New York Typographical Union No. 6

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD New York Typographical Union No. 6 and Linda Sni- der and Karin Lehrer and Royal Composing Room, Inc.; Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc.; and Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., Parties to the Con- tract. Cases 2 CB-6878 and 2 CB-6879 May 18, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On September 18, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and briefs in sup- port thereof. The Charging Party subsequently filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and to adopt his recommended Or- der. The Printers League Section of Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc. (hereinafter the League), is an association of approximately 150 em- ployers that operate printing plants or provide com- mercial printing services to "Book and Job offices"3 in New York City. The League exists, in part, for the purpose of negotiating collective-bargaining agree- ments on behalf of its members with the bargaining representatives of their employees, including Respon- dent. I The Charging Parties have excepted to the exclusion from evidence of a letter which was purportedly sent by the chairman of the board of Royal Composing Room, Inc., to Respondent's president concerning Charging Party Snider's attempt to obtain employment at Royal. Inasmuch as the letter was not properly authenticated, we affirm the Administrative Law Judge's ruling excluding it as hearsay evidence. However, even if the Compa- ny's letter were admitted into evidence to prove the truth concerning the Union's referral policies, it would not effect the outcome of this proceeding. 2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 A "Book and Job office" is defined by the contract as one that does printing for the public or for an individual firm or company, or one that operates a printing plant for the production of its own or others' weekly, semi-weekly, tri-weekly, or monthly publications. The exclusive hiring hall procedures in issue in this case are contained in the contract executed by the League and Respondent in December 1975. The rel- evant portions of the hiring hall agreement are set forth in full in that portion of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The Unfair Labor Prac- tices." Prior to the negotiation of the 1975 contract, each of approximately 50 employers who are not members of the League (hereinafter the Independent employers) agreed to be bound by the terms of any agreement negotiated by the League and the Union. After analyzing other sections of the contract's hir- ing hall procedures, the Administrative Law Judge analyzed in detail the preferential treatment accorded category A employees under the 1975 agreement.4 The Administrative Law Judge first noted that cate- gory A consists of union members who were em- ployed by or on layoff status from either a member of the League or an Independent employer as of Octo- ber 4, 1975, the effective date of the contract. He then explained that an employer may properly be required to recall all employees on layoff from a multiem- ployer bargaining unit of which it is a member before new employees are hired, but that a provision which also gives preference to employees on layoff from union shops not properly includable in the same col- lective-bargaining unit would be unlawfully discrimi- natory. Accordingly, he analyzed the proper scope of the bargaining unit in this case. Emphasizing, inter alia, that the Independent and League employers bound themselves in advance of negotiations to be parties to the union-league agreement, that Indepen- dent and League employers contribute equally to cer- tain funds established by the 1975 contract, that em- ployees of both share equally in the distribution of benefits from the funds, and, finally, that both League members and Independent employers are bound by the hiring hall procedures contained in the 1975 con- tract, the Administrative Law Judge held that em- ployees of both League members and Independent employers constitute a single multiemployer bargain- ing unit. He then concluded that category A was not unlawful insofar as its purpose was to give category A employees preference in filling vacancies which occur in the shops of the contracting employers. However, he viewed category A as not properly worded to achieve that result. After considering the additional preferential categories contained in the hiring hall agreement, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the provision in its entirety was unlawfully dis- criminatory and that it violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. I The provision in question defines category A employees as "those guar- anteed journeymen and apprentices working or seeking work in Book and Job shops under contract with the Union as of October 4, 1975, as named in Exhibit A of the Contract." 242 NLRB No. 54 378 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 Both the General Counsel and the Charging Parties have excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's holding that the employees of the Independent em- ployers are includable in the League unit. We find merit in these exceptions. In concluding that the League members and the Independent employers in issue herein constitute a single multiemployer unit, the Administrative Law Judge relied principally upon Ted Hicks and Associ- ates, Inc.,5 stating that in a factual setting similar to that of the instant proceeding the Board rejected the argument that the respondent had become a member of the multiemployer unit.6 In Ted Hicks the respon- dent, an Independent employer, had signed a memo- randum agreement with the union providing that the respondent had agreed to be bound by all provisions of the union-association contract, and also by any modifications, extensions, or renewals of that con- tract. The respondent further agreed to become a party to, and to be bound by, union-association agreements establishing the union's welfare fund, its pension trust, and its educational and training pro- gram trust. The Board ruled that, absent timely no- tice to the union that it wished to terminate its earlier agreement, the respondent was bound by the terms of a subsequent contract executed by the union and the association. Nevertheless, the Board stated emphati- cally in footnote 3 of its Decision that its holding did not constitute a finding that the respondent had be- come a member of the multiemployer unit. Rather, the Board concluded that the earlier memorandum agreement constituted a separate contract between the respondent and the union whereby the respondent agreed to be individually bound by the results of fu- ture agreements between the union and the associ- ation.7 Hence, the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding in the instant case that Ted Hicks sup- ports a finding that the Independent employers belong to the multiemployer association created by the League, for the holding of that case is to the contrary. Similarly, in Clark & Fritts, Inc.,8 a case involving the interpretation of the union-league agreement in issue herein, the Board by implication rejected the proposition that the Independent employers and members of the League constitute a single multiem- ployer unit. In that case the Board held that Clark & Fritts, one of the Independent employers that agreed in advance to abide by future union-league agree- ments, was in fact bound by the 1975 contract. In so concluding, in footnote I of its decision the Board expressly relied upon its decisions in Ted Hicks and Associates Inc., supra, and Phoenix Air Conditioning Inc., supra, stressing that in both of those cases, "as in this case," an employer "who was not a member of a multiemployer bargaining unit" had signed an agree- ment binding it to future union-league contracts (em- phasis supplied). Thus, interpreting the very contract here in issue, the Board impliedly rejected the conten- tion that, by agreeing in advance to be bound by fu- ture contracts negotiated by a union and a multiem- ployer association, an Independent employer becomes a member of a multiemployer unit. Hence, we reverse the Administrative Law Judge's holding herein that the Independent employers and League members in issue constitute a single multiemployer bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall reexamine per- tinent sections of the 1975 union-league agreement. Category A of the hiring hall procedures contained in the 1975 contract entitles any journeyman who was working for or on layoff status from a Book and Job shop under contract with the union as of the effective date of the contract to preferential treatment when seeking employment in any such shop. Inasmuch as League members and Independent employers are not part of a single multiemployer unit, the preference in question is not based upon the seniority or work ex- perience acquired by an employee in a single bargain- ing unit. Rather, it is based upon an employee's em- ployment in a shop under contract with the Union. Therefore, it is directly related to membership in the Union. Such a provision discriminates in favor of union members over nonmembers and, consequently, restrains and coerces employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Accordingly, we hold that, in maintaining this portion of the hiring hall agreement and in enforcing it to deny employment to Charging Parties Snider and Lehrer, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. ORDER 5232 NLRB 712 (1977), enfd. 572 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1978). 6 See fn. 14 of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 7 The respondent in Phoenix. Air Conditioning. Inc., 231 NLRB 341 (1977). also agreed to be bound both by the current contract between the union and the multiemployer association and by all succeeding agreements, absent timely notice of termination prior to the expiration of the contract. In an action involving the enforcement of the current contract, the Board held that the act of adopting an agreement in the negotiation of which it did not participate, without more, did not make the respondent a part of the mul- tiemployer bargaining unit. I New York Typographical Union No. 6 (Clark Fritts. Inc). 236 NLRB 317 (1978). Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, New York Typographical Union No. 6, New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 379 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERBERT SILBERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges of unfair labor practices filed on September 2, 1977,' by Linda Snider in Case 2-CB-6878 and by Karin Lehrer in Case 2-CB-6879, an order consolidating said cases and a consolidated complaint therein were issued on March 7, 1978, alleging that the Respondent, New York Typographical Union No. 6, herein called the Union, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(IXA) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the com- plaint alleges that the Union has collective-bargaining agreements which include exclusive hiring hall procedures that are unlawfully discriminatory and that by enforcing the unlawful hiring hall procedures the Union caused em- ployers to deny employment to Karin Lehrer on July 18 and to Linda Snider on July 21. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in these proceedings was held in New York, New York, on July 17 and 18, 1978. The briefs filed on behalf of the parties have been read and considered. Upon the entire record in these cases, and from my ob- servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Royal Composing Room, Inc., herein called Royal, a New York corporation, and Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., herein called Advertising Agencies, operate print- ing plants in New York, New York. During the calendar year 1976, which period is representative of their respective operations, Royal and Advertising Agencies both pur- chased and received goods and materials valued at in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to their respective New York locations through channels of interstate commerce from points outside the State of New York. Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropol- itan New York, Inc., herein called the League, is an associ- ation composed of employers who operate printing plants or provide commercial printing and related services to book and job shops and exists, in part, for the purpose of negoti- ating collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its members with the collective-bargaining representatives of their employees, including the Union, and administering such agreements. During the times material herein Royal and Advertising Agencies have been members of the League and their employees have been covered by a collec- tive-bargaining agreement entered into between the League and the Union. The answer admits, and I find, that Royal and Advertis- ing Agencies are employers as defined in Section 2(2) en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and I All dates refer to the year 1977 unless otherwise indicated. (7) of the Act and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The League and the Union have been parties to succes- sive collective-bargaining agreements since about 1908. The agreement in issue in these proceedings, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 contract, was executed on December 22, 1975, by the Union and the League and is effective for a 3- year term retroactively from October 4, 1975, to October 3, 1978, and thereafter for seven additional years subject to renegotiation, arbitration, and termination. Approximately 150 employers are members of the League and are bound by the terms of the 1975 contract. In addition, approxi- mately 50 employers, referred to herein as the Independent employers, who are not members of the League, also are parties to the identical agreement. The 1975 contract as drafted contemplates that the Independent employers are parties to the agreement. Among other things the agree- ment provides that "[i]n the event an employer, signatory to this contract, is not a member of the League, such employer shall, in consideration of its fair pro rata share of the ser- vices and expenses . . . to be rendered or incurred in the administration of this Section, pay monthly [Emphasis sup- plied.]" an amount into a joint administrative account. The 1975 contract also provides for a benefit and productivity fund, a welfare trust fund, and a pension plan to which the League members and the Independent employers contrib- ute on the same basis and from which benefits are paid to the employees of the League members and the Indepen- dents without distinction. Prior to the negotiation of the 1975 contract the Indepen- dent employers each executed an undertaking that it will abide by the agreement to be negotiated by the League and the Union so that upon the conclusion of the 1975 negotia- tions the Independent employers automatically became parties thereto. The nature of the arrangement between the Independent employers and the Union is described in New York Typographical Union, No. 6 (Clark & Fritts, Inc.), 236 NLRB 317 (1978). Clark & Fritts Inc., one of the Indepen- dent employers, and the Union on February 27, 1964, ex- ecuted a memorandum agreement pursuant to which Clark & Fritts, Inc. agreed to become a party to the then existing contract between the League and the Union and "to any amendments, modifications, supplements, renewals and ex- tensions thereof," and by reason thereof also became a party to the 1975 contract. The unit of employees covered by the 1975 contract is defined as including "all composing room work in Book and Job offices' covered by this Contract."3 The 1975 contract includes a special agreement that did not appear in earlier contracts which permits the employers to introduce automated and technologically improved equipment without limitation and without restrictive man- ning requirements, but which in turn requires the employers to guarantee that their composing room employees as of 2 The contract defines the term Book and Job office. The term "this Contract" is described as the agreement between the Union and the League and those who hereafter become members of the League. 380 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 October 4, 1975, who are listed by name on an appendix to the 1975 contract, will be given employment or, if unem- ployed and diligently seeking work, an income which ini- tially was set at 100 percent of what their net pay would have been had they been employed but which at the time of the hearing had been reduced to 80 percent of such net pay. A trust fund to which the employers (League members and Independents) contribute 10 percent of the gross earnings of each employee covered by the 1975 contract is estab- lished to pay the unemployment benefits. The League mem- bers and the Independent employers contribute to the same trust fund and the employees who are listed as being eligi- ble for the unemployment benefits are the employees of both the League members and the Independents. There are approximately 3,700 employees on the list who are called guaranteed employees and all but one is a member of the Union. In order that the fund remain solvent and not be an oner- ous burden on the industry the 1975 contract has several provisions designed to encourage the employment of the guaranteed employees. Thus, the contract provides for training programs, including on-the-job training, for guar- anteed employees which are designed to teach them how to operate the new equipment, and for exclusive hiring hall procedures whereunder the guaranteed employees are given preferred status. As the guaranteed employees are current employees or employees who have been laid off by the con- tracting employers, a contract provision requiring that they be given preference in employment whenever vacancies oc- cur normally is deemed lawful. Nevertheless, the General Counsel contends that the hiring hall procedures of the 1975 contract are unlawful and were unlawfully applied to deny employment to Snider and Lehrer. The hiring hall procedures set forth in the 1975 contract are as follows: are made to the Fund after October 6, 1975 who make application for other employment in the Book and Job Branch after date of ratification of this Contract. "E" employees are all other employees who make application for employment after passing appropriate tests to determine their time at the trade and qualifica- tion as journeymen. Printing Utilities Branch' It is agreed that effective with ratification, no new employees will be hired to perform work under the terms of this Agreement until all unemployed members from the Printing Utilities Branch are employed. Thereafter, new miscellaneous composing room em- ployees shall be hired exclusively through a hiring hall. There shall be two designations of applicants for work who shall have preference for work in the order of "A" and "B". "A" employees are those composing room employ- ees working or seeking work in Book and Job shops under contract with the Printing Utilities Branch of New York Typographical Union No. 6 as of October 4, 1975. "B" employees are those persons who do not qualify as "A" employees and who seek work as miscellaneous composing room employees in accord with established hiring hall procedures after October 5, 1975. "B" employees shall be available for work after such work has been made available to "A" employees, ex- cept that they may, subsequent to their employment. be bumped from employment by "A" employees who become available for work. * HIRING HALL PROCEDURES All employment in shops covered by this Agreement shall be registered through the Hiring Hall. There shall be five designations of applicants for work who shall have preference for work in the order of "A". "B", "C", "D" and "E". "A" employees only are those guaranteed journey- men and apprentices working or seeking work in Book and Job shops under Contract with New York Typo- graphical Union No. 6 as of October 4, 1975, as named in Exhibit A of the Contract. "B" employees are those journeymen and appren- tices working or seeking work in Newspaper shops un- der Contract with New York Typographical Union No. 6 as of October 5, 1975 as named in Exhibit B of the Contract. "C" employees are those journeymen members of the International Typographical Union who make ap- plication for employment in the Book and Job Branch after date of ratification of this Contract. "D" employees are those journeymen whose place of work becomes organized and for whom contributions 'Largely this involves training linotype or hot type printers and hand compositors to become cold type printers. Graphic Arts Associates It is agreed that effective January 1, 1976, no new employees will be hired to perform work under the terms of a Graphic Arts Associates Contract until all unemployed members of the Graphic Arts Associates Branch are employed. Thereafter, new employees shall be hired exclusively through a hiring hall. There shall be two designations of applicants for work who shall have preference for work in the order of "A" and "B". "A" employees are those Graphic Arts Associates working or seeking work in Book and Job shops under Contract with the Graphic Arts Associates Branch of New York Typographical Union No. 6 as of October 4, 1975. I The portion of the hiring hall procedures relating to the Printing Utilities Branch was the subject of litigation in New York Typographical Union No. 6 (Clark d Fritts, Inc.), supra. The Board there found that "it is clear that the clause quoted above requires that employers through the hiring hall give preference in employment to members of Respondent over nonmembers. The mere maintenance of such an agreement violates the Act. Although Respondent has contended that the disputed provision for the hiring hall was intended to create an industry-wide seniority system. a concept not in and of itself illegal, the attempt to do so was. at least, imperfectly expressed, as preference in referrals is keyed to Union membership." 381 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "B" employees are those persons who do not qualify as "A" employees and who seek work as Graphic Arts Associates in accord with established hiring hall proce- dures after October 5, 1975. "B" employees shall be available for work after such work has been made available to "A" employees, ex- cept that they may, subsequent to their employment be bumped from employment by "A" employees who be- come available for work. As of the time of the hearing herein there were approxi- mately 3,700 "A" persons, who are the guaranteed employ- ees; 2,000 "B" persons who are employees covered by con- tracts between the Union and four New York newspapers; approximately 12 "C" persons who are journeymen coming into the Union on travelling cards; about 6 "D" persons and about 6 "E" persons. A collective-bargaining agreement providing for an ex- clusive hiring hall does not violate the Act unless the refer- ral system is administered in a discriminatory or otherwise arbitrary manner.6 Thus, Section 8(b)(2) and (I )(A) of the Act is violated if in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall employees are denied referral to jobs because they are not members of the union7 or for some other arbitrary or irrele- vant reason.' The hiring hall procedures for the Graphic Arts Associates is almost identical in language to the hiring hall procedures for the Printing Utilities Branch. As the Board has found that the hiring hall procedures for the Printing Utilities Branch is unlawful, I1, therefore, find that the hiring hall procedures for the Graphic Arts Associates likewise is unlawful. The remaining portion of the hiring hall procedures es- tablishes five categories of preference. Employees in catego- ries B, C and D, who are members of the Union, are given preference over employees in category E. who are not mem- bers of the Union. Such preferences constitute unlawful dis- crimination and therefore the Union by maintaining and sponsoring such hiring hall procedures violates Section 8(b)])(A) and (2). Category A, however, although embracing only union employees, stands in a different posture than categories B, C and D. Category A is composed only of those employees who as of October 4. 1975, were ill the employ of league members and independents or who then had the status of 6 Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express] v N.L.R.B., 365 U.S. 667. 676 (1961). ? See N.L.R.B. v. Local 542, 542-A and 542-B, International Union of Oper ating Engineers; and William E. Ciavaglia, its business agent [Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pa.]. 485 F.2d 387. 392 393 (3d Cir. 1973): NL.R.B. Local 269. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL- CIO. and Mercer County Division, New Jersey Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. 357 F.2d 51, 55 (3d Cir. 1966); Brotherhood of Teamsters. & Auto Truck Drivers local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauf feurs, Warehousemen d Helpers of America (California Trucking Association). 188 NLRB 305, 306-307 (1971); Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 198 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices. etc. (National Maintenance Corporation). 210 NLRB 974, 976, 978 (1974). 9 See Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 365 U.S. at 675. 676. Accord: NLR.B. v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1581, 489 F.2d 635. 637 638 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 419 U.S. 1040: N.L.R.B v. International Longshoremen' Union, Local 27, 514 F.2d 481, 483 (9th Cir 1975). 9 New York Typographical Union No 6 (('lark & Fritts, Inc., supra laid off employees of League members or Independents. If the intent of category A is to require that the employers shall recall their laid off employees before they hire new employees to fill vacancies, then a contractual provision which effectuates such intent would be lawful. A subsidiary problem, however, is raised in this case. The laid off em- ployees of both the League members and the Independents are treated alike in regard to filling vacancies which occur at the shops of both groups of employers. Recall of laid off employees is a unit concept. Employees within a unit law- fully may be recalled to work within the unit before new employees may be hired. However, if the recall provision of the contract also gives preference to employees who have been laid off from other union shops (not within the collec- tive-bargaining unit) then such provision is unlawfully dis- criminatory. Thus, whether the intent of category A is law- ful also depends upon whether there is a single collective- bargaining unit composed of the employees of the League members and of all the Independents or whether the em- ployees of each Independent constitute a separate collec- tive-bargaining unit. Multiemployer bargaining has long been an accepted method of negotiating labor contracts. The basis for such multiemployer bargaining is the mutual and voluntary con- sent of the parties involved and the test for determining whether a multiemployer bargaining unit has been estab- lished is whether the employer members of the group either personally or through an authorized representative have en- gaged in joint bargaining negotiations and have manifested an unequivocal intention to be bound by group action rather than individual action.' The manifestation of an "unequivocal intention" to be bound does not require any particular formality, does not have to be in writing, does not depend upon the existence of a structured association of bargaining participants, and does not demand a specific delegation of authority from the individual employer to the multiemployer group.' On the other hand, "[als a general rule, the Board has found that an employer does not be- come a part of a multiemployer bargaining group (i.e., it does not intend to be bound by group bargaining) where it merely adopts a collective-bargaining agreement in the ne- gotiation of which it did not actually participate and which it did not authorize another to negotiate on its behalf. "'2 In the instant case the Independent employers did more than merely adopt the collective-bargaining agreement negoti- ated by the Union and the League. The employers, in ad- vance of negotiations, had agreed to be bound by the terms of the contract and the facts in the Clark & Frirts case indicate that such agreements may be of long standing as Clark & Fritts, Inc., had executed its agreement in 1964 which remained continuously in force to and including the time that the 1975 contract was negotiated. There are relatively few cases in which the question raised was whether the employees of an employer who is "o Ruan Transport Corporation. 234 NL.RB 241 (1978), and cases there cited. II Falkowski Grocery. 236 NLRB 473 (1978); Bill O'Grady Carpet Service. Inc, 185 NLRB 587 (1970): Korner KaJle Inc.. 156 NLRB 1157 (1966); Rlo nier Incorporated. Grats Harbor Division. 52 N LRB 1269 (1943): Joseph McDaniel. an Indvidual Proprietorship d/b/l (ustom (Colors Contractors. 226 NL.RB 851, 853 (1976). 12 Ruan rnvport Corporation. supra 382 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 not a formal member of a multiemployer bargaining group, but who nevertheless is bound by the terms of the collec- tive-bargaining agreements negotiated by the group, are part of the multiemployer bargaining unit." Where in those cases the Board held that the employees in question were not part of the multiemployer collective-bargaining unit it was because their employer merely had adopted the mul- tiemployer agreement. The evidence in those cases did not establish a community of interests between the employees in question and the employees in the multiemployer unit and did not point to an unequivocal intention on the part of the employer to be bound by group action rather than indi- vidual action. Here the circumstances are otherwise. The Independent employers bound themselves in advance of ne- gotiations by agreements of a continuing nature to be par- ties to the contracts entered into by the League and the Union. Further, the terms of the 1975 contract contemplate that the Independent employers and the League members would cooperate in the effectuation of the provisions of the contracts by contributing together to the funds established by the 1975 contract and by cooperating in the implementa- tion of the special agreement concerning the introduction of automated equipment in their composing rooms. Also, and most important, the employees of the Independents are treated as members of the multiemployer unit in connection with the distribution of benefits from the funds established under the 1975 contract, in connection with the operation of the hiring hall and, in general, with respect to the elabo- rate special provisions permitting the employers to install automated equipment in their composing rooms which pro- vide for training of and income benefits for employees who are displaced by reason of the introduction of such equip- ment. I find that the employees of the Independents are included in the multiemployer unit of employees of the League members.'4 Accordingly, category A of the hiring hall procedures is not unlawful insofar as its purpose is to give the guaranteed employees preference in filling vacan- cies in the shops of the contracting employers. However, in order lawfully to effectuate such intent the agreement must treat the guaranteed employees for purposes of employment preference as laid off employees who are being recalled to work and not as new hires. It is my opinion that category A as presently phrased does not do that and therefore is unac- ceptable. Further, category A is an integral part of the same hiring hall procedures which include other preferential categories that are unlawfully discriminatory. Accordingly, I find that the hiring hall procedures of the 1975 contract in " Representative of such cases are: Pacific Metals Company, Lid., et al. 91 NLRB 696 (1950); Colonial Cedar Company, Inc. and Cele 0 McVay, er al.. 119 NLRB 1613 (1958); Earl Gordon d/b/a Gordon Electric Company and James E. Reynolds, 123 NLRB 862 (1959); International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries. Local 659 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada (MPO TV of California Inc., Y-A Productions Inc.). 197 NLRB 1187 (1972); Phoenix Air Conditioning, Inc.. 231 NLRB 341 (1977). "4 See Ted Hicks and Associates. Inc., 232 NLRB 712 (1977), where in a factual setting similar to the instant proceeding the Board did not reject the General Counsel's argument that "Respondent delegated bargaining author- ity to the AGC and became a member of the multiemployer unit" in sustain- ing a complaint that the Respondent unlawfully refused to honor and to be bound by the contract negotiated by the union involved and the AGC (the multiemployer group). See also Amertcan Publishing Corporatrion. et al., 121 NLRB 115 1958). their entirety are unlawful and that the maintenance and enforcement thereof by Respondent violates Section 8(b)( )(A) and (2) of the Act. The complaint alleges that Linda Snider and Karin Leh- rer. respectively, were denied employment by Royal and by Advertising Agencies because of the Union's insistence that they were not on the A list described in the 1975 contract's hiring hall procedures and therefore were ineligible to seek employment in the composing room of those shops. These allegations of the complaint have been proved by a prepon- derance of the evidence and it is further noted that the Union admits the following allegation of the complaint: On July 20 and July 21, 1977 invoking the referral procedure... Respondent by Bertram A. Powers, oral- ly and in writing informed Lehrer and Snider that be- cause they were not on the "A" list provided for by the Association-Respondent Agreement ... the3 were not eligible to seek employment in composing rooms of book and job shops under contract with Respondent. Snider testified that on July 14 she applied for a position with Royal, that the Company's vice president, Leon Fersh- leiser, offered her a position which she accepted, and the arrangement made was that she would begin work the next week. Snider's undisputed testimony in this regard is cor- roborated by Fershleiser. Snider was not permitted to ac- cept employment at Royal because of the Union's interven- tion. Respondent admits that it advised Snider that she was not eligible to accept employment with Royal and David Poleshuck, the Union's chapel chairman at Royal, testified that on July 20 Union President Bertram Powers informed him that Snider would not be allowed to work in Royal's composing room. As to Karin Lehrer, I credit her testimony that on July 18 she applied for employment at Advertising Agencies, was given a test by Night Foreman Paul Arigo, and in a tele- phone conversation with Plant Manager Marvin Schadrin that night she accepted a position with the Company. On July 20 Lehrer telephoned Schadrin and informed him that she would be able to begin work for Advertising Agencies on August I and that prior thereto starting on July' 25 she could work 2 hours per night for training purposes. The training, however, was dispensed with. On July' 27 Foreman Arigo confirmed to Lehrer that the Company expected her to begin work on August 1. However, on July 29 Union President Bertram Powers informed Lehrer that the job at Advertising Agencies was no longer available for her. Thereupon she telephoned Advertising Agencies and spoke with Robey Riley who informed Lehrer that the Union had advised the Company that Lehrer could have a job in its composing room and that the Union was going to refer a union man for the job. Neither Arigo nor Riley was called as a witness. However, Marvin Schadrin, who was a witness for Respondent, testified that he had not offered Lehrer a position with the Company. I do not credit Schadrin. His memory of the relevant events was faulty and his answers to many questions put to him were equivocal. I find that Schadrin was an unreliable witness and to the extent that his testimony conflicts with the testimony of Lehrer I credit Lehrer. As I find that the hiring hall procedures are unlawfully discriminatory, Respondent's enforcement of them to deny 383 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment to Snider and Lehrer constitute further viola- tions of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Royal Composing Room, Inc., and Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., described in section , 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. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent's 1975 contract with the League and with the independent employers contains unlawful hiring hall procedures, I shall recommend that it cease maintaining and enforcing such provisions in its con- tracts. Having found that Respondent unlawfully caused Linda Snider to be denied employment beginning as of July 21, 1977, at Royal and unlawfully caused Karin Lehrer to be denied employment at Advertising Agencies beginning as of August 1, 1977, I shall recommend that Respondent no- tify Snider and Lehrer by letter that Respondent has no objection to their employment by Royal, by Advertising Agencies, or by any other employer with whom Respon- dent has a collective-bargaining agreement and that Re- spondent shall serve copies of said letter upon Royal. Ad- vertising Agencies, and the League. I shall also recommend that Respondent make Linda Snider and Karin Lehrer whole for any loss of earnings they suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned from July 21, 1977, in the case of Snider, and from August 1, 1977, in the case of Lehrer, until 5 days after the date that Respondent shall have served the notices described above less their respective net earnings during such periods. Backpay shall be computed by calendar quarters in accord- ance with the method prescribed in F W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and interest shall be added thereto which shall be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)." The hiring hall procedures which Respondent has been maintaining and enforcing discriminates unlawfully against persons who are not members of the Union and indicates a lack of regard for the statutory rights of employees. As the Board stated in Local No. 78, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Murray Walter, Inc.), 223 NLRB 733 (1976), "A 'broad' order is appropri- ate in situations such as this where Respondent's unfair la- bor practice is serious in nature and strikes at the very heart of the rights intended to be protected by the Act. N.L.R.B. 'I See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (4th Cir. 1941)." See also Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, Independent (Totem Beverages, Inc.), 226 NLRB 690, 700 (1976). Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respon- dent cease and desist from infringing in any manner on the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. By maintaining in effect and enforcing the hiring hall procedures in its contracts with Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and other employers which contracts became effective as of Oc- tober 4, 1975, and which procedures give preference in re- ferrals for employment to applicants who are members of Respondent as against other applicants for employment, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)I)(A) and (2) of the Act. 2. By causing Linda Snider to be denied employment with Royal Composing Room, Inc., as of July 21, 1977, and causing Karin Lehrer to be denied employment with Ad- vertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., as of August 1, 1977, because of Respondent's enforcement of the aforesaid un- lawful exclusive hiring hall provisions Respondent further has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERI6 The Respondent, New York Typographical Union No. 6, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining in effect or enforcing the hiring hall pro- cedures set forth in its 1975 contract with Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and other employers which requires preference in re- ferral for employment to be given to applicants who are members of Respondent as against other applicants for em- ployment. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Royal Composing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., or any other employer to deny employment to Linda Snider or Karin Lehrer or otherwise to discriminate against them or to discriminate against any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and al! objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 384 NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6 (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Linda Snider and Karin Lehrer for any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of the unlawful discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Linda Snider and Karin Lehrer by letter that Respondent has no objection to their employment by Royal Composing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., or by any other employer with whom Respondent has a collective-bargaining relationship and serve copies of such letter upon Royal Composing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., and Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan New York, Inc. (c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 2, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the aforementioned notice for posting at the prem- ises of Royal Composing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., and other signatories of the collective- bargaining agreement between Respondent and the League and other employers, if such employers are willing. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 17 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT enforce or maintain in effect the hiring hall procedures set forth in our collective-bargaining agreement with Printers League Section, Printing In- dustries of Metropolitan New York, Inc., to which Royal Composing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., and other employers are parties which require that preference in referrals for jobs shall be given to applicants who are members of New York Typographical Union No. 6 as against other applicants of employment. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Royal Com- posing Room, Inc., Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., or any other employer to deny employment to Linda Snider or Karin Lehrer or otherwise to discrimi- nate against them or to discriminate against any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of employer-members of the League, or of Royal Composing Room, Inc., or of Advertising Agen- cies Service Co., Inc., or of any other employer party to our 1975 collective-bargaining agreement, in the ex- ercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL advise Linda Snider and Karin Lehrer in writing that we have no objection to their employment by Royal Composing Room, Inc., or by Advertising Agencies Service Co.. Inc., or by any other employer with whom we have a collective-bargaining relation- ship and WE WILL serve copies of such letter upon said employers and the League. WE WILL make whole Linda Snider and Karin Leh- rer for any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of our unlawful conduct in causing Royal Composing Room, Inc.. to deny employment to Linda Snider and Advertising Agencies Service Co., Inc., to deny em- ployment to Karin Lehrer. NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 6 385