Printing Pressmen's Union No.60

268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Passaic, Morris, Sussex & Bergen Counties Newspa- per Printing Pressmen's Union No. 60, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and James Schofield and The Passaic Daily News, trad- ing as the Herald-News. Case 22-CB-1517 meted out. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by imposing a fine on John Big- gers and shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint. ORDER May 5, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On December 31, 1969, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearings and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner with the following modification. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent vi- olated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by imposing an unreasonably excessive fine on its member, John Big- gers, for working during a strike at the Passaic Daily News, trading as The Herald-News, Biggers' place of employement. For the reasons more fully explicated in Arrow Development Co.,' which issued after the Trial Examiner's Decision herein, we disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation of the Act based on the fine. In that case the Board held that where, as here, a fine is imposed to implement a legitimate union rule which is not in conflict with any policies of the Act, the Board is without authority to set the amount of the fine or otherwise to evaluate the fairness of the discipline ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) by fining supervisors Niland and Wiedemann for working during a work stop- page. I International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, Local Lodge No. 504 (Arrow Development Co.), 185 NLRB No. 22. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Passaic, Morris, Sussex & Bergen Counties Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Un- ion No. 60 affiliated with International Printing Press- men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL- CIO, and James Schofield, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete paragraph 1(c). 2. In paragraph 2(b) delete the words "Michael Ni- land, Jr., and John Biggers" and substitute therefor the words "and Michael Niland, Jr." 3. In footnote 10 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. 4. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial Examiner's Appendix. NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to refer Michael Niland, Jr., and John Biggers for employment to employ- ers within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 60, in accordance with our customary practice of ref- erral. WE WILL NOT fine or otherwise discipline War- ren Wiedemann or Michael Niland, Jr., or any other supervisor of the Passaic Daily News, trad- ing as the Herald-News, if said supervisor is or may become a representative of the Herald-News for the purpose of collective bargaining or the ad- justment of grievances. WE WILL make Michael Niland, Jr., and John Biggers whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered because we refused to refer them for em- ployment with an employer other than the Hearald-News. WE WILL rescind any and all fines imposed on Warren Wiedemann and Michael Niland, Jr., be- cause they worked during a work stoppage or strike called at the Herald-News on May 16. WE WILL remit to the above-named members any sums paid toward such fines. 190 NLRB No. 38 PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 60 269 WE WILL correct all union minutes and other records to show that said fines have been rescinded and WE WILL notify said members that such ac- tion has been taken. PASSAIC, MORRIS, SUSSEX AND BERGEN COUNTIES NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESS- MEN'S UNION No. 60, AFFILIATED WITH 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 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed June 19, 1969, by The Passaic Daily News, trading as The Herald- News, herein the Employer, against Passaic, Morris, Suffex, and Bergen Counties Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 60 and James Schofield, herein Local 60 or Schofield or collectively as the Respondents, the General Counsel issued complaint alleging Respondents , by refusing to refer certain employees to work as substitute employees and by fining certain union members, including supervisory employees of the Employer, violated Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (B). The answer of Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by me at Newark, New Jersey, on November 5, 1969. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given leave to file briefs and a brief was received from the General Counsel in December 1969. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a New Jersey corporation having its plant and principal place of business at Passaic , New Jersey, where it publishes The Herald-News. The Herald-News is a daily newspaper subscribing to various interstate news services in- cluding The Associated Press and United Press International. It publishes syndicated features , including columns from The Chicago Daily News and King Features , and advertises na- tionally sold products. In the course of a representative year the Employer re- ceives and purchases materials valued in excess of $50,000 transported in interstate commerce to Passaic from places outside the State of New Jersey. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 60 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Findings of Fact 1. Background On or about April 30, 1969, the Employer and Local 60 executed a collective -bargaining agreement (General Coun- sel's Exhibit No. 2) covering the Employer 's pressroom em- ployees. The contract expiration date was April 13, 1970. The complaint alleges and Respondents admit that at all times material herein Warren Wiedemann and Michael Ni- land, Jr., were employed by the Employer as pressroom fore- man and assistant pressroom foreman and were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, that John Biggers was an employee of the Respondent , and that Wiedemann, Niland, and Biggers were members of Local 60. At or about the times set forth the following named persons occupied the position of chapel chairman for the unit covered by the collective-bargaining agreement: Walter Walsh-April 30, 1969, to May 17, 1969. Robert Forbes-May 17, 1969, to May 27, 1969. Robert Langen-May 27 , 1969, to the date of hearing. At all times material herein James Schofield was president of Local 60. Respondents admit that Walsh, Forbes, Langen, and Schofield acted as agents for Local 60. 2. The work stoppage On May 16, the Employer, through Wiedemann, requested a substitute apprentice pressmen from Local 60. Local 60 sent an apprentice named Travis who was unacceptable to Weide- mann.' Weidemann told Travis to stop working and asked Walsh, then chapel chairman, for another apprentice or for a journeyman. Walsh told Wiedemann he had instructions to use Travis and then made a telephone call. When he returned he told Wiedemann Travis would work or no one would work. Wiedemann then polled the pressroom employees and only Niland and Biggers agreed to work. The dispute was settled that morning and the men returned to work about 11 a.m. Wiedemann's only explanation was that he wanted a regular apprentice and did not want Travis. He therefore objected to Travis working at any time. 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The refusal to refer The complaint alleges and I find that it was the practice to refer pressroom employees to substitute work on other shifts at other printing establishments when such work was availa- ble. Referrals would be made by the chapel chairman. Com- plaint further alleges that following the work stoppage on May 16, Local 60, through its chapel chairman, refused to refer Wiedemann, Niland, and Biggers to substitute em- ployees and that said refusal resulted from their failure to participate in the work stoppage of May 16. Wiedemann testified that on a day about two weeks after the work stoppage he was in the pressroom when Chapel Chairman Langen asked an employee named Reuther if he wanted to work out and Reuther declined. Biggers offered to accept the work but was told he was not allowed to work out. Wiedemann then offered to take the work and was told he could not go because he, too, had been a bad boy. Wiedemann also testified that the only reason he had offered to accept was to find out the reason why he could not work and that he would not have gone had the work been offered.' Wiede- mann's name never appeared on the referral list. John Biggers testified that he had been employed by the Employer from some 19 years as a journeyman pressman and that during the period from January 1, 1969, until May 16 he had worked at the Newark News, Matzners, and the Patter- son News upon referral from the chapel chairman. He was referred when his name came up on the chairman's list of pressroom employees. If he refused "R" was placed opposite his name and he went to the bottom of the list and if he accepted he was marked "A" and presumably went to the bottom of the list. Under ordinary circumstances an em- ployee's name would be reached about once a week. On May 16 he reported for and went to work when Wiede- mann told him the pressroom would be working. Prior to working, however, he was told by Walsh, then chapel chair- man, that if the boy (Travis) did not go to work no one went to work. The other men went to work about 11 a.m. During the period Biggers was working he was told by Jim Sherlock, vice-president of Local 60, to tear up his "book," he was finished. The following week he was told by Walsh that he could not work out any more because he had worked on May 16. Biggers was not asked to work out again until September. Biggers testified that on or about May 1 he received a contract for hauling newsprint for the Employer and that Reuther helped him with hauling, which was done after his shift in the pressroom was finished. On cross-examination Biggers was asked how many times he had worked out during the period January to May. His testimony on this point, which I consider ambiguous, reads: Q. Mr. Biggers, how many times did you work out prior to May 16th? TRIAL EXAMINER: Let's start with January 1st. THE WITNESS: January 1st, quite often. Q. In January, how many times did you work out? TRIAL EXAMINER: Isn't this subject to factual proof? Does any one have the days? MR. KOBELL: I believe it can be produced. TRIAL EXAMINER: That would solve it. Otherwise it is purely speculative. He did testify to once a week. That was just approximate. MR. PARSONNET: Well, I would like to find out his estimate. ' Wiedemann had not accepted referral since he had become pressroom foreman and did work outside. TRIAL EXAMINER: That was his estimate. Go ahead. You try to get, too. Q. In January how many times did you work out? MR. KOBELL: Your Honor, I think it is impossible to ask the witness how many times he worked out in Janu- ary. TRIAL EXAMINER: You asked. MR. KOBELL: I asked him how many times in the en- tire period of time. I think to guesstimate is impossible. MR. PARSONNET: Let's leave it up to him. MR. KOBELL: He can answer if he knows, he should be told. TRIAL EXAMINER: There's nothing tough about say- ing I don't remember or I do. THE WITNESS: I worked quite often. Q. In January, do you know how many times? A. In January-I can't pick the months out. I know I worked in Newark one night during that period. Q. Did you work often in February? A. Yes, as my turn came up. Q. Now, what about March, did you work often then? A. I believe I did. Q. What would you consider often, how many times? A. Once a week. Q. In April, did you work often then? A. It's hard to remember. Q. And you don't remember, is that it? A. That's right. Q. What about in May. Did you work at all in May? A. May I didn't work. TRIAL EXAMINER: Really, this is a question that arises, if it does, comes up in compliance where you need some basis for making a factual determination. It couldn't possibly be based on this testimony. MR. PARSONNET: Well, no. The witness admitted that he did not work at all in May. TRIAL EXAMINER: That's something, yes. Q. Did you work at all in June? A. No, because I wasn't asked. Q. Did you work at all in July? A. No. Q. In August? A. No. Because I wasn't asked. Q. In September did you work at all? A. No. Q. In October did you work at all? A. No. He further testified on cross-examination that his hauling work occupied 3 to 4 hours a day plus weekends but denied telling any union representative that he did not want substi- tute work because he was making enough money with his contract. Biggers admitted that he was asked to do substitute work in September and that he refused and that he had refused substitute work since that date. Michael Niland testified that he had been employed by the Employer for 7 years, that he was assistant pressroom fore- man, and that he worked out at the Patterson News and Matzners. His estimate of the time he worked out during the period January to May was once a week. On May 16 he reported to work and went to work, although Walsh told them that if Travis did not work no one would work. During the period he was working he testified that James Schofield, president of Local 60, asked him why he was working and that when he told Schofield he was a company man Schofield walked upstairs and said nothing. No union representative told him he would be fined or disciplined for working during this time. He was, however, told the next week by Walsh that because of his action taken on Friday (the day of the stop- PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 60 271 page) he would not be "booked out." Later Niland asked Dave West, chapel chairman at Matzners, if he could work out in his shop and was told that he (West) had orders not to book him. After the May 16 stoppage Niland was asked by the chapel chairman in June if he wanted to work out and that he replied that there was a labor case against the Uion (Local 60) and that he was told not to work out-not to upset the apple cart until the case was finished. Niland testified that he was told to give this answer by "someone upstairs" in the hierarchy of the Employer. On cross-examination Niland testified that he worked out during January and perhaps two or three times in March and once or twice in April. In May he did not work out at all. He also testified that during that summer he had disability (one lung) which made it difficult to make him work indoors. He testified that he had acquired a landscaping business and that he very seldom worked out during the summer and that he had told the union representative this. Having been told that he was a "bad boy" immediately after May 16 he did not ask to be booked out but was told by Langen in July or August that he could not be booked out. This testimony I find in contradiction with his testimony that he was asked to work out in June and refused. James Schofield, president of Local 60, testified that on May 16 he received word from Walsh that Wiedemann had refused to permit Travis to go to work. He told Walsh to have everyone sit down until Travis was allowed to work and later was informed by Walsh that "three guys were working." Schoefield then went to the plant and, accompanied by Walsh, told the men what was going on and told Wiedemann, Biggers and Niland not to work. Nevertheless they continued to work. Later agreement was reached between the Interna- tional and the Employer and the men returned to work. Schofield stated that he issued no orders that Wiedemann, Niland, and Biggers be given no referrals to outside work and that none of them complained to him concerning any refusal to refer. Robert Forbes, chapel chairman at the Employer's plant, testified that it was understood that Wiedemann did not work out and that near the end of March Niland "advised us" that he was going to do landscaping business in the nice weather and could not take indoor (pressroom) work. As to Biggers, Forbes testified that he overheard a conver- sation between Walsh and Biggers during the first week in May in which Biggers told Walsh, when asked to work out, not to bother him with chicken feed-that he had too much time tied up in "the big money." This was during the period when Biggers was working under his hauling contract.' Be- sides Biggers there were two other employees who did not work out and were not referred, Supples and Stavish. (Stavish would work only at the Newark News.) As to these em- ployees who never work out, an automatic "R" is placed after their name on the referral list. Robert Langen, chapel chairman from about May 27 to the time of hearing, testified that Niland told him he did not want to work out because of his landscaping business and that Biggers told him dunng early May he did not want to be bothered with chicken feed. As to the list, Landen said that three employees, Travis, Forbes, and Brennan always wanted to work out and were always asked first. If they were unavail- able he would call in the pressroom for volunteers. Biggers, he testified, was given a referral to the Patterson News on September 30 but did not report. Landen never told either Niland or Biggers that they could not work out, or told Biggers he was a bad boy. ' Forbes testified that he asked Biggers once or twice during the summer if he wanted to work out and "got a very terse no " Biggers, on recall, testified that he never told a chapel chairman that he did not want to work out because he had a better job but that since September he had been asked regularly if he wanted referral. He did not, however, accept referral at any time after September. In May he did not work out because he did not want the work. 4. The fines The issue of the fines is not in dispute. By letters of Novem- ber 5 (G. C. Exh. 3, 5, and 7) Wiedemann, Biggers, and Niland were notified that they would be placed in trial on charges filed by James Schofield. The trial was set for June 23 and none of the charged members appeared. By letter dated July 9 Wiedemann was notified that he had been fined a total of $1,200. (General Counsel's Exhibit 4.) By letters of the same date Biggers was notified that he was fined a total of $2,000 and Niland that he had been fined $1,600. (General Counsel's Exhibits 6 and 8.) In the letters assessing the fines all the members were found guilty of violating the Local's Constitution and By-Laws' by violating their Oath under Article IV of the Local's constitu- tion; Article III, Section 10 of the By-Laws; Article VII, Section 2 of the By-Laws and Article VIII, Section II of the By-Laws. The issue of the justification for such fines is not before me. The issue is whether such fines violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(1)(B). B. Conclusions 1. The refusal to refer I find no violation of the Act in the one refusal to refer, testified to be Wiedemann, which occurred shortly after the stoppage. As Wiedemann himself admitted, he had not worked out for some time, had no intention of working out and other testimony reveals that this was well known to the chapel chairman. Under such circumstances it is difficult to embrace the action of the chapel chairman within the ordi- nary meaning of the words "restraint and coercion." Biggers testified that at a time best fixed as the week after the work stoppage he was told by then Chairman Walsh that he could not work out and that he was not asked to work out again until September when he refused. Since Walsh was present at the hearing and did not testify I must accept Big- gers' testimony that he was refused referral on one occasion., There is direct conflict between the testimony of Biggers and Chairmen Forbes and Langen as to whether Biggers had notified them that he did not want referral work and was not offered it for that reason or was refused referral because of his failure to obey union orders on May 16. This conflict I resolve in favor of Forbes and Langen, both of whom impressed me as credible witnesses. Referring to the testimony of Biggers as quoted, supra, I could not find that he worked during either April or May prior to the work stoppage. It is only reasonable to conclude, since there is no allegation that he was not offered work during this period, that he preferred to use his extra time for his haulage business. This conclusion I find buttressed by the fact that he did not work in either September or October, although asked, because he did not want to.6 G.C. Exh 9 Biggers' testimony as to this refusal was corroborated by that of Wiede- mann, supra, except for the fact that Wiedemann testified that it was Lan- gen, not Walsh, who made the refusal I find it difficult to believe that an employee working a full shift dunng the day at the Employer's place of business and engaged in hauling for 3 to 4 hours thereafter and on Saturday and Sundays would have any time available for working a second full-time shift. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I would therefore find that Biggers was denied referral by Chairman Welsh on one occasion but that he was not there- after denied referral by any chairman by reason of his refusal to join in the work stoppage on May 16. The refusal by Walsh I find due to Biggers' refusal to join the work stoppage. I find this single refusal sufficient to hold that Local 60 thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As in the case of Biggers I find the only evidence of re- straint and coercion against Niland occurred when Walsh told him that because of his action on May 16 he could not longer be booked out. I credit the testimony of Forbes and Langen that he informed them that he preferred to work his landscaping business when the weather permitted and did not want outside work. This, again, is buttressed by Niland's own testimony that he refused outside work in June, although he gave a different reason.' In finding a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) against Re- spondents the admission must be made that it is based on evidence as scant and meager as could be found. The Trial Examiner would recommend dismissal on the ground that the evidence is de minimis except for the fact that the Board has sustained violations of the Act on grounds no more sub- stantial. 2. The fines The fines imposed upon Wiedemann and Niland, super- visor-members of Local 60, fall within the ambit of the Board's decisions in San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18 (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 252, and Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 173, and constitute violations of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.' I so find. As to the fine imposed on Biggers, a more difficult question is posed. The Board has pending before it decisions in at least six cases involving the union fine issue which have been de- cided by Trial Examiners since the decision of the U.S. Su- preme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 388 U.S. 175 (June 12, 1967.) These decisions follow: Booster Lodge No. 405, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-Cio, (The Boeing Company), Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan, December 30, 1968. Local 205, Lithographers and Photengravers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO (The General Gravure Service Co., Inc.), Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman, July 22, 1968. Local 488, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW), Trial Examiner William Seagle, Au- gust 20, 1968. Communications Workers of America, Local 6135, Trial Examiner James T. Barker, May 12, 1968. Communications Workers of America, and its Local 5550 (American Telephone and Telegraph Company), Trial Examiner Eugene Dixon, November 13, 1969. ' Niland's testimony that he was told to refuse by someone in manage- ment because a labor case was pending can lead only to the inference that the Employer was anxious to support a finding of violation against Respond- ents. ' Counsel for Respondents does not, apparently, contend that the fines did not violate the Act and stated that the fines had been rescinded prior to the hearing. Notification of such rescission had not been received by either Wiedemann or Niland at the time of the hearing. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and its Affi- liated Local 1114 (Harnischfeger Corporation), Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci, November 30, 1969. In addition to the foregoing, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Union Car- bide Corporation), was referred to the Board after a hearing by Trial Examiner Stone, December 1968. As to these cases, none of which provide clear guidance in the absence of Board decision, Trial Examiner Donovan found a violation in Boeing on the ground that the fine was unreasonable; Trial Examiners Silberman and Seagle found no violation on the authority of Allis-Chalmers,- Trial Exam- iner Barker found a violation in Communication Workers on the ground the fine was unreasonable; Trial Examiner Dixon found a violation in Communication Workers, Local 550 on the ground no prior warning of a fine penalty had been given the member; Trial Examiner Ricci in Harnischfeger dis- missed on the ground, stated broadly, that the General Coun- sel failed to prove a prima facie case. With no Board decision relating to the divergent situations which have arisen since Allis-Chalmers each Examiner must take his own path. The Supreme Court has, of course, pointed out the many facets of fine penalties and the factors which may influence decision. Summarizing those which apply in the instant case I find: (a) No claim has been made that the stoppage which oc- curred on May 16 was unlawful. It was, however, a spontane- ous action taken in protest against the Employer's refusal to hire an apprentice and not a planned strike. (b) The employee-member did work during the stoppage. (c) The stoppage lasted 3 hours, when it was settled by agreement between the Union and the Employer. (d) Biggers was not warned that he might be fined if he worked during the stoppage although he was directed not to work, together with the other employees, by Chariman Walsh. (e) Biggers knew he was violating a union rule by working. (f) Local 60 is, in the parlance of the Court, a strong union. (g) Biggers received notification of his trial and did not appear. (h) The contract between Local 60 and the employer con- tained no union-security clause; membership was voluntary on the part of the employees. (i) For his refusal to join in the work stoppage of May 16 Biggers was fined $2000. No court action for enforcement of the fine had been taken at the time of the hearing and there is no evidence that the union procedures were irregular. The Court in Allis-Chalmers without passing specifically upon the issue, referred at several times to "reasonable fines." Thus at page 183 the Court stated: Where the Union is strong and membership therefore valuable, to require expulsion of the members visits a far more severe penalty upon the member than a reasonable fine. At page 192: There may be some concern that court enforcement may permit collection of unreasonably large fines. However, even where there is evidence that Congress shared this concern, this would not justify reading the Act to bar enforcement of reasonable fines. At footnote 30 the Court added: It is not argued that the fines for which court enforce- ment was actually sought were unreasonably large. I can only conclude that the Court by its use of the quoted language left to the National Labor Relations Board the reso- lution of this problem. The decision of Trial Examiner Dono- van in Boeing was issued December 30, 1968, so it does not appear the Board has met the issue with alacrity. In the PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 60 273 absence of any indication of the Board's thinking on this specific issue and because I think it the issue on which this case must be resolved my finding will be based upon a purely subjective reaction. I would hold that the imposition of a fine of $2000 -upon a union member for a refusal to take part in a work stoppage which lasted approximately 3 hours was unreasonable. I would further hold that the imposition of an unreasonable fine in the circumstances of this case and the findings made above constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. No further explication seems required in view of the failure on the part of the Board to reach any decision on the questions left unanswered by Allis-Chalmers. IV. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices it shall be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain -affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondents have unlawfully refused to refer Michael Niland Jr. and John Biggers for outside employment in accordance with the common practice of Local 60 it shall be recommended that Respondents refer said Niland and Biggers for employement as pressroom em- ployees in accordance with said practice. It is also recommended that Respondent Local 60 make Niland and Biggers whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the refusal of Respondents to refer them for outside employement as specifically found herein. Such loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It shall also be recommended that Respondents rescind the fines imposed upon Wiedemann, Niland, and Biggers and give notice to such rescission, in writing, to said Wiedemann, Niland, and Biggers. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By fining Warren Wiedemann and Michael Niland, Jr., for working during a work stoppage called by Local 60 on May 16, 1969, Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 2. By fining John Biggers $2000 for working during the work stoppage called by Local 60 on May 16, 1969, Respond- ents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 3. By refusing to refer Niland and Biggers for outside employement as found herein, Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is hereby recommended that Respondents Passaic, Mor- ris, Sussex & Bergen Counties Newspaper Printing Press- men's Union No. 60 and James Schofield, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to refer Michael Niland, Jr., and John Biggers for employement to employers within the territorial jurisdic- tion of Local 60 other than the Passaic Daily News, trading as the Herald-News. (b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Warren Wiedemann or Michael Niland, Jr., or any other supervisor of the Employer, as a member of Local 60, for the conduct of such ember as a supervisor of the Employer while said supervisor is or may become the selected representative of the Employer as its representative for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. (c) Fining John Biggers or any other member of Local 60 an amount of money that constitutes an unreasonably large fine because said John Biggers or any other member of Local 60 worked during a period when a work stoppage or strike had been called by Local 60. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Respondent Local 60 shall make Michael Niland, Jr., and John Biggers whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of said Local 60's refusal to refer them for employement as found herein. (b) Rescind fines imposed upon Warrent Wiedemann, Mi- chael Niland, Jr., and John Biggers and notify said members in writing of the rescission of said fines and remit to said members any sums which may have been paid toward said fines. (c) Correct all minutes of union meetings and other records to show that said fines have been rescinded and inform said members, in writing, that such action has been taken. (d) Post at its office and all meeting halls and at the office of the Employer, the Employer willing, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Local 60 and by Respondent James Schofield, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted and at the Employer's place of business at all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to see that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision and Recom- mended Order what steps have been taken to comply there- with.10 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of the complaint not specifically found to have been in violation of the Act shall be dismissed. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided by Sec. 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 Ap- peals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National 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." 10 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."