Lebanon News Publishing Co.

In the Matter of LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY and LOCAL, UNION # 107 OF INTERNATIONAL STEREOTYPERS AND ELECTROTYPERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-1963.-Decided December 16, 1941 Jurisdiction : newspaper publishing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements : inducing employees to revoke union membership ; employer-conducted poll among employees regarding union affiliation. Collective Bargaining: union's majority established by signed authorizations- refusal to bargain : by engaging in conduct calculated to destroy union's majority representation ; and by conducting poll among employees to deter- mine union representation. Remedial 'Orders : employer ordered to, bargain with union upon request. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees in stereotype depart- , ment, including foreman. Mr. Geoffrey J. Cuniff, for the Board. Becker and Elirgood, by Mr. Clarence D. Becker, of Lebanon, Pa., for the respondent. Mr. George W. Davis, of Harrisburg, Pa., for the Union. Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended `charges duly filed by Local Union #107, of International Stereotypers and Electrotype -s, affiliated -with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania), issued its complaint dated July 2, 1941, against Lebanon News Publishing Company, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) 37 N L R. B., No. 106. 649 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent, on or about December 12, 1940, January 14 and 28 and February 11 and'26, 1941, and at other times, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep- resentative of its stereotype-department employees who constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, although the Union on or about December 10, 1940, became and at all times thereafter has been the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in such unit; (2) that the respondent, on or about December 10, 1940, questioned employees in the stereotype depart- ment concerning their union membership, urged members to with- draw from the Union and to cancel their designations of the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; on or about February 6, 1941, prepared forms revoking the authority previously given the Union by certain employees to bargain for them and advised such employees that the respondent would bargain with them individually if they signed the revocations ; and on or about February 26, 1941, conducted an election by ballot in the plant among certain employees to determine whether or not these em- ployees desired to have the Union represent them; and (3) that by the foregoing acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, * and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. - On July 21 the respondent filed an answer to the complaint. The answer admitted the operations descriptive of its business as alleged in the complaint, but denied that the said operations were conducted in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, and denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, and an order of the Regional Director granting the respondent's request for postponement, a hearing was held on July 21, 1941, at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, before Mortimer Riemer, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Ex- aminer. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative; all participated in the hearing. Fullopportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The Trial Examiner at first reserved ruling on this motion, but denied it at the conclusion of the hearing. At the close of the hearing the respondent LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 651 moved that the complaint be dismissed for failure of proof. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion at the hearing, but subse- quently denied said motion in his Intermediate Report. At the end of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof as regards insubstantial matters such as names and dates. This motion was granted without objection. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the end of the hearing counsel for the respondent and counsel for the Board engaged in oral argument before the Trial Examiner, and on August 12, 1941, ,the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On August 28, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such practices and that, upon request, it bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in its stereotype department. On.September 25, 1941, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and on October 14, 1941, a brief in support of said exceptions. On October 16, 1941, pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent was represented by counsel who participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the brief and the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, except as they are con- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, finds the ex- ceptions to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Lebanon News Publishing Company, is a Pennsyl- vania corporation, having its principal office and place of business in, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in publishing and print- ing the Lebanon Daily News-Times, a daily newspaper, and the Lebanon Semi-Weekly News, a semi-weekly newspaper. The respond- ent is also engaged in commercial job printing, at its Lebanon plant. In the publishing and printing of the aforesaid newspapers and in its commercial job printing, the respondent purchases the following raw materials: news print, ink, metal, type, mats, and jobbing paper. (652 ,DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD For the calendar year 1940, the respondent purchased raw materials costing '$42,459.18, 60 per cent of which was purchased outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was transported into Pennsyl- vania from States of the United States other than Pennsylvania. The average circulation figures of the Daily News-Times and the Semi-Weekly News are as follows: Daily News- Times Semi-Weekly News For the calendar year 1940- 15,301 2,500 Of which the Pennsylvania distribution was in percent ------------------ 99 93 And the out of State distribution was in percent --_-____________________ 1 6y The respondent uses the facilities of the Associated Press and for this purpose has three receiving machines and one combination send- ing and receiving machine at its Lebanon plant. In publishing and printing the aforesaid newspapers the respondent uses syndicated mat- 'ter furnished by King Features Syndicate, United Features Syndi- cate, McNaught Syndicate,- Western Newspaper Union, Associated Press, and uses 11 syndicated comic strips, all of which syndicated Inate'ial is received in Lebanon by the respondent from outside Pennsylvania. Both papers carry advertising material. For the year 1940, the Lebanon Daily News-Times carried 4,465,552 advertising lines, with a value of $185,409.76, and of these advertising lines, approximately 8 per cent was placed with the respondent by companies operating in States of the United States other than Pennsylvania. The Lebanon Semi-Weekly News carried 319,984 advertising lines, with a value of '$6,703.98, and of these advertising lines approximately 1 per cent originated in States of the United States other than Pennsylvania. The respondent contends that it is not within the jurisdiction of -the Act, particularly because of its small proportion of interstate busi- ness. In view of the respondent's purchase and receipt in interstate commerce of substantial quantities of materials, the regular circula- tion of some of its newspapers out of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania, its membership in and use of the facilities of the Associated 'Press, its use of syndicated material received from outside Pennsyl- vania, and its carrying of advertisements placed by concerns operating outside Pennsylvania, we find that the respondent is subject to the Act.' - 'Associated Press V. N. L. R. B., 301 U S. 103 ; The Press Co., Ina v N L. R. B., 118 F. (2d) 954, cert. den., 61 S Ct. 1118; N. L. R B v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co, 308 U S. 241, aff'g as mod. 101 F. ( 2d) 841 (C. C. A. 4), and'aff'g Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co . and Industrial Union, etc., S N L R. B . 866; N L. R . B. v. Suburban Lumber Company, 121 F. (2d) 829 (C. C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B v. Cowell Portland Cement Company, 108 F. (2d) 198 (C. C A. 9). LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 659. Local Union $107 of • International Stereotypers and Electro- typers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor' organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent in, its stereotype department. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The refusal to bargain collectively; interference, restraint, and' coercion 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent ill its stereotype department constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. There are four employees in the de- partment, including two apprentices, one journeyman, and a foreman, all of whom are eligible to membership in the Union. In collective bargaining with employers, the Union generally represents foremen of stereotype departments. The respondent admits in its brief that these four employees at all times pertinent in this case constituted the appropriate unit. We find that the employees in the respondent's stereotype depart- ment, including the foreman, constituted at all times material herein, and that they now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment, and that the said' unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit George W. Davis, the president of the Union, started to organize the employees in the respondent's stereotype department about De- cember 7, 1140. On December 10, three of the four employees therein, Richard W. Bentz, Paul Reed, and Richard N. Beard, executed a document designating, the Union as their representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the respondent, and authorizing the Union to negotiate with respect to working conditions, and other- wise to represent them, said authorization to be irrevocable for a period of 1 year. Moreover, Beard was a member of the Union. Thus, on December 10, 1940, the Union represented a majority of the employees in the stereotype department.2 2 While James F. Lowry, the foreman, had been a member of the Union for many years, he was asked and refused to sign the above-mentioned authorization. We find it unneces. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that on December 10, 1940, and at all times thereafter, the Union was, and that it is, the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees In the appropriate unit and that, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was and is, the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.3 3. The refusal to bargain ; interference, restraint, and coercion Following the designation of the Union as their representative by Bentz, Reed, and Beard, Davis conferred on December 10, 1940, with Samuel Evans, the respondent's mechanical superintendent. Davis informed Evans that he represented a majority of the employees in the stereotype department, that he wanted to meet with Evans for the purpose of negotiating a contract, and, when asked for proof that he represented a majority of the employees, showed Evans the authori- zation of Bentz, Reed, and Beard. Davis and Evans agreed to meet again on December 12. Conferences between representatives of the Union and of the re- spondent took place on December 12, 1940, on January 2 and 14, and on February 12, 20, and 26, 1941, but no satisfactory agreement be- tween the parties was reached., During the period in which the conferences occurred, Evans en- gaged in behavior calculated to destroy the Union's majority. Thus at the December 12 and January 14 meetings Evans told Davis, in substance, that he could see no reason why the employees needed a union and that the respondent "could take care of their men with- out having the union." Moreover, on or about December 12, Bentz, Reed, and Lowry were called to Evans' office.4 According to the uncontradicted testimony of Bentz, Evans inquired why the em- ployees had authorized the Union to negotiate for them, and the following conversation then ensued: "He (Evans) wanted to know why I did it and we had told him that we wanted to join the nary to decide whether, under these circumstances , his membership carried with it a grant of authority to act in his behalf. 3 The respondent claims that by virtue of revocations of authority executed in February 1941 by two of the employees in the appropriate unit, and by virtue of the results of a poll conducted by the respondent later in the same month , the Union's majority was dis- sipated and the respondent's obligation to bargain with it ceased . In view, however, of our finding, below, that the revocations were induced by unfair labor practices and that the conduct of the poll was an unfair labor practice , the revocations and the election were inefrective to impair the Union 's status as statutory representative. ' Bentz testified as follows : Q. How did you happen to go in together? A. Well, it was after work and we just went in The way I understand , Mr. Evans wanted to talk to us. I think that is the way it is, I would not swear to it Although Bentz was not sure, it is evident from the nature of the conversation that ensued, as set forth in the text below , that it was Evans who wished to see these men rather than they who wished to see Evans. LEBANON NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 655 union and have a union card, and he says that he would like for us to sign off, drop this man (Davis) from bargaining for us and he would write the American Publishing Company and find out whether we could not join the union through some other way ; . . . He says that he could not tell us to drop this man, it would be unfair labor practice, but that is what he would like for us to do, . . . And he also mentioned that he could do as good as the-union." We find that the respondent, by the foregoing acts of Evans, sought to inter- fere with the union interests and activities of its employees, to undermine the. Union's authority, and to destroy its majority repre- sentation, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Although on the afternoon of February 6, Bentz and Reed met with Evans and Sansone, another representative of the respondent. The conversation with Evans, as related by Bentz without con- tradiction, is as follows : _ Well, we went in there, after working hours, and we told him we wanted to negotiate a contract for ourselves, that we were not satisfied the way the union was going, they were going too slow to suit us. We talked over a few matters there and he says that-lie could not talk to us or give us any definite answer unless we dropped the union, signed off from the union and he pulled out two papers from his desk, his files, and asked us whether we would sign them before he started to bargain with us. The papers handed to Bentz and Reed purported to revoke the authority previously given by them to the Union to represent them in collective bargaining. Bentz was reluctant to sign without consulting Davis, but Evans insisted that the revocations be signed that day. Bentz did sign the revocation the next morning before a notary public employed by the respondent, paying him his notary fee at Evans' suggestion because, "it would be better if we paid it, that it would not look so good for the News." Reed also signed ,the revocation before the same notary on February 7, 1941. The circumstances under which these revocations were executed convince us, and we find, that they were the result of the respondent's unfair' labor practices. The respondent's preparation, beforehand, of revocation forms clearly evidences its plan to destroy the Union's majority by inducing these employees to renounce it. In December Evans had questioned Bentz and Reed about designating the Union' as their representative and had clearly indicated to them his wish that they withdraw from the Union and deal directly with the 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent. In December and again in January Evans had made clear to Davis that the respondent was opposed to representation of its employees by the Union. On February 6 Evans, as a condition precedent to individual bargaining, repeated to Bentz and Reed his desire that they abandon the Union. Upon all the evidence we find that Bentz and Reed revoked their authorization of the Union in response to Evans' desire that they do so, as expressed by him' in December and repeated in February. We find, as did, the Trial Examiner, that the respondent, by Evans' action in procuring the revocations, interfered with, restrained, and coerced, its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The revocations executed by Bentz and Reed were received by the "Union on February 8, 1941. Following their receipt, Davis and Donmoyer, the secretary-treasurer of the Union, went to Lebanon on February 12, 1941, to keep an appointment with Evans. Evans refused to negotiate, basing his refusal upon the revocations, and indicated that he would not confer further without advice of counsel. On February 20, 1941, Davis came to Lebanon in response to a call from Bentz. Bentz on that day again affixed his signature to the original authorization document after Davis had written thereon, "The above shall take effect Feb. 20, 1941, I hereby revoke the pre- vious statement sent by & signed by me on Feb. 7, 1941." After securing Bentz's signature, Davis at once sought a further conference with Evans. Davis told Evans that Bentz had re-signed, showed him the authorization document, and stated that he, Davis, repre- sented three of the four men in the department, apparently referring to representation of Foreman Lowry, Bentz, and Beard. Evans replied that he would have to talk to Foreman Lowry about the matter of the Union's representation of Lowry. Davis objected to such conduct on the part of Evans, and proposed that they meet again on February 26, 1941, which date was later confirmed by Evans. At the final conference, held in Lebanon on February 26, 4941, in the office of Clarence Becker, the respondent's attorney' Becker was told that the Union represented a majority of the men and was shown the authorization statement. By the time of this meeting, the Union and the respondent had reached an agreement on clauses of a con- tract covering such matters, among others, as definition of parties, the date of the contract, lunch period, and overtime, as well as other matters, but there had been no satisfactory settlement of the ques- tions relating to a closed shop, arbitration, wages, hours, holidays, and "struck work." During the conference, Becker suggested that the Union submit a revised contract embodying therein those clauses upon which agreement had been reached and the respondent's coun- LEBONAN NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 657 terproposals as to those matters affecting arbitration, wages, and hours. Becker's proposal,' however, would cover only Beard and Lowry, since the respondent questioned the Union right to represent all the men. Davis apparently did not agree to Becker's proposal. Becker further proposed that Evans conduct an inquiry the next morning, February-27, to determine whether the four men in the stereotype department wanted the Union, to represent them, and that the following question in ballot form be submitted to each of the men : Do you wish to have Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union #107 of, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to represent you as bar- gaining agent with your employer, Lebanon News Publishing Company, concerning wages, hours, and conditions of employ- ment ? Yes------ No ------ -------------------- Dayis. assented somewhat reluctantly to this procedure and, agreed with Becker on the form of the ballot to be used. Becker, however, made it clear that he would advise that this poll be conducted whether or not Davis consented. Becker advised Evans that if the results of the poll showed a majority in favor of the Union, the respondent would bargain with it as the sole representative of the employees but that if the poll showed a lack of majority the respondent would bargain with Davis for the union members only. On February 27 Davis, pursuant to advice of counsel, objected to the conduct of this inquiry, and informed the respondent that if it per- sisted in holding the inquiry, he would file charges. Before dis- tribution of the ballots, one or more of the employees told Davis that they would prefer, a secret ballot. In the presence of Davis and San- sone,,Evans handed each of the four men a ballot in the,'form referred to above. Evans had been advised the previous afternoon by Becker that he was to refrain from ally anti-union conduct or statements and was simply to submit the question to the men for their vote. After the ballots had been distributed, Evans collected them and, after counting, informed Davis that two were unmarked and two employees had voted against union representation. Whereupon Davis and Evans went to Becker's office, where the latter told Davis that, on the basis of the election, he would advise the respondent that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees. This was Davis' final meeting with the respondent. The vote held in the plant on February 27 was a violation of the Act. An employer -conducted vote under the above circumstances, on the ,question of whether employees desire a union to represent them in 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective bargaining, is an act of interference with the Union's right to bargain collectively.-' Regardless of the admonitions to Evans by Becker on the afternoon of February 26, we cannot consider without significance the presence of Sansone and Evans when the latter dis- tributed the ballots on the morning of February 27. Evans, in prior conversation with these employees, had indicated strongly his opposi- tion to the Union's representation. Moreover, his conduct in securing the revocations of union authorization clearly, indicated his prefer- ence to have the men drop the Union and deal directly with him. Be- cause of this prior conduct and the supervisory positions of Evans and Sansone the effect upon the employees of their presence must have been substantial, coming at a time when the Union was engaged in efforts to preserve its majority and to bargain collectively with the respondent. Evans' presence lent prestige to the suggestion inherent in the ballot that a vote against the Union would meet with the re- spondent's approval. The coercive effect of the election is further shown in that space was left for the signatures of the employees. We find that the respondent, by conducting the inquiry of February 27, 'interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 4. Concluding findings regarding the refusal to bargain We have found that on and after December 10, 1940,' the Union represented a majority of the respondent's employees in the appro- priate bargaining unit. While the respondent met with the Union on and after this date, and came to an agreement with it on some of the matters in the contract submitted by the Union, its negotiations in these conferences were vitiated by the fact that it was at the same time engaging in unfair labor practices calculated to destroy the majority representation of the Union. These practices brought about the revo- cations of February 7 and the respondent's destruction of the Union's majority was as patently a refusal to bargain as would be a forthright refusal to meet-and negotiate. Conduct so inconsistent with the re- quirements of genuine collective bargaining constitutes a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.e The respondent's conduct of the election in the plant on February 27, under the circumstances, also constituted a refusal to bargain with the Union. Despite it's assertion to the contrary, it could have had no honest doubt on February 26 of the Union's majority. The 6 See N. L. R B. V Remington Rand, Inc, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2), cert den., 304 U S 576; of Matter of J. Wiss & Sons Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, 12 N. L. R B 601 , and cases cited in footnote 1 thereof. e Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 107, 12 N L. R. B. 1002, enf'd in N. L. R. B v. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A. 7). 9.a LEBONAN. NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 659 , only basis upon which the respondent could assert such a doubt was the revocations which resulted because of the respondent's own unfair labor practices. Clearly, the respondent cannot advance the results, of its unfair labor practices •as 'an excuse -for failing to bargain with the Union.' Moreover, had the respondent any real doubt concerning the Union's representation, it might have refused to bargain until The Board had certified the Union. Instead, however, it conducted its own election, which, as noted above, was necessarily coercive. We find that on February 6, 1941, when Evans induced Bentz and Reed to revoke their authorizations.. of the Union, and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees within the appropriate- unit, and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the•respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,'and substan- tial relation to trade, traffice, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. v. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices by attempting to persuade its employees to abandon the Union, by procuring revocations of its employees from the Union, by conducting an inquiry in its plant as to whether its employees de- sired the Union to represent it, and by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union. The course of the respondent's conduct discloses a purpose to defeat the self-organization of its employees. The unfair labor practices found are closely related to the other unfair practices proscribed by the Act and danger of their commission in the future may be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act would be thwarted unless such order as is entered herein is coextensive with the threat." We, therefore, shall order the respondent to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, to cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 7 N. L. R B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U. S. 318, reversing and remanding 106 F. (2d) 119 (C. C. A. 1), vacating in part, and failing to enforce 4 N. L. R . B. 604. " See N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426. (660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 ,of the Akct, and to take certain affirmative action which we find Will ,effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire jecord mn the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local Union #107 of International Stereotypers and Electro- ttypers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor ,organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The employees of the respondent's stereotype department, in- 'cluding the foreman, constitute, and at all times material herein have constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective lbargaiiling, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Local Union #107 of International Stereotypers and Electro- typers was on December 10, 1940, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Aet. 4. By refusing, on February 6, 1941, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Local Union #107 of International Stereo- typers and Electrotypers as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 _(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c), of the National Labor Rela- tions. Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Lebanon News Publishing Company, Lebanon, Pennsylvania , and its officers , agents , successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively With Local Union #107 of In- ternational Stereotypers and Electrotypers , affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, as 'the exclusive representative of the ,employees of its stereotype department, including the foreman, in LEBONAN NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY 661 respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union #107 of International Stereotypers and Electrotypers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of the employees of the respondent's stereotype department, including its foreman, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places, throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating : (1) that the re- spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; (c)' Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania), in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. 433257-42-voL. 37-43