Atlanta Daily World

ATLANTA DAILY WORLD - 159 C. A: Scott; Individually and as Administrator d/b/a Atlanta , Daily - World'-and Atlanta Typographical TJninh` No. 48. Cases 10--(,',A-7875 and 10-CA-8136 July 21, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY' ME'MBERs FANNn. G, BROWN, AND KENNEDY On April 1, 1971, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision in the,above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in - certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached "Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed 'exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with 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 these cases to a, three- memberpanel. 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 brief, and the entire record in these cases,' and hereby.adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein. The Trial - Examiner found -that Respondent's employees went out on strike on April 1, 1969, in protest over the discriminatory discharge of employee Joe Anderson. The Trial Examiner concluded, and we agree, that Anderson, was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3)",and (1);of the Act and, ,, therefore, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. He also found that, by. letters -dated May 29and December 16, 1969, the striking' employees through their -Union made unconditional offers to return to work and that Respondent violated the Act by refusing to reinstate these employees on May 29,1969. In reaching' this conclusion, the Trial Examiner relied` solely upon the `two' betters and did not give sufficient weight to the substantial evidence that the offers were "in, fact, conditioned on the reinstatement of Anderson. The record reveals that in spite of the letters the Respondent understood the Union's position to be that. everybody, including Anderson, must be reinstated. - The testimony of the Union's International representative with regard to the De- cember 26,'1969, negotiating session tends to corrobo- rate this position. It is well-settled that any request for 192 NLRB No. 30 reinstatement which is conditioned on removing the cause of the strike is not an unconditional offer.2 Therefore,we find that as the Union's applications for reinstatement were conditional, -they were not valid. Respondent had no legal. obligation to honor the requests and its refusal toreinstate the strikers was not violative of the Act. Accordingly, we do not-adopt the Trial Examiner's remedy with regard to the reinstate- ment of the strikers and shall amend the Order in this respect. 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, C. A. Scott, individually and as administrator d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, Atlanta, Georgia, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, with the following modifications: ` 1. Delete, paragraph 2(b) and redesignate para- graphs 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), and 2(f) as paragraphs 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e), respectively. 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examiner's notice. 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the entire record in this proceeding, including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties. 2 Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 134 NLRB 338, 404; E. A. Laboratories, Inc., 80 NLRB 625, 671. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER- OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Atlanta Typographical, Union No. 48 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding-is reached, embody such agreement in a sign contract. The bargaining unit is: All mechanical department employees, at our Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including com- posing room employees, stereotyping em- ployees and pressroom - employees, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, mailroom department employees, news department employees, editorial department employees, advertising and circulation department em- 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR; RELATIONS BOARD ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT unilaterally transfer or discontin- ue work performed by unit employees without notice to or consultation with the Union. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against , employees because they engage in lawful strike =activity. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above-named labor organization or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discrimi- nating against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except as permitted by Section $(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Joe Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of all discrimination against him as provided in the Trial Examiner's Decision. All our employees are free to 'becomeor remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members in good standing of the , above-named Union or any other labor organization. C. A. SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR _D/B/A ATLANTA DAILY WORLD (Employer) 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 mustnot 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, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, ' N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner: On July 24, 1969, Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48 'herein called the 2 All credibility resolutions - made herein based on a composite evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole. 2 ,1 have taken official , notice of Case 10-CA-1095, also identified as x-0,1095, in which Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued a decision on November 12, 1942, involving the same Respondent, et. al., on which no appeal was filed, and on which no subsequent Board action ensued. I have Union, filed the original charge in Case 1 0--CA-7875 against , C, A. - Scott individually, and ' as administrator d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, herein calledthe Company or Respondent, and on January 23, 1970, the Union ' filed the original charge in Case 10-CA-8136 against the Company. Subsequent to, the above dates amended charges were filed in both cases. On October 14, 1970, the two cases were consolidated by the Regional , Director and the complaint issued The General Counsel and the Respon- dent filed briefs in this , matter and I have duly considered the same. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:1 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a proprietorship d/b/a Atlanta Daily World, with the_ principal office , and place of business located in Atlanta,, Georgia, where Respondentis engaged in the publication, sale, and distribution of, newspapers. During the calendar year preceding the issuance of each' complaint, representative periods, Respondent had a gross volume of business in excess' of $200,000. Respondent subscribes to national wire service, publishes nationally syndicated features, and advertises national brand prod- ucts. I find that Respondent is an employer .engaged in commerce within the'meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2 H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED , Atlanta Typographical' Union No. 48, herein ' referred to as the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The basic issues raised in the instant ,case are whether the Respondent discharged employee Joe L. Anderson' on- March 31, 1969, in violation of the Act; whether the strike on or about April 1, 1969, was an 'unfair labor practice strike-was it primarily -precipitated by the Respondent's discharge of Joe 'Anderson, and whether or not during October 1969 the Respondent violatediSection ' 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by its unilateral changes without prior notice, to or consultation with the Union---specifically-did Respondent discontinue its "hot type" printing process, and utilize its "cold type" process for all its printing. operations and thereby eliminate jobs of employees in the unit. After the demise of his brother W. A. Scott, II, in 1934, C. A. Scott was appointed administrator cum testamento annexo, with authority to continue the business`' theretofore conducted under the name of The Atlanta Daily World;-by the probate court ^ of Fulton County. It appears that' C. A. also taken official notice of Cases 10-CA-7405, 10-CA-7437, and 10-CA-7540, in which Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued a decision'-in April 30, 1969, involving the same parties as in the instant proceeding. On December 9, 1969, the Board- with minor- modifications adopted the Trial Examiner's findings. See, C.A. Scott, Individually and as Adnnnistraur d/b/a Atlanta Daily World and Atlanta Typographical Union No. 48, ' 179'NLRB ' 999, and this decision will be referred to herein as'the prior proceeding. -' ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 161 Scott since 1934 has been the editor, general manager, and operating head of the business enterprise. C. A. Scott and E: J. Scott, foreman of the mechanical department, also referred to herein as Emel Scott, are and were at all times material supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. Again in the instant case Respondent contended that Joe Anderson was a supervisor. However, this issue was fully litigated and completely discussed in the prior proceeding, and there was a finding therein of insufficient evidence to support any conclusions that Anderson was a supervisor, and subsequent to the dates of the prior proceeding and up until Anderson was discharged on March 31, 1931, there was no evidence indicating any change from his old duties of job.3 Joe L. Anderson, an hourly paid ludlo machine operator, had been employed by the Respondent since 1959. Anderson and about- 11 other mechanical department employees signed union authorization cards in April 1968. Anderson stated he was chairman of the negotiating committee and was later appointed as spokesman for unit employees. In the prior proceeding the Respondent was found to have solicited the aid of employees in persuading other employees to abandon their efforts to obtain union representation, -sought to bargain directly with employees, solicited-employees to withdraw their names from a petition designating the Union as their - representative, promised employees continued employment and improved condi- tions if they would abandon union activities, threatened employees with economic reprisals and loss of jobs if they persisted m seeking union representation, threatened employees with an assertion of futility in their efforts to obtain union representation, threatened that employees could not be represented by a union as set forth in Section 7 of the Act, and , threatened to discontinue the work performed by his employees, in an appropriate unit, and subcontract said work, if the employees continued to, support the Union and engage in activities on its behalf. In the prior proceeding it was also found that on May 23, 1968, the Union represented a majority of employees in an appropriate unit, and the same unit with majority status is alleged in the instant complaint: All mechanical department employees at Respondent's Atlanta, Georgia, operation, including composing room employees, stereotyping employees and press room employees, but excluding office clerical employees, mail room department employees, news department employ- ees,- editorial department employees, advertising and circulation department employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. Joe Anderson was a key witness at the trial or hearings in the prior proceeding in November and December 1968, and his version as to what transpired was credited over that of Respondent C. A. Scott and E. J. Scott, the latter being 3 Contentions of the Respondent made in its motion to dismiss involve several matters previously decided by the Board adversely to the Respondent and matters necessitating the establishment of factual issues presented in `the instant hearing and considered later herein . In all other respects I am in accord with the order of November 10, 1970, denying Respondent's motion to dismiss, all duly reflected in the formal papers and record in this case. 4 Operation Breadbasket is an arm of the Southern Christian Leadership Anderson's immediate supervisor, and there can be no question but that his testimony was highly instrumental in successfully establishing this prior case against -the Respondent. The record in the instant case shows that in the middle of February 1969 the employees in the mechanical depart- ment or unit decided they should also approach an organization known as Operation Breadbasket.4 Anderson was designated by his fellow employees as their spokesman and was to present their grievances with the hope that outside help would "speed up" the acceptance of the Union by the Company. At this first meeting with Operation Breadbasket in February 1969, Anderson gave them a list of their employee grievances-aestroom conditions, low salaries, no insurance, lack of cleanliness, and possibly various other items of this nature. During the second week in March 1969, Anderson and other mechanical employees of the Respondent again met with the Atlanta chapter of Operation Breadbasket. On this occasion Anderson restated their grievances, and Operation Breadbasket then selected their own committee to meet with - C. A. Scott and discuss these grievances with him. Pastor F. H. Dorsey of the local Tabernacle Baptist Church was one of the ministers selected, on, the .committee to consult with C. A. Scott, and this, committee did so immediately following this second meeting with Anderson and other employees. Reverend Dorsey testified that at this meeting with C. A. Scott they were asked to identify the name of the- spokesman from the employees who had contacted Operation Breadbasket. Rev. Dorsey stated that after some hesitation they finally divulged that Joe Anderson was the spokesman.- C. A. Scott told Dorsey there would be no reprisals against Anderson, but Scott then referred to him as a "troublemaker." Shortly thereafter Rev. Dorsey informed Anderson "to be careful" because his name was given to Scott as spokesman of the employees who' had contacted Operation Breadbasket. A. noted this incident happened about 2 weeks prior to the discharge of Anderson. The Respondent assigns two main reasons for the discharge of Anderson - (1) that he received pay from the Company after reporting that he was sick on September 25, 1968, when in fact he was working at the election polls, and (2) on February 22, 1969, a lock was broken on a rear door in the mechanical department building and C. A. Scott felt that Anderson should have informed management about this incident as in their judgement he was a supervisor.5 Anderson admitted he worked at one of the country runoff- election polls on September 25, 1968, but stated this fact was brought out in November and December 1968 during the hearings in the prior proceeding and testified that C. A. Scott was in the courtroom at the time and heard all the details in relation thereto. Anderson stated he could Conference with local branches, and is largely composed of ministers who work within and throughout black communities attempting to improve working conditions of employees and also trying to upgrade black personneL 5 At this time no decision had been made in the prior proceeding wherein the supervisory status of Anderson had been litigated, as aforestated. 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not remember if he had called into the Respondent's plant on the date in questionand reported sick; but the company did pay him for 8 hours of work-on September 25, 1968, while working at the polls. Anderson further related that a few days afterwards he had been questioned by E. J. Scott about his alleged sickness and had then offered to give E. J. Scott a doctor's certificate if necessary.6 E. J. Scott testified that his brother C. A. Scott was going to discharge Anderson at the time he found out Anderson worked at the election'polls and had received 'pay on the same day from the Company, but he disagreed with his brother on the discharge of Anderson because there was a shortage of printers in the Negro race and then stated his position on this matter had not changed. C. A. Scott related in his testimony - that Anderson wrote the words "sick leave" and "V. A. hospital",on' his timeclock card for September 25, 1968, and he considered this written falsification since he worked at the polls on this date-He also stated that during the 1968 hearings in the prior proceeding he first learned that Anderson had worked at the polls and testified that because of this he composed a discharge letter to Joe Anderson which he originally dated January 4, 1968, but then did not mail or deliver this letter due 'to "legal aspects" and shortage of help. This somewhat mysterious letter also has a March 10 , 1969, date on it.T Respondent's `former truckdriver Kurtis Allen testified that on February 22, 1969, employeeJesse Ector picked up a hammer and brokea padlock on the rear door of the shop buildi_ng.8 Allen stated that Joe Anderson was present at the time' and had " observed Ector breakinE^ the -lock, but Anderson told Allen he had not seen,anything and was only hired to see that the work was done . Allen then testified that a-few days later he himself "confessed" to breaking the lock because he and his family were being continually threatened by other employees, and, as a result of his taking the blame for breaking the lock, he was the one'fired. Jesse Ector stated flatly in his testimony -that he did not break the lock in question, but on or about ' February 24, 1969, he was nevertheless suspended for doing so. However, after Kurtis Allen-confessed'that he was that one who broke the lock, he (Ector) was reinstated to his job without loss of pay. Joe Anderson -revealed that his first knowledge of the broken lock was sometime between -9, and 11 a.m., on February 22,'1969, when employee Gregg Ramsey showed him the lock in -the shop dressing room. Anderson stated that during the afternoon he admitted to E. J. Scott that-he knew about the -broken lock, but he told E. J. Scott he did not know who broke it. Anderson testified that later in the afternoon C. A. Scott came down to the shop building and talked to him and others about ,this matter, and Anderson repeated- to C. ' A. Scott that he did not,know who had broken the lock. In subsequent respects Anderson corrobo- rated the testimony of Allen and Ector , as aforestated, but also testified he had no idea that part'of his job was the protection of the Company property. 6 Anderson also worked at'the election ,polls in early November 1968 and, although he was not paid by the Company on this date, C. A. Scott considered it "falsification" since he informed them he was at the V. A. Hospital. However, this incident does not appear to be a specific reason for the discharge. 7 See Resp. Exh. 1. According to E. J. Scott, Andersonwas in' the shop when the lock was broken, stated that when he asked, about it Anderson denied knowing anything, about, the lock incident, testified that a few days, later Kurtis Allen told management that Ector was the one who had,broken- the lock, but that on or about February 25, 1969, Allen himself took the blame because of threats by, other employees and Ector was then- given his, job back.; E._ J. Scott stated that after this incident he did not trust Anderson. 6." A. Scott reiterated the events as indicated above but stated he felt that Anderson was in aposition to'know who broke the lock, although upon his investigation he "got no understanding out of `anyone. Nobody knew anything about the lock being broke." In late afternoon on March 31, 1"969, `C.' A. Scott informed Anderson that he was ,being terminated, and at this time also attempted to give him a discharge letter which Anderson refused to take, and Anderson was then ordered off the premises.. Scott then discussed his`,discharge ,of Anderson with the day shift unit people and later" that evening returned to discuss Anderson's discharge with the unit employees on the night, shift. On or about April „'1, 1969, Anderson received the discharge letter; it set forth the. fact that he' had-"okayed" 8 hour's pay for sick leave `oi September 25, 1968, when in reality he had worked at the polls, as aforestated. C. A. Scott also mentioned'in his letter that Anderson 'was still owing "the Company'a past due account for newspapers he had collected for but failed to remit to the Company. Anderson admitted he had previous discussions with management about this b_ ill, but testified for several years the Company had been'_deducting"$5'to $10 a week out of his paychecks for reimbursement, purposes. Anderson testified that'the first thing he did on' the morning of April 1, 1969, was to talk to employed Jesse`' Ector about his "discharge and told Ector he,had been fired for taking `sick leave in September, 1968. 'Ector then went into the shop or plant and told the mechanical employees "to hit the clock" and, after so informing E. J'. Scott, they left the shop building and went to union headquar ter_s, On or about April 3, 1969, the, mechanical employees, union - agents, and management people gathered at' the union hall, and the employees' committee let it be known, that they were "out" because -Anderson" had'been'fired. Circulation' Manager ' William A. Scott ' then `-made a proposaL' which, provided that all, parties^`and"individuals return-to the "status quo" as of March 3i, 1969, that "the Company 'would negotiate, "with the .:Union,' - and, also proposed that Anderson's ` discharge would be made subject to arbitration. After various ' discussions C. A. Scott announced that he would not agree with this'proposal; and as a result very little if anything was accomplished at `this meeting and the-work stoppage or strike by the mechanical employees contirtued.9 The General Counsel produced credited testimony through Sadie Cash, Milton Searcy, Ernest Arnold, John 8 Respondent's office is located at 143„ Auburn Avenue, in Atlanta,- while the printing plant and mechaniccal departmneqi,(shop) is located about one block away atc210 Auburn Avenue,in a separate building. e While the strike started on April- 1,' 1969, a vote on the same was not taken according to Ector, until April 4 and 'a picket- line was then established on April 5, 1969. ATLANTA DAILY WORLD Henderson,i Jesse Ector, Louis Reed, John Drake, and Calvin Keither to the effect that the strike or work stoppage in the mechanical department on April 1, 1969, was precipitated by the discharge of Anderson, and all testified this was the reason they were out. It appears that at least 75 percent of the mechanical-employees took part in the strike on April 1. By letter dated June 5, 1969, C. A. Scott notified Anderson ^ that one of the reasons he had been discharged was because of the broken lock incident on February 22, 1969, as previously, detailed. Anderson testified this was the first indication he had received that the circumstances surrounding the lock situation were being,used against him. While this record is somewhat confusing as to specific dates,- there is a showing that prior to the middle of June 1969 the Respondent had further meetings with representa- tives of Operation Breadbasket and agents of the Union in relation to the discharge of Anderson and - the - work stoppage= One of the meetings in early June 1969 was apparently, held at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta with Rev. Martin Lutl>er King, Sr., in attendance. Rev. E. H. Dorsey testified that at this meeting representatives of Operation Breadbasket were interested in finding out why Scott had fired Anderson on March 31, 1969, for, something he,,.supposedly.did,on September 25, 1968, and especially so after , Scott had given -Operation Breadbasket prior assur- ances that there would be no reprisals against Anderson, as aforestated. -In its arguments the Respondent initially points out that on September 25,-,1968, Anderson deliberately misrepre- sented the true-facts. It argues again that Scott believed he was firing a supervisory employee, that the lack of unanimity of Athe heirs and the fact that Anderson still owed moneyYon the newspaper bill caused C. A. Scott to defer a final decision on the= discharge, and it also points out that on, ,February- 22, _,1969i Anderson failed in his duty to protect the employer's property, thereby -,provoking his termination.10,. , The General, Counsel argues that the reasons givenby the Respondent,for the discharge of Anderson are pretextual and maintains - that, by, seeking Breadbasket's aid and thereby bringing the black community into the controversy, there resulted the "straw that broke-the camel's back." As early as November 1968, the Respondent had knowledge of -the facts for the reason initially,given as- the cause for the discharge here in question but yet was willing to, keep Anderson until March-31,4969.. In reviewing the testimony of employee Ernest Arnold, it became clear that Anderson was -not- the only individual who worked at the polls on -September"25,, 1-968. Arnold testified that he also worked at the polls-, on, this date along with Respondent's employees Sherry Flott and Gregg Ramsey and stated he 10 William A. Scott testified<:that even, back in 1968 the mechanical department started having production problems due to "personalities," and there was a "complete breakdown" developing, between management and the employees. He went on to state that during the election campaign in 1968 the Company had requested that employees in the mechanical department not display'any canpaign or election materials, but this request was completely'ignored as employees wore two or three campaign nbbofis. 11 There is some testimony m ,this record that the lock was broken about 8:30 or 9 a.m., that when employees report to work they punch in on clocks and then some -change from street to work clothes in-the washroom. When in the washroom one cannot see the rear door. The General Counsel points 163 called in sick on this day but could not remember if the Company paid him for September 25.°- Arnold- does not consider such practices dishonest -because employees, are given 1 or 2 weeks of paid sick leave each year, and once an employee uses up his yearly sick leave time he receives no additional sick leave until the following year. It is apparent ' from the -record, that the- strange, circumstances and results involving Allen and Ector during the lock incident in February 1969 must have occurred within the immediate time periods mentioned, and it is obvious to me that Anderson was merely interjected into this situation as - a complete afterthought. There was, absolutely no, mention of the lock incident in the discharge letter given or sent to Anderson on or about Aprilwi, 1969, as previously noted, and, in fact, Anderson :had no knowledge whatsoever of his possible involvement with the ; broken lock incident until months later when C. A. Scott suddenly advised him by letter in June 1969-that this was also one of the reasons for his- termination on March 31,, 1969. It is impossible for me to accept this incident as, the event which actually provoked or triggered the discharge, as argued by Respondent, when this incident or reason was not even.mentioned to Anderson until, June. Management may well have been disappointed-in that Anderson did-not or was unable to tell them who broke the lock; but it is. readily apparent that this situation had very little, bearing, if any, on the moving and controlling motivation=forr, the.- discharge.11 By this time the Trial Examiner's decision"in the prior proceeding had been issued; as aforestated, so in June 1969 Respondent had also been advised that its,, contention of Anderson's supervisory capacity lacked, merit and was rejected. By the middle of March 1969, C. A. Scott had been told by. Operation Breadbasket that Anderson was, the leader of the mechanical employees and, the Company - thereby) received specific notification that Anderson and others ' were continuing in, their efforts for better working conditions by requesting intervention and assistance from Operation Breadbasket.12 It should be pointed out that Anderson's activity in relation with Breadbasket was not only, an individual, effort designed to induce action on, the part of other employees, but it was also a group;,action whose, objection was to induce- the Company to correct grievances, there was - definite . consent among the mechani- cal employees to the course, of action to be purse ed. as , a group, and Anderson was the one selected to act as their spokesman. This specific activity by Anderson in -the employees' behalf falls- clearly within the realm-.of the, protected concerted activity.13 I agree with the General Counsel that the only incident within close proximity of Anderson's discharge was the, ode involving Breadbasket. It is clear to me, however, that out that Resp . Exh. 18 shows that Anderson , clocked in at 8 :56 a.m. on February 22, 1969, and, therefore argues management must have known that Anderson could not have seen' he padlock incident. 12 There are no indications in this record that by contacting Operation Breadbasket the employees were in any way foresaking their support of the, Union,, and Anderson gave testimony that there was nevevany intent to, do so. . 13 Washington Aluminum- Company, 370 U.S. 9; Walls Manufacturing Company, 137 NLRB 1317, enfd. 321 F.2d 753, (C.A.D.C.) cert, denied 375 U.S. 923; George E. Light Boat, Storage, Inc., 153 NLRB 1209;-and Bonded - Armoured Carrier, Inc., 147 NLRB 100. - 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his.extensive participation in the prior proceeding, also a key role, and -then his later activities in February and March, -1969; with Breadbasket are _ the coupling factors which caused Scott to refer to Anderson as "troublemaker,". and motivated -his actual discharge. As pointed out, the word "troublemaker" is not 'the proper nomenclature or term for an`employee the ' Respondent alleges-it discharged for-purported sickness-or for'not informing them as to the lock incident. In the final analysis here ; the poll incident happened months prior to the discharge of Anderson, and even the foreman, of the mechanical department, Emel Scott, the supervisor most directly concerned or affected, admitted, in his. testimony that he asked C. A. Scott "to holdup" firing Anderson and then further stated that his position had not changed. Circulation,Manager William A. Scott proposed a return to.`the "status quo"' as 'aforestated, which also included the 'immediate return of Anderson to his job while his ultimate fate would later be decided by-arbitration - another strong indication that an additional key member of the management team actually thought very little of the poll incidentaor"'the other reasons of production-and the broken lock which were Call eventually and belatedly attributed in some` -remote- ways to . Anderson. And finally, -C. A. Scott himself did not 'even deem the poll incident sufficient for immediate, termination as -he did not mail his mysterious discharge letter to-nderson, as aforestated. - This record in its entirety compels the ' conclusion that Respondent devised reasons' in an attempt to remove a known and- effective 'supporter of the Union who had continued seeking ,help over grievances for himself and fellow employees. In accordance therewith, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and -(1) of the Act by discharging="Anderson on,March 31,- 1969, because of his member hip in'dnd activities on behalf of the Union, and, because `he engaged in concerted' activity with -other employees for ,the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The evidence in this record is overwhelming in showing that the walkout "and strike on 'April' 1,' 1969, was precipitated by-Respondent's discharge and refusal-,to reinstate ,Joe Anderson; as aforestated, the employees immediately so informed-E. J.' Scott. By letters, dated May 29,-1969, - and again on December` 16, 1969, • the striking employees,' through their union, unconditionally offered to return to work.14 -The letter of May 29,1961, also asked the Company to•name any employees who- were thought by management not to be entitled to reinstatement because of misconduct, but the Company continually took the position that all of 'the" unit jobs were filled with the possible exception of one or two temporary jobs, and it appears, 14 The Union's International Representative Robert McMichen stated that he, also made a verbal unconditional offer -to return the strikers at a negotiating session on rMatch 9, 1970.- 15 N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. 1s The" records relate the 'ifference between the productionn ' of'a newspaper --thy what 1s -termed the "hot type method" and the offset production of a paper by what is termed a "cold process." Under the hot type method, by which the daily news section of the Atlanta Daily world was produced, it-Linotype, operator types directly from apiece-of'-copy which is typed but in individual lines, -gathered into a form, proofread,'and assembled on -the bank, - to'•later be placed in the chase.-The work of a linotype operator is done with hot metal which produces letters, words, and some of the strikers would not return to work unless all were, reinstated. C. A. Scott maintained that the Union's offer to return the strikers was conditional because of- the- insistence that Anderson be returned., However, it is well established that applications for reinstatement by unfair labor practice strikers are not made conditional merely by insistence that all be given their jobs back or none would' return. John H. Barr Marketing Co., 96 NLRB 875, 882. The work stoppage or-strike on April 1, 1,969, must be deemed an unfair labor practice strike caused and prolonged by Respondent's discharge of Joe Anderson, and I so find. The 8(aX5) allegation in'the instant complaint is based on Respondent's unilateral discontinuance, in October 1969, of substantially all remaining unit work in the mechanical department, by stopping the use of all hot processes (using Linotype and Ludlo machines) type; and thereafter -using cold type processes to supplant it. In the prior proceeding the Board affirmed; `Trial Examiner Lightner's findings that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally assigning certain work to nonunit employees -and unilaterally increasing its subcontracting of unit work:- The Board then'deternyined under the Gissel doctrinel5 that,a bargaining'orderwas required because the Respondent's conduct would reason- ably be expected to have the effect of undermining the Union's majority, and it destroyed the conditions necessary to the holding of a free and fair election. In the instant case the Respondent 'concedes that on or about October 16, 1969, it basically terminated its "hot paper" but cites the following reasons: (a) lack of a'readily available source of paper in useable quantities, (b) the general- state' of dilapidation of- the press which had been used, and (c) the poor quality of printing which the!press and hot method, theretofore used , had produced. The Respondent points out, however, that 'the paper still uses the hot type 'equipment to "some extent" in the cold''or offset process.16 The Company further argues that the only alternative available to management as of October 16, 1969, would have been to "cease operations altogether. it is again- emphasized that the newspaper had no•press in operable condition,- that if it was to continue to function as a daily newspaper, as it had done since 1928, it had to use the cold type or offset process and activate" the machinery it had compatible with the offset method of printing, and that it' was a reluctant step totally and completely out of the control of the Respondent. C. A. Scott related' that economics and cost, factor`s'are the mainreason why many small newspapers have changed to offset printing. He stated, for -instance, that an operator for a justo=writer machine would be' paid much lower wages per hour than a lines of type, similar to the end product of a typewriter. The ludlo produces- certain type heads, similar to a linotype , but with varied sized characters or mats. Some ads were made from slick cast in the stereotype section which ' created plates which were placed on wood blocks and prepared 'for printing. A'varityper used in the cold process produces print which is"the equivalent of Linotype print, except it does „tiot,make an =impression but av, produces a ,tape which can, then be pasted on apiece of paper,,or layout, for photographing and from which offset is produced. The varityper is also known as alusto-writer. The machines replace the need for the-hot type produced by the linotype as well as-the larger size type produced on the ludlo. ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 165 linotype operator, and, considering the two processes from the -standpoint of composition, the hot process costs about 2-1/2 times the cost of the cold process. It appears that up until the strike on April 1, 1969, all six issues of Respondent's newspapers were printed each week in the mechanical department by -the hot type method except for part of one issue, the food section, which- had been printed by offset or by the cold process since early 1966. Immediately after the start of the strike, the Respondent reduced its -operations and printed only four issues a week by the hot process in their shop or plant; C. A. Scott testified that - after the strike , he also, continued printing, with the hot process, one, weekly edition for both, the Memphis and Birmingham papers but- stated, the Respondent lost the printing jobs they had been doing for two, other southern newspapers located in Albany, Georgia, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. C. A. Scott and other witnesses for the Company testified that on October46,1969,-the Respondent had used up all the newsprint on hand, which they had been-buying in carload-lots-for many years, and that management had endeavored to order small quantities of paper, 10 to 15 rolls, but was informed by their' supplier in a letter dated August 1969 that the supplier was having various delivery difficulties, and.-in order to continue to supply them it would .be necessary. for delivery of ,a full carload to a- public warehouse.'? The Respondent also produced testimony through several witnesses . relating to its old letter press and its general deterioration over the years: E. J. Scott and others stated that after the strike started they encountered several breakdowns of, the press, thatmanagement spent consider- able money for various gears and rollers, and that there was only one elderly man who was ,,able to make repairs on it. Beginning on'or about October 16, 1969, the Respondent started producing all, four editions of the Atlanta World and-each edition,of the Memphis' and Birmingham papers by the cold process, using the offset printer who- had previously printed the food section. In their offset or cold type operation Respondent's employees merely do the "paste ups," but the plant does not do off set printing as such (no offset press) and this, work is subcontracted out. Moreover, the Company has continued to use -nonunit employees in all ofits cold type processes. C; A. Scott and other witnesses testified and contended for the Respondent that management had also informed' employees ever since the early 1960's of the fact that, the newspaper was going to offset printing, and"witnesses for the General Counsel - also agreed that :for many-'years management - had frequently, mentioned to 'them , the possibility -of "going offset." C. A. Scott and William A. Scott then suggested in their testimony that at the meeting, with employees and the Union during the first week in April -1969,'as' aforementioned, they told those present that the newspaper would have to go offset in order to survive, and C. A. Scott testified this information had been continually given to the Union at every-meeting with them ever since they first sought recognition from the Company back in May 1968. The Respondent's cashier Ruth 17 See Resp. Exh. 15. is Following the Board's decision on December 9, 1969, in the prior' and on or about February 3 and March 9, 1970. Simmons also stated that at meetings with the Union subsequent -to- the strike management -indicated that because they were unable to get newsprint the paper would "be going totally to offset." - - Arthur Gnann, president of the Union's Local No. 48, testified he first learned of the newspaper going to. offset during the negotiating session of'December 26, _1969,18 but stated the Union received no notification about this matter until the December bargaining session. The Union International Representative Robert McMi- chen stated the Respondent did not notify or negotiate'with the Union on, the, October -1969 change to offset:printing and testified that at the negotiating.meetings subsequent to December 9, 1969, there were discussions on the number of jobs available and at alater meeting heoffered to train and retain the Respondent's employees for offset printing-;at,the expense of,the Union. According to C. A. Scott the justo-writer machines used in -offset were ordered in,1967 but were not installed until October 1968, and he testifiedthey were not used until after the work stoppage;, Scott stated these machines were leased by the Respondent and not purchased, and, that 'later, they also leased a "head line" machine :. In the prior proceeding Joe Anderson gave testimony . credited. by ;the ,,,Trial Examiner showing that the justo-writer -machines were installed in the Respondent's executive offices in September 1968 and then were put to'. use,,in October -.1968 in conjunction with the enlargement , of the, food Asection: It was also -established , that no one- in the mechanical department was ever assigned to operate the junto-writers. - In addition to the contentions. and defense already mentioned . herein, the Respondent- further , argues in his, brief the following: - - Additionally, Respondent respectfully calls-the Trial Examiner's attention' to- the order of -the Board dated December 9, 1969,- and specifically the amendments made- by the Board to the Trial -Examiner's a Recom- mendedw'Decision and'Order. Particularly,'Respondent points out the, 2(b) Amendment to the Final-- Order which - states that the Respondent has an obligation to bargain for- all -changes on nor after-'May .23, 196811(179 NLRB 999 , fn. 4). Inasmuch-- as its sole obligation= is clearly spelled out in such Order, Respondent' is complying with that when he testifies, without contra- diction, that he has bargained with the 'Union after the -date of that Order beginning on December' 26, 1969. Under the provisions of that Order, Respondent takes the position that' the issues ' has been decided and the Order ' dated December 9, 1969, is -res adjudicate as to bargaining remedy and complaint in'Case No. 8136. Respondent is also constrained-to pointout that by the 'Charging Party's own' admission, the Union -did not have qualified employees, who were trained -in the operation of cold-type process in composition makeup or use of the equipment and, machines 'employed. Indeed, Respondent does not even own or `possess a press on which the offset Plates maybe employed. The Respondent is prohibited," by law' from {borrowing money to purchase such a press . Charging Party` has proceeding the parties held negotiating. meetings on December 26, 1969, 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD admitted in---an effort to train,its members, it-has,sent ,z=them-,to schoofand,for special training and offers,-to continue that training for them in order that they can efficiently operate such equipment. Therefore, General ,Counsel, and Charging Party's- position as regards negotiation at the time of the changeover, would have been- a, futile gesture ^ at, that time from the sole standpoint of training and qualifications. The employ- ees could not have-operated the machinery had they ,-been- been at work. Certainly, 'within the period of 60 days, then-,entire, question had become moot since the employer, in - response to the' Board's Order of December 9,,;-l 969, did in fact meet- and negotiate with the Charging Party relativeto these matters. ' ` ' , As noted, 'one phase of--the Respondent's contention is apparently based on the argument that it had no, duty to consult or bargain with the Union on the- October, 1969 changes until there was-a, final order from the Boardin the prior proceeding establishing,such a duty. The General Counsel correctly.. points out that in a refusal to bargain case the facts. in each proceeding determine when the duty to, bargain,is presenCand the violative conduct, if so found, takes place at^the specific and particular time, and a decision,by atrial examiner and a subsequent-Board order are --findings, and affirmances that a duty existed at the prior instant'case. In- accordance with the above, I reject=the Respondent's .contention that "nothing" was established until the: Board Order issued in the prior proceeding on December-9, 1969, and I deem any-further, consideration, or discussion-on thiscontention completely -needless: , -- From the, Respondent's point of view the operational changes - it,, effected in October. 1969 resulted in reduced costs and made possible the continued publication, of the newspaper;, but from the point of view of the employees effected the change actually; resulted in the termination of their jobs. Yet the Respondent, effected this discontinuance of substantially all remaining unit work in, the.mechanical department; unilaterally and without affording 'the Union any opportunity to bargain about , the impact on, the employees, It is, of course;,well recognized and established Board-slaw, that matterswhich could destroy employment of the 'members of a bargaining unit fall,within "other ,terms and conditions, of employment" as, used by the statutory phrase in the Actand is;a-mandatory =subject of bargaining within the, meaning of Section;-8(a)(5). It is likewise well recognized-,that an,employer is under a.duty to bargain with the chosen , representative -concerning matters affecting terms and conditions of employment and, cannot unilateral- ly change jestablished employment conditions without bargaining, regardless -of ,the existence or nonexistence, of a collective-bargaining agreement. At is, further_noted that -in. the,instant case Respondent endeavored -to ^ sever the regular, employment„status-of-the mechanical employees as - a, permanent matter., The Respondent _ repeatedly maintained and insisted that it could only, ,take back ^ one, or : two- of the strikers on a temporary basis as, the ,-former jobs in the mechanical department had been shifted elsewhere and, given to other nonunit employees. Indeed,..it -has long been held that an employer is required to bargain about who is to be'affected by., the severance of employment relationships or a reduction tin force ,of employees for economic reasons, and, also ;about- the distribution of the work among ,employees,, specifically so when there is a,direct, and adverse :effect upon ,unit employees and-there is ; no showing of any,past practices wherein-such-changes were historically made. In its brief the, Respondent makes references , to certain cases involving emergency :changes and subcontracting by employers ,tomeet-their immediate operation-needs because of a strike situation: The Board and the ,,coutts will-not, of course, tell employers faced, with ,'serious difficulties because-of :a' strike that before they ,can make `economic business "decisions to continue their operations-they must first consult with the Union, and'this is not-,the•situation in the instant case. In't'he-immediate-penodaubsequentto the strike on-April I, 1969, the,Respondent did make -various business decisions and - `changes in', order to - continue printing most of their publications as detailed earlier,, herein;' and no unfair labor practice-charges resulted because of such emergency changes., The`allegation in this' complaint pertains to a unilateral discontinuance' of unit work -' in the mechanical department some = 6 months -after the start of the strike.,,Therefore, the factual circumstances in the instant proceeding before me are clearlydistinguisha ble from ,-the factual situation- in, those,cases cited by the, Respondent, and any contention by the Respondent that it was' faced with _ a situation requiring --immediate or emergency action must hinge on circumstances prevailing in October , 1969. In such respects;, the Respondent maintains ,they were out of newsprint, , that the, press was old, and that .the "hot method" of,publicatiornproduceda poor quality of .printing. ;However, in view offevidence_in- this record that the press could be ,made operative, that with certain arrangements newsprint could still be purchased, , and that there were no immediate complaints as to the papers' readability,. I i am unable to classify .any of,these three factors as creating -an "out ' of . control", situation requiring immediate action and bypassing of the Union: If - successful in this contention ; the_, Respondent's, position wouldvirtually,mean ,that an -employer need never,bargain- over changes in conditions of employment if such -changes had any economic, justifications, regardless-of-the impact on employees. Even accepting Respondent's argument that changing to offset printing in October was out of necessit I there were still many questions which might well have been the subject of bargaining as-fully indicated by this record. In , the final analysis,,; I am concluding that, under the circumstances prevailing- here , an employer violates, Section 8(-x5) .if, after a strike begins, he does_;not give the bargaining representative an, opportunity,to bargain, about proposals to change- the existing terms and conditions of employment among which are the jobswhich were held,by employees of the mechanical department when the strike started. , ,, As ,aforementioned, the Respondent further ,contends, that, the October changes were made in accordance-with previously announced intentions., It, appears to me this argument; can also be quickly , disposed of. Vague state- ments or conversations by management, made at vanous- times sincethe early ;1960s that the printing, operations could, would, or might go offset can hardly be classified as proper notice or consultation with the-'Union. - Even ATLANTA DAILY WORLD 167 accepting testimony by Respondent in these respects the closest date wherein offset possibilities were mentioned to the Union would be during the first week in April ,1969, again some ,6 months prior to actual changeover here in question, and William A. Scott stated that in their talks on April 3 with the Union management mentioned offset but then admitted "there was no target date." Atanother stage of his testimony William Scott was asked the following question, "Did you, at any time-subsequent to the April meeting back in 1969 consult with the Union and advised them of,anyplans that you had in regard to the production of the paper?" He replied, "We just-had conversation relative to the offset prospects. There was no, consultation, as such, but just a conversation. I wouldn't call it, a consultation." It is clear that Respondent refused to give the Union any proper notification. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) ofthe Act in October 1969 by unilaterally, and without notice to or consultation with the Union, discontinuing' its hot type printing process and utilizing its cold type or- offset process for its -printing operations, thereby eliminating the jobs of employees in the unit described earlier herein.19 IV. THE EFFECT' OF, TH&UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations, of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to, trade, traffic, and, commerce among the several' States, and tend to lead to, labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the "Respondent ^ has engaged in certain unfair labor, -practices violative of-the Act, I shall recommend that it " cease and'desist' therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 'It will be recommended that the Company offer Joe, Anderson immediate and-full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent` positions, without' prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination'against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that whic`fr'he would have earned as wages from the date of the. discrimination against him to the date of offer of reinstatement less interim earnings, in, the manner set -forth in F ,W Woolworth Company, 90` NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in isis Plumbing & Heating Cc,,138 NLRB 716. I have found that the strike which took place on April 1, 19 There is some argument by the Company that the Board's 8(a)(5) bargaining order of December 9, 1969, in the prior proceeding, affords full relief. However, I have found here that the Respondent has engaged in subsequent acts derogating from its duty to bargain, and also in the instant case there are circumstances, events, and issues which were not present in the prior proceeding and different in nature from those covered by the existing Board order. See Quaker Tool & Die, Inc., 169 NLRB 1148. 20 Any claim by Respondent that these unit employees are not qualified 1969, was caused by unfair labor-practices of,Respondent. As unfair labor 'practice strikers, -Respondent's striking employees were, upon their unconditionsl,application for reinstatement, on May 29, 1969, entitled to reinstatement, and Respondent's, failure to reinstate them- to, equivalent work was a violation of Section- 8(a)(3) -of, 4the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent, offer immediate and- full, reinstatement, according to seniority, to all unfair, labor practice strikers employed in its mechanical department at the,time of their strike on,April 1, 1969 to anyposons in the appropriate unit, or substantially equivalent, relatedor converted positions which became available after the -unconditional offer of reinstatement,dismissing if^necessary any persons employed J n:,- such positions , Flafter,2,, the unconditional offer of reinstatement, and offer to all the, remaining unfair labor,practice,strikers, if.any,on the, same basis, reinstatement to any such positions which become available, hereafter, before_,offering, employment in such positions to any persons. It will be further recommend that Respondent restore-to- all such reinstated unfair labor practice strikers all seniority and other privileges, and the same working conditions they had prior to going on strike, except as such prestrike working conditions mayl`.be-altered by' agreement with Atlanta Typographical Union,No.48"m collective=bargain- ing session; and also make whole all unfair labor-practice strikers for loss of wages, with interest at 6 percent per annum, from, the time-of, their unconditional offer t&.,return to work "until one of the'following occurs: (1):They area reinstated, respectively, as provided above; (2) the Respon- - dent reaches an agreement with the Union relating to its decision, to discontinue, hot type press operations, or the effects of such -discontinuance; ;or (3) Respondent,bargain to a good faith impasse with the-Union concerning these matterS.20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent' is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in comme ce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and,(7) of the Act. 2. Altanta Typographical ' Union- No.' 48 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. mechanical department employees at Respon- dent's'"Atlanta, Georgia, operations,including_composing room employees, stereotyping employees artd pressroom employees, but excluding office clerical employees, mail- room_departmeint employees; news department employees,, editorial department employees, advertising and circulation department employees, guards, and-Supervisors-as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining withinthe meaning of Section9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since May 23, 1968, Atlanta, Typographi- - cal Union No. 48 has been the exclusive representative'of to fig present jobs should not be defense in view of Respondent's rejection of the Umon's offer to retrain the unit employees at its own expense for such jobs; and because this record establishes that the Union , at its own expense, has now trained the unit employees to perform all cold type process. C. A. Scott admitted that at the present time the Company has the same number of employees it had prior to the October change. This record also reflects the names of strikers and replacements hired. 168- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all -tile employees`in- the aforesaid unit for the purpose of, collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay;- wages, hours of employment, and,'other "terms and-'conditions of employment 5. n By`failingand refusing, on `and after-May 23, 1968, to bargain collectively , with the aforesaid labor organization, by unilateral-discontinuance in,October' 1969 of substan- tially" all remaining unit work in themechanical ' depart-` merit, -thereby eliminating jobs of employeesin the unit,,the Respondent-has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices` within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act: , ° 'Y'-- - _ " - `6. 'The" Respondent discriminated against Joe Anderson by-discharging him on March 31,196% , violating Section' 8(ai)(3)jan'd 8(aXl)-ofthe'Act. 7. The strike was ah unfair'labor practice strike, and, failure'' to reiastate-strikesr upon their conditional offer to return to work was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within'themeaning,'of Section 2(6) and (7) of theAct. ORDER21 Respondent C. A_., Scott; individually and as administra-r for n d/b/a' ,.Atlanta Daily ' "World, its officers, agents,, successors, and'assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from:. (a) Refusing to recognize and' bargain collectively with-, Atlanta- Typographical Union,'No. 48 as the exclusive representative =of its ennployees 'in the following appropriate unit:,, ; All mechanical department employees at^Respondent's' Atlanta Georgia, -operation,, including composing room. employees;' stereotyping employees ,, and,. pressroom, supervisors'as defined In the Act. (b) Uni'lat'erally discontinuing 'or subcontracting unit work, i.e., mechanical 'department operations,` `'without notice to or `consultation with the Union, or otherwise unilaterallymaking changes in the wages, hours,-andother terms and conditions of 'employment for the employees, in the appropriate unit without , prior bargaining with the' aforesai&Union. (c) In' any other manner interfering with, restraining,or coercing iemployees in'the exercise of their rights to self- 21 In4he event ,nb'exceptitions'are ,filed to this recommended Order 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 ' 10(c) of the Act and in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become-its findings, conclusions, and orde% and all`objectiions the to, shall bedecmed war ed for,alI purposes. ra In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, dhe wordsin-the. notice reading{ "POSTED, employees, but excluding office clerical employees, mailroom department employees, news department employees, editorial department employees , advertising and circulation department employees, guards,, and organization, to farm, join, or assist any labor organization, to'bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; and to engage'in other concerted activities for the purpose ofcollective bargaining , or' other mutual `aid or to refrain from-all; such activities. . Take the following '"affirmative {action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon, request, , bargain collectively with Atlanta Typographical Union No., 48 with respect to , its- October 1969 decision to discontinue hottype press operations and, if failinj to reach `an agreement thereof, 'then bargain collectively as to the effects of such discontinuance. (b) Offer the strikers who unconditionally applied for reinstatement "'on ' May 29,. 1969, immediate and full' reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,, 'without prejudice, 'to'-their seniority and other,, rights and privileges,, and make each of them whole for any loss, of earnings they- may;Lhaye,sufferedby f reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, all in accord with and in the manlier^setforth above. (c) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Joe- L.. Anderson to his former or substantially equivalent position, without - prejudice 'to his seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in themanner`set forth above.'' (d)L Preserve and; upon request, make available to the National Labor ' Relations ' - Board ' ,'or' its agents, -;for information and copying, all payroll °recdfds; social seeaity' payment records, timecards; personnelrecords andreports,, and all other-records necessary for the determination of the' amount of backpay due under these circumstances. - ' (e) Post at its printing shop and office building in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the,', notice attached hereto as "Appendix."22 Copies aof said notice, on forms provided by the' Regional Director for- Region 10, shall; after-b'eing signed by a representative ofxthe Respondent, be posted' by it'immediately upon receiptthereof and be maintained for°a period of 60 consecutive "days 'thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees'are customarily posted. Reasonable' steps, shall be taken by Respondent to insure that' said notices' are not altered', defaced, or covered'by any other`material., (f) Notify the said 'Regional Director,; in writing, within , 20 days from '''the _ date' of this Decision, what ,within, Respondent has taken to complyherewith.23 - ' BY, ORDER,OF, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD" shall be changed to;read,7POSTED PURSUANT TO AJUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. COURT OF APPEALS, ENFORCING, AN ORDER-OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" 23 In the 'eveni'tbat this recommended Order is adopted by the Board-' after exceptions have -been -filed,, this -provision shall' lre modified to ready "Notify the, Regional Director for Region 10,,in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents has,,taken to comply herewith,