Intl. Printing Pressmen Local 38

INTL. PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 38 International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, St. Louis Web Printing Press- men and Flymen's Local No. 38, AFL-CIO and Belleville News Democrat, Inc. Case 14-CC-593 December 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 11, 1970, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.' 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, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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 recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. i On September 2, 1970, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief Thereafter, on October 26, 1970, the General Counsel filed a motion to withdraw his exceptions to the Decision and to dismiss the complaint, in light of the Board's decision in Belleville News Democrat, Inc, 185 NLRB No 140. There the Board concluded that the Employer 's pressmen had been effectively withdrawn from the multiemployer unit represented by Pressmen 's Local 113 and that a question exists concerning the representation of certain of the employees of the Employer On November 4, 1970, the Employer filed a statement in opposition to the General Counsel's motion , contending essentially that the Board's determination in the case cited by the General Counsel has no bearing on the instant proceeding . The General Counsel's motion to withdraw his exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision is hereby granted In view of our disposition of this case, we need not pass upon the General Counsel's motion to dismiss the complaint herein TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 337 MARION C. LADWIG,Trial Examiner: This case was tried at St. Louis, Missouri, on June 29, 1970,' pursuant to a charge filed on May 15 by Belleville News Democrat, Inc., herein called the Belleville News, and pursuant to a complaint issued on June 2. The primary issue is whether Respondent, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, St. Louis Web Printing Pressmen and Flymen's Local No. 38, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 38, violated Section 8(b)(4Xi)(ii)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by striking and picketing with an object of forcing or requiring the Belleville News to recognize and bargain with it as the representative of the newspaper's pressmen. Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Belleville News, and the closing arguments made by Local 38 at the trial, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNIONS INVOLVED The Belleville News, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the publication of a daily newspaper. It subscribes to interstate news services, publishes nationally syndicated features, advertises nationally sold products, and annually has a gross revenue in excess of $200,000. Accordingly, I find that it is a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, and is an employer, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) and Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Local 38, as well as Belleville Printing Pressmen's Union No. 113, herein called Local 113 (also affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants Union of North America, herein called the Interna- tional), are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background 1. Multiemployer bargaining For many years, the Belleville News has been a member i All dates, unless otherwise indicated , are in 1970 2 The General Counsel's and Belleville News ' separate motions to correct the record , each dated July 17, are granted and the transcript is corrected accordingly 187 NLRB No. 57 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL; LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of an informal association called the Belleville Employing Printers, herein called the Association . Belleville Employing Printers, 122 NLRB 350 ( 1958). In 1959, Local 113 (the Belleville Local) was certified as the bargaining representa- tive of "All letterpress, gravure, and newspaper pressmen, and apprentices and helpers" employed by employer members of the Association. At that time, the Association consisted of the Belleville News and another newspaper publisher, plus four commerical punting companies. The Association continued to bargain periodically with Local 113. In 1967 it engaged in joint negotiations with Local 113 and Printers Local 47 (affiliated with a different International, the I.T.U.). As previously, Local 113 in 1967 sent "termination" or "reopening" notices to the individual employers, and signed separate (identical) contracts with them, following the multiemployer bargaining . Local 113's 1967 contract with the Belleville News expired April 30, 1970. 2. Transfer of membership In May 1969, when the Belleville News was the only newspaper publisher in the Association (the other four employers being commercial printing companies), votes were taken to permit the six Belleville News pressmen to transfer their membership from the "mixed" (commercial and newspaper) Local 113 in Belleville, to the "newspaper" Local 38 in St. Louis. In a regular meeting, the Local 113 members voted to permit the newspaper pressmen to decide whether they wished to transfer their membership to Local 38, and the six Belleville News pressmen then voted unanimously in the meeting to make the transfer. All six of them (including the foreman, Robert J. Grunewald) joined Local 38. Thereafter, Local 113 refrained from administer- ing the 1967-1970 contract with the Belleville News, and Local 38 (and the International) sought the Belleville News to recognize the transfer of membership. Fearing increased costs if its pressmen were represented separately by the St. Louis newspaper local, the Belleville News declined. 3. Refusal to recognize Local 38 representatives On May 22, 1969, soon after the votes on the transfer of membership, the International's secretary-treasurer, Alex- ander J. Rohan, wrote the Belleville News a letter, stating that the International's board of directors had approved the transfer of the Belleville News pressmen's membership to Local 38, which "will be responsible for the administration" of the current pressmen contract. About 2 days later, Local 38's Secretary-Treasurer Charles Etwert telephoned Belle- ville News General Manager Fred J. Kern, seeking a meeting to discuss administering the contract. As testified by Kern, "I replied courteously that we had a contract with 113 and we would honor the contract." Kern refused to meet with the Local 38 officials. Next, on June 17, 1969, Local 38 President Alex Fngo wrote the Belleville News a letter, advising that Local 38 "will administer the collective-bargaining agreement" between the Belleville News and Local 113 until the agreement expires on April 30, whereupon Local 38 "will assume exclusive representative status and engage in bargaining for a new contract." When the Belleville News still declined, Local 113 wrote it a letter on August 25, 1969, designating the Local 38 officials, Etwert and Frigo, as the Local 113 representatives to administer the agreement. The Belleville News still declined to recognize the Local 38 officials. As a result of Local 113 abandoning the servicing of its Belleville News agreement with its own officers, and the Belleville News refusing either to recognize Local 38 as the bargaining representative or to deal with the Local 38 officers as the designated Local 113 representatives to administer the agreement, the 1967- 1970 agreement was not administered during the last 11-1/2 months of its term. On February 18 Local 38 wrote to the Belleville News advising that Local 38 "has been designated by a majority of your pressroom employees," stating that this is an appropriate bargaining unit, demanding recognition, and requesting a time and place to begin bargaining. The Belleville News did not answer the letter. B. Representation Proceeding On February 18 Local 38 filed a petition for an election, in Belleville News Democrat, Inc., Case 14-RC-6376, for a unit of six employees, including "all pressroom employees including apprentices ." A notice of the representation hearing was sent to Local 113, which responded to a Board agent "that we did not represent them , and we had no wish to represent" the Belleville News pressmen . The hearing in the representation case was held in April, and Local 113 did not intervene or participate in the proceeding. On May 6, the Regional Director dismissed the petition for an election, ruling that neither Local 38 nor Local 113 had unequivocally withdrawn from multiemployer bargain- ing. Local 38 filed a request for review with the Board on May 15, the Board granted the request on June 24, and the representation case is now pending before the Board. C. 1970 Negotiations On February I I-a week before the election petition was filed by Local 38-Local 113 gave a written notice (signed by Charles Etwert as "Representative") to the Belleville News of the termination of the 1967-1970 "agreement with Belleville News Democrat on its termination date, April 30," and stating, "This notice shall serve to preclude any extension or renewal of said contract and shall serve to terminate the entire agreement and each and every provision thereof." (Emphasis supplied.) Nearly 3 weeks later, on March 2, Local 113 sent to each of the four commercial printing employers in the Association-but not to the Belleville News-a letter stating that the contract expires on April 30 and proposing changes to be negotiated. Also on March 2, the Association (comprising the Belleville News and the four commercial printing employ- ers) held a "strategy" meeting for the forthcoming negotiations with Local 113 and Printers Local 74. As testified by Belleville News General Manager Kern, the commercial printing employers discussed the fact that they had not received the "termination notices" from Local 113. Kern (whose company had received not only Local 38's February 18 recognition demand and petition for an election, but also Local 113's notice that there would be no INTL. PRINTING PRESSMEN LOCAL 38 extension or renewal of the 1967-1970 agreement with the Belleville News) discussed with the commercial printers Local 38's "encroachment" at the newspaper publishing company. The employers discussed which of the Belleville News pressmen could have been the leader in moving their membership to Local 38. Kern stated that he still recognized Local 113, "that's all we can do is recognize the union that we have had a contract with for years." The Association members designated Raymond L. Erwin, owner of Erwin Printing Company, to act as spokesman for the employers. About March 4, Association Spokesman Erwin told Local 113 Secretary Gilbert Bibee that his proposals were like the Printers Local 74's demands, and suggested that the Association proceed with bargaining with Local 74. Bibee agreed. The Association reached an agreement with Local 74 about the middle of April. Erwin then spoke again to Bibee, reported the agreement with Local 74, and proposed that Local 113 accept the new provisions, with some modification of the pension plan. Sometime between then and May 1, Bibee reported to Erwin that the pressmen had agreed to the contract revisions, with the exception of the pension system. It was sometime after May 1 when Erwin and Local 113 agreed on the pension provisions, and reconciled some differences over contract language. The agreement had not been approved by the International, nor signed by the Association members, at the time of trial on June 29. In these informal negotiations between the Association and Local 113, there was no mention of the newspaper pressmen at the Belleville News. In the first part of June, Local 113 Secretary Bibee told Association Spokesman Erwin "that he did not want anything to do with the [Belleville] News Democrat contract." D. Announcement of Increased Benefits On May 1, when the representation proceeding involving the Belleville News pressmen were still pending before the Regional Director, General Manager Kern called a meeting of the six pressmen. He announced that a new contract had been reached with Local 113, and described the increased wages and other benefits (including pensions, on which the Association and Local 113 had not reached an agreement at that time). The pressmen did not respond until they discussed the announcement among themselves , and asked for a meeting with Kern. They then asked Kern why they had not been given an opportunity to negotiate, and (in Kern's words) "my answer was that as a member of [Local ] 38 they weren't even the union that was recognized, how could they be on the [negotiating] committee." The pressmen complained that they had been presented with no contract to vote on, and that nothing had been submitted to them. As credibly testified by Foreman Grunewald (a member of Local 38), the pressmen stated that they did not know of any ruling in the representation proceeding, and that because of their membership in Local 38, they did not know if they could accept the pay increase. Kern stated, "We're going to start paying it . . . because we feel that we have a valid contract with [Local] 113. Now, if you fellows want to tear up the paychecks, that's O.K." E. Demotion of Grunewald 339 On the afternoon of May 1, following the announcement of a new agreement with Local 113, Editor and Publisher Robert L. Kern and his son, General Manager Kern, held a conference with Pressroom Foreman Grunewald in Editor Kern's office. Grunewald (a Mormon minister who impressed me as an honest, forthright witness) credibly testified as follows: The conference lasted a little more than 40 minutes. Editor Kern "told me that he was very displeased with my conduct as a foreman" because "I had an obligation . . . to come to them and tell them of the situation that had happened in the pressroom . . . that we had gone to Local 38 . . . so that it could have been stopped or nipped in the bud." Editor Kern stated that Local 38 may be the undoing of the newspaper, "that they could not afford the conditions that the Post Dispatch had" (in St. Louis, under a Local 38 agreement). "He told me ... that I was the leader of this movement to Local 38, and that they could no longer trust me with this responsibility as foreman and they were demoting me from the status of foreman to a journeyman pressman." Kern said that Grunewald would have ajob there as long as he wanted one "or as long as there was a News Democrat," stating: "We're not going to fire you, but we won't be able to trust you any more. We will be afraid to turn our back on you, you knifed us in the back, between the sixth or seventh and eighth rib." Kern then called Grunewald "the Judas Goat that led these other five men to the slaughter," that "they couldn't ever trust me again and they would watch me like a hawk," that "they just couldn't afford these kind of conditions that are over in the St. Louis union," that "the News Democrat may close its door," and added: "You're the one who is responsible, when our doors are closed and these men are out of work, remember it is on your conscience that you are the cause of this, that you created this. And when their children are hungry, that you are the one responsible." Kern also called Grunewald a "bastard," and told him: "There is something wrong with you," and pointing to the head, Kern said, "You're sick, you're sick." Grunewald responded, "If this is the way you thought about me, I just could not continue working for you and I quit." (President Kern did not testify. General Manager Kern testified that the meeting lasted about 35 or 40 minutes, and that his father did most of the talking, telling Grunewald, "We took you in and put you on the management team and you have in effect betrayed us. . . . You have meddled in union matters . . . . You have become a Judas Goat that led the pressmen" into Local 38, which Grunewald did not deny. Grunewald was demoted to journeyman. Grunewald "was told that we thought he was mentally sick and he had betrayed us.. . . My father said that. And that ended the conversation, or approximately ended the conversation." General Manager Kern also testified that Grunewald was told "that if Local 38 imposed the Post Dispatch contract on the News Democrat, we would go out of business or have to close our doors," and if the company closed its doors, it would be Grunewald's fault. Kern further testified that Grunewald was told that they had thought someone else was the leader in the move to Local 38, but they checked into it and had found out that he was the man who 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was behind it. General Manager Kern did not appear to be as forthright a witness as Grunewald.) F. Calling of Strike and Picketing That Friday afternoon, May 1, after leaving the plant, Grunewald telephoned Shop Steward Charles Yocks and reported that he had quit and the circumstances. Yocks immediately reported the situation to Local 38 President Frigo. The next Monday morning, May 4, Local 38 contacted its attorney, and thereafter called a special executive board meeting for May 7. As credibly testified by President Frigo, the Belleville News pressmen appeared at the meeting, reported what had transpired, and "stated their position that they wanted to take a strike vote because they felt they did not want the same thing to happen to them that happened to Brother Grunewald." The executive board voted unanimously to strike. The next day, May 8, Local 38 ordered picket signs, reading: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC BELLEVILLE NEWS DEMOCRAT HAS COERCED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN AND ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF ST. LOUIS WEB PRINTING PRESSMEN AND FLYMEN'S UNION NO. 38 Local 38's regular membership meeting was held on Tuesday, May 12. The membership approved the executive board's recommendation to strike, and set the date for Friday, May 15, to allow time for the picket signs to be delivered, and because the Belleville News pressmen's "workweek would be ended by Friday, they would have a full week in." Prior authorization for the strike had not been given by the International's board of directors. The strike was not sanctioned by the International, and the International paid no strike benefits. After the May 12 membership meeting, President Frigo notified the International. A day later, on May 13, International Representative Robert J. Callahan arrived by plane, and Frigo met him at the airport. According to Frigo's credited and undisputed testimony, Frigo had Callahan (who was not a member of Local 38) meet with the Local 38 lawyer, who told Callahan "that he was not a representative of Local 38, that if he went over there [to confer with the Belleville News] he went over there as a representative of the International Union, and he had nothing whatsoever to do with [Local 38 ].. . . We told him that the reason for picketing was for the unfair labor practice that the employer had committed," and that he was not to tell them that Local 38 was striking for recognition. International Representative Callahan met with General Manager Kern on May 14, and despite Local 38's instructions to him, Callahan (as credibly testified by Kern) "told me that he was there for the purpose of negotiating a contract between Local 38 and the Belleville News Democrat. And I told him that we believed we had a contract with Local 113 and couldn't have a contract with 38. He stated that he had instructed 113 not to give us a contract," and that he would negotiate a contract which would be different from the one the Post Dispatch had in St. Louis. "He further stated that 113 did not any longer have jurisdiction over the pressmen at the Belleville News Democrat, that 113 had been designated by the Interna- tional as a commercial union." Kern complained that the International's action would destroy Local 113 and stated "that we needed a local on our side of the river composed of people from our area who have interest in our area. So, after that, he . . . said, `What's this about the firing of your foreman?' And I said, 'Well, he was not fired, he quit.' And he said, 'Well . . . I'm not threatening you with a strike, but 38 has authorized a strike against the News Democrat." Kern testified that this mention of the strike vote "came in fairly close to the end of the conversation." (I discredit his later testimony, when questioned by the Belleville News counsel, that a strike vote was mentioned earlier in the conversation.) Callahan did not testify. The next morning, May 15, Local 38 began picketing the Belleville News facility, using the signs which had been ordered on May 8. Later that day, the Belleville News filed the charge herein. Local 38 received a copy of the charge on Monday, May 18, and later that week, on May 22, wrote the Belleville News a letter "for the purpose of discussing with you appropriate steps to be taken . . . to remedy the acts of discrimination and coercion." The letter accused Belleville News of demoting and discharging Grunewald for inducing other employees to join Local 38, calling him a "Judas bastard" because he failed to report that the pressroom employees had become members of Local 38, engaging in "a campaign of espionage and intimidation" in an effort to find out who was the "ringleader," promising and affording benefits to its employees "in order to induce them to drop their membership in Local 38," and "deprived employees of benefits, restricted conversation among employees, threatened employees with a shutdown of operations and further threatened employees of discharge if they continued their membership in Local 38." The letter stated that the sole objective of the picketing was to protect the discriminatory actions and to inform the public; disclaimed any objective of recognition, organization or bargaining; and disowned any statement by any person to the contrary. The letter concluded: The picketing by Local 38 is unrelated to the question of representation of pressmen in your employ and the Union has submitted such matter for determination by the National Labor Relations Board and this is the sole avenue which Local 38 has invoked or intends to invoke for adjudication of that matter. Local 38 did not make any personal contacts with the Belleville News concerning the strike or picketing and the Belleville News did not respond to the May 22 letter in an effort to resolve the strike. On June 22, after the picketing was enjoined in a Section 10 injunction proceeding on June 15, Local 38 filed a charge, Belleville News Democrat, Inc., Case 14-CA-5665, alleging that the Belleville News violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by coercing and discriminating against the INTL PRINTING ' PRESSMEN LOCAL 38 341 employees for supporting Local 38, by demoting Grune- wald for failing to engage in unfair labor practices, by discharging Grunewald from his journeyman job because of his membership and activity on behalf of Local 38, and on and since June 15, discharging all five of the striking pressmen because of their union support and "because they engaged in a strike in protest against the unfair labor practices." The charge was still pending at the time of trial. G. Alleged Unlawful Object The Belleville News claimed that it had a new, binding contract covering its pressmen at a time when Local 113 was no longer claiming to represent them, and while a representation proceeding involving them was pending before the Regional Director. The evidence also shows that on the same day Belleville News General Manager Kern announced the new contract and stated his determination to start paying the increased wages-over the protests of the pressmen-his father, Editor Kern, used abusive language toward the Local 38 member, Gruenwald. However, the issue is not whether Editor Kern's conduct and other alleged Belleville News conduct violated the Act, or whether the conduct was designed to cause the other Local 38 pressmen to strike in protest (enabling the Belleville News to replace the Local 38 members and then deny them reinstatement after the strike). The issue is whether these asserted grounds were merely a pretext or whether Local 38 engaged in the strike with also an object of seeking recognition and bargaining. Local 38 contends that its strike and picketing, as indicated on the picket signs themselves, and as fully explained in its May 22 letter to the Belleville News, was solely to protest the Company's asserted coercion and discrimination against the Local 38 members. "To say that a union cannot picket to protest unfair labor practices because it is processing a petition through the Board is to frustrate the very fundamental purposes of the Act." The General Counsel takes no position on whether or not the Belleville News was violating the Act. In his brief, he states that he "takes no position with respect to whether recognition and bargaining was Respondent's sole picket- ing objective." However he contends that "it is clear that at least an object of Respondent's picketing was as proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act." (In the Belleville News brief, the evidence of Editor Kern's abusive language to Grunewald is completely ignored.) Both the General Counsel and the Belleville News contend that the timing and circumstances of the picketing, and the actions of International Representative Callahan, reveal an unlawful object. The evidence shows that Local 38 had previously relied solely on lawful means to obtain separate representation of the Belleville News pressmen. After continued refusal by the Belleville News to recognize the transfer of membership or to permit Local 38 or its officers to administer the Local 113 agreement until its April 30 termination date, Local 38 filed the petition for an election. Thereafter, when the Regional Director dismissed the petition, Local 38 continued to process the representation proceeding before the Board, where the matter is now pending, after the Board's grant of review. Despite this lawful background, the General Counsel contends that after the Regional Director's May 6 dismissal of Local 38's petition, Local 38 "saw that possibly their year long efforts might be unsuccessful and following Callahan's last minute, unsuccessful effort to force the Employer to capitulate, Respondent resorted to its threatened strike and picketing." I do not draw this inference. It is true that the executive board met and voted to strike on May 7, 1 day after the dismissal of the petition. However, that was a special meeting, specifically called on May 4 (2 days before the dismissal of the petition) to deal with the situation at the Belleville News. The Belleville News pressmen attended, described what had happened, and "stated their position that they wanted to take a strike vote because they felt they did not want the same thing to happen to them that happened to Brother Grunwald.." I therefore find that the unanimous strike vote, taken at that special meeting, was provoked by the Belleville's asserted misconduct, not by the dismissal of the petition. The credited and undisputed evidence shows that Local 38 (apparently aware, from legal advice, that any picketing at the time would be suspect), specifically informed International Representative Callahan that he was not a representative of Local 38, and that if he conferred with the Belleville News, "he went over there as a representative of the International Union," and not of Local 38. Callahan was further advised that the reason for the Local's strike vote was the employer's unfair labor practices, and not to gain recognition. Yet the next day, May 14, Callahan met with General Manager Kern and said "he was there for the purpose of negotiating a contract between Local 38 and the Belleville News Democrat." Even so, Callahan did not threaten Kern with a strike if Kern did not recognize Local 38. Nothing was said about a strike until "fairly close to the end of the conversation," when Callahan asked (as Kern testified), "What's this about the firing of your foreman," and advised that Local 38 had taken a strike vote. Although the General Counsel and the Belleville News contend that International Representative Callahan was acting as Local 38's agent, Local 38 made it clear to Callahan on the day before, and to the Belleville News on May 22, that Callahan was not. (The International, a separate entity from the Local, was not charged with sponsoring or participating in the strike or picketing.) I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Callahan acted as Local 38's agent. However, even assuming that the Local was responsible for Callahan's actions, the evidence shows that Callahan merely attempted to resolve the representation dispute, but did not threaten to strike for recognition and bargaining. He mentioned the strike vote only in connection with the discharge of the foreman. Having considered all the evidence and arguments, having credited the testimony that the strike was called to protest the Belleville News' purported misconduct, and having found no evidence which would indicate that Local 38 would not have discontinued the strike and picketing if the asserted coercion and discrimination had been remedied, I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that the strike and picketing were unlawfully motivated, with an object of compelling recognition and 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining. No violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) has therefore Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and been established . conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW following: The General Counsel has failed to prove that Local 38 violated Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act by striking and picketing the Belleville News. ORDER The complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety.