Cullom & Ghertner Company

In the Matter of CULLOM & GHERTNER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOOK-BINDERS, LOCAL No. 83 Case No. C-973:Decided August 7, 1939 Printing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Discrimination.: dis- charge, lay-off, or refusal to employ five employees ; charges of, unsupported by the evidence, dismissed-Strike: involved-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: bookbinders , paper rulers, paper cutters, stockmen , finishers, ma- chine fitters, wrappers , inspectors, foremen, and foreladies-Representatives: proof of choice : membership list compiled from official union records-Collective Bargaining: refusal at the outset of the negotiations to enter into a signed, written contract put aside and did not become a factor in the negotiations; impasse reached on question whether or not the respondent would enter into a closed-shop contract with the union ; offer to reopen negotiations on condition that respondent have counsel present rejected by the union ; allegations of refusal to bargain dismissed-Complaint: dismissed. Mr. Marion A. Prowell, for the Board. Norvell and Minick, by Mr. V. E. Norvell, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondent. Mr. James J. Hailey, of Nashville, Tenn., for the I. B. B. Mr. Roscoe L. Barrow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE . On December 8, 1937, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 83, herein called the I. B. B., filed charges, and on June 10, 1938, amended charges, with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), alleging that Cullom & Ghertner Com- pany, Nashville, Tennessee, herein called the respondent, had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- Inerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Upon these charges and amended charges, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, dated June 11, 1938, against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the 14 N. L. R. B., No. 21. 270 CI LLOII & GHERTNER CO_IIPANY 271 meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing were duly served on the respondent and the I. B. B. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent threatened its employees with discharge and discrimination if they should engage in activities in behalf of the I. B. B.; (2) that the respondent discharged Ruby Ward, Mary Taylor, Katherine Lorene Williams, Robert C. Wil- liams, J. E. Poole, and Lola Mai Nabors because of their member- ship in the I. B. B., and refused to reinstate them for the same reason; (3) that the respondent refused to bargain with the I. B. B. in regard to conditions of employment, although the. I. B. B. repre- sented a majority of the employees of the respondent in an appro- priate unit; (4) that in protest of the refusal to bargain the em- ployees went out on strike on or about November 16, 1937, which strike still exists; and (5) that by each of these acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. . On June 19, 1938, the respondent filed an'answer to the complaint denying the unfair labor practices charged. The respondent simul- taneously filed a motion to strike, except in so far as it alleges specific acts, Section 5 of the complaint, which is, in substance, a charge of violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. This motion was overruled by the Trial Examiner during the hearing. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Nashville, Tennessee, from June 20 through 23, 1938, before Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re- spondent were represented by counsel, and the I. B. B. by one of its representatives. All participated in the hearing and were afforded fall opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. Paragraph 12 of the complaint states, "On or about November 16, 1937, as a. direct result of the said respondent's refusal to bargain, and in protest thereof, the employees of the said unit came out on strike, which strike still exists at the present time." On June 20, 1938, while the hearing was in progress, the Board's counsel made a notion to amend paragraph 12 of the complaint by changing the last clause of paragraph 12, above, to read "... which strike was ended on or about February 13, 1938," and adding the following clause: "that the respondent, by its officers, agents and. employees, even though oftentimes requested to do so, has refused and is now refusing to employ, and has at all times since said strike was ended, refused to employ, the employees in said unit, because of their membership in and activities in behalf of the International Brotherhood of Book- 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD binders, Local No. 83." The respondent objected to the motion on the grounds that it did not name the persons who were refused em- ployment by the respondent for the reason. alleged, and that the respondent was therefore unable to prepare proof in answer tb the allegation. The Board's counsel then made a second motion, on June 20, 1938, to amend the complaint, which was the same as the first,motion except that it named all those who went out on strike and all who were allegedly refused employment at the termination of the strike. The respondent further objected to the second motion because it added to the complaint nine persons subject to reinstate- ment with back pay, and opened a new field without giving the respondent sufficient notice in which to provide an adequate defense. The Trial Examiner denied the motions in so far as they alleged that the strike ended about February 13, 1938, and named nine ad- ditional strikers who were allegedly refused reemployment because of their membership in and activities in behalf of the I. B. B. The I. B. B. took exception. Section 10 (b) of the Act and Article II, Section 7, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, provide for amendment of the com- plaint by the Trial Examiner or the Board in his or its discretion at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon., We find no abuse by the Trial Examiner of his discretion in this ruling. It is hereby affirmed. In so affirming the ruling, we do not pass upon the merits of the matters sought to be introduced. Also in his first motion to amend the complaint, the Board's coun- sel moved to amend the complaint to read that the respondent "re- fused to employ" Mary Taylor and "discharged or laid off for a period of about two days" Lola Mai Nabors. The complaint had alleged that they were "discharged." The Trial Examiner allowed this portion of the motion to amend. On June 23, 1938, the Trial Examiner allowed the motion of the Board's counsel to strike that portion of the complaint which alleges that Robert C. Williams and J. E. Poole were discharged for their membership in the I. B. B. On October 15, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties. He found that the respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and .(5) and. Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed.- The respondent, on November 4, 1938, and the I. B. B., on No- vember 9, 1938, filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's rulings on 'These Rules and Regulations were superseded on July 14, 1939, by National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 2. The new Rules and Regulations make similar provision as to the matter here under discussion (Article II, Section 7). CULLOM & GHERTNER COMPANY 273 motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions. and, objections to the admission of evidence, and the exceptions thereto, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The respondent, on May 29, 1939, and the I. B. B., on May 13, 1939, filed briefs with the Board. The Board has considered the contentions of the respondent and the I. B. B. and except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, ' conclusions, 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Cullom & Ghertner Company is a Tennessee corporation engaged in the business of printing and selling printing supplies in Nashville, Tennessee. The raw materials used in its process are paper, bindery supplies, glue, and ink. During 1937 it purchased raw materials costing approximately $238,000. Approximately 51 per cent of such raw materials were shipped to the respondent from points outside Tennessee. Respondent's total sales during 1934' were approximately $470,000. Approximately 45 per cent, by value, of the finished products were sold and shipped to points outside Tennessee. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 83, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership bookbinders, paper rulers, paper ' cutters, stockmen, finishers, machine fitters, wrappers, and inspectors, in- cluding foremen and foreladies. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Backgrownd During the latter part of March 1937, James Hailey, representing the I. B. B., discussed with Simon Ghertner, the president of the respondent, certain alleged unrest among the employees in the plant and urged Ghertner to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with the I. B. B. and other craft unions in the plant. Hailey con- tends that Ghertner refused to enter into negotiations or to recog- nize the unions, and that Ghertner suggested a raise in pay to quiet the unrest. Ghertner denies this. On April 19, 1937, representa- 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tives of the I. B. B., the International Printing Pressmen's Union, the Amalgamated Lithographers' Union, and the International Typo- graphical Union met with officials of the respondent and urged them to enter into closed-shop agreements. Ghertner asked for time to think the matter over. On the following day they met again and discussed the closed-shop provision for about 2 hours. Hailey then left the conference, being ill, and gave the remaining union repre- sentatives permission to enter into an agreement for the I. B. B. Hailey claims that this permission was qualified in that they might bind the I. B. B. only by,'an agreement which conformed to its laws. The officials of the respondent deny that any such qualification was made. About' 30 minutes after Hailey left the conference the employees who were members of the several unions came out on strike. There- upon, the respondent immediately entered into an open-shop contract with the unions. It was agreed that separate contracts with the in- dividual unions would be executed later. The strike was then called off. When Hailey saw this agreement, which was consummated in his absence, he immediately repudiated it on the ground that an executive order of the I. B. B. and the General Laws of the I. B. B. require the I. B. B. to enter into closed-shop contracts only. Although Hailey failed to produce the executive order at the hearing, Sections 41 and 51 of the I. B. B. General Laws may be construed to require a closed-shop contract, and Hailey testified that such was the proper construction to be placed upon them. The respondent thereafter concluded open-shop contracts with the Typographers, Printing Pressmen, and Lithographers. Hailey insisted upon a closed-shop contract, and negotiations with the respondent ensued. During their negotiations Hailey complained to Ghertner that the employees were afraid to join the I. B. B., lest they be discriminated against by the respondent. To allay this fear, Bainbridge, the plant superintendent, gave Hailey a letter, dated May 5, 1937, which states, "If any of our people have a desire of joining the binders' union, we will not hold this against them and will still hold them in very high esteem for their proven loyalty to this firm." Finally, on May 12, 1937, the respondent executed a closed-shop contract with the I. B. B. This contract was to expire on October 1, 1937. In explanation of this short-term contract, Hailey testified that Ghertner said all the other contracts were expiring on October 1, 1937, and that it would be convenient if the contract with the I.'B. B. expired at the same time., Ghertner testified that he told Hailey that because he knew nothing of the closed shop, he was just trying it out for about 6 months. CULLOII & GHERTNER COMPANY 275 The negotiations described above, which are preliminary to the matters covered by the complaint, indicate that the respondent was not opposed to its employees organizing , that it was willing to enter into collective bargaining agreements, and that it was willing to give the closed-shop contract a trial. B. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleges that during October 1937 and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain with the I. B. B. as the exclusive representative of the employees. The respondent's answer denies the allegation. 1. The appropriate unit The I. B. B. admits to membership all bookbinders, paper rulers, paper cutters, stockmen, finishers, machine fitters, wra-ppers, in- spectors, foremen, and foreladies employed by the respondent. Sec- tion 51 of the I. B. B. General Laws requires that foremen and f ore- ladies belong to the I. B. B. The respondent took the position at the hearing that the question whether foremen and foreladies should be included in the appropriate unit was a matter of law to be deter= mined by the Board. However, it. made no formal objection to their inclusion. In the contract of May 12, 1937, the respondent agreed that foremen and foreladies should be members of the I. B. B. Nor- mally such employees are excluded from the unit, but since it appears that foremen and foreladies are eligible for membership in the I. B. B. and the history of bargaining in the plant shows that they have accepted membership in the I. B. B. under a closed-shop con- tract, we shall include them in the unit in this case.2 We. find that the bookbinders, paper rulers, paper cutters, stock- men, finishers, machine fitters, wrappers, inspectors, foremen, and foreladies employed by the respondent constitute 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. 2. Representation by the I. B. B. of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit A list of the employees who were employed in the bindery depart, ment on September 30, 1937, was introduced in evidence and checked See Matter of Horace G. Prettyman and Arthur J. Wiltse, co -partners, doing business as the Ann Arbor Press and International Typographical Union, 12' 19. L.'R . B.• 640. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against the union-membership roll by the secretary of the I. B. B^ All employees in the appropriate unit were members of the I. B. B_ It was stipulated by the respondent that the pay roll and union membership were substantially the same on September 18, 1937, the date on which representatives of the I. B. B. met with officials of the respondent and the respondent allegedly refused to bargain. We find that on September 18, 1937, and throughout the period covered by the negotiations thereafter, the I. B. B. had been desig- nated and selected by a majority of the respondent's employees in the 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.. 0 3. The negotiations The closed-shop contract entered into by the respondent and the I. B. B. on May 12, 1937, provided that if either party desired changes in the agreement, it should notify the other party 30 days prior to the expiration date, and that in the event no changes were asked the contract would be renewed automatically for a period of 1 year. The expiration or renewal date of the contract was October 1, 1937. About August 27, 1937, Hailey told Ghertner that the I. B. B. wished to renew the contract without changes. Ghertner told Hailey that the respondent would want some changes. On August 30, 1937, Ghertner wrote to Hailey, stating that he wanted to discuss further the continuance of the contract. Conferences of the officers of the respondent and the Wage Scale Committee of the I. B. B. were held on September 18, 1937, and on October 6, 1937. There is conflicting testimony in regard to the positions taken by the respondent and the I. B. B. at these conferences. Hailey and J. W. Nichols, an officer of the I. B. B., both testified that at the outset Ghertner said that he, had decided that he would not renew the contract; that he was not going to renew the contracts with any of the other unions; that in the future he intended to run his business without any union agreements . On the other hand Ghertner main- tained that Hailey said, "We want to continue on the basis as we have in the past," and that he replied, "We are willing to continue on the present scale of prices and observe the hours, but we are not willing to continue on a closed-shop basis." At the close of the con- ference, Hailey asked Ghertner to state the respondent's position in writing. On September 22, 1937, Ghertner wrote a letter to Hailey in which he made the following statement : ... we feel we have never discriminated against any em- ployee in the matter of hiring, discharging or in any other way CULLOM & GHERTNER COMPANY 277 because of union affiliation or membership and we will not dis- criminate in the future; we are willing to pay the present wages. we are paying, and the present hours per week for them shall be observed, but we do not care to agree by a signed contract or otherwise, to a closed shop either as to present employees, or hiring of new ones. Ghertner did not affirmatively tell Hailey or the Committee that he would sign a contract comprising all the terms of the old con- tract except the closed-shop provision. Ghertner was questioned on this point during the hearing as follows : Q. In the conference which you held with the Union on Sep- tember 18, or about that, the first conference, or the second confer- ence on October 6, did you ever tell the union that you would enter into a written contract covering everything that was in the old contract except a closed shop? A. It was not asked of me. Q. You never did tell them that? A. They didn't ask me. I did tell them I would have been very glad to carry on, if they had to know what I would have said. They didn't ask me that at all. Bainbridge, the plant superintendent, testified to the same effect. Q. I will ask you if, in, either of those conference, anyone rep- resenting the company offered to sign up a contract with the union concerning all of the past provisions of the former con- tract with the exception of the closed shop? A. We were not asked to. Q. You did not volunteer that? A. No, sir. From subsequent events it appears that Hailey did believe that Ghertner was offering to make an oral agreement only. He so re- ported to the I. B. B. meetings; he so wrote to the International head- quarters; he so wrote in a letter to Ghertner. In Matter of Inland Steel Company 3 we held that under normal circumstances, an essen- tial element of collective bargaining in good faith by an employer is a willingness to embody the results of negotiations in a signed agree- ment. But in that case the respondent's refusal to enter into a signed agreement with the Union, announced at the commencement of nego- tiations broke up the negotiations and the actual terms were "not seriously discussed. In the case before us, the refusal, if any, to enter into a written contract, does not appear to have had that effect. 3Mfatter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 03, 1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R. B. 783. 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In fact, the question of the respondent's willingness to enter into a written contract, as such, was in no way a factor in the negotiations.4 The only question to receive serious discussion at any of the meetings was the,,question. whether or not the .respondent would enter into a closed-shop agreement, and on this question an impasse was reached. The respondent was never asked to sign a written open-shop contract. On this point Hailey testified as follows : Q. Had you or not given him (Ghertner) . to understand in connection with this contract of May 12, . . . that is the only kind of a contract the union would sign, to-wit, a closed shop contract? A. I told him that on the night of May 12. Q. And never had receded from that position? A. I had not and haven't yet. Q. So far as you know, no other member of that Committee, or anyone else authorized to speak for your union, had receded from that position? A. So far as I know they had' not ... Q. Of course, with a word or two of departure, the breaking up was after you had then stated the only kind of a contract you would sign must include the closed shop provision? A. Absolutely. Ghertner testified in the same vein : Q. At any of these conferences ... , did you state that you would not sign any contracts or agreements of any kind? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever have any request except for a closed shop con- tract or agreement? - 'A. That is the only one I had, a closed shop contract. At the close of the second conference, Hailey said to Ghertner, "If you will observe the hours and will not discriminate against union people and keep up the present scale, we will have no trouble." On November 13, 1937, Hailey wrote to Ghertner stating that Curtis, a Labor Department conciliator, had advised him that the respondent would not meet the Wage Scale Committee again. Ghertner replied to the letter on the salve day, denying this allegation and stating that 4 In Matter of Holston Manufacturing Company and Arnerican Federation of Hosiery Workers, 13 N. L. Jt B. 783 , representatives of the respondent and the Union met and discussed terms several times, but the respondent 's continual refusal, throughout the negotiations, to enter Into a signed, written contract was a vital factor in creating an impasse, and no agreement was reached . We held, in that case ; that the refusal to enter into a signed; written contract constituted a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. In the instant case the respondent's refusal, if such there was, to enter into a written contract received no further attention from the parties . They discussed the question whether or not the respondent would agree to a closed shop, and reached an impasse on that issue. CULLOM & GHERTNER COMPANY 279 he had merely advised Curtis that he preferred to have the Committee meet with the respondent's attorney or at least with an attorney pres- ent. He added "... We are always glad to see you..." In the mean- time the I. B. B. had obtained strike sanction from International head- quarters, and on November 16, 1937, the members.of the I. B. B. went out on strike. 'The members of the International Typographical Union refused to cross the-picket line. On the same day Ghertner wrote a letter to Hailey and Cuthbert, representative of the Interna- tional Typographical Union, in which he stated, "If either or both of you or your committee desire to see us we will be glad to have a con- ference at any reasonable time with the preference that our legal adviser be present and certainly you should not object to this." In his reply, dated November 16, 1938, Hailey stated, "We will not agree to confer with an attorney or with your firm with an attorney present." In this exchange of letters Ghertner and Hailey also refused to change their positions in regard to a closed shop. From the above evidence` it is clear that the respondent -and the I. B. B. had reached an impasse on the closed-shop issue and on the issue -whether or not the respondent might have counsel' present dur ing their conferences with the I. B. B. The Act does not require' an employer to agree to any particular term, such as a closed shop, so long as he negotiates with the representative of his employees in good faith. We may assume, with reason, that the respondent would have signed a contract embodying all the provisions of the old contract except the closed shop, if it had 'been asked to do so. The evidence further shows that the' respondent left the door' open to bargaining even after the strike, on the one condition 'that the respondent's attorney be present at the conference. This was, not an' unreasonable condition. We are not convinced on the evidence 'as a whole:.that -the` respondent failed to negotiate in good faith with the I.B.B. We find that the respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with the I. B. B. as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, and has not thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the strike, which began on November 16, 1937, was not the result of unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent. C. The dischao'ges The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent discharged Ruby Ward and Katherine Lorene Williams, discharged or laid off Lola Mai Nabors for a period of about 2 days, and refused, to employ 190935-40-vol. 14-19 280 r DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mary Taylor, because of their membership in and activities in behalf of the I. B. B. The respondent's answer denied the allegations. Ruby Ward was employed in the ,bindery on March 15, 1937. She. was an inexperienced worker, and the plant superintendent told her at the time she was employed that she was being given a trial. She made little progress in the bindery and was transferred,to' the wrap-, ping table. The forelady complained of her inefficiency and she was laid off July 6, 1937. Although Ward was a member of the I. B. B., she had neither held a responsible position in the I. B. B. nor had she been active in union matters. . Katherine- Lorene Williams claims she was laid off in September 1937, without any reason being given therefor. The plant superin-, tendent maintains' that she .voluntarily quit on the day her husband was discharged for cause. On October 6, 1937, the respondent called her back. She worked a part of a day and then left of her • own accord to care for a. sick relative. Three days' later she returned.and asked for her job. It had been, filled. • Williams was a member of the I. B: B. and she, ,picketed the plant during. the strike. She has not been active otherwise in union matters. Mary Taylor was an experienced inspector in the wrapping depart- ment.. She was forced to leave her job because of illness from March 17.to April 23,4937. - She returned to her former position but became ill again on May 27, 1937, and went to the hospital to undergo an operation. ' She returned in September 1937 and asked for her former position. In the meantime' the respondent 'had trained another em- ployee, who. was also a member of the; I. B. B., to do' the work. The superintendent told her. that he would-, try to find something for her to do. She has -not been -reemployed. She picketed during the strike,- but she has not been. active `otherwise in union matters. Lola 'Mai Nabors assisted another employee, Thomas Stone, in the operation of a ruling machine. On October 20, 1937, the machine was closed down and both employees were laid off. ' When the lay- off occurred, there 'was sufficient work. at the, machine to keep it' in operation for 3 days, but this work was not for immediate shipment. The ruling machine has been closed down, at other times. 'At such times, these employees usually have been given work in tine 'bindery; but at times they have not. Ghertaner claims the machine was closed down as an economy move. On November .15, •1937,. operation of the machine was resumed and Nabors and Stone were called back to work. On the following day both walked out on strike. During the strike the respondent trained another employee to do Nabors' work. After the strike was terminated on February 13, 1938, Nabors returned on six occasions and asked for work, but was not reemployed. • 'Stone never returned to ask for a job, and he does not wish to be reinstated. CULLOM & GHERTNER COMPANY 281 The I. B. B. alleges that in employing non-union employees after the foregoing union members were discharged, the respondent dis- criminated against the complainants. After the contract terminated on October 1, 1937, the plant superintendent, Bainbridge, told the president of the I. B. B., Nichols, that he would- thereafter procure employees from his own sources. When Bainbridge reported this to Ghertner, Ghertner sent him back to Nichols with a retraction. On October 9, 1937, the respondent employed Mary Keef and G. A. Racier, and on October 21, 1937, Ross and Regg, all non-union mem- bers, to do a cellophane-tipping job. According to Ghertner he could not have obtained this contract if he had been required to use union members who were paid at a higher rate. These employees were hired only temporarily. At the time they were employed the Union had 100 per cent membership in the plant, and the closed-shop contract was not in effect. Under the circumstances we are not con- vinced that in employing these non-union' members the respondent discriminated against employees who were members of the I. B. B. In view of the weight to be attached to the findings of the Trial Examiner on conflicting testimony, and in view of the respondent's conduct as disclosed by the record as a whole, we are convinced that Warcl, Williams, Taylor, Nabors, and Stone were not discharged or laid off because of their membership in or activities in behalf of the I.B.B. We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure, of .employment of Ruby Ward,, Katherine. Lorene Williams, Mary Taylor, Lola Mai Nabors, and TlWinas Stone, and has not, by discharging or laying them off, interfered with, re- strained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since we have not found that, the respondent committed any unfair labor practices, we shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint in their entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , Local No. 83, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All the bookbinders , paper rulers, paper cutters, stockmen, finishers , machine fitters, wrappers, inspectors , foremen, and foreladies employed by the respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , Local No. 83, on Sep- tember 18, 1937 , and thereafter, was the exclusive representative of 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all of the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By discharging or laying off Ruby Ward, Katherine Lorene Williams, Mary Taylor, Lola Mai Nabors, and Thomas Stone, the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees and has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. By refusing to enter into a closed=shop contract and by refusing to meet with the representatives of the I. B. B. for the purposes of collective bargaining unless the respondent's counsel should be per mitted to attend such meeting, the respondent has not refused to, bargain collectively, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By the above acts the respondent has not interfered with, re- strained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8. (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com- plaint against Cullom and Ghertner Company, Nashville , Tennessee, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LmsERsoN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.