San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21

SAN -FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO.-2-1; San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21 Interna tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and Cali- fornia Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Inde- pendentJournal. Case 20-CB-2205 August 4, 1971 DECISION- AND- ORDER BY CHAiaat iw MILLER AND. MEMBERS • JENKINS 'AND KENNEDY On August 3, 1970, Trial Examiner Allen Sinsheim er, Jr., issued his Decision in, the above-entitled proceedings finding that-the Respondent had engaged in and was^engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning-of't'he National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the 'attachedTrial'Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to', the Trial' Examiner's Decision arid' a brief in support thereof. The-General Counseifiled limited exceptions to the Trial- Examiner's -Decision and -a brief- in support of that, Decision.' The Charging,,Party ` also filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section "3(b)_ of the Act, the National LaborRelations_Board has delegat-, ed its powers in connection with this case to' a three- member panel. The Board has, reviewed the rulings, of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no ptejudicial error was committed. the rulings are hereb affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Exaii er's, Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the 'elie record" in the case,LLand hereby adopts the' findings, conclusions, Nand recommendations I of the Trial Examiner',, as modified below. 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,, San 'Francisco Typographical Union No. 21; International graphical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, 'agents,^a'nd representatives, shad' iake the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modi- fied. 1. Delete paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and -substitute ' the, following, paragraph in lieu thereof Initiating charges or proceedings against, or fining or otherwise disciplining, Foreman Gordon Dixon 192 NLRB No. 71 523 because of his conduct and performance of, wprk. as the selected representative-, of California News- papers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, for the purposes, of-collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. ,In fn. T8 of the 'Trial Examiner's`' Decision, substitute `a 20 for 10 fdays: -`,°. _- , r 3. Substitute the' attached Appendix A for the Trial Examiner's,Appendix A. '-,The General Counsel requests, that - the, charges,,and ;proceedings initiated- by Respondent against Dixon, as well as the resulting fine, be, considered, part of the 8(bx1XB) conduct herein. We agree that it should-be and shall modify the Trial Examiner's Recommended =Order and Appendix to reflect this finding. 2 Local Union No. 2150, I?uernationallBrotherhood ofElectrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Wisconsin'Electric Power CoVany), 192 NLRB No. 16. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO MEMBERS' - ' ' - POSTED -BY'°. ORDER„ OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOA}W `An, Agency` of the. United -'States , Government WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce California Newspapers, Inc:. d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal` in the selection of represent- ,,fives chosen 'by' it 'fora the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of, grievances. WE,, WILL NOT, institute charges,, or proceedings against Gordon ` .Dixon,, or.-,-fine'- or otherwise x discipline` him, .,because,, of his ,conduct and -performance of"work as the selected representative of California Newspapers, -Inc. d/b/a Ban Rafael Independent Journal;' for the-'purposes of collec= tive bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. WE WILL rescindall fines and'costs-and all other disciplinary ;action and excise=and expunge all records or other evidence ' " our files connected with or, related=` to the charges and proceedings against Gordon Dixon arising out of or connected 'with.the discharge-of Paul Austin. - WE WILL rescind any disphnary' action taken against Gordon' Dixonand,_exciseandexpungertat I 1I l records or other evidence in our files resulting from, charges and proceedings, brought against Gordon Dixon because of his working for the Charging' Party, during ,the course-of-the--strike called-by us. SAN FRANCISco TYPOGRAPHICM. UNION No. 21, . INTERNATIONAL - ThPO,GRAPHICAL "UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor ' Organization) 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 def aced, or covered by any other material. , , Any questions concerning this notice or compliance- with its provisions may be directed to the Board's, Office, '13050 Federal,,- Building, - Box 36047, '450 Golden Gate Avenue, San "Fr"ancisco,'"California' 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. 'TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALLEN SINsHEZMER, JR., Trial Examiner: This proceeding was heard at San Francisco, California, on May 6, 7, and 13, 1970. 1 The complaintherrein,issuedonApril10, 1970,2 based on an original .charge filed March 5,' 1970, and an amended charge filed ' April 7, 1970, alleges violations of Section 8(bxl)(B) of the Act by virtue of charges (before it) filed by Respondent Union against foreman Gordon Dixon, a union , member, which resulted in fines in one instance and which,-were- still pen4ingfitial action before the- -Union in, the . other. The, issue in the first .instance inyolves,the question of whether ,the, Respondent's action in filing charges and fining-a foreman, who was a union member, for his action` and conduct involving andsarising out of the termination Of an employee, was a violation of Section 8(bXl)(B). -The issue in-the second instance arises from charges filed against the same foreman for. continuing to-work during the course of `a strike called by.Respondent. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of thebrief s ,filed by the General Counsel, ,the , Charging ,, ;Party, and the I.esponilent, I make the following:3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS- 1. Tilt BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY California Newspapers, Inc.,, a corporation .d/bla' San Rafael Independent. , Journal, herein called,, the Charging Parry, is engaged in' commerce within the eaning of the Act I the Board's jurisdictional standards, and! so find. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED San Francisco Typographical Union No.,21, Internation- ail Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the r It had been consolidated with Case 20-CC-965 but was severed therefrom by order of the Trial Examiner at the hearing on May 7. ' An, answer to,the complaint was filed April 16, 1970, an amendment to the complaint was issued ApnT 24,==1970, an answer to the amendment to the complaint : Was ,dated ,May 6, 1970, a further amendment to the complaint was filed at; the hearing May 6, 1970, and another amendment to the complaint at the hearing on'May 13, 1470, and an amendment to the answer was filed on May 13,-1970, also at the hearing. 3 The General ,Counsel has filed a motion to correct the record herein. Respondent, is a labor organization' within the meaning of the-Act; and-I so fin& • , , , , , , - -z III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PR4^CTICBS, A. - Background The Charging Party- and Respondent -Union had been parties to collective-bargaining agreements for many years with the latest agreement bearing expiration date of November '2, 1968. 'rhereafter,,'a bargaining zielationship continued to at least ' January 7, 1970, when a strike occurred There is disagreement as to whether the terms of the` latest:', contract-"were continued, in effect, between November, 2, 1968, and January, 7, 1970, which I do_ not. consider, necessary to, resolve;herein. By the, terms of-the, agreement ending,, November , 2, 1968, and,Fof „prior, agreements, the composingroom foreman was required to be a union member. Gordon Dixon, ,at all times involved herein, was the mechanical superintendent and composing room foreman for The Journal. Dixon has been"a member of'the Ui ion for over 40',yearsand` continued` to maintain his membership during the time herein involved, except as such,may have been affected by the events which will be set forth. It was admitted, stipulated and1filnd that,Dixonwas the composing-room foreman and a supervisor within-the meaning, of, the Act-and a representative of the employer in the handling` and- adjustment of grievances - up to and„ including January 7, 1970. The record further establishes; and I find, that Dixon continued to be, up to and including the time of the hearing, composing room foreman,, a supervisor'within'the- meaning=of the Act'anda representa- tive of the, em'ployer' in the "handling and adjtistrnent of grievances who would have dealt with any grievances ' which might have arisen after January 7, t970, as well as before. B. Statement , of Pertinent Facts .,.On October 10, 1969, one of the employees of the composing room, ,a,,mem,ber of Respondent, Paul Austin, was absent after'lunch. Dixon inquired as to where he was. Austin's immediate' supervisor; .Kent 'Dreitzler, said, he didn't know but the chapel chairman might know. Dixon learned from the chapel chairman4 that Austin had taken the afternoon off. Dixon tlieninquired of Dreitzler whether Austin had said anything about leaving and Dreitzler said Austin, had not Dixon then informed',the chapel chairman that`hewas going to discharge Austin and didso. ,The following.'I onday, October` 13,the employees in,the composing room ,comprising 'Respondent's chapel, At The, Journal , met. concerning a verbal grievance - based, on Austln-ss discharge.,,Austin, spoke and,Dixon indicated he would have allowed`' Austin the timetoff if he had asked for it.' "Following discussion the ° chapel' voted to reinstate No opposition , thereto has been received, I have carefully, checked the requested corrections and find that they are m order. The motion to correct the record is hereby granted and the corrections incorporated herein as Appendix B. [Omitted-.from publication.] 4-The' chapel is, the group of printers in the employ fk he Journal and the chapel chairman is its representative in a position comparable in certain respects to a shop steward . A chapel'is a part of the structure'of the Respondent Union and its duties and functions are specified inthe Union's constitution, laws, etc, SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 21 Austin. Thereafter, ` the assistant chapel chairman asked Dixon if he would appeal the chapel's decision. Dixon said he would 'not and that he_ wasn't- going to rehire Austin- either. ,On October 17, the president of Respondent filed charges against " Dixon for failing to rehire Austin or to appeal the chapel's de_ cision.5 On November 16, at - its membership - meeting, Respondent voted to deem the charges cognizable.6 An investigating committee was then appointed and ameeting thereof set-for December 1. Dixon was requested •to appear : Upon receipt of the-letter, he telegraphed Respondent's president protesting the notice and requesting a-continuance . He was informed it was too late to cancel the meeting.? On December 21, the investigating` committee , recommended that the member- ship consider the charges worthy of trial. By letter of December - 13, Dixon was , informed -of this recommenda- tion, that it had been adopted and that a trial committee had --been appointed.-'-He` was also requested ' to appear before it on January 14, 1970. By telegram of January 13, The Journal's general - manager informed Respondent's president that he'had instructed Dixon not to appear. On January 18; 1970, the trial committee issued its report recommending four fines° of $100 each plus costs. On the same day, Respondent's members voted to, adopt the recommendations, and impose the fines . On January 23, 1970, Dixon was notified by letter of the membership's action and the total amount he was fined , $418. - On January' 29, 1970, Respondent's president preferred charges against Dixon , for failing to cease work in observance of Respondent's strike and "continuing to work thereafter. President Olson mailed a-copy to Dixon advising him -that, the charges would be presented at a membership meeting on February 15. On March 23 , Olson advised Dixon that the membership had voted at arecessed meeting on- March 15to deem cognizable -the -charges preferred on January 29 and that an investigating committee had-been appointed., Dixon was requested to appear before such committee. By l`e'tter of'May 1, Dixon was,-informed that the investigating committee had recommended that the charges were worthy 'of--trial and the membership had adopted this on April 19. "Dixon was further informed that ' a trial committee had" been appointed and was requested to appear-before it-on May 11. The trial committee met May 1 I and 2 'days later, at the hearing Respondent's president said he didn't know-exactly what action had been taken but he understood from one of the members that it was recommending that' Dixon be expelled. The foregoing represents the status of these charges at the close- of the hearing herein and `accordingly all that I, can or will consider in arriving -at a decision herein.s C. Findings and Conclusions Section 8(b)(1)(B) which is here involved provides-that: It shall be an unfair labor, practice for a labor organization or its agents- to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of- his The formal charges were four in number and specified -violations of specific provisions of ITU constitution , ITU bylaws, ITU general laws, and local-,laws, respectively. , - 6 Which means -a finding of sufficient evidence to warrant sending the matter to an investigating committee. 7 It does not appear that any issue has been raised herein as to the propriety of the proceedings as such. 525 representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, or the adjustment of grievances. 1. Respondent's action against Dixon arising from the Austin discharge ` The General Counsel contends that Respondent's actions against Dixon because of the discharge of Austn:►and his alleged failure to appeal the decision of the chapel violated the above section under, the decisions of the - Board interpreting it. The Respondent contends that the Board has misread Section 8(b)(I)(B) "to preclude any kind 'of union ` discipline of a ` foreman member irrespective of whether the discipline-is related to the foreman's authority to represent the employer in matters of collective bargain- ing and the adjustment of grievances," Apparently this contention relates to the Union's charge of refusal or failure by Dixon to comply with procedures required"by the general laws of the Union and adopted by reference in the recently expired contract. - However, the Board cases, as Respondent counsel concedes,; make no distinction between discipline for noncompliance with union rules and discipline related to the 'foreman's authority to adjust grievances where a grievance or potential grievance maybe involved In this case, as the record reflects, the application of union procedures and laws to a matter or situation involving a grievance necessarily would affect the authority of Dixon, the employer's representative with respect thereto. Respondent counsel makes an additional contention than the case is distinguished in one ,significant respect from those where the Board has expressed its views, in that the foreman's (Dlzon's) membership at the time of-the events in'the case "entirely voluntarily and cannot be' found to -have been required by a collective -bargaining agreement." Without determining whether -6r' an agreement was still in- of feet, I note two items:- First, that Dixon had attained an age w h e r e a s a m e m b e r i n g o o d s t a n d i n g he was eligible -for a ' $100 a month pension from - the Respondent' and"was - also entitled to a $500 mortuary benefit. This latter- Would certainly -impel a continuation of union membership on Dixon's part without reference to a contract. Moreover; under the Board decisions it does not appear 'to be necesss y that membership be required under a contract or there- be compulsion to -maintain memberships but it has been found sufficient that the foreman be a member subject to union control, or discipline, and that such` discipline' is either' imposed or sought to ':be imposed -by - way of expulsion, fine, or otherwise. The Board has -accordingly found 'Violations in, cases such ` as Horner, New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB No. 76, and New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of - America, United Brotherhood .,of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. S. Horner, Inc.), 176 NLRB No. 105. In neither can was the s In a brief filed by the Charging Party, it is asserted that Dixon was fined by the Union the sum of $10,000 for his action in working during the strike. This is not a part of.the formal record and was not preseated.in the form of -either a stipulation or motion . The fact of-aline, if true, in my opinion, would not materially affect resolution of any, issue hetein. Nor would, the amount of fine for there is no allegation of issue with respect thereto. 526>^ DECISIONS -,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sup rvisor who , was disciplined required to be, a union . ember The Board has also specifically held in Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P fl.and ,,272 ,of ; the,- LitAogrqphers _and Photoengravers International Union AFL- CIO (The. Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 173, which is quoted in Dallas Mailers Union Local No. 143 and International Mailers Union (Dow pany, Inc.) 1 N LR To. 49, that it is apparent Jones -Com B from the language of:Section 8(b)(I) 'B)` and the reasoning of, the Board "that it`is;notan essential element of the unfair . labor, ;practiceS that" the disciplined supervisor be a' compelled union member" under: a, union ''security clause obtained by the ln,on. It s is enough " that his , actual' meinbeyrship hasucolorably subjected- him to the offensive line in, its effect'on.his employer's right to rely upon him as arsuper or. The foregoing is contra to Respondent's contention that there must,, be. a requirement-or^, compulsion of , union membership predicated on acontract between the parties. I , accordingly conclude and find that^by imposing the fines on _ ixon because of his action involving the discharge' of" Aus ,10 :Respondent restraineiand, coerced the' Charging Part , in its selection of a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances and thereby violated Section $(b)(10)-,of the,Ac;t.11 2.. „Respondent's `action .against . Dixon ,for working du ringthestrile W ,#4,, respect. to the alleged violation by Respondent .of Section, 8(b)(i)(B); by . the charges,, proceedingsand any acti 'jstemming therefrom„; against Dixon for working duri grthe caur-se of ttlae,stzike, called `"`ratting".„ it appears that. , f. tespondentproceeded thr©u the steps of (1) finding the c arges°cogni?able, (2),to appointment of an investigat- Trig eorpinlttee} to ,(3) an, investigatigIitfinclinga,that the matter, should be tried, to (4) ,a trial whose resultswere not disclosed asof thetime of, therear„irig. There. 4r -admittedly certain differences in the action taken against Dixoi arising out of working during the strike,, from the, action, taken,against him arising out of .the Austin dischai ge.; aTo, begin with the, r impact , on the employees control,of bargaining and grievances may appear less direct insof asatdoesnot gstem. from conduct directly involving,; a gri vane. Any of feet on subsequent grievances therefore . , corn aboutthrough they impact , of. , a fine,,.expulsign , or oth discipline,, imposed upon at foreman who-,crosses a picket line for,,hiss;working during the strike.The. Union accordingly, conten t ds,that,this is-related to union member- ship and not, to conduct as, a-represent ative of the employer and that. said impact would, necessarily be.indirect and a result af+unioivmembership. unconnectedwith any effort to, 9 DoxJones" Inc; supra, p. 9, TXD. 10 the Board 'has also held that the factxthat the pressure on the emplo^er may'be'indirectrather than,direcf does not alter the ultimate fact, that p sure was exerted for the purpose of interfering with the employer's control' over its representative. See San Francisco Mailers, Union No. r 18; ITU, 112, NLRB No. 252.., ; , ' _,' +'s>s , 44ishould be noted that the;Boardhas held that even though an actual, grievance is not involved„ the fact that a representative, has the *authority , aand is coerced in.a--litre, way by-a union is a violation. See Toledo Local No. 15=P and 272-of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International 'Union, supra. restrain or coerce the, ;employer in selecting ;his representa five for handling and adjusting grievances. However, as,Set forth, ;supra, footnote 11, a-determination of restraint, and coercion of an employer in the selection of a representative for the handling or adjustment of grievances is not affected by the fact that, there are no,current grievances. -Here Again the Respondent also argues the absence,of>a contractual requirement, of, union .membership as a missing element to a findingof restraint and coercion by it. First,,as to the -latter, ,I have,-noted . before that there .would be compulsion on Dixon from;theUnion's action both-^sy-way, of threatened or potential fines and because of- threatened or,.potential loss of substantial benefits,12 were he to suffer loss of goodstanding_in the Union. Second, as the. Board has found,13a contractual requirement of union member= ship_is not a prerequisite to a finding of restraint or,coercion under Section 8(bXI)(B). The Union also contends that the Board-has not-ruled on, the precise question here and,, because the Supreme Court has held that Section, 8(b)(1) does not apply .,to the. imposition„ of a union fine 14 or to.-expulsion, that. ^thef- policies which . underlie, they Allis-Chalmers decision are, equally applicable to Section,8(b)(1)(B). Respondent argues that the Allis-Chalmers decision in essence recognizes "the, power in the chosen union to protect,,against erosion of its, status ..= ,_ through reasonable discipline of members and particularly in strike situations is- not less-important with respect to supervisors who become strike breakers then with respect,to employees who turn against the Union."_ Respondent, also,arguescogently that,thepolicy underly-, ing {8(b)(IXB) that, employers be free, ffrom undue pressures in,the selection of supervisors who handle, grievances and bargaining-is not -unreasonably affected,-by, allowing the, Union to enforce its internal rules ,againststrik breakers; and Respondent states further that a.strike parti ularly,"in the _present case,is-theuitirnate-test of strength of the Unapt} asran entity and survival of-representation rights may well, hang in^the.,balance. " It argues that in enforcing its rules in, such -situations, the supervisor-membpri,must choose to either go with it or against it and there is nomiddle ground., Respondent -contends further that in either case there is no continuing pressure against the employer under 8(b)(1,XB), because if the supervisor sides=with the,Union, the employer, is free to replace him and if he, c bs"S s the picket line he demonstrates, his freedom from union persuasion. I note first in connection -wit with the above that. 8(bX1)(B), does, not•have the proviso,dealing;withinternal union rules, and affairs that is applicable,to 8(bxl)(A) which was. involved in, the Allis-Chalmers case, supra.'5 , In New Mexico District Council of Ca'rp'enters and Joiners of America (A.S. Horner, Inc., supra), the Board said: The Respondent„ relying on N, .L.R.B. v. Al(is-Chat- 12 Substantial pension rights andfmorttiary benefits. 13 See cases cited, supra. 1 1, 14 rSee N.LItB. v. Allis-Chalmers, 388 U.S: 175. is Section 8(b)(l)(A) including the proviso thereto is as follows: It shall bean unfair labor practice, for a labor ,organization or its agents-_ . _ . ; , to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise -of the rights - -guaranteed in section 7: Provide4 Thatthis paragraph shall, not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules -with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein. SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. -21' mers Manufacturing Co.; et al., 388 U.S. 175, contends that its-conduct in disciplining Freese for violations, of its internal union rules and regulations was within its legitimate internal interests as a labor organization, as permitted- by .the proviso to Section 8(bxl)(A)l of the Act. We ft'nd no merit in this contention .,The Supreme Court's retionale in Allis-Chalmers , does not permit a labor organization to-interfere with an employer's right, under Section 8(b)(1)(B), to,selectits representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or. the adjustment of grievances. Thus, in San Francisco-Oakland,Mailers', we.distinguished the Allis-Chalmers case and held that the proviso ,to Section 8(b)(1)(A) is liinnited ,to that section only and is not a part of Section 8 (b)(1)(B).- Second, whatever , might be the effect on-a union of inhibiting its action against rank-and-file members who may work during a strike, discussed in 4Ifis-Chalmers;-the effect of only inhibiting such action against foremen is obviously quite different. The first affects all, the latter only a few by comparison. It is these whom the 'provisions of 8(b)(l)(B) are specifically -'directed ' to. Protecting an employer with respect to his control over foremen would not thwart or greatly inhibit the union's control over membersgenerally. Further, as to Respondent's `contention concerning continuing pressure against the employer, the Charging Party and , the Union 'here have had a bargaining relationship -Which has required the foreman to be a union member. A union 'strike would ordinarily have asa purpose the effecting of another `contract. There is neither reason to assume nor, evidence to conclude that the Union would not seek to , have .a union -foreman in the plant were it to enter into another contract.. If the latter is the case,, it is difficult to see how -the -i strike -and other matters could be resolved if ,the employer were to retain a nonunion foreman. Would this not pressure Dixon and hence his employer? In_ .addition the provisions of 8(hxl )(B) do not indicate that- the foreman must make a choice as a member of the Union. Rather the statute is in terms directed to the Union and what it cannot-do. The` Board has' held that expulsion of a supervisor would likely have an inhibiting "effect on his future conduct as a supervisor and representative of the Company because of his desire for reinstatement in the Union, and would . accordingly restrain and coerce the Company from retaining him as its representative within the meaning of Section , 8(b)(.lXB) of the Act "16 (Emphasis 'supplied.) The same would also be true .of other disciplinary action by fine or suspension from good standing. - Furthermore, the Trial Examiner is expected to follow the Board insofar that it has indicated a position and in this instance additionally, although the case is not identical, the Board has held in New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. S. Horner Inc.), supra, that Respondent therein violated Section 8(bXl)(B) by fining a supervisor of the Company "for failing to cease work when requested to do so by an authorized agent of the Respondent." The employer in that case was not making contributions to the Respondent's health and welfare fund. The Respondent therein was boycotting the employer with whom it did not have a contract while making it a violation 5'27 subject .to^fine for its members to work for such employer. The Board stated, "It is clear, therefore that compliance by Freese with the Respondent's demands would have had the effect of depriving the Company of the services of its selected representative` for =the, •purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." (Emphasis supplied:) A recent Trial Examiner's Decision, Milwaukee- Printing & Pressmen Assistants, Union, No.- 7 ,-TXD l-87-=70 April 2, 1970, of Trial Examiner George Downing is`also'peftineent. Therein he found, that a'unioh s` fine o€ a ww oikking foreman in charge of the pressroom #ercio'ssi^ig>ie union's-picket line violated Section = 8(b)(1)(B) `"Trial 'Exhniin"er Downing stated: As the Board - has voted,, the -f g,"'dr other disciplining of`a_managemenfepresentative^vIill have `an inhibiting effect on"hisfuture cbnduct as-a: supervisor and- representative of the employer' and, will'accbrdingly restrain the employer, "from,, retaining him 'as'Ats representative. Such disciplinary measures will also be a clear signal to'other foremen, Who under the established practice are members of the Union, that they would be subject to similar' discipline if" ` they ° administer the contract or dispose of '-grievances `; in "a '`mariner displeasing to the union. 'Thus the " effect` `of' the disciplinary action is to restrain-ands coerce the employer within the meaning-of Section 8k-1)(B) by iimiting'its t at any time tos make acid rely upon a selection of representatives from an uncoerced`group of such supervisors whoseAoyalty to [it] has''not° been prejudiced." D`allas' Ma`ilers' Union etc." (Dory ' Jones Company, Inc.), 181 NLRB No. 49 quoting from 'Toledo Blade Company,' supra. The Hornet case and the other cases ' cited' reflect the Board's interpretation of the meaning, and application zof Section 8(b)(1)(B): 1-consider these applicable and binding herein and accordingly find that by bringing''the charges and conducting the proceedings against Dixon, which could lead to disciplinary action by the ^ _Union, the Respondent restrained' and coerced the Charging Party in violation of Section 8(bxl)(B). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR = PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Charging Party, set forth, in. section III, above; occurring-in connection with theoperations,of the Charging Party described in section'!; 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Charging Party has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. 16 Dallas Mailers Union Local 181, supra 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon - the entire record in this case, I make . the following: . -, CoNCLusIONS OF LAW 4. The Charging ' Party is engaged in and affects con erce within the meaning of the Act, 2,. The . Union is-, a, labor organization within the mea g ofthe Act. The-Union has violated Section 8(bxfj(B) of the Act byfining,. Forep , Gordon Dixon for his conduct in connection ' h' ,the discharged, employee Austin as set forth above. a. The, Union; has violated Section. 8(b) (1)(B) of the Act by initiating charges And conducting proceedings pursuant thereto against Foreman Gordon Dixon for his continuing ,to, work during. the course of a strike conducted by the f Rspondent against the Charging Party. RECOMMENDED ORDER... Upon,_the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions, of law, and the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1, Ceaseand desist from: (a) In ;any manner restraining or coercing California Newspapers, Inc, dib/a San Rafael Independent Journal, in` --the selection, ` of representatives chosen by it for the purposes of, collective bargaining or the • adjustment of grievances, (b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Foreman Gordon Dixon because of his conduct and performance of work as the selected representative of California Newspapers, ,Inc., , `d%b/a'San °Rtafael Independent Journal, for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of:grievances. , . affirmative action which is Take the- following necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind all fines and costs and all other -disciplinary action against Gordon Dixon, and excise and expunge all records or other evidence in the files of Respondent 19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National `Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as`provided in, Section 102.48 of the' Rules and Regulations, be adopted ,by,the Board and become its findings,,conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes- In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the connected with or related, to the charges") and ;,proceedings against Gordon, Dixon arising out of or connected with the discharge of Paul Austin. (b) Rescind any fines, suspensions, expulsions, or other discipli nary acts that may have been-taken'against Gordon Dixon, and excise and expunge all- r'ecords' or other ' evidence in the files of` Respondent resulting- from charges and proceedings br"ought,-againstGordon Dixon because of his working for the California Newspapers, Inc:, d/b/a San Rafael ,Independent Journal, during the course of the, strike called by the Respondent. (c)^ 'Advise the said' Gordon Dixon, in -writing; that Despondent has taken` the aforesaid action'-in- compliance with paragraphs 2(a) and (b) above and that' it, will cease and desist from., the actions forbidden in paragraphs 1(a) td (b)'of this.RecommeiidedOrder. (d)-'Furnish' the Regional Director .for Region 20, in writing,, signed" copies of said notice for posting, by California Newspapers, Inc,,'d/b/a Sari Rafael Independ- ent Journal, if willing, in places where notices to employees are, customarily posted. Copies of, said notice, to be furnished by' the Regional Director,Rshall, afterbeing signed by the Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director,for disposition by him. (e) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all ,other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached, notice marked' ; "Appendix A." .Copies of said notice, to be provided by, the Regional Director, for` Region.20, shall, -after being duly signed by representatives-of the Respondent,- be posted by Respon- dent, immediatelyupon receipt thereof and be maintained by-it. for a period of,60 consecutive days thereafter 'in conspicuous-places, including, all places where notices to members and empl'oyees`are^ customarily posted.' Reasona- ble steps shall be taken-by the Respondent to insure that said- -notices are not - altered, defaced, or covered by' any other material.17' (f)Notify the Regional'Director"for Region 20; in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.ls National Labor Relations- Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant-to a Judgment, of the United Statei Court of Appeals, Enforcing an,Order of theNational Labor Relations Board." is In the event that this' Reconnnended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision-shall be modifiedto read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, "in writing,,within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."