The Ann Arbor Press

In the Matter of HORACE G. PRETrYMAN AND ARTHUR J. WILTSE, CO-PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS AS THE ANN ARBOR PRESS and INTER- NATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION Cases Nos. C-529 and B-692.-Decided May 3, 1939 Commercial Printing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Com- pany-Dominated Union: direct sponsorship by employer ; assistance in formation by supervisory officials ; use of plant facilities ; activities directed by employer ; contrasting hostility of employer to outside union ; disestablished , as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination: discharge of seven employees for union membership and activity ; charges of refusal to reinstate strikers dismissed, due to lack of unconditional application for reinstatement-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : craft unit of composing room employees ; history of bar- gaining in industry and of organization in employer 's plant-Representatives: proof of choice : membership data and signed designation list compared with submitted list of employees in unit-Collective Bargaining : refusal to accord recognition to union as exclusive bargaining agency of all employees in unit- Strike: caused by employer's unfair labor practices-Reinstatement Ordered: of strikers, upon application ; also of discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded from dates of discharge until time that discharged employees assumed position of strikers that they would not go back to work without union agreement- Investigation of Representatives : petition for dismissed, since findings on unit and majority representation make consideration unnecessary. Mr. George Bott, for the Board. Mr. George Meader and Burke & Burke, by Mr. Rowan Fasquelle and Mr. George Burke, all of Ann Arbor, Mich., for the respondents. Mr. Harry Reifrin, and Mr. W. L. Whitney, of Detroit, Mich., for the I. T. U. Mr. Lewis M. Gill, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 16, 1938, International Typographical Union, herein called the I. T. U., by Charles E. Lougheed, representative, trans- mitted to the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, in Washington, D. C., a petition alleging that a question af- fecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- 12 N. L. R. B., No. 75. 640 HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 641 ployees of Horace G. Prettyman and Arthur J. Wiltse, copartners doing business as The Ann Arbor Press, herein called the respond- ents, and requesting an investigation and certification of representa- tives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The petition was accompanied by a charge alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. Pursuant to Article III, Section 10, and Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, an order of the Board permitting the filing of the petition and charge with the Board in Washington, D. C., was issued on April 19, 1938. On April 22, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 10, and Article II, Section 37, of the said Rules and Regulations, ordered that an investigation of the question concerning representation be conducted and that such proceeding be consolidated with the proceeding based upon the charges of unfair labor practices. On April 23, 1938, the Board issued its complaint against the respondents, alleging that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing on the consoli- dated cases were duly served upon the respondents, the I. T. U., and the Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., herein called the Association, a labor organization allegedly dominated and supported by the respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondents had, since about September 1, 1937, dominated and interfered with the formation and administra- tion of the Association and contributed financial and other support thereto; (2) that on specified dates the respondents discharged 10 named employees, and have since refused to reinstate them, because of their membership and activity in the I. T. U.; 1 (3) that on Feb- ruary 16, February 19, March 7, and March 12, 1938, the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the I. T. U., which represented a majority of the respondents' employees in an appropriate unit; (4) that the unfair labor practices as set forth caused a strike be- ginning on February 18, 1938; and (5) that on March 7, 1938, the respondents refused to reinstate the strikers, who had on March 4 requested reinstatement conditioned only upon the reinstatement of the employees unlawfully discharged and the recognition of the I. T. U. for purposes of collective bargaining. 'Virgil Brown, Sylvester Thorpe, John Liner , Edward Quirouet, Joseph Sobecki, David Brown, Nicholas Chamblin , Louis Falstreaux, William Mattingly , G. Kerby Jennings. The cases of Thorpe, Liner , and Quirouet were dismissed during the hearing upon motion by counsel for the Board. 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 29,1938, the respondents filed an answer to the complaint denying the unfair labor practices charged and asserting that the respondents were not subject to, the jurisdiction of the Board. The respondents simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for suspension of the hearing which had been scheduled. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Washington, D. C., from May 2, 1938, through May 12, 1938, before Frank Bloom, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents were represented by counsel, and the I. T. U. by one of its representatives. All participated in the hearing, and were af- forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Asso- ciation was not represented by counsel, but its president appeared and testified at the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the respondents' motions to dismiss the complaint and suspend the hearing. These rulings are hereby af- firmed. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the complaint to the proof, in regard to dates, spellings, and minor details, was granted without objection. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made various rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. We have reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. The respondents filed a brief following the hearing. Pursuant to an order duly issued by the Board directing the Trial Examiner to issue an Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner on May 28, 1938, filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. The Trial Examiner found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He denied certain motions on which ruling had been reserved at the close of the hearing, and we affirm such denials. He recommended that the re- spondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices, rein- state with back pay Jennings, Sobecki, David Brown, Mattingly, Faistreaux, and Chamblin, give certain back pay without reinstate- ment to Virgil Brown, disestablish the Association, bargain collec- tively with the I. T. U. upon request as the exclusive representative of the respondents' composing-room employees, offer reinstatement upon application to striking employees, and post appropriate notices. Subsequently the respondents and the I. T. U. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The respondents also filed a Motion to Suppress Record, which is hereby denied, a Petition for Rehearing, which is discussed hereinafter, and a request for oral argument. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 643 After one postponement and pursuant to notice served on the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held on November 29, 1938, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the argument; the I. T. U. was not represented. The respondents' Petition for Rehearing alleges that because of the great distance between their plant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Washington, D. C., where the hearing was held, the respondents were unable properly to present their evidence. In this connection, two matters must be considered. At no time have the respondents of- fered to have the testimony of any witnesses taken by deposition under oath, which is provided for, under proper circumstances, by Article II, Section 20, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. Furthermore, it appears from the respondents' Exhibit 1 in the record that they secured in Ann Arbor an injunction dated March 30, 1938, against the agents of the Board, restraining them from holding a hearing on charges against the respondents and from "requesting information from customers" of the respondents. This injunction was issued by the Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw, Michigan, and had not been dissolved at the time of the hearing. At the oral argu- ment before the Board, counsel for the respondents conceded that a hearing in Ann Arbor had been blocked by these court proceedings instituted by the respondents. While the Board always attempts to schedule hearings at places convenient to the parties, we hereby deny the Petition for Rehearing due to the circumstances set forth above. On October 5, 1938, there was filed with the Board a notice of substitution, reciting that one W. L. Whitney had replaced Harry Reifin, who had represented the I. T. U. at the hearing, as represent- ative of the I. T. U. in the case. On November 28, 1938, there was filed by W. L. Whitney a request for permission to withdraw the charges and for dismissal of the complaint, because of an alleged settlement agreement with the respondents. This document did not assert that there had been full compliance with the recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, or that the settlement agreement was participated in by any agent of the Board. Counsel for the respond- ents argued at some length in support of this request at the oral argument before the Board on November 29, 1938, but conceded that the settlement agreement did not provide for full compliance with the Trial Examiner's recommendations. It was also clear from the argument that no agent of the Board participated in the settlement. There can be no claim, of course, that the Board is bound by a settlement in which it did not participate; the question is whether, 169134-39-vol. 12-42 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in order to effectuate the public policy represented by the Act, the Board deems it advisable, as a discretionary matter, to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to the settlement agreement. In a previous case involving a similar question, we stated the following : The Board itself, representing the United States, is a party in interest in proceedings relating to unfair labor practices under the Act. No private party can sanction an employer's interfer- ence, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, nor can such a party sanction unlawful domination, interference, or support of a labor organization by an employer, in contravention of the policy of the Act. In a proper case, particularly if the agreement is concluded with the safeguard of the presence of a governmental represent- ative, we may exercise our discretion and refuse to disturb the settlement. But we will closely scrutinize all agreements pur- porting to settle or compromise charges of unfair labor practices. Under the circumstances of the present case, we do not believe the agreement has effectuated the policies of the Act and cannot therefore withhold action on its account .2 The same general considerations apply to this case. After full consideration of all the circumstances, we are not convinced that the policies of the Act would be effectuated by dismissing the complaint as requested by Whitney. The request is accordingly denied. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, con- clusions, and Order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents operate a commercial printing establishment, with the only plant and the offices located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The plant has facilities for typesetting, printing, folding, binding, and shipping of the finished materials. During the year 1937 the re- spondents delivered to customers approximately $400,000 worth of printed material. Of this amount, approximately $18,000 worth was delivered to customers outside the State of Michigan. About $150,000 worth of the total represented periodicals of various types. A sub- stantial part of these latter items was delivered by the respondents directly to the post office in Ann Arbor and sent through the mails 2Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 6 N. L. R. B. 908. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 645 to destinations both within and without the State. The postage in such instances was paid by the customers. While the record does not reveal the exact percentages of the publications sent outside the State in this manner, it was stipulated that the extent of interstate circulation of the periodicals as to which there was specific testimony was typical of all the periodicals. While the percentage and volume of interstate shipments varied somewhat as to particular publica- tions, it is apparent from a few examples that the interstate char- acter of the circulation was generally substantial. Thus, the North Central Association Quarterly, a monthly educational magazine, is sent throughout the country, about half the copies, or approximately 15,000 copies per year, going outside the State ; about 1,300 of a total of 2,400 copies of each issue of the Michigan Law Review, a legal periodical published eight times during each year by the University of Michigan, go outside the State; from January 1937 through April 1938, about 105,000 copies of the Journal of Health and Physical Education were sent outside the State, as compared to some 4,200 copies distributed within the State. In 1933 the respondents published a document to advertise their own services, entitled "Dependable Printers." The following testi- mony by Wiltse has reference to a statement in that publication : Q. You also state in this publication : "sales folders in several colors have been turned out for numerous national manufacturing plants. Four different railroad systems have placed printing on broadsides and travel literature with us. Nationally known concerns in our rapidly growing clientele have also taken ad- vantage of our facilities for printing sales catalogs, broadsides, and house organs." Is that correctly stated there? A. We can't deny that. We are located in a field in Michigan where there are probably more national manufacturers to the square foot than any other spot in the country. We are right in the center of the automobile field there. We have printed for national manufacturers in Detroit and surrounding Ann Arbor in every direction. As examples, Wiltse affirmed the fact that the respondents have put out such, work for the Nash Kelvinator Corporation and the General Motors Corporation. At another point the same document states : This widespread nature of our business has given us an even flow of work. It comes from country, villages, from cities, from outlying factories, from publishers the country over. Wiltse testified that this summary of the respondents' business was accurate. 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondents' purchases of raw materials in 1937 from within the State were valued at about $137,325, and those from without the State at about $26,500. Annual purchases of repair parts amount to about $5,000 in value, and about two-thirds come from outside the State. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Typographical Union is a labor organization af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to mem- bership employees who have had 6 years' experience in composing- room work, as well as apprentices. Foremen in the composing room are eligible. Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., is an incorporated labor organization admitting to membership only employees of the respondents. Its membership is not limited to the composing room, but is plant-wide. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Arthur J. Wiltse became a copartner in the Ann Arbor Press in January 1932, having previously been superintendent and general manager. For about 30 years prior to 1932, the Ann Arbor Press had operated its composing room under contractual relations with the I. T. U. In 1932, the respondents sought to institute a wage cut, and upon the refusal of the I. T. U. to accede to this move, Wiltse refused to renew the I. T. U. contract. A strike was then called but proved unsuccessful. The contractual relations thus sev- ered had not been renewed up until the time of the hearing, and the I. T. U. was effectually crushed in the plant for a number of years after 1932. Wiltse's attitude toward collective bargaining is set forth by him in a booklet entitled "The Abundant Life," which he published in 1937: From the time of Adam down to the day of short-hour phi- losophy, men have squirmed and twisted, bluffed and blustered in their attempts to get abundance without working for it. Col- lective bargaining has come to our national life as a new term, calculated to take from those who have to give to those who have not. But neither the term nor the method is new. Collective bargaining was used when roving bands first set upon the cara- vans of the early Egyptians. It was used on the high seas by pirates under the banner of the skull and crossbones. It was used by slave traders on the Congo villagers. Jesse James used HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 647 collective bargaining on the bankers of the Middle West. Al Capone used collective bargaining on the helpless shopkeepers of Chicago. Collective bargaining is based on the force of numbers and not on the force of justice. It has and it will destroy the abund- ance of any land; it will steal away the liberty; it will persecute the weak; if encouraged it will break down all law and ruin all government. If the term collective bargaining could be sup- planted by collective effort, collective efficiency, collective honesty, collective square-dealing, collective love of our fellow man-we would have the Abundance which has been so elusive and so desirable. At the hearing, Wiltse affirmed these views. Harry Reifin, special representative for the I. T. U and a former employee of the Ann Arbor Press, undertook in June 1937 to revive organizational interest among the composing-room employees of the respondents. One day early in June lie went to the respondents' plant and engaged one of the employees in conversation through a screen door at the side of the building. Wiltse appeared on the scene shortly and advised Reifin to "get the hell out of here." Reifin demurred, but Wiltse announced, "I will get you out of here," and went into the office. Thinking Wiltse was calling the police, Reifin beat a hasty retreat. Copartner Prettyman came out of the building and approached Reifin, shaking hands with him. Reifin and Pretty- man then had a lengthy conversation in a car parked across the street from the plant. Prettyman told Reifin that "we had both made a mistake in 1932" and remarked that he had always been satisfied with the relationship between the I. T. U. and the Ann Arbor Press prior to that time. Reifin suggested that Wiltse's advent at the plant might have caused the destruction of the relationship; Pretty- man said "he thought that there might be something to that." Pretty- man finally advised Reifin to get in touch with him, not Wiltse, in the future. In July 1937 there was enacted in the State of Michigan Public Act No. 153, setting requirements for firms doing State printing. Briefly, the statute provided that printing paid for in whole or in part from State funds "shall bear the label of the branch of the allied printing trades council of the locality in which they are printed," except under certain circumstances. To qualify as respon- sible bidders without the union label, firms were required to file sworn statements that their employees "are receiving the prevailing wage rate and are, working under conditions prevalent in the locality in which the work is produced." It was further provided that "When- 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ever a collective bargaining agreement is in effect between an em- ployer and employees who are represented by a responsible organiza- tion which is in no way influenced or controlled by the management, such agreement and its provisions shall be considered as conditions prevalent in said locality and shall be the minimum requirements for being adjudged a responsible bidder under this act." Reifin testified that he was instrumental in securing the passage of Public Act No. 153. B. The Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc. Wiltse testified that when he learned of Public Act No. 153, he envisioned a possibility of losing certain State printing business. He went on to state : "I decided that it would be necessary to try to procure from the employees some kind of collective bargaining agreement." On August 24, 1937, Wiltse called to his office Arnin Fillinger, an employee in the composing room, and told him that due to Public Act No. 153, it was essential that the respondents have a collective bargaining agreement with its employees. He went on to laud Fil- linger's qualifications for starting an organization in the plant, and supplied him with copies of the articles of association of an inside organization in another manufacturing plant, to serve as a working model. He also suggested that Fillinger seek legal advice from George Meader, counsel for the respondents in this proceeding.' Finally, Fillinger was admonished not to disclose the management's interest in the matter, but rather to make it appear that the idea was his own. Fillinger discussed the project with Clair Foster, a person in a supervisory position in the composing room .4 Foster, who is shown elsewhere in the record to be consistently hostile to the I. T. U., was enthusiastic. They made certain changes in the arti- cles of association furnished by Wiltse; Foster set up the material on one of the linotype machines and printed the revised document. Fillinger then took it to Thompson, the production manager, for his approval. Thompson suggested certain further changes, which were made, and Beatty, the plant superintendent, arranged to have one of the employees print copies of the articles. Fillinger undertook to "talk up" the proposed organization to some of the employees, re- citing to them that an organization was needed in order to retain the State business. The men appeared cool to the suggestion, and the next morning Fillinger discussed the matter with Thompson. B Meader at that time had represented the respondents in certain collection cases. ' Wiltse testified that Foster had no supervisory authority . However, Foster attended management conferences, hired at least one man, and assigned and supervised work in the composing room. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 649 Thompson warned him not to mention Public Act No. 153 to the employees any more, and suggested that Fillinger call a meeting for later in the day. Fillinger spread word that there was to be a meet- ing in the afternoon, and a number of employees met at that time in the bindery on the second floor of the plant. Cards had been printed and some were passed around by Fillinger. However, Fil- linger experienced difficulty at the meeting in arousing any en- thusiasm among the employees, due to Thompson's admonition that he refrain from disclosing the real purpose of the organization. Fillinger testified that certain employees, with whom he had dis- cussed Public Act No. 153 on the previous day, started "a whispering campaign that there was something haywire in this." The meeting broke up with no definite result being reached, except that another meeting was to be held later. Prior to the next meeting Wiltse told Fillinger that he had spoken with Meader, who was willing to help out on the legal questions in- volved in forming the organization, and suggested that Fillinger get in touch with Meader. He went on to advise Fillinger "not to worry about the illegal features connected with it," and to assure him that "everything will be all right." Fillinger discussed the matter with Taylor, a machinist in the plant, and they came to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to have Meader attend the coming meet- ing. Fillinger reported this to Wiltse, who reasserted his view that Meader should be brought in at that time. Fillinger gave in and invited Meader to the meeting. A notice had been posted on the time clock in the plant announcing the meeting at 4: 45 p. m. Meader arrived at the plant at about 4:30 and had a short talk with Fillinger before they went in to the meeting. They were somewhat late, and the employees had already elected certain officers when they arrived. Fillinger testified : "I made a statement to Mr. Meader that there is something screwy here. The employees were trying to get up their own association." One of the employees presently suggested that an attorney should be employed, and Fillinger proposed Meader, who then addressed the gathering and expressed his willingness to do the work. He then left the room, and the employees voted to hire him. Meader took the stand at the hearing and testified as to his part in the formation of the Association. According to his testimony, Wiltse called him before Fillinger did, and offered to pay him if the Association did not; Meader insisted that his payment should come from the Association; Meader went to the plant as related above and spoke to the Association meeting, proposing that the organiza- tion be incorporated; he later assisted in drawing up articles of asso- 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ciation. He further testified that he admonished Wiltse as follows during their first telephone conversation on the matter : I think you will find that I told Mr. Wiltse that if I did form that organization I proposed to represent those employees, and that I did not propose to have him tell me what kind of an organization should be formed, and I said to him, I believe, in addition to that, that possibly he ought not to have suggested to the employees that they form an organization, for the reason that maybe he had better let well-enough alone and not have an association there which could cause embarrassment at a later date. At the meeting on August 26, a committee was selected to meet with Meader and draw up a proposed constitution and bylaws. The committee met with Meader at least twice during the ensuing week, and the articles were accepted at the next meeting on September 2. Proposals for terms to be included in an agreement with the management were subsequently drawn up by a shop committee, and presented to Wiltse by the committee on September 20. The Asso- ciation proposed an 8-hour day from Monday through Friday, with 4 hours on Saturday, a 10-cent an hour increase throughout the plant, and time and a half for overtime. When the committee went in to present the proposals to Wiltse, he informed them that their demands were excessive and that he had a "counter-proposal" to offer. This was before the committee had stated what their proposals were. The committee finally did recite their proposals, and agreed to refer Wiltse's proposal to the body of the Association. A meeting was held the same day, in the bindery at the plant, and Wiltse addressed the meeting on behalf of his proposal. Clair Foster moved that the Wiltse proposal, consisting merely of the same pay for 2 hours less work per week, be accepted. The motion was carried. Following the meeting, Wiltse prodded Ekstrom, president of the Association, to have the contract signed by all the individual em- ployees. Ekstrom pointed out that the signatures of the Association officers should suffice, but Wiltse prevailed, and eventually it was signed by substantially all the individual employees. The day following the meeting at which the contract was adopted, Wiltse had Meader prepare for the respondents an affidavit of com- pliance with Public Act No. 153 and file the same with the proper administrative board of the State. Meader testified that the re- spondents' purpose was to secure a commitment from the State board so that no question as to compliance with Public Act No. 153 would thereafter be raised. Meader further testified that after doing this for Wiltse, he felt he should no longer represent the Association. As HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 651 set forth below, Meader withdrew as Association counsel late in December 1937. There were no meetings of the Association from September 20 until December 23, 1937. Fillinger from time to time suggested to Ekstrom that there be a meeting "so that it would look like we had an association." However, none was held during this period. Fil- linger explained this inactivity as follows : "Well, no one from the management had said anything about having another meeting. The thing was more or less at a standstill." The articles of association which had been prepared by Meader and the Association committee were not filed for some time. They had been returned to Meader, but the Association did not advance him any money for the filing fee of $15, and Meader was unwilling to use his own funds for that purpose.5 On the morning of December 23, Wiltse sought out Fillinger and Taylor, a machinist who was active in the Association, and ad- monished them to have the Association incorporated quickly. He said that he had found out it had not yet been done, and that he wanted it taken care of since certain State agencies were about ready to award printing contracts pursuant to Public Act No. 153. Taylor accordingly had Ekstrom call a meeting the same day. Wiltse ad- dressed the meeting, his remarks being summarized by Ekstrom as follows : He mentioned the fact that incorporation papers had not been filed and that also we were faced with a possibility of losing the State work as a result of activities by the Typographical Union. And I believe he mentioned Mr. Reifin's name, and while he could fight the thing alone it would be a great help to him if the Asso- ciation would cooperate to the extent of sending a petition to Lansing to offset the attack by Mr. Reifin and the Typographical Union and to assure the State Administrative Board that we have a responsible bargaining agency in the shop. A committee was accordingly appointed to effectuate immediate, incorporation and to draw up a petition to the State board. The committee met with Meader the following day, at which time he withdrew from his position as counsel for the Association. The committee proceeded to select another attorney, Hooper, and Hooper eventually filed articles of incorporation with the appropriate State officials, after making some minor changes in the articles as drafted originally by Meader. A petition directed to the State Administra- 6 Ekstrom explained at the hearing that the Association , having no set dues, did not yet have $15 . He also explained that Hooper, the present attorney for the Association, had refused to release certain formal papers of the Association "until he had been paid the sum of $25 which we do not have in the treasury." 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive Board and to the Tourist Association of the State of Michigan was subsequently drawn up, under circumstances to be discussed presently. The petition averred thorough satisfaction of the signa- tories with existing conditions at the Ann Arbor Press and alleged that "the claims of certain labor organizers concerning working con- ditions in the Ann Arbor Press and the functioning of our employees' association are wholly false." The circumstances surrounding the preparation of this petition are significant in showing the relation- ship between Wiltse and the Association. The committee designated to draw up the petition consisted of Parker, Falstreaux, and Roos, three employees, with Ekstrom added as an ex officio member. Nothing was done on the matter until early in January. On January 4, Wiltse sought out Falstreaux in the plant in order to prod him into action on the petition. Falstreaux's testi- mony on the point, which we accept as true, is as follows : Mr. Wiltse told me that it was vitally necessary that we have this petition immediately; told me to devote my entire time to getting such a petition, and that he had talked to Clair Foster and such, or, rather, his outline of such a petition was then being set up, and left. Clair Foster came up with the proof of this petition, and we went over it and made some slight corrections in it. Those cor- rections were made. Mr. Foster went to Mr. Wiltse's office and got some more-further corrections on it, and brought it back, and we mulled the thing over for a while. So I pointed out to Mr. Wiltse and Mr. Taylor that the Asso- ciation now had a lawyer of their own, and that we ought to take this matter up with the lawyer before circulating it. Mr. Wiltse told me to devote my entire time to it, go downtown and see the lawyer; I would be paid for it, and to stay right on the job as long as it was necessary to get this petition into his hands as quickly as possible. At about 11 o'clock in the morning, shortly before I went down to see Mr. Albert Hooper, the association attorney, and he strongly advised me against circulating such a petition. I left his office, and just before noon called up Mr. Wiltse and told him what our attorney had said, and he said that either the attorney had been misinformed or he is under the influence of someone that he should not be, and that he did not care what the attorney said; he wanted such a petition. Falstreaux yielded and had the petition typed. He then spent most of the evening getting signatures from the night crew at the plant, and a good part of the next day, January 5, getting signatures from HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 653 the day-shift employees. That same day, Falstreaux, Roos, and Ek- strom took the petition to Wiltse. Falstreaux reported that he had the signatures of all the employees but two. Wiltse wanted to know who the two hold-outs were, whereupon Falstreaux identified them as Pepper and Jennings. Wiltse himself subsequently induced Pepper to sign the petition. Later Wiltse took the petition back to Falstreaux and had him date it. Falstreaux did so, returning it to Wiltse, and did not see it again. Wiltse did not file the petition with the State officials, however. At the hearing, Wiltse admitted urging incorporation of the Associ- ation and suggesting the preparation of a petition, but denied that he had given Falstreaux any instructions regarding the petition. To the extent that his testimony conflicts with the findings set forth above, we do not credit it. Following this flurry of activity, the Association became wholly inactive until the middle of February. On February 16 an Associa- tion committee met with Wiltse, and on February 17, Wiltse again addressed a general meeting of the Association. The principal sub- ject matter was a 6-per cent wage cut, Wiltse urging acceptance of the cut by the Association. A secret ballot was taken, resulting in a vote of rejection of the decrease. As a matter of fact, Wiltse had put the cut into effect several days before, but conceded to the com- mittee on the 16th that it had been an "oversight" not to consult the Association about it. Wiltse also urged the employees to shun any strike which might be called, there having been rumors that such action was contemplated by the I. T. U. Subsequently, during the strike called by the I. T. U. and discussed below, Wiltse agreed to restore wages to the previous level. The above findings require the conclusion that the respondents con- sistently dominated, interfered with, and supported the Association. It is also relevant to note that the respondents were simultaneously engaged in various activities, set forth below, directed against the I. T. U. We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to, the Association, and have thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The discharges The complaint alleged the discriminatory discharge of ten named employees, but the cases of three were dismissed at the hearing upon motion by counsel for the Board. The other seven will be discussed individually. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Virgil Brown first worked for the Ann Arbor Press in 1930. It was a union shop at that time, and he accordingly joined the I. T. U. He worked first as a floorman and later as an operator, until the 1932 strike, in which he took part. He did not work for the respondents after this strike until April 1936, when he was taken on by Superin- tendent Beatty, who informed him that the past would be forgotten. With the exception of a short period in the late fall of 1936 when he did some part-time work in Monroe, Michigan, Brown worked steadily for the respondents until August 1937. In June 1937 Brown and William Kitchen, another of the respond- ents' employees, were elected as delegates to the Central Labor Body in Ann Arbor. Brown had rejoined the I. T. U. in November 1936, after being previously dropped for non-payment of dues. An item concerning his election to the Central Labor Body appeared in an Ann Arbor paper, and shortly thereafter Wiltse remarked to Brown that he understood he and Kitchen had joined the union again. A few days later, Wiltse commented to Brown in the plant, "I don't want to use coercion, but if this union business goes too far, I may." Wiltse testified that he was "joking" when he made this latter remark. A few weeks later, Wiltse asked Brown if he still had his union card, remarked that it would not do him much good, and asked why he did not "drop the damn thing." A day or two later, Wiltse spoke to Brown in the composing room and asked him if he knew of anyone promoting union activity in the plant. Brown expressed ignorance on the subject. On August 16, 1937, Brown was called to the office of William Thompson, production manager for the respondents, and was told that due to a shortage of work some men had to be laid off, and that he was included. Wiltse testified that work was slack in August 1937 and that Brown was among those laid off at that time because he "fooled around" on the job and talked to much. He denied that Brown's I. T. U. mem- bership was a consideration in the selection. Brown testified that he had never been criticized concerning his work, and that when he was laid off, there was ample work available. Louis Falstreaux, a hand compositor in the composing room, tes- tified that on August 9, 1937, when he first reported for work at the respondents' plant, he talked with Thompson and Wiltse briefly before going to work. Thompson and Wiltse discussed, in his presence, the question of who should be removed to make room for him. They finally decided to get rid of three men-one Butcher, Virgil Brown, and one Thorpe. Wiltse said, "Two are damn union men, and the other is a damn agitator. We are better off without all three of them." Falstreaux asked whether there was some labor trouble, and Thomp- HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 655 son assured him that there was none, that they were just "getting rid of some union men and some agitators at the plant." This testi- mony by Falstreaux was not denied, and we accept it as true. A review of the facts convinces us that Virgil Brown was laid off on August 16, 1937, because of his membership and activities in the I. T. U., and we so find. Shortly after Brown's dismissal, Wiltse directed him to a job in Monroe, Michigan. Brown has held this job since, at a rate of $40 a week. At the Ann Arbor Press he had been making 85 cents an hour and working 40 hours a week. He does not desire reinstatement. Joseph Sobecki began work for the respondents in March 1936, as a hand compositor. Some time in the spring of 1937 he was made night foreman in the composing department and press room, and in January 1938 he was made day foreman of the composing room. About Febru- ary 1, 1938, he was put on a straight salary of $60 a week, instead of the hourly rate under which he previously had worked. Fillinger, an employee in the composing room, was told by Superintendent Beatty, after Sobecki had been discharged under circumstances hereinafter discussed, that Sobecki "came the nearest to being the right kind of foreman that they ever had there." Sobecki made application to join the I. T. U. on February 15, 1938. While he was at work the next morning, Wiltse told him to come to the office for a meeting with other supervisors in the plant. Sobecki's testimony at this point, which we credit, is as follows : I began to think after joining the union, knowing that Mr. Wiltse was so much against the union, I figured maybe he would not want me in a meeting of that kind; and I asked Mr. Beatty to see if I could not be excused from that meeting on that ground. "Mr. Beatty was very much surprised to find that I had joined the union, telling me he wished I had seen him before doing so; and he thought Mr. Wiltse would be very much irritated over it. Sobecki explained at the hearing that he thought the meeting would concern the I. T. U. because about 2 months before this incident, he had been similarly called to the office and told by Wiltse "that we were to try to keep men holding Typographical Union cards out and try to hire men and hold men who would be in accord with the man- agement." Wiltse denied any recollection of such a statement, but it appears perfectly consistent with the events shown by the record as a whole, and we find that it was made. As a matter of fact, while Wiltse had not specified the purpose of the meeting to Sobecki, it actually had been called to consider what to do about a threatened I. T. U. strike, as appears from Wiltse's own testimony. Beatty informed Wiltse that Sobecki had joined the I. T. U. and did not want to come to the meeting. Foster and Taylor were in the 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD office at the time. Wiltse testified that he commented : "So I told the men then that I had found out all that I wanted to know, that I could see that something was wrong in the plant, and that they would prob- ably call a strike on us, as they said." Wiltse then called Sobecki to the office, told him that certain mis- takes in his work would warrant his discharge, berated him for not coming to the meeting, and discharged him then and there. It was stipulated at the hearing that the mistakes referred to by Wiltse were not the cause of his dismissal. Wiltse testified that he did not dis- charge Sobecki for having joined the I. T. U., but rather "because he did not come up to the conference with me and did not want to talk to me about the business in a situation which seemed to me to be vital." On the same day, Wiltse remarked to another employee in the plant that "they have even got my foreman." Also on the same day, Super- intendent Beatty told Dimetra Carras, a proofreader in the composing room, that "Sobecki had been fired for joining the union." A consideration of all the above evidence, in the light of the whole record, convinces us that Sobecki was discharged because he had joined the I. T. U., and not merely because of his failure to attend the meeting in question, and we so find. At the time of his discharge Sobecki was earning $60 a week. He has not obtained any regular and substantially equivalent employment. George Kerby Jennings was enrolled in the University of Michigan for the fall term of 1937. About October 1, he spoke with Beatty about night work at the respondent's plant. Beatty asked him if he was a union man, and Jennings replied that he was. Beatty stated : "I am not in the practice of hiring union men in this plant; we have had some, but we have had considerable trouble in the past with union men, and that is our policy, not to hire them." Jennings accordingly was not hired. He was in a debating class at the University, and thereafter took occasion to castigate the respondents' labor policies in various speeches. Some time in November, after these speeches, he received a call from Clair Foster, who told him he could work for the respondents if he still desired to do so. Jennings accepted, and worked on the night shift. Unless notified that the respondents had work for him on Friday or Saturday nights, he made a practice of working those nights in Detroit, where he had a wife and daughter. His em- ployment was not full time, even during the week, but was fairly steady. Thus, during five particular weeks he worked three nights each week, during one week he, worked two nights, during two weeks, one night in each, and during two other weeks, four nights in each. On two occasions he worked Friday nights. When Jennings received his first pay check from the respondents, he complained to Foster that he was getting a lower rate than the HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 657 man working next to him, who was doing the same type of work. Foster replied : "That is what you get for being a union man." Early in January, Falstreaux brought around the petition to the State board, as previously discussed, and Jennings refused to sign it. Falstreaux explained that the management had asked him to circulate it, but Jennings was adamant, averring that "the purpose of it was contradictory to legitimate trade unionism." As previously noted, Falstreaux told Wiltse, in response to questioning, that Jennings and one other man were the only ones who had refused to affix their names to the petition. The next day, when Jennings reported for work, Fos- ter told him there was no work for him. For the next 4 weeks Jen- nings reported each evening, except on week ends, and was regularly told by Foster that there was not enough work for him. He was subsequently rehired on February 14, under circumstances which we will discuss presently, but at this point we will consider the allegation in the complaint that Jennings was discharged on or about January 5, and refused employment until February 14, because of his member- ship in the I. T. U. and his union activities. Jennings himself testified that from time to time during this period when he reported, he observed what seemed to him ample copy on the desk. He further testified that Chamblin and Tucker, who were work- ing in the plant, told him that there was an abundance of work to be done. Chamblin testified that during this period when Jennings was being turned down nightly, overtime work in the plant was very frequent. In fact, Chamblin himself worked as much as 741/2 hours in a week in that time. Chamblin added that prior to Jennings' ter- mination from work early in January, Foster had frequently re- marked to him that Jennings was an "unfavorable person to have in the plant," referring to him as "that union guy" or "that union agitator." Wiltse testified that Beatty told him that Jennings had been replaced by Tucker because Jennings did not work week ends, whereas Tucker could work steadily. This theory does not square with Foster's repeated assertions to Jennings that there was a dearth of work, and seems highly implausible, since Jennings had made a practice of inquiring whether there would be work for him over the week end, and only going to Detroit when he was not needed at the respondents' plant. Furthermore, Tucker was hired only after Jen- nings had been reporting in vain for several weeks. The above evidence, considered in the light of the whole record, convinces us that Jennings was denied work from January 6 until February 14, 1938, because of his membership in the I. T. U. and his refusal to sign the petition to the State board, and we find that he was accordingly discriminated against in violation of the Act. About February 12 Jennings endeavored to get his job back through other means. He had a sign made and instituted a one-man picket 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD line in front of the respondents' plant. This proved effective, as Wiltse agreed to put him back to work, and Jennings resumed his position in the composing room on February 14. Foster regarded Jennings' return with unfeigned distaste. He remarked to Sobecki that he would "fix things" by giving Jennings complicated work to do, and observed to Chamblin : "That union agitator had better watch his step, for one mistake and out he goes." He nodded toward Jen- nings as he spoke. Jennings, however, worked the full night shift from Monday, February 14, through Thursday, February 17th. On the evening of February 16, Wiltse asked Jennings if he could work on week ends. Jennings said that he would be glad to do so. On his way to work on Friday, February 18, Jennings encountered Chamblin, who told him that "he had just come from Mr. Foster and that they were not going to hire any union man that night." Jennings further testified : "I went on to work and started to take off my coat, knowing that there was sufficient work in the plant because we were behind the night before. In fact, I never stopped to question Mr. Foster at that time, when he stopped and told me, `I am sorry, Jennings, but we can't work you tonight.' " Jennings immediately went to Wiltse, demanded his pay check, received it, and left the plant. The next morning he joined the strike, which had been called on the 18th under circumstances to be discussed presently. Four other complainants were also denied work on February 18. The facts in regard to them will be set forth next, and we will then consider the five cases together. Louis E. B. Falstreaux came to work for the respondents on August 10, 1937, having been hired by Thompson, the production manager. On August 5, he had spoken with Thompson on the telephone and in the course of the discussion concerning employment, he had asked if it was a union shop. Thompson replied that it was not, and asked Falstreaux if he belonged to the union. Falstreaux said that he did not, and Thompson stated : "Well, it is a damn good thing because we are radically opposed to the union down here, and you almost got yourself in bad. If you had been a union man you would not have gotten a job down here." Falstreaux worked steadily as a hand compositor until February 18, 1938. As noted above, he served as Wiltse's agent early in January to circulate the petition to the State board among the employees. He joined the I. T. U. about February 13, 1938. On the morning of February 18, Wiltse asked him if he had joined the I. T. U., and Falstreaux replied that he had. Later in the morn- ing, Wiltse urged him to reconsider, citing the fact that he had in the past given Falstreaux football tickets and moose steaks. Fals- treaux conceded that to be true, but suggested that it was irrelevant HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 659 to the question of unionism. Wiltse went on : "I didn't think you would do this to me ... Well, I can stop this thing in 15 minutes ... I can go down and get an injunction against this son-of-a-bitch and his band of cutthroats prohibiting him from interfering with my business at all." Later in the day, Wiltse redoubled his efforts to lure Falstreaux away from the Union, stating that he had a wonderful future with the respondents if he did not carry a union card, but that with a union card he was "just out of luck." Falstreaux remained adamant. That evening Superintendent Beatty approached Falstreaux with a list of the composing-room employees, and asked him if he belonged to the I. T. U. Falstreaux replied that he did. Beatty, appearing angry, told him there would be no work Saturday, the next day, and added that Falstreaux might drop in Monday and see if there was any work. Getting his check from Beatty, Falstreaux went home. Fals- treaux testified that on the 18th he was engaged in working on "a big stack of copy." Falstreaux was later chairman of the I. T. U. strike committee. His testimony as to the above matters was uncon- tradicted, and we credit it. Nicholas Chamblin started work for the respondents in September 1937, and was engaged in linotype operating until February 18, 1938. Prior to being hired, he was asked by Superintendent Beatty if he had a union card. When Chamblin replied in the negative, Beatty said : "Well, that is fine, because we are trying to weed out the union men around here." Chamblin applied for membership in and received a working permit from the I. T. U. on February 5. On February 18, he arrived at the plant slightly before 4: 45 p. m. and began looking over the copy placed by his machine, preparatory to starting work. Clair Foster came up and asked him why he had not begun work. Chamblin heatedly denied any dereliction on his part, remarking that Foster was not "fooling" him. After a brief discussion, Chamblin returned to his machine, and Superintendent Beatty came up and asked him if he belonged to the I. T. U. Chamblin said he did not, but under questioning admitted that he had made application for membership, saying "That is right, Howard. When I came here to work, you asked me if I had a card and I told you no. You said to me, `Good, we are trying to weed out the Union men around here."' Beatty responded, "Well, I will have to mark you `yes,"' and thereupon made a mark on the paper he was carrying. Beatthen told Chamblin that there would be no work for him that night. Chamblin asked Beatty if the others were to work. Beatty said that some of them were, but not Leroy Tucker, nor Jennings, nor Chamblin (all I. T. U. members). This was the first idle Friday eve- ning in Chamblin's 6 months' service with the respondents. In fact, 169134-39-vol 1 2--43 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Clair Foster had, a few days before, told him : "There is going to be plenty of work this week ... Work is stacking up something fierce around this place." Chamblin then asked Beatty if there would be work for him Saturday. Beatty said that there would not be, but added that there might be some for him Monday. Chamblin re- marked, "I think I understand." Beatty nodded. Chamblin asked for his check, received it, and left. As previously noted, Chamblin's work for the night was actually stacked by his machine when he arrived on the 18th. Chamblin's testimony on the above matters was uncontradicted. William Mattingly began work for the respondents about August 1937. He had, about 5 months previously, spoken to Wiltse about employment, but had not accepted a job at that time. On that oc- casion, he related to Wiltse that he had been ousted from the I. T. U. due to "scabbing" in a Detroit shop. Wiltse had responded : "You are the kind of man I want-men that have no use for the union." Be- fore starting work in August, Mattingly was reinstated in the I. T. U. and promised Reifin that he would report to him on any anti-union activities he observed at the' respondents' plant. When he began work, Wiltse remarked to him that he had no respect for the I. T. U. or its officers, and that he was going to "lick Reifin." Mattingly worked as a hand compositor on the day shift. On the morning of February 16, the day Joseph Sobecki was fired, Mattingly heard Wiltse say to another employee, "They have even got my foreman." Wiltse then approached Mattingly and asked him if he would go on strike if the I. T. U. should call one. Mattingly replied that he would. Wiltse told him that if he would shun any strike, he would have a job with the respondents for life. He added that he (Wiltse) would sign no contract with the I. T. U. Some time during that week, Superin- tendent Beatty had told Mattingly not to make any plans for Satur- day and Sunday, since there would be work for him on those days. On the evening of February 18, Beatty asked Mattingly if he was a member of the Union. Mattingly declined to answer. Beatty said he would put him down as having answered "yes," and added that "there won't be any work tomorrow." He said that Mattingly could come back Monday, when there might be work for him. David T. Brown worked on the night shift in the composing room. He had been employed by the respondents for nearly 4 years prior to February 18, 1938. He signed an application for membership in the I. T. U. on February 17, 1938, and became a full-fledged meter the following day. When he arrived for work about 4:45 p. m. on the 18th, Beatty asked him if he was an I. T. U. member. Brown replied that he was. A few minutes later, Beatty returned and told him it would be a "short night" that night. It appears that 3 or 4 weeks HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 661 previous, he had been told the same thing, and on that occasion work had run out at about 9 p. m. He inferred that Beatty's remark meant that he was to be let out, since there was at that time, as he testified, a full night's work on hand. He immediately communicated with Reifin and told him of Beatty's remark. Reifin advised him to join the strike, which was called early in the evening. Brown did so. Brown's rate of pay with the respondents was 741/2 cents an hour, Falstreaux's 94 cents an hour, Chamblin's 88 cents an hour, Mat- tingly's 94 cents an hour, and Jennings' 75 cents an hour. None has obtained regular and substantially equivalent employment. The complaint alleges that Jennings, Falstreaux, Mattingly, David Brown, and Chamblin were discharged on February 18 because of their membership and activity in the I. T. U. The respondents' answer denies that the men were discharged and states that they were "instructed to return to work at a later time" and failed to do so. The Trial Examiner found that they were discharged, not merely laid off temporarily, and that the discharges were due to the employees' membership and activities in the I. T. U. The respondents except to these findings. It is apparent from the record that there are several questions as to the events of February 18. There is dispute as to whether there was a genuine slackness in work, and whether, even if there were, the selection of the particular men to be let go was discriminatory. There is also the question of whether Beatty subjected the men to mere tem- porary lay-offs or actually discharged them, and in either case whether his action was discriminatory. As already noted, Mattingly and Chamblin had been asked particu- larly to be ready to work over the week end in question, because of the press of work; as Foster put it to Chamblin, "work is stacking up something fierce around this place." Jennings, Falstreaux, Chamblin, and David Brown all testified that there was ample work for them on the 18th. At the very time the men were dismissed, copy was stacked up beside their machines. The respondents introduced no direct proof as to any slackness in work. Wiltse merely testified that Beatty had told him that the work "had not flowed into the plant as he thought it would." Wiltse went on to aver that the employees could not have known whether there was enough work on hand for that week end, and that Beatty alone would be in a position to know. Wiltse did not claim such knowledge for himself. The circumstances of the dismissals are significant. Beatty made a systematic canvass of the composing room, asking each man point- blank whether he belonged to the I. T. U. Beatty dismissed only em- ployees whose reply satisfied him that they were members of the I. T. U. No others were let go. The only testimony offered by the respondents on this matter was Wiltse's statement that Beatty had 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told him that his canvass was intended to ascertain whether the I. T. U. had a majority. The testimony of Leroy Tucker should also be noted. Beatty told him on the 18th that there would be no work for him until Monday at least. A few minutes later Beatty asked him if he be- longed to the I. T. U. Tucker untruthfully said that he did not. As he was putting on his coat a few moments later, Beatty returned and said, "Did I understand you correctly?" Tucker replied, "I think you did." Beatty then averred that some work had just come in, and told Tucker he could work that night after all. This testimony was uncontradicted, and we accept it as true. The employees themselves understood that they were discharged. In this connection, there is the undisputed testimony of Dimetra Carras, a proofreader in the composing room. She did not go out on strike until February 25. A few days after the strike began, she asked Chris Anderson, the night foreman, "why Mr. Wiltse had fired the men on the night of the strike." Anderson told her "that Mr. Wiltse knew that there was going to be a strike, and that he wanted to get the ball rolling and just fire the men and see what would happen." We find that she testified truthfully. The only other testimony of the respondents on this phase of the case was Wiltse's explanation that employees are paid up in full when "we don't want to bring them back," and that the employees dismissed on February 18 were not paid up in full. That the men were justified in assuming that they were actually being discharged is indicated by a consideration of Jennings' experience, related above. He had been told by Foster that there was no work for him, after he had refused to sign the petition to the State Board. His repeated efforts to regain his job met with Foster's constant assertions that there was no work for him, although the evidence clearly reveals that during that same period the plant was extremely busy. Finally, we refer back to the statements made to Jennings, Falstreaux, Chamblin, and Mattingly when they were hired, indi- cating the respondents' determination to keep their plant as free as possible of union men. The Trial Examiner, who personally observed all the witnesses on the stand, made the following findings in regard to these events : It is clear that the last-named men were not temporarily laid off but were, as the men themselves believed, and as Anderson stated, fired. There is no doubt in the mind of the undersigned that the contention of the respondents that the "lay-offs" were caused by lack of work was a fiction invented for the purpose of the hearing; the real reason was to destroy the Union's developing strength in the composing room before the Union obtained a clear and definite majority. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 663 A careful consideration of all the evidence, in the light of the respondents' entire course of conduct shown by the record as a whole, and in view of the weight to be attached to the findings of the Trial Examiner on conflicting testimony, convinces us, and we find, that : (1) There was no slackness in work as alleged; (2) Beatty's suggestion that the men return on Monday was made in bad faith; he had no intention of putting them back to work at that time; (3) Chamblin, Falstreaux, Jennings, Mattingly, and David Brown were discharged, not temporarily laid off, on February 18; (4) Whether or not there was a slackness in work and whether they were temporarily laid off or discharged, the above-named employees were discriminatorily selected as those to be let go, because of their affiliation with I. T. U. We find that the respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Virgil Brown, Joseph Sobecki, George Kerby Jennings, David Brown, Louis Falstreaux, William Mattingly, and Nicholas Chamblin, thereby discouraging member- ship in the I. T. U. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Representatives Reifin and Lougheed were immediately informed by the men of Beatty's activities on February 18. In consequence, a strike was called on the same day. Seventeen employees, including those who had been discharged, joined the strike immediately, and two others went out the following week. The strike was still going on at the time of the hearing. We find that the strike was caused by the unfair labor practices of the respondents. D. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that "the employees of the respondents en- gaged as linotype operators, hand typesetters, stonemen, floormen, compositors, proofreaders, operators of type casting machines, lino- type machinists and otherwise in the composing room of the re- spondents' printing plant, excepting only apprentices of less than 1 year's experience in the trade, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining." The answer of the respondents denies the appropriateness of such a unit, alleging that "the entire plant of these respondents constitutes the sole and only proper collective bargaining unit." The number of employees in the entire plant varies between 105 and 125. Of these, about 33 are in the composing room, where the 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD incoming copy is set up on linotype machines or by hand. The type is then arranged and locked in forms. The actual printing is done in the pressroom on several printing presses. The respondents also have a bindery, with facilities for folding, cutting, and binding of the printed material. While the work at the plant is thus inter- dependent, Wiltse conceded at the hearing that the various depart- ments are distinct and that there is little or no interchange of workers between them. The I. T. U. is, of course, an established labor organization limited to employees in composing-room work. In fact, the I. T. U. enjoyed contractual relations with the Ann Arbor Press covering composing- room workers for about 30 years prior to the advent of Wiltse in 1932. Pressmen have their own trade union, the International Print- ing Pressmen and Assistants Union, and the binders are eligible to membership in the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders. How- ever, it appears that the I. T. U. is the only one of these organizations which has been active in the respondents' plant. The record as a whole clearly establishes that the composing-room employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. There remain certain, questions as to the inclusion or exclusion of particular indi- viduals. As indicated above, Anderson, Foster, and Sobecki are supervisory employees. Normally such employees would be ex- cluded from the unit, but since it appears that foremen are eligible to membership in the I. T. U. and that Sobecki in fact joined that organization, we shall include these three employees in the unit in this case. Beatty, the superintendent of the plant, appears on a list of composing-room employees introduced in evidence, but we think it is clear on the whole record that he should be excluded and we will do so. Others appearing on the submitted list who are to be excluded are Kayuska, who does cleaning and general unskilled chores around the plant, and Egleton, who works in the basement taking care of cuts. Miriam Westerman is a young girl who works during the day as a copyholder, reading the copy to proofreaders, who make the corrections on the proof. She began working for the respond- ents in September 1937. She occasionally does proofreading herself. It appears that she is ineligible to membership in the I. T. U., and we will exclude her also from- the unit. Hereinafter in this decision and in our Order when we refer to the unit of "composing-room employees," the term shall be understood not to include Beatty, Kayuska, Egleton, or Westerman. We find that the respondents' composing-room employees consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 665 2. Representation by the I. T. U. of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit There was introduced into evidence a list of employees in the composing room, giving the dates on which the various individuals applied for membership in the I. T. U. and the dates on which they became members. It was stipulated that the information on the list could be accepted as accurate, subject to any modification indi- cated by subsequent testimony. An inspection of the list reveals that, with the deductions from the unit indicated above, there were 27 employees within the appropriate unit on February 18.8 It also reveals that on that date 15 of the 27 had designated the I. T. U. to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. On Feb- ruary 25, two more in the,unit joined the I. T. U., making 17 of 27 on that date. Further evidence of the I. T. U.'s representative authority is shown by a letter dated March 10, 1938, delivered to Wiltse by Falstreaux on March 12, in which the signatories reaffirmed their designation of the I. T. U. for collective bargaining purposes. Seventeen of those signing the letter are included in the unit of 27. The evidence does not, on the other hand, indicate an I. T. U. major- ity before February 18. We find that on February 18, 1938, and at all times thereafter, the I. T. U. had been designated and selected by a majority of the re- spondents' employees in an appropriate unit. Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 3. The negotiations The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that the re- spondents refused to bargain collectively with the I . T. U. on Feb- ruary 16, February 19;Iarch 7, March 12, and April 7, 1938. The respondents' answer, as amended at the hearing, denies these alle- gations. While the I. T. U.'s majority was not established until February 18, we shall set forth the full course of the negotiations starting with February 16. This figure does not include Virgil Brown or William Payne. As noted previously, Brown was dismissed on August 16, 1937 , because of his membership in the I. T. U., but shortly thereafter obtained employment elsewhere and does not desire to return to work at the Ann Arbor Press. Payne, who also appears on the submitted list, was paid off in full early in the morning of February 18, 1938, before the strike was called There is no evidence or claim that his dismissal constituted an unfair labor practice. He subse- quently designated the I. TAU. to represent him. Under the circumstances , neither Brown nor Payne are to be counted in computing the I T. U.'s majority at the time the strike was called and thereafter. . 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On February 16, Wiltse met with Emil Kuchar and Harold Hoff- meyer, president and secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the Ann Arbor local of the I. T. U., at the respondents' office. Also present was one King, a salesman for the respondents. Kuchar described the conference as follows : I told Mr. Wiltse that the majority of his men in the composing room indicated a desire to join our local. Therefore, I was there to represent them . . . Mr. Wiltse, first of all, he said he did not believe that the majority of his men would join a union . . . He told me that he knows that Mr. Reifin is in this town. He called Mr. Reifin a son-of-a-bitch. He said "I know that son-of-a-bitch is in towii. He has got my men down there and is trying to make them join the union" . . . I tried to reason with Mr. Wiltse, and I offered to deal with him. I says, "Now; you don't have to deal with Mr. Reifin as long as the local is here to deal with you. As long as your men indicated their desire, we can deal at once or any time before anything further has happened." 4 But Mr. Wiltse, he again roared out like a lion. In fact, 1 never met a man in all my life that would act that way, and he told me and Mr. Hoffmeyer that he did not want to have anything to do with the local or the International Union, and he told me to run the local union for the Ann Arbor Daily News; that he is going to take care of his Ann Arbor Press, and he walked out on us. Of course, we waited for about ten or fifteen minutes, but as long as he did not return, we left the building. That was the end of the first meeting with Mr. Wiltse. Wiltse testified that he became irritated at "their threats of what they would do and so forth", admitted that he told them to run the Daily News while he ran the Ann Arbor Press, but averred "I did not get quite as violent as they described I did." We find that Kuchar's testimony is a substantially correct version of the "conference." As indicated above, the strike began following the discharges on February 18. On February 19 Kuchar and Hoffmeyer again at- tempted to institute negotiations with the respondents. Kuchar testified that they went to the office of copartner Prettyman and talked with him for a short while. His further testimony follows : I tried to persuade Mr. Prettyman to negotiate with the local officers, but he thought that he would have to consult Mr. Wiltse. . . . He called Mr. Wiltse in the room ... Mr. Wiltse walked into the room, and he looked left and right, and the HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 667 first thing he said, that he had a good notion to kick our ass out of the building, and also called Mr. Reifin a son-of-a-bitch on several different occasions, and he got into such a spell, that I got up off my chair, and. he also shook his fist at my face. Kuchar went on to testify that Prettyman saved the conference from abrupt termination at this point by telling Wiltse to leave the room. After his departure, Prettyman and Meader, who had also been present, discussed the I. T. U. bargaining demands with Kuchar and Hoffmeyer, with Prettyman, and Meader finally asking for a copy of the proposed contract and a book of laws of the I. T. U. Wiltse again testified to a somewhat milder version of his conduct on this occasion, but Kuchar's testimony, which stood up under close cross-examination by Meader, appears highly credible to us, and we find that it is a substantially accurate account of Wiltse's behavior. Neither Prettyman nor Meader testified as to this conference. The sample I. T. U. contract and book of laws requested by Pretty- man and Meader were delivered two days later. The contract pro- vided for a closed shop, among other things. A few days later, Wiltse and Prettyman met with one Barrett, an International vice president of the I. T. U., and discussed the stand- ard I. T. U. closed-shop contract. Barrett informed them that the closed shop was a necessary provision in the agreement. Wiltse and Prettyman refused to grant a closed shop, suggesting instead that the strikers be reinstated and that the I. T. U. be allowed to bargain only for its members in the composing room. No accord was reached. On March 3, Reifin sent Wiltse a letter, saying that if Wiltse would agree to take back all the strikers, including those "illegally discharged and laid off" before the strike, discharge new employees taken on in the composing room during the strike, and recognize "the right of the Typographical Union to represent all composing room employees by virtue of our majority membership", an "amicable solution" would be possible. Wiltse replied on March 7 with a letter expressing his willingness to bargain with "any employee or set of employees", but complaining that none of the representatives from the I. T. U. had presented any proof that they were the "chosen agents" of the strikers. He did not mention the matter of exclusive recognition, and refused to consider discharging the "loyal employ- ees" who had been taken on during the strike. He also said that he could not regard the strikers as employees, but would "treat and bargain with them as former employees seeking re-employment." On March 12 Reifin addressed another letter to Wiltse, and ac- companied it with a communication to Wiltse signed by 19 strikers. The latter communication designated the I. T. U. or its officers or agents as the bargaining representatives for the signatories. As 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD noted above, 17 of the signatories were within the appropriate unit of 27. Reifin's letter referred to this evidence of the I. T. U.'s ma- jority, pointed out that as a result the I. T. U. was the exclusive bargaining representative of all the composing-room employees, and demanded that Wiltse set a time and, place for the initiation of bargaining conferences relating to the composing room employees. Wiltse replied on March 15, designated Meader and George Burke, another Ann Arbor attorney, as the respondents' representatives for bargaining purposes, and suggested that Reifin get in touch with them. Apparently satisfied with the bargaining unit and the proof of the I. T. U.'s majority, he made no reference to Reifin's assertion that the I. T. U. was the exclusive representative of the composing- room employees.7 He again referred to the strikers as "our former employees." On March 19, Reifin met with Burke and Meader and discussed the possibility of an agreement, but none was reached. On April 6, Wiltse and Meader went to Lansing to confer with Governor Murphy and certain other State officials. Upon returning to Ann Arbor that evening, Meader communicated with Fillinger and Falstreaux and outlined to them a proposal for settlement of the strike. Briefly, it involved taking back the strikers gradually, with- out back pay, granting wages in accordance with the I. T. U. scale to I. T. U. members, and recognizing the I. T. U. as representative of its members only. Falstreaux communicated thin proposal to Reifin and Reifin arranged with Meader for a meeting in Detroit on the following day. The scheduled meeting was held on April 7 at the Statler Hotel in Detroit. Reifin and Lougheed represented the I. T. U., Meader and Wiltse the respondents. The respondents' proposal, outlined above, was repeated ; Reifin asked for a closed-shop contract, which was refused. Wiltse also refused to discharge employees newly hired during the strike or to disestablish the Association. Reifin asked Wiltse if he would recognize the I. T. U. as the exclusive representative of the employees in the composing room. Wiltse re- fused. The meeting broke up with no agreement having been reached. There were no further negotiations up until the time of the hearing. From the above evidence, it is clear that despite the I. T. U.'s majority in the appropriate unit, Wiltse refused to grant that organ- ization recognition as the exclusive bargaining agency for all the employees in the unit. The I. T. U. was entitled to such recognition ' It should be noted here that the new employees hired to replace the strikers are not to be deemed part of the appropriate unit during the strike. The Act expressly provides (Section 2 (3)) that the strikers and those discriminatorily discharged remain employees, and it is improper to consider as in the unit two workers-one strikebreaker and one striker-for each job. On this point, we refer to a fuller discussion in Matter of A. gartorius ci Co, Inc. and United Mine Workers of America, 10 N. L R. B. 493. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 669 under the clear terms of the Act. The fact that the respondents offered a counterproposal and otherwise dealt with the I. T. U. representatives on the matters at issue does not establish that they fulfilled their obligation to recognize and bargain with the I. T. U. as sole representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit. We have frequently held that the refusal to grant such recognition consitutes a refusal to bargain collectively within the meaning of the Act," and we so hold in this case. We find that the respondents have refused to bargain collectively with the I. T. U. as the exclusive representative of their employees in an appropriate unit, and have thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. E. The alleged refusal to reinstate the strikers The complaint alleges that on or about March 4, 1938, 18 named striking employees, acting through the I. T. U., requested reinstate- ment, "conditioned only upon the reinstatement also by the respond- ents of employees who had been discharged or laid off on and prior to February 18, 1938, in violation of law, and upon the recognition by respondents of the right of the International Typographical Union to act as exclusive representative of the composing room employees for the purpose of collective bargaining with the respondents." It further alleges that on or about March 7, 1938, "respondents refused the said request and refused to reinstate the said striking employees or any others, and refused to recognize the International Typograph- ical Union as representative of their composing-room employees." The refusal to reinstate the strikers was alleged to be in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The respondents' answer denied these alle- gations. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner made no finding sustaining or dismissing the allegations of the complaint in this respect. The I. T. U. subsequently filed exceptions, asserting that an unlawful refusal to reinstate the strikers should have been found and that back pay should have been awarded on that basis. We have set forth above the contents of Reifin's letter of March 3 and Wiltse's reply of March 7. We are unable to sustain the alle- gations of the complaint that the respondents refused to reinstate the strikers in contravention of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The re- quest for reinstatement was conditioned on the reinstatement of the 8 See Matter of MoKaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North .&menca, Local No 1139, 10 N. L. R. B. 33; Matter of The Griswold Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No. 1197, 6 N. L. R. B. 298; Matter of McNeely & Price Company and National Leather Workers Association, Local No. 30, of the C. 1. 0., 6 N. L. R. B. 800. 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees discharged before the strike and upon recognition of the I. T. U.'s status as exclusive bargaining representative of the com- posing-room employees. We considered a similar situation in the Fansteel Metallwtrgical Corporation case,9 and what we said there is applicable here: It might be argued that since the Union was demanding as a condition to reinstatement only something to which they were entitled under the Act-recognition and collective bargaining- the respondent in illegally refusing this demand should be con- sidered as discriminatorily refusing to reinstate the strikers. We do not take this view. So long as the employees were un- willing to return to work under the conditions existing at the time the strike was called, however just the grounds on which their position was based, it cannot be said that the respondent was refusing to reinstate them. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint in this regard. However, since the strike was caused by unfair labor practices, our order will provide for reinstatement of the strikers upon application. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY In addition to requiring the respondents to cease and desist from their unfair labor practices, our order will provide for certain af- firmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. We have found that the respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed support to, 'the Association. Under the circumstances, the Association is in- capable of serving as a true representative of the employees. Ef- fectuating the policies of the Act requires that the respondents dis- establish the Association as a representative of its employees, and our order will so provide. 9Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America. Local 66, 5 N L R B 930. The partial reversal of the Board 's order in National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corpora- tion, 59 S Ct 400 ( 1939), did not concern that portion of the case which we are discussing here HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 671 The discharged employees would normally be ordered reinstated with back pay from the date of their discharges to the date of their reinstatement. However, the circumstances of this case make ap- propriate a modification of the usual order. As set forth above, Falstreaux, David Brown, Mattingly, Jennings, and Chamblin were discharged on February 18, and Sobecki on February 16, 1938. Once the strike was called, however, they all joined the ranks of the other strikers, and it is apparent from the record that they subsequently shared the attitude of the others that they would not return to work unless an agreement settling the strike was reached between the respondents and the I. T. U. Thus, one morning during the strike, Beatty asked Falstreaux to come back to work, and Falstreaux told him "I did not care to go back to work unless they all went back." The exact date of this occurrence does not appear. In any event, we think that Reifin's letters of March 3 and March 12, together with the communication from the strikers accompanying the March 12 letter, adequately show that by March 12 all six of these men had taken a stand against returning to work without settlement of the whole controversy between the respondents and the I. T. U. Thus, the communication accompanying Reifin's March 12 letter alleged that many of the signatories had been asked to return to work indi- vidually, reiterated that all had designated the I. T. U. to negotiate for them and concluded with the following paragraph : At any time negotiations for the reemployment of any of our members is contemplated we would therefore suggest that you contact Vice-President Barrett, Representatives Lougheed or Reifin of the International Typographical Union; or Emil Kuchar or Harold Hoffmeyer, president and secretary respec- tively of Ann Arbor Typographical Union #154. These officials will be glad to arrange for a conference date mutually satisfac- tory in order to negotiate an agreement relative to conditions of our employment, and we are willing to abide by their judgment in the matter. It is apparent that the signatories thus formally indicated their unwillingness to return without an agreement negotiated by the I. T. U. This communication was signed by Jennings, Chamblin, Falstreaux, Sobecki, David Brown, and Mattingly, among others, and was delivered to the respondents on March 12. We have considered this type of question before. In Matter of Hemp & Company of Illinois,10 certain workers had been unlawfully locked out by the respondent in that case. At the hearing they took the position that they would not accept an offer of reinstatement un- 10Matter of Hemp & Company of Illinois, a Corporation and Federal Labor Union, Local No. 21284, 9 N L. R. B 449. 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD less the respondent would recognize the Union as their bargaining representative. Prior to the hearing, three of the men had rejected individual offers of reemployment for the same reason. In discuss- ing the question of back pay, we stated : We have refused to award back pay to employees who vol- untarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor practices. The reasons for that policy impel us to suspend the accrual of back pay in this case from the date of the hear- ing to the date of application for reinstatement as to all the union men except the three who rejected an offer to return to work prior to the hearing. As to those three men, the dates from which the accrual of back pay shall be suspended shall be the dates when they, respectively, refused to accept an offer of reinstatement. We shall make the same provision here. Back pay will be awarded to Jennings, Chamblin, Falstreaux, David Brown, and Mattingly beginning February 18, and to Sobecki beginning February 16, 1938, but shall be suspended from the time they assumed the position of the strikers generally that they would not return without an I. T. U. agreement. The exact date on which their back pay stops is not clear from the record. In view of their letter quoted above, it would be March 12 at the latest. However, the statement in the letter that many of the signatories had been asked individually to return to work, would indicate that some of these men may have rejected rein- statement offers prior to March 12. It is clear that Falstreaux de- clined such an offer, although the date is not shown. We conclude that back pay for these men should stop on March 12 at the latest, and at an earlier date in the case of any of them who rejected offers of reinstatement before then. Jennings will be entitled also to back pay from January 5, 1938, to February 14, 1938, the date when he was temporarily restored to his job. Virgil Brown shall be awarded back pay from the time of his dis- charge to the time he received employment in Monroe, Michigan, as set forth above. Since he does not desire reinstatement, there will be no order to reinstate him. In all cases, the back pay shall consist of a sum equal to the amount the employee would normally have earned from the respondents as wages or salary during the period for which back pay is ordered, less the employee's net earnings during such period." "By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondents, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 673 Since the strike was caused by the respondents' unfair labor prac- tices we shall, in accordance with our usual custom, order the re- spondents, upon application, to offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions to those employees who went out on strike and have not since been fully reinstated. This includes the discharged employees who assumed the status of strikers. Such reinstatement shall be effectuated in the following manner: All em- ployees hired after the commencement of the strike shall, if necessary to provide employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dis- missed. If, thereupon, by reason of a reduction in force there is not sufficient employment immediately available for the remaining em- ployees, including those to be offered reinstatement, all available posi- tions shall be distributed among such remaining employees in ac- cordance with the respondents' usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following a system of seniority to such ex- tent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of its business. Those employees remaining after such distribution, for whom no em- ployment is immediately available, shall be placed on a preferential list prepared in accordance with the principles set forth in the previ- ous sentence, and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in their former or in substantially equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. Each of the employees thus ordered reinstated or placed on a preferential list shall also be entitled to back pay beginning 5 days after his application for reinstatement pursuant to our order, in the event that the respondents do not reinstate him or place him on a preferential list in accordance with our order within such 5 days. Such back pay, if it becomes due, shall be computed in the manner described hereinbefore. The respondents will also be ordered to bargain collectively with the I. T. U. upon request as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit. THE PETITION In view of the findings in Section III above as to the appropriate bargaining unit and the designation of the I. T. U. by a majority of the respondents' employees in the unit as their bargaining repre- of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the Federal , State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentative, it is not necessary to consider the petition of the I. T. U. for certification of representatives. Consequently the petition will be dismissed. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Typographical Union, Local No. 154 of the Inter- national Typographical Union, and Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of, and contributing support to, the Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Virgil Brown, Joseph Sobecki, George Kerby Jennings, Louis Falstreaux, William Mattingly, David Brown, and Nicholas Cham- blin, thereby discouraging membership in the International Typo- graphical Union, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. All employees in the respondents' composing room, with the exceptions indicated in Section III D 1 above, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. International Typographical Union was on February 18, 1938, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the International Typo- graphical Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-stated unit, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. HORACE G. PRETTYMAN ET AL. 675 9. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by refusing to rein- state the strikers. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the whole record, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondents, Horace G. Prettyman and Arthur J. Wiltse, copartners doing business as The Ann Arbor Press, and their agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the admin- istration of Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of their employees, and from contributing support to Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., or any other labor organization of their employees; (b) Recognizing the Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi- tions of work; (c) Discouraging membership in International Typographical Union, or any other labor organization of their employees, by dis- criminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or condi- tion of employment of any of their employees; (d) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Typo- graphical Union as the exclusive representative of their composing- room employees; (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from the Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., as the representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish the 169134-39-vol 12-44 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Independent Association of Ann Arbor Press Employees, Inc., as such representative; (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Typo- graphical Union as the exclusive representative of their composing- room employees, in respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment; (c) Upon application, offer to those employees who went on strike on February 18, 1938, and thereafter, and to Joseph Sobecki, George Kerby Jennings, Louis Falstreaux, David Brown, William Mattingly, and Nicholas Chamblin, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, in the manner set forth in Section V above, placing those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth above in said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it becomes available; (d) Make whole with back pay the employees ordered to be offered reinstatement, as well as Virgil Brown, for the periods indicated in Section V above, computed as therein set forth; (e) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in their plant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondents will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1, and that they are taking the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2, of this Order; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (De- troit, Michigan) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives be, and it hereby is, dismissed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by refusing to reinstate the strikers, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.