Newark Newspaper Pressmen's Union

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Newark Newspaper Pressmen's Union No. 8 a/w International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Newark Morning Ledger Co. d/b/a Newark Star Ledger. Case 22-CB-1823 December 15, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On July 27, 1971, Trial Examiner James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.' 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 herein amended, and hereby orders that the Respondent , Newark Newspaper Pressmen's Union No. 8 a/w Internation- al Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Rescind any action taken in expelling William Fitzgerald from membership in Respondent Union and restore him to full membership. "(c) Make William Fitzgerald whole for any losses he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's action in expelling him from its membership." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Examiner's notice. 1 The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to provide in his recommended Order that Respondent be specifically ordered to (1) rescind its action taken in expelling Fitzgerald from union membership, (2) restore him to full membership, and (3) make him whole for any losses suffered by reason of such expulsion. We find ment in the exception and shall appropriately modify the recommended Order and notice APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by expelling William Fitzgerald from the Union because he recommended the discharge of James Trudel, we hereby notify all, our members and the employees of the Newark Star Ledger that: WE WILL NOT expel William Fitzgerald, or any other supervisor of the Newark Star Ledger, from membership in our Union for conduct in the performance of work in the employ of the Newark Star Ledger while he is the selected representative of that Company for the adjustment of grievances or is a likely future selection to adjust grievances on behalf of that Company. WE WILL expunge all records or other evidence in our files of the proceedings in which William Fitzgerald was expelled from our Union. WE WILL rescind any action taken in expelling William Fitzgerald from our Union and restore him to full membership. WE WILL make William Fitzgerald whole for any losses he may have suffered by reason of our action in expelling him from our membership. NEWARK NEWSPAPER PRESSMEN'S UNION No. 8 A/W INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100. 194 NLRB No. 89 NEWARK NEWSPAPER PRESSMEN'S UNION 567 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: This case turns on whether an employee was a supervisor and an agent of the Company for adjusting grievances. It is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act) arising out of charges filed January 19, 1971, by Newark Morning Ledger Co., doing business as Newark Star Ledger (herein called the Company). A complaint issued on February 25, 1971, against Newark Newspaper Pressmen's Union No. 8 affiliated with International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent or the Union), alleging that Respondent, contrary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, restrained and coerced the Company by expelling a supervisor named William J. Fitzgerald from the Union, thereby attempting to cause the Company to select someone other than him to represent it in adjusting grievances. The Union filed an answer admitting some factual allegations, denying others, and denying that it had committed unfair labor practices. The matter was tried before me at Newark, New Jersey, on April 12 and 13, 1971. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED The Company is a New Jersey corporation engaged at Newark, New Jersey, in the publishing, sale, and distribu- tion of newspapers. In the conduct of this business during the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint herein it subscribed to various interstate news services, published various nationally syndicated features, adver- tised nationally sold products, and received from its publishing operations gross revenue in excess of $200,000. It also purchased newsprint, ink, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were delivered to its Newark plant from points outside New Jersey. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization which admits to membership employees in the Company's pressroom. It has been party to a serves of collective-bargaining agreements with the Company governing the terms and conditions of employment of those employees. The most recent such agreement expired on July 15, 1970, but throughout the time of the events covered in this case the terms and conditions of employment continued in accordance with that agreement by mutual consent of the parties. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Supervisory Structure of the Company Company operations are carried on in various divisions including circulation, advertising, editorial, and prod- uction. The production division includes printing opera- tions in the pressroom which are under the immediate supervision of pressroom foreman Allen J. Powers and three assistant foremen, Charles Hampton, Irving Schwe- bel, and William J. Fitzgerald. The dispute here is over Fitzgerald's status on January 14, 1971, when he was expelled by the Union. In the absence of the foreman, which occurs about 2 nights per week and part of the time on many other nights, one of the assistant foremen has been in charge, assisted by one or possibly both of the other assistant foremen. During the week the assistant foremen rotated so that ordinarily two have been on duty during at least part of any shift. The foreman and assistant foremen do not all report at the same time on every night's shift. By mutual arrange- ment they have staggered their individual reporting times so that one or another has been present not only during the regular shift but also in advance thereof. As a result several times a week one of the assistants arrived in advance of the foreman to survey conditions for the night's operations and to give whatever directions were necessary to assure an efficient run of the presses. B. The Pressroom Staff In the pressroom the Company regularly employs between 40 and 50 employees, each guaranteed 5 nights of work per week. Because the pressroom is in operation 7 nights per week, the makeup of the staff rotates in order to man the pressroom on every shift. The Company assigns to each employee the 2 nights per week he has off work and in this manner partially controls which nights individual employees work. At the beginning of each week the foreman prepares what is known as a markup assumption which is a statement of the number of employees the pressroom will need on each night of the coming week. This markup assumption is both posted in the pressroom and handed to the Union's chapel chairman in the pressroom. The Union' assumes responsibility for supplying the indicated number of pressmen for each night. If events such as a larger than expected edition of the newspaper develop in such a way as to require a larger than anticipated number of employees in the pressroom, the foreman or an assistant foreman conveys that information to the chapel chairman as soon as possible so that the Union may supply a larger number of people. Although the Company does not officially recognize seniority in its plant, in the main it honors the seniority of pressroom employees regarding days off and work assignments in the pressroom. Thus an employee assigned to be a pressman in charge of a press is ordinarily one of the most senior employees. C. Supervisory Status of Fitzgerald There is no question but that pressroom foreman Powers is and has been a supervisor. The parties have made- no contentions regarding the supervisory status of assistant foremen Hampton and Schwebel. Nevertheless, it is implicit in the General Counsel's contention regarding Fitzgerald's supervisory status that the other two assistant foremen have throughout also been supervisors. It is noteworthy that the Union makes no contention that 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hampton and Schwebel were not supervisors. Considering all of the facts presented in this record I find that Hampton and Schwebel at all times material herein were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Fitzgerald began his employment with the Company in 1961 as a pressmen. Prior to July 7, 1970, he was normally assigned as a pressman in charge of a press. On that day according to the Company, he was promoted to assistant foreman. This so-called promotion took the form of a bare announcement placed by Powers on the weekly typewritten markup assumption addressed to the chapel chairman that "William Fitzgerald will come off the markup." His wages, however, did not change. He continued to receive an hourly wage through March 1971 as he had prior to his promotion in contrast to Hampton and Schwebel who received an annual salary. At the time he was told by Powers that the Company did not wish just then to change his method of compensation because the Company and Union were in negotiations for a new contract. He promised Fitzgerald that when the contract matter was settled he would be put on a salary and that in any case the Company would pay him a yearend bonus sufficient to equalize any disparity between his compensation and that of the other assistant foremen. In fact all three received approximately the same compensation for the calendar year 1970, Hampton receiving $16,300, Schwebel $16,266, and Fitzgerald $16,248. Hampton, Schwebel and Powers were all members in good standing of the Union, as was Fitzgerald, until his expulsion. It is beyond question that as of July 7, 1970, some change did occur in Fitzgerald's employment status whereby he thereafter assumed a status sinuliar to Hampton and Schwebel. Thus none of the three were included in the markup assumption, they all worked in the pressroom office with Powers, they wore different clothing than the rank-and-file employees whose uniforms were supplied by the Company, 'and they had unlimited sick leave as compared with 10 days' sick leave for rank-and-file employees. Under the collective-bargaining agreement the Union had the right and obligation to- supply employees. Consequently the Company did not enjoy unfettered discretion in hiring pressroom personnel. Such discretion as did exist resided in the foreman and the assistant foremen. Thus the foreman could reject a pressman supplied by the Union as incompetent or as in excess of the markup guarantee. With his concurrence the assistant foremen could do likewise and in his absence could do so on their own. The Company has published pressroom office rules which were negotiated with the Union and which provide, inter alia, "The orders and instructions of foremen and assistant foremen shall be obeyed at all times. Foreman and assistant foremen shall enforce the office rules and violations of office rules shall be cause for discriplinary action." Fitzgerald credibly testified that on occasion he had disciplined certain named employees including a pressman named Frank DeSimone in that he warned him for being tardy. DeSimone (the only one of the named employees to testify) denied that Fitzgerald had ever warned him for being late or disciplined him. I do not credit DeSimone. But in any case the giving of such warnings and discipline was normal procedure for Hampton and Schwebel, and also Fitzgerald after July 7, 1970. Fitzgerald also testified credibly that on occasion he had given pressroom employees permission to leave work on grounds of illness, and also that on infrequent occasions he had authorized overtime for employees. With respect to the pressmen who on any given night reported for work the assistant foreman exercised a limited discretion in making work assignments . In theory their discretion was unlimited. As a practical matter, however, exercise of their sound judgment resulted in assigning the more senior and, therefore, the more experienced pressmen to the more responsible jobs (including the job of pressmen in charge of a press). The assistant foreman on duty made these assignments based on his experience with the particular employee and the equipment, honoring where possible the individual preferences of the employees. In supplying a staff of pressmen sufficient to satisfy the number required for any given night by the Company's markup assumption (which contained no individual names), the Union selected individual pressmen based upon their seniority in employment with the Company. The result was that although the Company does not admit to a procedure honoring seniority, seniority in fact has had considerable impact on the assignments made by the assistant foremen. In the eyes of the Union seniority has usually been honored by the Company. Fitzgerald summarized his July 1970 change from a rank- and-file employee to his new status in the following words, "I was a journeymen pressmen on the Newark Star Ledger markup, a regular situation holder. And I would work at whatever assignment the foreman or assistant foreman placed me in. More often that not I was running a press, a pressman in charge. When I received the foreman's job, I came off the markup, went into the office as assistant foreman, and instead of being in charge of one press or instead of just being a button man or an oil man or whatever I was, specifically told to do on a given night, I assumed the job of assistant foreman and did the direction of the pressmen and of the pressroom under the foreman, the general foreman, Mr. Powers." At another point in his testimony he described his new mission as being sure the paper was produced the way the publications department had determined. More particularly, he would learn from the publications department or from the foreman the number of pages of the edition to be printed, would determine what presses were to be run, would determine what paper to use on the presses, would assign journeymen to the presses, would have the presses set so the pages would come out correctly, would go through certain prescribed quality control procedures, would tear off old "pasters," would check the work of the apprentice boys, would check the product for errors after the press run started, if substantial errors occurred would make a determination whether to stop the presses and correct the error or not and stop the presses if he so decided, and, when breakdowns in the press run occurred, would determine the cause thereof and, if mechanical in nature, direct an electrician or a machinist to correct the difficulty. NEWARK NEWSPAPER PRESSMEN'S UNION 569 D. Handling of Grievances F. Discharge of Trudel The parties are in disagreement as to whether assistant foremen, and Fitzgerald in particular , represented the Company in the handling of grievances, the General Counsel and the Company contending that Hampton, Schwebel, and Fitzgerald as well as Powers represented the Company in this regard, and the union position being that only Powers represented the Company in what may properly be called grievances. The collective-bargaining agreement provides a three- step grievance and arbitration procedure for the handling of disputes arising under the contract. As the first step in this procedure such disputes "shall in the first instance be discussed between the chapel chairman and the foreman in the shop." The Union considers that such a grievance must be one of sufficient gravity to justify writing it up for presentation to the foreman, Powers, as the first step of this procedure. It is clear that such formal grievances were presented to Powers and not to the assistant foremen. Fitzgerald testified that in the absence of the foreman the assistant foremen sometimes discussed grievances with the chapel chairman under the first step of the collective- bargaining agreement's grievance and arbitration proce- dures. However, no instance of such handling of formal grievance procedures by an assistant foreman was brought forth in the evidence and the Union's chapel chairman for 1970, Norman Steward, credibly testified that no such grievances were processed with Fitzgerald, Hampton, or Schwebel pursuant to the contract. On the other hand many minor complaints not of sufficient gravity to warrant formal presentation in writing were presented orally by the employee involved, or on his behalf by the chapel chairman, to the foreman or any of the assistant foremen including Fitzgerald. These complaints, which arose with considerable frequency involved such things as too much or too little heat in the pressroom, too much humidity, ink drippings, oil on the floor, excessive paper on the floor, and various other working conditions. In addition, on occasion they similarly complained regarding urine on the paper rolls, operation of the Blue Cross insurance program, and the laundry service. When such minor grievances were presented to Fitzgerald, or one of the other assistant foremen, he undertook to resolve the difficulty by arranging a remedy. E. Fitzgerald's Payroll Duties Commencing in July 1970 Fitzgerald was put in charge of the pressroom payroll which he prepared in accordance with the wage scales provided in the collective-bargaining agreement. Employees with complaints regarding their pay brought them to him, either in person or through the chapel chairman, and he acted thereon by making appropriate adjustments. As contended by the Union, many of his payroll duties were routine and clerical in nature. Nevertheless, because payroll complaints involved wages provided for in the contract, they were clearly disputes arising under the contract which were his responsibility to resolve on behalf of the Company. In September and October 1970 the Company experi- enced poor production in the pressroom, the result of numerous unexplained web breaks (that is, breaks in the paper running through the presses) causing considerable downtime. In an effort to correct the situation Powers instructed Fitzgerald to observe operations as closely as possible and endeavor to learn the cause of the web breaks. On October 17 Fitzgerald, according to his testimony, observed a journeyman pressman named James Trudel break a web of paper with his hand thereby causing the press to stop and resulting in downtime. Fitzgerald reported his observations to Powers who asked for his recommenda- tion. Fitzgerald recommended the discharge of Trudel for what he considered an act of sabotage. At the end of the shift that day Powers discharged Trudel. This was the first time Fitzgerald had ever recommended the dismissal of an employee , although when he was allegedly made an assistant foreman in July 1970 Powers advised him that he as well as Hampton and Schwebel had authority to fire. According to Fitzgerald, however, they would not have exercised such authority if Powers were present but would defer to him, just making their recommendation to him . Shortly before the hearing herein Fitzgerald did in fact discharge a number of pressmen. But the Union contends that by then his authority had been enlarged beyond that which he possessed at the time of Trudel's discharge or his own expulsion from the Union. G. Trudel's Charges Against Fitzgerald On November 13, 1970, Trudel filed charges with the Union that in causing his discharge Fitzgerald had violated the Union's constitution and bylaws. The Union notified Fitzgerald that a hearing would be held on the charges on January 4, 1971. On advice of counsel for the Company he did not respond to the charges or appear at the hearing. On January 14, 1971, the Union advised him that he had been found guilty of violating article IV, section 3, and article V, section 1, of its constitution and article VII, section 7, of its bylaws and that he was expelled from the Union. By article IV, section 3, of the constitution a member promises not to wrong a brother member or see him wronged if it is in his power to prevent . By article V, section 1, of the constitution each member is obligated to support, abide by, and maintain the union constitution and bylaws. Article VII, section 7, of the bylaws provides inter alia that any attempt by a member to deprive another member of employment from personal motives or with malicious intent or to supersede him in any manner shall , on trial and conviction, be punished by fine, suspension, or expulsion. Fitzgerald -did not appeal his expulsion. On January 22, 1971, Fitzgerald was advised by the insurance carrier for the Union that his insurance coverage under the disability income insurance program provided to members was being terminated because he was no longer a member and that, he could if he chose convert his coverage to an individual billing. In addition I note certain other patent disadvantages flowing from his loss of membership. For example, article III, section 1 and 3, of the Union's bylaws require that a pressroom foreman be a member of 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union, and section 8 of that article provides that no expelled member shall be permitted to work in any pressroom. The constitution of the International to which the local Union involved herein belongs provides that no person other than a member in good standing shall be recognized as a foreman of a pressroom. It also prohibits an expelled member from becoming a charter member of another local or from holding office in the International. The International constitution and also article IX, section 3, of the local bylaws disqualify his survivors from receiving death benefits paid by the International "upon the death of a full beneficiary member in good standing ...." In sum, his expulsion was accompanied by, "the loss of many valuable benefits." Dallas Mailers Union, Local 143 et al. v. N.L.R.B., 445 F.2d 730 (C.A.D.C. dec. June 25, 1971). H. The February Notice to the Pressroom On February 22, 1971, the Company posted a notice in the pressroom that effective that date Powers would-be foreman, Fitzgerald assistant and acting foreman, and Schwebel and Hampton assistant foremen. According to Fitzgerald this did not affect any change in his supervisory duties insofar as the rank-and-file employees were con- cerned but was publication of the fact that as between himself and the other two assistant foremen he was to act in place of Powers when Powers was not present. I. Discussion There is no dispute that Fitzgerald was expelled from the Union on January '14, 1971, because, pursuant to his recommendation, Powers discharged Trudel. Further, although the Union contests the assertion that Fitzgerald was a supervisor, there is no real dispute that at all times material assistant foremen Hampton and Schwe- bel were supervisors. The weight of the evidence establishes that after July 7, 1970, Fitzgerald exercised the same authority as they. Accordingly, I find that from that time on he too was an assistant foreman and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. In addition, I find that he was a supervisor after July 7, 1970, and on October 17, 1970, and January 14, 1971, because the weight of the evidence establishes that he exercised specific supervisory `authority. Thus all three assistant foremen, including Fitzgerald, regularly assigned pressroom employees to their work stations when they reported for work at the beginning of each shift and in doing so relied in part upon their judgment regarding the ability of particular employees to perform the tasks assigned. They responsibly directed the employees in the performance of their duties. On occasion Fitzgerald warned employees for such things as tardiness. During frequent absences of the foreman all three exercised limited authority to order employment of additional pressroom employees when a larger than expected press run or a need for maintenance work required a larger number than called for by the predetermined markup assumption. Fitzgerald had authority to discharge employees in the absence of the foreman and to effectively recommend discharge when the foreman was present. On October 17, 1970, he effectively recommended the discharge of Trudel. In light of all of these attributes of supervisory status, I do not think the fact that he continued to be paid wages instead of a salary is of persuasive importance given the explanation of that arrangement and the fact that all three assistant foreman received approximately equivalent compensation during 1970. The duties he performed clearly establish him as a supervisor. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 173. He was not, as contended by Respondent, merely a working foreman or a leadman. The Union further contends that even if Fitzgerald was a supervisor, he was not a company representative for the purposes of adjusting grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that he did not represent the Company in formal grievance proceedings brought under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective- bargaining agreement but that he did represent the Company in handling numerous minor complaints brought to his attention either by individual employees or the chapel chairman. The Union contends ' these latter are not grievances within the meaning of the Act. Its position seems to be that to be a grievance within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) an employee complaint must have sufficient gravity to cause it to be brought as a formal grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement and that it must qualify as a grievance as defined in that agreement. However, I find nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement to warrant a conclusion that the Company by signing, that instrument waived its right to deal with employee complaints other than by the formal grievances and arbitration procedure. Nor do I think the conclusion is warranted that the collective-bargaining agreement has somehow modified the phrase "adjustment of grievances" as used in Section 8(b)(I)(B) of the Act. The handling of minor complaints other than as formal grievances pursuant to procedures set up in a collective-bargaining agreement does constitute-the adjustment of grievances within the meaning of that section of the Act. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), supra. Fitzgerald handled such grievances on behalf of the Company and he was, therefore, its representative for the adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Finally, the Union's expulsion of Fitzgerald because he recommended Trudel's discharge clearly restrained and coerced the Company in its rights to continue to rely upon Fitzgerald to exercise his supervisory functions as well as handle grievances. As the District of Columbia Circuit noted in Dallas Mailers Union Local No. 143, et al v. N.L.R. B., supra, "Such expulsion then could very well have a definite coercive influence on the man chosen by the Company as its representative." Section 8(b)(1)(B) under- writes freedom from such coercion as well as the Company's right at any time to select its representative from an uncoerced group of supervisors whose loyalty to it has not been prejudiced. Accordingly, the Union's expulsion of Fitzgerald was, and continues to be, an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of NEWARK NEWSPAPER PRESSMEN'S UNION 571 the Act. Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc.), supra; International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 127,7, 189 NLRB No. 124. The Union argument that its conduct was vis-a-vis Fitzgerald as one of its members and that, having failed to pursue the internal appellate procedures available to him in the Union, he "cannot now be heard to complain in this forum," misses the mark. Fitzgerald is not complaining here. The complaint was issued by the Board's General Counsel pursuant to his public duty. The charge was filed by the Company. paid under Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act it is restraint and coercion of the employer which is forbidden. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and business activities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. 3. Since July 7, 1970, William Fitzgerald has been one of a group of supervisors of the Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act who are representatives of the Company for the purposes of adjustment of grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 4. By expelling William Fitzgerald on January 14, 1971, from membership in good standing in its organization because he recommended the discharge of James Trudel, and by continuing such expulsion in effect, the Union has committed and is committing unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 5. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, including expunging from its records any record of the proceedings of the Union resulting in the expulsion of William Fitzgerald from membership, advising Fitzgerald and the Company in writing of such actions, and executing and posting the notice attached hereto as an "Appendix." Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: i ORDER Respondent, Newark Newspaper Pressmen's Union No. 8, affiliated with International Printing and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from expelling or otherwise disciplining William Fitzgerald, or any other supervisor of Newark Morning Ledger Co. doing business as Newark Star Ledger, as a member of said union, for conduct in the performance of his work in the employ of said Company while he is the selected representative of that Company for purposes of adjustment of grievances, or future selection by the Company as a grievance representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge all records or other evidence in its files of proceedings in which William Fitzgerald was expelled from said Union. (b) Advise William Fitzgerald and the aforesaid Compa- ny in writing that it has taken the aforesaid action in compliance with this Order and that it will cease and desist from action forbidden in paragraph 1 of this Order. (c) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and other places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by representatives of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon 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 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. (d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 22 signed copies of the notice for posting by the aforesaid Company at its place of business in places where notices to employees are customarily posted, if that Company is willing to do so. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.3 I 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, 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 2 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 3 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."