit of Sun and News American , which also publishes a newspaper in the Baltimore area, contains inter aha, the following provi- sions The loaning, borrowing or purchasing of matter in the form of type or matrices by any newspaper party to this agreement is prohibited, ex- cept upon conditions that such matter be reproduced within five days following its use It shall be the duty of the foreman and the chairman of the Chapel to see that these conditions are complied with Provided, this section shall not be construed as prohibiting the transfer of matter of any kind between morning and afternoon newspapers , weekly, semi-weekly or monthly newspapers or magazines when they are owned by the same person or company and printed in the same office, and provided further, this rule shall not be enforced in the case of ex- traordinary emergency as defined in Section 57 of this scale of wages The office shall not be required to reset borrowed matter at overtime rates It is the intention of the reproduction clause that national (general) advertisements, plates and supplement matter, punted supplements, type plates and all matrices other than local advertisements are ex- empt from reproduction The advertising of a manufacturer who sells the product advertised exclusively through retail stores owned by the manufacturer is general or national advertising within the meaning of this reproduction provi- sion and therefore such advertising should not be reproduced For example, in the case of a clothing manufacturer who sells suits FINDINGS OF FACT'S Background 985 For many years Sun has recognized and bar- gained with Respondent Unions as the representa- tive of its employees in separate units engaged in the production and distribution of its newspaper.4 Topps, a division of Interstate Department Stores, operates a chain of some 60 retail discount stores, including some 4 or 5 stores in the Baltimore area. In March, Topps was to open a new store in Bal- timore, and to give such opening wide publicity, In- terstate arranged with Sun to have a circular of some 12 full size newspaper pages distributed as an insert with all editions of the Evening Sun on March 18. Arrangements for the preparation and distribution of the insert were made by Interstate through Advertising Production Services (herein APS), its advertising agency, the sole function of the latter being to bung about the production of the inserts and cause them to be delivered to Sun for distribution with the proper issues of its newspaper. Except for the fact that proofs were to be submitted for approval by Interstate, APS had full authority to, and did decide all questions as to the method and means of producing the inserts. To bring about the production of the insert, Interstate advised APS in a general way of the results it wished to accom- plish, and provided APS with the photographs it wished used in the preparation of the insert, leaving it to APS to prepare the material for the insert and arrange for its reproduction in the form of an in- sert. In the instant case, APS decided that the through a store owned by the manufacturer The advertising of the suits would not be reproduced However, the advertising by this store of men's shirts, ties or other accessories which are made by another manufacturer would be subject to reproduction Another example of advertising by a manufacturer of the products sold exclusively through his own retail store would be such home im- provements as storm windows , screens, awnings, etc It is understood that all of the advertising of stores such as Mont- gomery Ward, Sears Roebuck and the like handling a widely diver- sified class of merchandise including some carrying their own brand names would be subject to reproduction Advertising exempt from reproduction shall not be made subject to reproduction by the addition or insertion of local names , addresses, telephone numbers, store hours, tax lines, etc Hand-lettered matter is not subject to reproduction Neither the contract with Stereotypers, nor the contract with Web Press- men, contains a similar provision The contract with Teamsters is not in evidence, and the parties stipulated that none of its provisions are pertinent here With respect to the foregoing contract provisions, generally known as the reproduction clause, Typographical Union President Bowerman ad- mitted that the practice under the contract was that reproduction or so- called bogus work must be performed or reproduced within 5 days after it comes into the shop, and that such reproduction need not be performed if it has to be done at overtime rates Bowerman also conceded that because of full employment at Sun, so-called reproduction work pursuant to the contract had not been performed for 5 years or more , and that neither the Union nor the chapel chairman at Sun has insisted on such reproduction for at least that period of time 986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Topps insert should be produced by the offset process.5 After doing the necessary work for the preparation of the insert, APS sent the material to Avco Systems for the setting of the type.6 In the meantime, APS contracted with Knight to print the insert by the offset process and to deliver 225,000 copies thereof to Sun's plant.7 Knight, after receiv- ing the type set by Avco, printed and delivered the inserts in accordance with its contract from APS. Late in the day on February 28, Sun Business Manager Becker, during his customary daily staff meetings with his top personnel, was told by Raymond P. Maher, assistant retail advertising manager at Sun, and who handles the Topps adver- tising account for Sun, that Topps had made reser- vations for the distribution of the insert by Sun as a part of its evening papers on March 18, and that the insert had been or would be printed at Knight. Because Becker on a prior occasion experienced some difficulty in connection with a supplement printed by Knight,8 he directed Maher to contact APS and endeavor to persuade the latter to agree to have the printing done at the Sun plant. Maher telephoned APS Vice President Smith on or about March 3 and sought to convince Smith to give Sun the contract for the printing of the Topps insert. Smith refused, giving the following reasons: (1) Because Topps was using photographs, the desired effect could be obtained only with the offset process, using a 100-line screen;9 (2) that a con- tract had already been awarded Knight for the work; and (3) Sun's unwillingness to print the ap- proximately 145,000 copies needed for distribution by Advertising Distributors of Maryland. Maher ad- vised Becker of Smith's refusal to permit produc- tion of the Topps' insert in the Sun plant, but Becker took no further action in the matter The Current Dispute During the morning of Friday, March 14, Bower- man, Parks, Shurkin, and Sullivan, presidents of Typographical, Stereotypers', Pressmen, and Team- sters unions, respectively, were at News American on other business, and while there learned that the Topps insert produced by Knight, was in the Sun plant in preparation for its distribution on March 18, and decided to seek a prompt conference with Becker. Through John Banach, Sun's personnel manager, who functions under Becker's supervi- sion, Bowerman arranged to meet with Becker at 2 p.m. that afternoon. When the meeting opened,` Bowerman produced a copy of the Topps insert and asked where the document had been printed. Becker replied that the printing was done at Knight Press, and explained that through Maher he had tried to persuade APS to permit the work to be done in the Sun plant, but that APS had refused. Becker reminded Bowerman that numerous supple- ments not produced in the Sun plant had been dis- tributed with Sun papers in the past, and that Bowerman had not therefore protested. To this Bowerman replied, "Never in a rat shop; we are not going to have a rat shop doing our work." Becker told Bowerman that Sun could not dictate to its customers where to have their printing done but Bowerman insisted that the insert printed by Knight could not be distributed with Sun's papers, ad- ding,". . . if you are going to try to put this out with your papers on Tuesday [March 18], there isn't going to be any paper on Tuesday." Neither Parks, Shurkin, nor Sullivan, who had by this time arrived at the meeting, voiced any objection or dissent to what Bowerman had said. After about an hour of discussion, the four union representatives left the room to discuss the matter among themselves. In about 15 minutes Sullivan returned and, after telling Becker that some area of agreement should be found, asked the latter what it would cost Sun to produce the Topps insert in its plant." Becker replied that he was guessing, but that the costs would probably run from $700 to $800. Sullivan then asked, "Wouldn't it be worth it to pay [that amount] to get peace of mind to get your Tuesday paper out?" Before Becker could answer, Bowerman, Parks, and Shurkin returned to the room. Bowerman, visibly excited and angry, asked if Becker and Sullivan had reached any agreement. When Becker replied in the negative, Bowerman told Becker that the Typographical Union would require Sun to "set this section [in] type in the composing room, have it proofed and ' APS Vice President Smith testified that he chose this method and specified a 100-line screen background because , particularly when photo- graphs are used, the reproductions are clearer and more faithful Smith ad- ditionally testified that while rotogravure is also an accepted and satisfacto- ry method for producing the insert here involved, he did not select that method in this instance because when only about 300,000 inserts are to be punted , as was the case here, rotogravure is much too expensive 6 Avco is located in Connecticut, and does all typesetting required by APS The evidence shows that Avco is under contract with a local of Inter- national Typographical Union. ' Total printing by Knight was to be 368,681 copies Of the 143,681 co- pies not delivered to Sun, 1,300 copies were to be delivered to the store, the opening of which was being announced, and the remainder to Advertis- ing Distributors of Maryland Arrangements had been made for the latter to mail a portion of these under its postal permit, and distributed the remainder by hand, both into areas where Sun did not have the distribution Topps desired The copies delivered to Sun bore the legend, "Supplement to Evening Sun, March 18, 1969 " Sun provided APS with a plate necessa- ry to make that legend appear, and APS pasted it into the prepared type which it delivered to Knight On the copies delivered to Advertising Dis- tributors of Maryland, the forementioned legend was blocked out, and on those to be mailed , Knight substituted an imprint of a postal permit 6 Becker has been business manager of Sun for about 5-1/2 years, and the incident referred to occurred during his prior employment as general manager for News American 9 The evidence is uncontradicted that Sun has neither the equipment nor the personnel to do printing by the offset process, that its printing is direct letterpress, using a 65-line screen 10 Present were Becker and Banach, representing Sun, and Bowerman, Parks, and Shurkm , representing their respective unions, Sullivan was detained and arrived at approximately 2 30 p in " Bowerman admitted that when the union representatives were meeting privately, Sullivan suggested that he could talk to Becker and get the matter settled, and that he (Bowerman) reluctantly agreed that Sullivan could try TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355 corrected, and then you can throw it away," and that such work "had to be done by Tuesday." Bowerman then said that Stereotypers would require Sun to have the pages molded and cast by its employee members, and that what Pressmen would require Sun would have to work out with Shurkin. Again neither Parks, Shurkin, nor Sullivan disagreed with Bowerman's statements. As Bower- man was leaving the meeting which concluded at this point, he remarked, "... either the Topps sec- tion stays out of the Tuesday paper, or there won't be any Tuesday paper. "12 Because certain arrange- ments were made by Sun with the Unions involved, except Teamsters, there was no disruption in Sun's operations, and the March 18 editions of its papers, with the insert produced by Knight as a part thereof, were distributed in the usual manner.13 Contentions and Conclusions The first issue is whether any statements made by Bowerman at the March 14 meeting constituted the threat, restraint, or coercion proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. In view of my findings that Bowerman told Becker that if Sun tried to dis- tribute the Topps insert with the editions of its March 18 paper, there would be no paper on that day, and Bowerman's admission that when he told Becker that the insert had to be reproduced by March 18, he meant that such would be advisable if Sun did not want trouble, I must and do find and conclude that Bowerman thereby threatened, restrained, and coerced Sun, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii ). Bowerman's statements, in practical effect, were declarations that if Sun at- tempted to distribute the Topps insert produced by Knight, Sun's employees represented by Respond- ent Unions would withhold the services required of them in the production and distribution of Sun's papers. That such a statement constitutes conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii) is settled. Riss & Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 943, 947; Lafayette Building and Construction Trades Council, 132 NLRB 673. I further find and conclude, under the facts of the instant case, that all four Respondents are responsible for the threats made by Bowerman. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the representatives of the four Unions requested and went to the March 14 meeting with the common objective of dissuading Sun from distributing the in- " The findings in this section are based on the credited testimony of Becker Although Bowerman initially denied that he made any statement about there not being a paper on March 18, he finally admitted he could not be certain about the fact because the discussion was quite heated on both sides and a lot of things were said I also deem it significant that neither Parks, Shurkin , nor Sullivan , the latter being present at the time, denied that Bowerman made the statements attributed to him by Becker Bowerman also admitted that when he told Becker that he wanted the Topps insert reproduced in the Sun composing room, and that it would be to their advantage to do that before March 18, he meant that if Sun did not want trouble it would be to its advantage to have such reproduction done by Tuesday To the extent that material aspects of the testimony of Bower- man and Becker are in conflict, I credit the latter 987 sert produced by Knight. They either agreed in ad- vance or tacitly acquiesced in Bowerman acting as spokesman for the group, and, when Bowerman made the statements heretofore found proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act, none of the other three repudiated his statements , nor in any manner indicated that they did not concur in what Bower- man had said. Absent such repudiation, Becker could reasonably infer that all four unions were acting in concert for a common purpose, namely that absent some acceptable resolution of the problem, not only the Typographers, but the Stereotypers, Pressmen, and Teamsters employed by Sun to produce and distribute its paper, would be induced not to perform the services required of them. The findings above made, however, are not dispositive of the case; it being necessary to decide whether such conduct had an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Stated differently, it is necessary to determine whether the conduct herein found had a proscribed secondary objective, or was its objective limited to the preservation of the work jurisdiction of at least some of the Respondent Unions and, therefore, primary and outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(B). The starting point in determining whether Respondents' conduct had a lawful primary or a proscribed secondary objective is the Supreme Court's decision in National Woodwork Manufactur- ing Association v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612. In that case the Supreme Court held, in substance, that neither Section 8(e)14 nor Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act had any application to union conduct which did not have a cease-doing objective, and that such objective does not exist where the union's conduct is limited to preserving what may be fairly said to be the "traditional tasks" of the union's em- ployee members. In such a situation, the Court con- cluded, the union's pressure is directed solely at the pressured employer and, therefore, primary in na- ture, On the other hand, if the union 's pressure may be regarded as "calculated to satisfy union objec- tives elsewhere" (386 U.S. at 644), the pressured employer is a "neutral bystander" (id.) and the pressure upon him has the proscribed objective and is secondary in nature . The touchstone, said the Court, is whether the pressure "is addressed to the labor relations of the [pressured] employer vis-a-vis his own employees" (id. at 645). is Sun, in accordance with the demands of the Unions, other than Team- sters, called in a crew of Typographers who set the type necessary to produce the Topps insert , used the crew of Stereotypers that performed other work for Sun on March 18, who, at overtime rates cast the plates, and a crew of Pressmen to run the Topps insert However , as Stereotypers did not complete their work until late on March 18, after all editions of that day had been distributed , it became apparent that printing the insert would be useless Hence, Pressmen did not "make ready " the presses, nor do any punting About 2 hours after reporting the Pressmen were sent home, but were paid for a full shift There is no contention that these facts in any way violated the Act " The so-called Hot Cargo provisions of the Act 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the record before me I must and do find and conclude that in the instant case Respondents' pres- sure upon Sun was not directed to the labor rela- tions between Sun and its employees, but rather at the labor relations of Knight and were for that reason secondary in nature. I reach this conclusion on the basis of the Board's decision in Local 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (J. L. Simmons Company, Inc.), 178 NLRB 351. In that case Simmons had contracted for the construction of a hospital building in accordance with certain plans and specifications which, as ulti- mately modified, provided that Simmons would in- stall premachined plastic doors, i.e., doors which had been cut, routed, trimmed, and mortised at the factory. Simmons ordered the doors from Anderson Wood Products Company. When these doors ar- rived on the job, Local 742 informed Simmons that its members would not install the premachined doors and directed its members to act accordingly. After finding that the Union's conduct constituted restraint and coercion of Simmons, and inducement of the latter's employees, the Board concluded that such conduct had a cease-doing-business objective violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because: The ... Hospital required in its specifications that plastic faced doors premachined by the manufacturer be installed.... While Simmons Company had a choice, subject to approval by the architect, as to the manufacturer of the doors, it had no choice as to whether or not the doors would be premachined by the manu- facturer. The Hospital was responsible for this decision and only it could change it. Simmons Company was a neutral with respect to the as- signment of this work. Hence the pressure ex- erted against Simmons Company, the seconda- ry employer, was for the purpose of forcing it to cease doing business with the Hospital and forcing the Hospital to cease doing business with Anderson Wood Products for the furnish- ing of premachined plastic faced doors; this was therefore secondary action which was un- lawful under Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B). We so find. 15 The principles enunciated by the Board in J. L. Simmons, supra, and Mechanical Contractors, supra, are dispositive of the instant case. Through its agent, APS, Interstate had full control over and contracted the work of producing the insert to is In reaching this conclusion the Board relied on its prior holding in Local 636, Pipefitters ( Mechanical Contractors Association of Detroit, Inc ), 177 NLRB 189, where it stated that "until the Supreme Court explicitly de- cides to the contrary, the Board will continue to use the 'right of control' test in appropriate circumstances in determining whether an unlawful secondary boycott existed " Respondents argue in their brief filed with me that the Board 's "right of control" test is contrary to National Woodwork, supra, and that three courts of appeals have so held , citing, N L R B v Local Union No 164, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 388 F.2d 105 (C.A 3), Amencan,Boiler Manufacturing Associa- tion v N.L.R B , 404 F 2d 547 (C A. 8), Beacon Castle Square Building Corporation v. N L R.B., 406 F 2d 188 (C.A I) Respondents concede, however, that "this argument might better be submitted to the Board than Knight, because it decided that it wanted the insert produced by the offset method with a 100-line background screen. Not only had the work been contracted to Knight, but Sun had neither the equipment nor the personnel to do printing by the offset process. While it is probably true, as Re- spondents argue , that an insert could have been produced by employees in Sun's composing room, I must, agree with the General Counsel that it would not have been a document which Interstate wanted and had every right to insist upon. As Sun had no control over the production of the insert, such power residing only in Interstate and/or Knight, it was without power to comply with the Union's de- mands regarding production of the same. Hence, Respondents' threats to Sun had the object of forc- ing or requiring Sun to cease doing business with Interstate and/or Knight, and violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. I so find and conclude.16 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sun, Interstate, and Knight are persons en- gaged in commerce and an industry affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. 2. Respondents Stereotypers, Typographers, Web Pressmen, and Teamsters are each labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act. 3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Sun, as herein found, with an object of forcing or requir- ing Sun to cease using, selling, handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of In- terstate and/or Knight, or to cease doing business with Interstate and/or Knight, Respondents engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to the Trial Examiner," apparently recognizing that until such time as the Board overrules the Simmons and Mechanical Contractors cases, supra, or the Supreme Court holds to the contrary, I have no alternative but to follow those decisions, irrespective of my personal views regarding their correct- ness Insurance Agents' International Union, 119 NLRB 768, 773, Iowa Beef Packers, Inc, 144 NLRB 615, 616. 16 In view of the conclusion thus reached , I find it unnecessary to decide whether, as the General Counsel and Charging Party contend, the reproduction provisions of the Typographers contract are inapplicable to the type of work here involved ; or to resolve the conflict in the testimony of Bowerman and Becker, as to whether during the March 14 meeting Bower- man relied on the reproduction provisions of the contract in support of his claims that the work in question belonged to his members TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355 take certain affirmative action designed to remedy its unfair labor practices and effectuate the policies 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, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recom- mended that the National Labor Relations Board order that Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica; Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12, Inter- national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; Bal- timore Stereotypers' Union No. 10, International Stereotypers' and Electroplaters' Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Baltimore Newspaper Web Pressmen 's Union No. 31, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, their respective officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining A. S. Abell Company, or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require A. S. Abell Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease using, selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of In- terstate Department Stores, Inc., and/or Knight Press, or to cease doing business with Interstate De- partment Stores, Inc., and/or Knight Press. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in their respective business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. 1117 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 5 (Bal- timore, Maryland), after being duly signed by the respective Union's authorized representative, shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by them to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and furnish to the aforesaid Regional Director, on forms to be supplied by him, sufficient copies of the attached Appendix for posting by A. S. Abell Company, it being so willing, at all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Such copies, after being signed by the authorized representatives of Respondents, respec- tively, shall be forthwith returned to the aforesaid Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, 989 what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 'r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board's 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 Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 1e 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten , restrain , or coerce A. S. Abell Company, or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require A. S. Abell Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry af- fecting commerce, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Interstate Department Stores, Inc., and/or Knight Press or to cease doing business with Interstate Department Stores, Inc., and/or Knight Press. TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 355, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) BALTIMORE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 12, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 990 Dated Dated By TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 355 By (Representative ) (Title) BALTIMORE STEREOTYPERS' UNION No. 10, INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS'AND ELECTROPLATERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) BALTIMORE NEWSPAPER WEB PRESSMEN 'S UNION No. 31, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Telephone 301-962-2822.