Times Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 676 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TIMES Purr IsI-uN c. ConIPAx v, EN r. N ix G Ic DEPEN DENT,
INC., NEWS PRINTING , INC., and ST . PETERSBURG TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION, LOCAL. 860 , AFFILIATED WITH I. T. U. (AFL)
Case No. 10-C-1860.Decided February 17, 199!'7
Mr. John C. McBee , for the Board.
Mr. Dan M. Byrd, Jr ., of Chattanooga , Tenn ., for the Union.
Mr. Thurman Arnold, of Arnold and Fortas , of Washington, D. C.;
Mr. James R. Bussey, of St. Petersburg , Fla.; and Mr . Cody Fowler,
of Fowler , White , Gillen, Yancey and Humkey , of Tampa, Fla., for the
respondents.
Miss Anne E. Freeling , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 25, 1946, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The
respondents also requested an opportunity to argue orally before the
Board at Washington, D. C., but thereafter withdrew their request.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
respondents ' exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts only those findings of fact of the Trial Examiner
that are consistent with this decision . For the reasons set forth below,
the Board does not adopt the Trial Examiner 's conclusions and recom-
mendations in this case.
Tlue alleged unfair labor practices
The allegations that the respondents have violated the Act are based
upon written and oral statements made by Nelson Poynter, editor of
72 N. L. R B, No. 128.
676
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 677-
the Times and representative for purposes of collective bargaining of
all three respondents, when he addressed a meeting of the Union on
January 12, 1946. These statements, if interpreted literally and if
viewed in isolation, would appear to constitute violations of the Act,
as found by the Trial Examiner. However, the statements made at
the January 12 meeting should, rather, be viewed as comprising only a
single incident in a context consisting of a long history of contractual
relations between the respondents and the Union before January 12,
1946, and of good faith, though unsuccessful, bargaining after, as well
as before, January 12, by an employer who has been officially com-
mended by the president of the complaining union for its "very en-
lightened attitude .. . towards organized labor in general and the-
International Typographical Union in particular." 1
The respondent newspapers and the Union had operated under
unwritten agreements from 1922 to 1938. Beginning in 1938 the
respondent newspapers jointly entered into written contracts with the
Union. These contracts provided for establishment of "joint stand-
ing committees" composed of representatives of the respondent news-
papers and of the Union to serve as arbitration committees, and for
observance by the employers of I. T. U. laws only to the extent that
such laws were not in conflict with any terms of the contract. The-
contract executed in 1943 provided that it should be in effect for 1
year, but it was orally extended to July 31, 1945.
In May 1945 the Union opened negotiations for a new contract for
the year beginning August 1, 1945. On June 1 the Union presented
to the respondents a written proposal containing 11 suggested changes.
in the existing contract, and requesting counterproposals from the
respondents. One of the Union's proposed changes provided for
blanket observance by the respondents of 1. T. U. laws instead of the
existing limited observance, but no change was sought with reference
to the existing arbitration procedure. The respondents and the local
Union discussed the Union's 11 proposed changes, and agreed to in-
corporate 3 or 4 of them, not including the requirement for observance
of I. T. U. laws,2 and to discard the remainder.
The question thereupon arose as to how the agreement could be
executed without appearing to violate the "right-to-work" amend-
ment to the Florida State Constitution. The parties then agreed to
operate under an oral extension of the contract which had been in
effect since 1943, with the changes they had agreed upon incorporated
1 N. L. R. B. v. Link -Belt Co., 311 U S 584; N L. R B. v . Shenandoah-Dives Mining Co,
145 F. (2d) 542, 547 (C C. A 10).
9 As Stated in the Intermediate Report, "the general laws of I T U cover numerous
working conditions in the composing room and provide, in some instances , for what may
be called ` make -work ' conditions ." Inclusion in the contract of a requirement for blanket
observance of I T . U laws would result , among other things , in automatic amendment of
the contract whenever the I. T U laws were amended
,,678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therein. The I. T. U.'s international officials, however, disapproved
.of this arrangement, and instructed the local Union to obtain a written
contract under date of August 1, 1945.
On July 1 the Union sent to the respondents a copy of its Resolution,
set forth in the Intermediate Report, stating that it would sign no
contract without a provision that I. T. U. laws would govern the
'working conditions of the printers.
Sometime before August 1 the Union presented the respondents
with its "Conditions of Employment," the preamble to which is set
-forth in the Intermediate Report. These Conditions, the use of which
was prescribed as a national policy by the I. T. U,, were signed only
'by the Union and the I. T. U., and stated that the Union "establishes
the wages, hours and working conditions," as set forth therein. The
Conditions included a provision that the composing room should be
operated under all the laws of the I. T. U. and of the Union, and
did not include the arbitration provisions of the prior contract, in
complete disregard of the oral agreement which the respondents and
the Union had already made.3 The Union's president, in presenting
the Conditions, stated that they were not a contract and need not be
executed by the respondents, and readily admitted that it was a "take-
it-or-leave-it" proposition. ,
At this time it had become public knowledge that the failure of a
publisher to accept such I. T. U. Conditions would result in a strike.
On July 14, 1945, about 2 weeks before the Union presented the Con-
ditions to the respondents, the I. T. U., at a public hearing before the
War Labor Board involving two I. T. U. strikes against newspapers
yin New Jersey, had informed that Board as follows :
(a) That the matters in dispute between the Union and the
Publishers would not be submitted either to collective bargaining
or to the Board for peaceful adjustment in accordance with the
War Labor Disputes Act; (b) that the terms and conditions under
which its members would work are subject to the unilateral deter-
mination of the union's Executive Council through amendment
of the union's "laws;" (c) that its members will not work and
that newspapers will not be published except under terms satis-
factory to the union; and (d) that the strikes . . . would be
continued and other strikes commenced unless the terms of em-
8 The respondents presented at the hearing three witnesses as experts on the subjects of
arbitration and of observation of I. T. U. laws in the newspaper industry The testimony
of these witnesses was initially received by the Trial Examiner over objection by counsel
for the Board and the Union . On the basis of the Trial Examiner ' s statement during the
hearing, subsequently reaffirmed in his Intermediate Report, that he intended to strike this
expert testimony , counsel for the Board and the Union refrained from cross -examining the
three witnesses on these matters Although we have reached conclusions contrary to those
of the Trial Examiner , we have not relied upon any of the testimony in question. The
Union has therefore not been prejudiced by. the failure to cross-examine these witnesses.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 679'
ployment fixed by the union through its "laws" were accepted by
the publishers. (26 War Lab. Rep. XXVI, XXVIL)
In a Resolution and accompanying statement issued by the War
Labor Board on the same day as the hearing, it condemned the stand,
taken by the I. T. U. and declared that "any purported agreement
which may be negotiated in pursuance of the policy of the Inter-
national Typographical Union set forth above, will be held to be in,
violation of public policy as embodied in the War Labor Disputes-
Act." (26 War Lab. Rep. XXVI, XXVIL)
The May 1945 issue of the I. T. U. official publication also carried a
statement of its president regarding the imposition of such Conditions,
stating, among other things, that the publishers "have not been asked
to accept them. The Union has prescribed them. The usual form,
of collective bargaining has been discontinued in such cases. The-
more widespread becomes that policy the more wide-spread will collec-
tive bargaining as we have known it, be in the discard."
Faced with the alternative of acceptance of the Union's Conditions-
or a strike, the respondent newspapers posted the Union's Conditions
on August 1, 1945, and thereafter operated their composing rooms in,,
accordance with the requirements of these Conditions.
In September 1945, in accordance with a provision in the Condi-
tions, the Union reopened the question of wages. Numerous bargain-
ing conferences ensued, during which the respondents clearly bar--
gained in good faith, twice offered to increase their wage rates, sug-
gested an increase in working hours from 71/2 to 8 in order to increase,
the amount of take-home pay, and finally urged submission of the
question to arbitration. The Union refused to accept any of these-
proposals, at no time offered to modify its original wage increase
demand, and, on November 20, 1945, without notification to the
respondents, went on strike. There was no communication from the
Union following the start of the strike until December 15, 1945, when
it sent to the respondents a resolution increasing its wage demands.
The respondents replied on December 17, informing the Union of
the formation of News Printing, Inc., the new corporation which was-
to operate the combined composing rooms of both respondent news-
papers.4
On January 10, 1946, the Union picketed the respondents' plants
for the first time. On this same date Poynter telegraphed the Union,"
stating that News Printing, Inc., was about to hire printers and re-
questing a meeting with a committee of the Union or with the entire
' As set forth in the Intermediate Report, the two respondent publishers had been con-
templating for a considerable period before the strike the advantages of combining their
composing room operations There is no claim that the respondents were motivated, In
effectuating their purpose at this time by means of News Printing, Inc., by any intention
to circumvent then obligations under the Act.
•680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership, to give them the courtesy of seeing the conditions of
employment for such hiring and a statement to be released to the
public. The meeting of January 12 was thereupon arranged. At the
meeting, Poynter read the written conditions of employment of News
Printing, Inc.,' and a statement which was entitled "To Typo-
graphical Union Local 860 and readers of the Evening Independent
and St. Petersburg Times." The latter statement expressed a prefer-
ence to have union printers, and stated that members of the Union were
offered the first opportunity to be hired under these conditions of
employment, and that 51 percent of the voting members of the Union
could decide under its law whether to liquidate the strike and whether
there would be a union or non-union composing room. It also warned
,that, "If the local union rejects these conditions of employment we
will be obliged to bring in a few key printers to train the large num-
ber of local apprentices we will recruit from returning war veterans
.and others with mechanical talent." [Italics supplied.] The state-
ment closed with the promise that no outside printers would be hired
.before January 21, and solicited a response from, the Union as to its
intentions before that date. In addition to reading the conditions of
employment and the statement, Poynter made some extemporaneous
remarks and answered a few questions, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report. In answer to a question as-to why the new conditions had
been drawn up without consulting the Union, Poynter said, "We do
_not have any employees. How can we negotiate with people who
are not working for us?" When asked if the new corporation would
be willing to negotiate with the Union on the conditions of employ-
ment, Poynter replied that News Printing, Inc. had no employees,
but when it got them it was willing to negotiate its conditions with
their majority representative; that it was not willing to negotiate
with strikers who were not its employees.
At one point in the meeting, when Poynter addressed a question to
Carter, the I. T. U. representative, Carter replied, "My understanding
is that we are here to hear what you had to say without any com-
ment." The Union offered no proposals of any sort during the meet-
ing, nor did it request any further meeting with Poynter. Indeed,
apart from Carter's question as to whether News Printing, Inc. was
willing to negotiate with the Union on the Conditions, the Union
gave not the slightest indication of a desire on its own part to resume
the bargaining negotiations which it had broken off in November when
it elected to go out on strike in an effort to compel acceptance of its
,original wage increase demand in a test of economic strength.
5 These Conditions were patterned closely upon earlier contracts with the Union , provided
for wages at the respondents ' highest offer during the November negotiations , and an arbi-
tration clause , but not for blanket compliance with I. T . U. laws.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 681'
Although Poynter had suggested that the Union tike 10 days to
consider his proposals, during which he would hire no replacements,
the Union, at Carter's insistence, voted immediately after Poynter's
departure to reject his proposals. In a news article on January 14,
Respondent Times stated that "News Printing, Inc., was notified by
the local printers union 860 that its Zroposed conditions of employ-
ment had been rejected. . . .'' [Italics supplied.]
Within a day or two after the January 12 meeting, a Federal Con-
ciliator asked Poynter if he would meet further with the Union.
Poynter stated his willingness to do so, but heard nothing thereafter
from the Conciliator. Poynter heard nothing further from the Union
until Heutmaker, an I. T. U. representative, called on him on March 21,
1946. Poynter and Heutmaker discussed the strike at considerable
length. Poynter explained that settlement of the strike situation had
become more complicated since January 12 because of the replacements
he had hired. He proposed to Heutmaker that the strike be settled
on the basis that the respondents would refuse aid to other struck
publishers, the Union would remove the respondents from its unfair
list, and the strikers would obtain vacancies as they occurred. On
March 23 Poynter and Max Ulrich, general manager of the Times
and vice president of News Printing, met with Heutmaker for 3 hours.
At this meeting Heutmaker presented a proposed contract to the
respondents, but, according to Poynter's uncontradicted testimony :
"He [Heutmaker] made it quite clear that he had no authority to
present it as a final, definite offer from the local union. He would
regard it important as a basis of negotiation rather than a final offer."
The provisions of this proposed contract were discussed at some length,
however. On March 26, the respondents met with the union strike
committee. Although this meeting took place at the Union's request,
the Union had no specific proposal to advance. Poynter was annoyed,
in view of the time that had elapsed and the discussions that had
already been held, when a union representative referred to this meeting
as merely "exploratory."
On April 11 Heutmaker submitted another proposed agreement.
Inasmuch as Heutmaker had indicated that his earlier proposal was
subject to approval by the Union, the respondents wrote to the Union on
April 17 inquiring whether Heutmaker was the Union's official repre-
sentative in place of the negotiating committee, and whether or not
the Union had ratified Heutmaker's proposal. In its reply on April
18, the Union stated that the questions were academic, but answered
them affirmatively. On April 30 the respondents rejected the proposed
contract presented by Heutmaker on the grounds that the arbitration
clause was inadequate, that blanket recognition of I. T. U. laws
was required, and that the wage demands were even higher than those
. 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondents had previously rejected. The respondents inquired in
this letter whether the Union would accept the arbitration procedure
set forth in the respondents' Conditions if it were put in the form of
a bilateral agreement.
The next communication between the parties was the Union's letter
of May 27 in which the Union proposed that the strikers be reinstated,
with all the rights provided by the Union's August 1 Conditions, and
that an arbitration board be selected to determine the wage issue.6
The respondents' reply on June 12, 1946, was a long letter in which
the respondents summarized the negotiations to date, maintained that
a joint arbitration committee was essential, and set forth a number
of questions seeking clarification of the Union's position, questions
which seem entirely fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Although the respondents in this letter expressed a desire to continue
the negotiations in order to put an end to the picketing, the Union
made no reply thereto as far as the record shows.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Alleged violations of Section 8 (5) and (1)
In answer to the charge that they refused to bargain with the Union
on January 12, 1946, the respondents devote the major portion of their
brief to the following arguments : (1) that, by imposing its Conditions
of August 1, 1945, the Union refused to bargain with respondents on
matters of great concern to then-an arbitration clause and blanket in-
clusion of I. T. U. laws; (2) that this refusal to bargain was a con-
tinuing one to January 12, 1946; (3) that, because of the Union's
previous and continuing refusal to bargain, the respondents had no
obligation to bargain with the Union on January 12, 1946, and hence,
even if they refused to bargain (which is denied) there was no viola-
tion of the Act.
On our view of the facts in this case, the issue the respondents seek
to pose need not be squarely decided here. But the question of
whether an employer is under a legal duty to bargain with a union
that contemporaneously declines to negotiate on certain subjects with
that employer has been so earnestly briefed by counsel that the Board
cannot let it pass without comment. The test of good faith in bar-
gaining that the Act requires of an employer is not a rigid but a fluc-
tuating one, and is dependent in part upon how a reasonable man might
9 The Trial Examiner finds that the Union's letter of May 27 did not constitute an un-
conditional request for icinstatement, and no exception has been taken to this finding. In
view of our conclusion that no unfair labor practices were committed by the respondents on
January 12, 1946, or thereafter, the strike continued as an economic strike ; and, the jobs
of the strikers having been filled before May 27, it is unnecessary to determine whether or
not the Union's request was unconditional See N L R. B v Sartorsus & Co , 140 F. (2d)
203 (C C A 2) The question is also academic because the complaint did not allege a
discriminatory refusal to reinstate strikers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 683
be expected to react to the bargaining attitude displayed by those
across the table. t foJ_lows that although the Act imhoses no af-
firmative duty to bargain upon labor organizations, a union's refusal
to bargain in-good faith may remove the possibility of negotiation and
thus preclude the existence of a situation in which the employer's own
good faith can be tested. If it cannot be tested, its absence can hardly
be found.
In this case, however, Ave believe it unnecessary to decide whether,
by the manner in which it procured the posting of its August 1 Con-
ditions, the Union actually refused to bargain with the respondents.
We further find it unnecessary to decide whether a contract resulted
from the posting of such Conditions by the respondents and the opera-
tion o1' the composing room thereunder. Whether or not the Union's
Conditions represented unilateral dictation rather than collective bar-
gaining, and whether or not the posting resulted in a contract, working
conditions were stabilized and maintained thereunder. The respond-
ents did not ask the Union to bargain about an abitration clause or
I. T. U. laws after receiving and before posting the Conditions, or at
any time thereafter. As the Trial Examiner found, there was no
issue between the parties during the period from August 1, 1945, to
the date in September when the Union reopened the wage provision
under the terms of the Conditions; and inability to agree on a wage
increase was the only issue between the parties at the time of the strike
in November and on January 12, 1916. Under these circumstances,
there was no contemporaneous refusal by the Union to bargain about
I. T. U. laws or arbitration clauses on January 12, 1946, to be ap-
praised as part of the total situation in determining whether the re-
spondents refused to bargain with the Union on that date. Although
contemporaneous conduct of a anion in connection with bargaining
may well be a factor to be considered in determining if an employer
has refused to bargain, the Act plainly does not contemplate that a
refusal by a union to bargain at one time operates to absolve an em-
ployer from obeying the mandate of the Act to bargain collectively
on any subsequent occasion. Even assuming, arguendo, a "refusal
to bargain" by the Union about an arbitration clause and I. T. U. laws
wi A sst 1, 1945, such fact alone could not eliminate the duty of the
employer to bargain on January 12, 1946.
Although we are unable therefore to accept the defense principally
urged by the respondents, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner
that they should be found guilty of a refusal to bargain with the
Union by reason of the posting of their Conditions of Employment
and the statements made by Poynter at the meeting of January 12,
1946, when those incidents are considered in the total context.
The Trial Examiner's conclusion that the respondents refused to
bargain with the Union on January 12, 1946, rests on three main
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grounds. He views the promulgation of the respondents' Conditions
of Employment without first consulting the Union as a withdrawal
of recognition from the Union and as unilateral action constituting a
refusal to bargain. We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner that the
respondents' promulgation of unilateral Conditions of Employment,
under the facts of this case, constituted a violation of the Act. The
respondents were clearly entitled to replace the economic strikers.,'
While the respondents were under a continuing obligation to bargain
collectively with the Union upon request as to the issues between them,
we do not construe this obligation as requiring the respondents to
negotiate with the Union the conditions under which printers were
to be hired to replace the strikers; so to hold would be to nullify the
respondents' right to hire replacements. The respondents' Conditions
were unilateral in form because of the Florida amendment and because
there were, as yet, no replacements.
If it was not a violation of the Act for Poynter to draft Conditions
of Employment for the hiring of replacements, did the added fact
that he informed the Union of what he had done, and of his willing-
ness to take the strikers back on these terms before hiring replacements
if the Union voted to liquidate the strike and return, operate to make
his conduct illegal? The respondents were under no duty to notify
the Union of their intention to hire replacements. The Union had
terminated the earlier bargaining negotiations and had not requested
their renewal.8 Nevertherless, the respondents, who all along had
demonstrated a desire to do business with the Union, did notify the
Union of this intention in order once again to make the jobs available
to the strikers, should the Union elect to terminate the strike before
any replacements were hired.9 To penalize this employer for proffer-
ing the jobs once again to economic strikers on the same terms to be
offered replacements, would penalize open dealing and invite silent
displacement of striking employees, a result which seems to us more
likely to be productive rather than preventive of industrial strife and
thus not to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Moreover, despite some of Poynter's statements which might indi-
cate the contrary, we are convinced, from the entire record, that Poyn-
ter's presentation of the Conditions on January 12 was not a$ a fait
accompli. Although they were intended to and did constitute the
basis for hiring replacements, we believe that in the first instance they
were utilized only as a bargaining maneuver, and that, if the strikers
had indicated any desire to return to work, or even to bargain on terms
for returning to work, Poynter would have bargained about the Con-
7 N L R B v Mackay Rad,o d Tcleyraph Co , 304 U S 333
" See N. L. R B v Columbian F.namelemq and Stamping Co, 306 U S 292; N L R. P. V
The Sands Manufacturing Company, 306 U S 332. N L R B Y. Bu; 7,e Machine Tool Co.,
133 F. (2d) 618, 620 (C C. A 6)
0 See Matter of Mrs Notts' Bakery, 44 N L R B 1099. 110S
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 685,
ditions with the Union.10 There is ample reason to believe that the-
striking employees and L T. U. representatives who were present at
the meeting, being well aware of the prior relations between the
respondents and the Union, would thus have interpreted Poynter's
conduct. Nor does the Union's almost unanimous vote rejecting
Poynter's proposal detract from the reasonableness of this conclusion,
since the vote was taken after Carter, the I. T. U. representative who,
was present, had threatened that, if the members voted in favor of
acceptance, he would have them deprived of their membership cards,
and the local Union's charter permanently revoked. Furthermore,
although Poynter had furnished sufficient copies of his statement and.
of the Conditions for all the strikers, and had suggested that they
might take as long as 10 days to study his proposals, during which
he would hire no replacements, the vote was taken immediately after-
Poynter's departure. It is reasonable to infer from the Union's-
failure to seek the resumption of bargaining to settle the wage dispute
and the strike, by a definite request for such bargaining, that it pre--
ferrecl to continue to use its strike weapon until such time as the
respondents capitulated to the Union's original demands.
The Trial Examiner also viewed Poynter's proposals as dealing
with individual printers and requiring them to renounce their bar-
gaining agent, and hence a refusal to bargain with the Union. We
cannot agree with the Trial Examiner that Poynter, by addressing the-
meeting of January 12, and presenting his Conditions, was seeking-
to break the strike by inducing the strikers individually to return to.
work under individual contracts of employment. In his telegram of
January 10, 1946, Poynter had suggested that he meet either with a
committee or with the full membership of the Union. The Union had
agreed to have him address the meeting. The local officers of the
Union were present as well as an I. T. U. representative. The strike,
which had been going on for nearly 2 months, under the Union's laws
could be tern-iinated only by a majority vote of the Union. Poynter's-
statements were expressly directed to action by the Union. His state-
ment asked a response from "the Union," and stated that replacements
would be hired if "the local union rejects these conditions." He clearly
contemplated a collective return to work by the members of the Union
and would have continued to bargain with the Union as their repre-
sentative. This was the obvious reality of the situation, despite the
fact that a technical argument to the contrary can be made from
certain language.
"The following statement , for example , appears in the Intermediate Report in the ex-
cerpts from Poynter ' s extemporaneous discussion during the January 12 meeting
News Printing , Inc , is willing to discuss any of the conditions of its "Conditions-
of Employment" with any representative or representatives of a majority of the enm-
plovees in its composing room.
t686 DECISIONS -or, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are thus left only with the remaining basis for the Trial Exam-
'iner's finding of a refusal to bargain,-the fact that in the course of
the meeting Poynter made some inept and misguided statements,
.principally in trying to answer some questions put to him. Thus, he
stated that News Printing, Inc. had no employees until they were hired
'under the new Conditions of Employment, and hence there was no
=representative of such employees with whom to bargain; he negated
-the fact that strikers are "employees" under the Act, and any obligation
to bargain with strikers. These remarks were attributable to Poyn-
,ter's misconceptions regarding the effect of the formation of the new
corporation as well as the effect of the Act on the employee status of
,the striking printers. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding
-that "When Poynter made his statements . . . he in good faith be-
lieved this to be the law." Such statements standing alone would nor-
mally provide the basis for a finding of refusal to bargain with the
Union as the representative of the striking employees. - Yet as we have
,previously noted, we believe these statements must be appraised in the
-total context of the case and not in isolation. In the light of the back-
-ground of relations between the parties, we do not believe that the
-statements were reasonably calculated to block or deny collective bar-
-gaining. The Union did not actually ask, nor did the respondents
-actually refuse, to bargain on January 12, 1946. As we have already
observed, -ve believe that on that date Poynter would have been not
-only willing as usual to bargain, but would have welcomed bargaining
,with the Union to settle the dispute, and that the Union did not under-
-stand differently, but preferred instead to continue its strike to force
.acceptance of its original demands.
Under such circumstances, it would do injustice and not effectuate
the policies of the'Act to find a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act."
This conclusion is reinforced when we consider the relations of the
parties after January 12, 1946.12 We are convinced, unlike the Trial
Examiner, that the meetings and the correspondence between the
respondents and the Union subsequent to January 12, 1946, show that
4 he respondents bargained in good faith in an endeavor to reach an
agreement with the Union in order that the labor dispute might be
terminated. Only a clay or two after January 12 Poynter agreed with
a Federal Conciliator to meet with the Union. Poynter met with
'1Duiin; the many years of bargaining ielations between the respondents and the Union,
-the January 12 meeting was the first and onli occasion on which it was claimed that Povnter
of any other representative of the ic-pondents had made statements which might be deemed
violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act To find that these statements. made on one isolated
occasion in a "long course of conduct in respect of union activities and in dealing freely and
-candidly with" the Union, were coercive of the respondents' emplovees within the meaning
-of Section 8 (1), would be unreliable See N L R B v Sands Iffy Co , 306 U S 332
12 See Matter of General Deliitdiated Foods, 45 N L R B 1028 Matter of Sam M Jack-
son, et at, 34 N L It B 104, 202 , Matter of Clayton d Larnbeit Manufacturing Company,
-34 N. L R B -502, 524
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 687
the Union whenever requested (the first request not being received
until March 21), discussed the Union's proposals at great length, and
submitted counterproposals. The Union elected to terminate these
negotiations even as it had the negotiations which preceded the strike.
These negotiations did not succeed in settling the strike because the
parties could not agree on the issues of an arbitration clause, recogni-
tion of I. T. U. laws, wage rates, and discharge of the replacements
in order to reinstate the strikers. We find no indication that it was
because of any failure by the respondents to bargain in good faith
throughout, these later negotiations.
B. Alleged violation of Section 8 (2)
The 8 (2) allegation of the complaint is based upon a provision in
the respondents' Conditions of Employment for establishment of a
Joint Standing Committee. Such committees had functioned under
all the contracts between the respondents and the Union until the
Union, in disregard of its agreement with the respondents, elnm-
nated t-;le arbitration provisions from its August 1 Conditions. These
coizunittees were compcsed of an equal number of representatives of.
the respondents and of the Union. Disputes arising under the con-
tracts were referred to these committees. Only in the event of failure
by such a committee to reach agreement, an eventuality which ap-
parently never occurred during the many years these committees
functioned, would an impartial arbitrator be selected to resolve the
dispute. In providing for such a committee in the Conditions of
Employment, the respondents were merely restoring the procedure
for resolving disputes under which they and the Union had operated
so long and so harmoniously. It was clearly intended to serve, as
it had ni the past, as an adjunct to a collective bargaining representa-
tive, and not, as a substitute for such a representative. As of the
time of the hearing, the committee had not yet been established.
Under the particular circumstances, we do not conclude that the re-
spondents have dominated or interfered with the establishment of a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
In accordance with the above findings and conclusions, we shall
order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
ORDER
jJpon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
B:aard hereby orders that the complaint against Times Publishing
Company, Evening Independent, Inc., and News Printing, Inc., St.
Petersburg, Florida, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
731242-47-vol 72-45
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John C. McRee, for the Board.
il1r. Dan Al. Byrd, Jr., of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union
Mr. Thurman Arnold, of Arnold and lortas, of Washington, D C.; iIi. Jariies R.
Bussey, of St. Petersburg, Fla. ; and Mi. Cody Fowler, of Fowler, White, Gillen,
Yancey and 71-un11rey, of Tanipa, Fla , for the Respondents Times. Independent and
News
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon an amended chai ge duly filed on May 16, 1946, by St Petersburg Typo-
graphical Union, Local No 860, affiliated with the I T. U. (AFL), herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Boaid, by its
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint,
dated May 16, 1916, against Times Publishing Company, Evening Independent,
Inc, and News Printing, Inc., herein referred to as the Respondents,' alleging that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (i), (2) and (5) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint, amended charge, and notice of hearing wei e duly
served upon the Respondents and the Union. An office girl for the Respondents
accepted service thereof on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee through
inadvertence.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that on or about January 12, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the Respond-
ents did refuse, and continue to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the approptiate unit
consisting of all the Respondents' employees in the composing room, inclining
proofreaders employed by the Respondent Independent, although a majority of said
employees in such appropriate unit had selected said Union as their collective
bargaining representative; (2) that the Respondents did on or about January
12, 1946, initiate, form, sponsor and promote the Joint Standing Committee and,
at all tunes since said (late, have donuuafed and contributed to the support of :aid
urterfeied with the administration of said Committee; and (3) that the Respond-
ents, from on or about January 12, 1946, to date, have urged, persuaded, threatened
and warned its employees to refrain from assisting the Union or remaining inem-
bers of the Union and have urged, warned, persuaded and threatened its em-
ployees to abandon a strike which was called by the Union on November 20, 1945,
for economic reasons but which has been piolonged by the afore-mentioned unfair
labor practices of the Respondents
On May 27, 1946, the Respondents tiled a motion entitled "To Dismiss the
Complaint, or alternatively, To Make the Complaint More Definite and Certain,
To Extend the Time for Answer, and To Postpone the Hearing " This motion
was allowed in part and denied in part. Thereafter on June 17, 1946, the Re-
spondents filed their answer in which ceitaut allegations of the complaint were
admitted but the commission of any unfair labor practices was denied
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, from June
24 to June 28, 1946, inclusive, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board , the Respondents and t'he
Union were represented by counsel Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
i'the individual Respondents will be ieteried to as Respondent Tinies, Respondent Inde-
pendent of Respondent News, ins peeliveiv Respondents will be used herein to refer to the
tno newspapers until January 1, 1946, and thereafter to include News Printing, Inc
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 689
afforded all parties. A motion made by the Board's counsel to conform the plead-
ings to the proof as to such matters as dates, typographical errors and other minor
variances was allowed without objection before the close of the hearing. All
parties argued orally on the record at the close of the hearing and have filed
briefs with the undersigned
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Times Publishing Company and Evening Independent, Inc. are separate Florida
corporations which are engaged in publishing newspapers in St. Petersburg,
Florida. News Printing, Inc., a Florida corporation organized about January 1,
1946, is wholly owned and controlled by Respondents Times and Independent.
It is engaged in printing the newspapers published by these companies and in
job and commercial printing. The approximate combined circulation of the
two newspapers is over 40,000 per day. Of this circulation, approximately 3 per-
cent goes to subscribers and purchasers in States other than the State of Florida.
All newsprint, ink and type metals used by these companies comes from States
uther than the State of Florida.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
St. Petersburg Typographical Union, Local 860, affiliated with I. T. U. (A. F. L.),
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit and the majority
Since prior to 1941 the Respondents jointly have bargained with the Union
as the representative of all the employees in their composing rooms, including
the proofreaders of the Respondent Independent, and entered into closed-shop
agreements with them in 1941 and 1943 as the exclusive representative of the
employees in such an appropriate unit. All employees in said appropriate unit
were members of the Union until March 3, 1946?
The undersigned, therefore, finds that all employees in the Respondents' com-
posing rooms, including the proofreaders of the Respondent Independent, con-
stituted at all times involved herein a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and, further,
that on November 20, 1945, on January 12, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the
Union has been, and continues to be, the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in said appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with the
Respondents with respect to rates of pay, wanes, hours of employment and
other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
a. The background
In St. Petersburg, Florida, the Respondent Times publishes a daily morning
newspaper under its editor and vice president, Nelson Poynter, while the Re-
spondent Independent, under its editor and general manager, L. Chauncey Brown,
2 On this date one member of the Union in said unit was expelled from the Union
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is a daily afternoon newspaper The relations between these Respondents and
the Union were excellent until the latter part of 1945 The patties had worked
under oral agreements since about 1922 The 193S agreement, the first formal
written agreement between the parties, which Poynter negotiated on behalf
of the Respondents jointly, provided, inter aria. for a closed-shop and for arbitration
of differences which might arise between the parties.
From their past record as employers it appears that both Poynter and Brown
preferred to have their employees unionized and to deal with the Union as the
representative of such employees. Far from being anti-union, they are pro-
organized labor. Poynter, especially, enjoys among newspaper editors and
publishers a reputation for being very progressive and liberal because of his
numerous editorials in support of the Wagner Act and against anti-labor legis-
lation. While Brown has not been as vocal on the subject, his actions have always
shown him to be equally as friendly towards unions as Poynter.
In 1939 a dispute arose under the terms of the 1938 agreement whether market
mats were syndicated materials which could be purchased and used by the
Respondents without the necessity for reproduction in their own composing rooms.
As an outgrowth of this dispute, the standing committee, set up by this agree-
ment and composed of two representatives of the Respondents and two of the
Union, decided: "After due discussion, the standing committee voted unanimously
that nothing in the contract is exempt from final interpretation" under the
clauses of the contract providing for arbitration Thus ended the only dispute
of any moment between the parties until the present dispute arose Each of the
subsequent agreements of 1941 and 1943, however, somewhat restricted the scope
of arbitration.
In May 1945, the Union gave notice under the terms of the 1943 contract which
had been orally extended to July 31, 1945, of its desne to negotiate a new agree-
ment to become effective August 1, 1945.
On July 1, 1945, the Union sent to the Respondents a Resolution passed that
day of which the pertinent part reads as follows.
Be it further resolved, that St. Petersburg Typographical Union No 860
goes on record that under no circumstances will it consent to sign any con-
tract or make any agreement with any proprietor or any party without the
provisions that International Typographical Union luw^, ,hall govern the
won king conditions of all Union printers in tire composing roornn under its
jurisdiction.
The Union submitted to Respondents a list of 11 pioposed contract changes.
After some negotiations the Union abandoned 8 of these proposed changes and
the Respondents accepted 3 The parties were then in agreement as to the
terms of their new contract However, the Respondents considered that the
Florida so-called "Right To Work" Amendment made bilateral closed-shop con-
tracts illegal and were, therefore, in doubt as to the propel form in which to
put the agreed terms so as to avoid the possiblity of illegality under the Amend-
ment. At one time the parties agreed to extend orally the then existing
agreement, apparently with the negotiated modifications Later, however, the
Union, acting upon advice from I T U headquarters, said that it wanted a
document dated as of August 1, 1945, so that the above solution was abandoned.
This situation continued until late in July 1945 when the Union handed the
Respondents a document entitled "Conditions of Employment" signed only by
the Union. This document contained the previously negotiated and approved
terms and conditions of employment but eliminated the arbitration provisions
of the prior agreement beneath the following Preamble:
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 691
The St Petersbul g Typographical Union, No. 860, a subordinate Union of
the International Typographical Union and subject to all its laws, regu-
lations and decisions, hereby, and with the consent and support of the Inter-
national Typographical Union, establishes the wages, hours and working
conditions for which and-under which the members of St. Petersburg Typo-
graphical Union, No 860, shall be permitted to work (luring the period be-
ginning August 1, 1945, and ending July 31, 1946, as stated in the following
schedules and provisions-
1. Where the word "member" is uaed herein it shall refer only to
members of the International Typographical Union and of St. Petersburg
Typographical Union, No 860.
2 Where the word "employer" is used herein it shall refer to the
authoritative management of any particular shop employing members of
the aforesaid Union.
3 Members will work only for such employer as have already hired a
member who shall be the foreman of the composing room and who, as
said foreman, shall have full and complete control over the hiring and
discharge of employees doing any work in said composing room.
4 The composing room shall be operated under the laws of the Inter-
national Typographical Union and of St. Petersburg Typographical
Union, No 860.
5. Members will cease work at any time the foreman shall not be a
member in good standing of the Union Members shall cease work at
any time the personnel working in the composing room shall be con-
sidered objectionable or, with approval of the executive council of the
International Typographical Union, will cease work when any condition
herein provided is denied by the employer. Such work stoppage shall
be deemed a lockout
In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hand and seal this 1st
day of August, 1945'
The document was signed by the officers of the Union and the president of the
International Union
When be presented the document shortly before August 1, 1945, J. C. Price,
the Union's president, stated to Max Ulrich, Respondent Times' General Manager,
and Brown that the I. T U. had designed these "Conditions of Employment" for
states having similar "Right-to-Work" amendments, that it was not a contract,
8
The following Sections of these Conditions, or portions thereof, are cited to show the
type of the undertakings of the parties set forth in this document •
Section 1 (Wages and Hours) . "seven and one-half hours shall constitute a day's work.
Five days shall constitute a week's work . "
Section 4 (Wages and Hours) . "The hourly rate for day work shall be $1.1960 per
hour . . .
Section 11 (Apprentices) " . . Their (the apprentices') work must show if they are
entitled to the increased wage scale provided in this schedule. The employer or his repre-
sentative has the right to be present and take part in any and all examination....'
Section 26 (Miscellaneous) : "It is agreed that if any terms affecting wages, hours or
working conditions, better than or different from those given in this agreement, or any
concessions whatever are allowed by the Union to any other daily newspaper employer
within the juusdiction of this Union during the life of this agreement, those said better
or different lerms of conditions (all or in part) at the option of that office desiring them,
shall be allowed immediately by the Union to the Publisher "
Section 28-Vacations (Miscellaneous) : "Employees who have held situations for 12
months ending May 31. 1946 shall be entitled to one week's (5 days) vacation with
pay
Section 31 (Miscellaneous ) • "It is recognized that the wages and hours specified herein
are subject to approval and limitation by the War Labor Board * * * If the restrictions
of the War Labor Board aie eliminated this schedule may be amended."
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Respondents did not have to execute it but that it was to be posted in
the shop and the shop operated under its terms. Ulrich asked if this was not
a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition to which Price answered: "Practically so."
The Respondents agreed that the document be posted and thereafter operated
their composing looms in accordance with its terms. Although knowing of
their right to file a protest against these conditions, the Respondents failed to
exercise that privilege because, as Brown explained at the hearing, to have
filed a protest "would have caused bad feelings and bad labor relations."
At the hearing in support of the Respondents' contention that a contract was
not created, Brown was asked whether the Respondents had agreed to the five
paragraphs of the Preamble quoted above. He answered: "We did not and we
could not have."'
b Negotiations leading to strike of November 20, 1945
About the middle of September, 1945, the Union gave notice of its desire to
reopen the wage provisions in accordance with Section 31 of the posted Condi-
tions of Employment.' As a result of this request the respective committees of
the parties held numerous meetings on the question of wages and, in connection
therewith, hours. By the afternoon of November 19, 1945, at 5.30 p M, the
time of the last meeting, the parties were only between 7¢ to 100 per hour apart
on wages However both parties apparently had been stubbornly holding to
their respective positions on the wage rates for several meetings At each of
the last few meetings the Respondents offered to arbitrate this difference in
wages but these offers were rejected by the Union stating that it was "allergic"
to arbitration.
The Union thereupon decided to use its economic strength to secure its wage
demands and on November 20 went on strike. This was an economic strike
brought on by the failure of the parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
wage rate by means of collective bargaining. Counsel for the Board and the
Union both acknowledged at the hearing that this strike was an economic strike
and not caused by any unfair labor practices. The undersigned so finds.
By using a photoengraving process and other technological improvements, the
Respondents continued daily publication without their composing room staffs
and without employing new printers.
On December 15, 1945, the Union sent the Respondents a copy of a resolution
adopted that day raising its hourly wage demand by 3¢ per hour. This was the
first communication between the parties after the strike.
The Respondents answered by letter dated December 17, 1945, stating that
the Respondents in the future would not employ printers and referring the Union
to a newly organized company, News Printing, Inc.,' and Poynter, its president,
for all future negotiations.
On January 1, 1946, Respondent News was incorporated for the purpose of
printing the daily papers of the other two Respondents and fo do job and commer-
cial printing. The Respondent News is owned solely by the other two Respond-
ents in equal shares except for the qualifying shares of the Directors. The
management of Respondent News is composed of a combination of officers and
high officials of the other Respondents who devote part time to their duties with
Respondent News and the remainder to the other Respondent with which each
4 The above findings are based on the testimony of Brown who appeared to the under-
signed to be an absolutely trustworthy witness
5 Section 31 provided in part as follows : "If the restrictions of the war Labor Board
are eliminated this schedule [ of wage rates] may be amended."
6 News Printing , Inc, was not formally incorporated until January 1, 1946.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 693
is identified Hespondent News will be, and is now, housed partially in each of the
two adjoining buildings occupied respectively by the other Respondents. This
arrangement was conveniently accomplished by making a passageway in the
party wall between the two plants, thus creating a means of ingress and egress
between the two Respondent newspaper buildings. At the date of the hearing,
Respondent News was operating only the combined composing room but it is
planned that the said Respondent will in the future operate also the press and
stereoptype departments of the other Respondents.
Notice of the creation of this corporation was given to the Union through a
news article from the daily papers on the subject, a clipping of which was
attached to the Respondents' letter of December 17, 19'45, to the Union.
Although Poynter had broached the subject of such a combined printing plant
to Brown in 1938, they did not decide to implement the idea until early in
December 1945 The actual incorporation was delayed until January 1, 1946,
for legal reasons not material in this hearing As early as November 25, 1945,
Poynter believed that the strike would result in the formation of such a consoli-
dated composing room.
Early in December, the Respondents notified the Pressmen and Stereotypers
Union that the Respondent News would honor their a<,reements with the Other
Respondents and that the Respondents "were not trying to duck any respon-
sibility through any mumbo-jumbo of a new corporation"
c. The events of January 12, 1946
Froul December 17, 1945 to January 10, 1946, each protagonist, apparently
satisfied with the righteousness of his own petition, waited patiently in his
office for the other to make the first move towards settling the Impasse with
the result that there were no conversations between them during this period.
On January 10, 1946, however, the Union placed pickets around the Respond-
ents plants. This caused considerable consternation as the members of the
Pressmen and Stereotypers' Unions refused to cross the picket line without
permission from their International headquarters.' Their local union officials
then made strenuous efforts to bring the two competing factions together but
both factions repulsed the efforts of such third parties
Following the appearance of the pickets, Poynter sent a telegram to the Union
reading as follows :
NEWS PRINTING, INC , A NEW CORPORATION ORGANIZED TO DO MOST OF THE
MECHANICAL WORK FOR THE EVENING INDEPENDE NT, THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES
AND OTHER NEWSPAPERS, AND LARGE VOLUME JOB WORK WILL START HIRING
PRINTERS IN NEAR FUTURE WHEN ITS EQUIPMENT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK INTO
GOOD CONDITION FROM THE STATE IT HAS DETERIORATED INTO SINCE LOCAL 8110
VOTED TO STRIKE NOVEMBER 20. BEFORE WE START HIRING I SHALL WELCOME
AN INVITATION TO MEET WITH AS LARGE A COMMITTEE AS YOUR LOCAL MAY SELECT
INCLUDING ALL OFFICERS, AND ANY OF YOUR INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE COURTESY OF SEEING THE STATEMENT TO THE
PUBLIC WE INTEND TO PUBLISH AND "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" THE
CORPORATION INTENDS TO POST. IN FACT I SHALL, IF IT IS MORE CONVENIENT, BE
HAPPY TO PRESENT THESE "CONDITIONS OF TIIE EMPLOYMENT" AND ANSWER ANY
AND ALT, QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THEM BEFORE YOUR ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP AT
YOUR SATURDAY MORNING MEETING.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LOCAL 860 AND
THE PUBLISHERS SINCE YOUR STRIKE STARTED NOVEMBER 20 EXCEPT THE RESOLU-
Permission was granted to the Pressmen and Stereotypers to cross the picket line the
following day.
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TIO^N DATED DECEMBER 15 IN WHICH YOU NOTIFIED THE EVENING INDEPENDENT AND
THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES THAT YOUR DEMANDS HAD BEEN INCREASED.
ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LAWS. ONLY THE MEMBERSHIP OF 800 HAVE THE POWER
TO LIQUIDATE THE STRIKE WHICH THE; MEMBERSHIP VOTED 57 TO 7 ON NOVEMBER
20. SINCE THE PUBLISHERS HAVE ALWAYS SHOWED A DISPOSITION TO ARBITRATE,
CONCILIATE AND NEGOTIATE, INTERVENTION BY A THIRD PARTY IS ENT.RET.Y UNNECES-
SARY. LAST WEEK YOUR INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE MR CARTER WAS TOLD
EXPLICITLY BY MR L. C BROWN OF THE EVENING INDEPENDENT AND MR. MAX ULRICH
OF THE TIMES THAT I HAVE THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY OF PRESENTING AND
OUTLINING CONDIIIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THIS NEW CORPORATION. HE MADE
ONLY TWO TELEPHONE CALLS TO MY OFFICE,, IN THE MORNING BFFORE I CAME TO
WORK, AND LEFT NO MESSAGE, OR FO^LLOWUP TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH MY SECRE-
TARY. FURTHERMORE, AS YOUR MEMBERSHIP KNOWS, HE IS UTTERLY WITHOUT
POWER TO LIQUIDATE YOUR STRIKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT HAVE
WAS FURTHER UNDERMINED, IN MY MIND, WHEN HE TOLD MR BROWN THAT HE
PREFERRED THAT LOCAL 860 NOT KNOW THAT HE HAD ATTEMPTED TO INITIATE CON-
VERSATIONS WITH THE PUBLISHERS
After the Union had telegraphed the requested invitation, Poynter set the time
for the meeting at 10 a. m. on January 12 by a third telegram
This exchange of telegrams was published in the Times dated January 11 to-
gether with the following item entitled "Background of Strike" :
The local printers voted 57 to 7 to strike after refusing $1.40 per hour for
day work and $1.53 per hour for night work They also consistently refused
all offers of the publishers to arbitrate
Since Nov. 20 the two newspapers have continued publication by using
special typewriters and paper type for their news and advertising. They
have made publishing history by publishing longer than any other newspapers
without printers and without strike breakers.
Because the printers elected to picket the publishers say that they are now
ready to hire non-union printers unless the local union vote to liquidate their
strike in the immediate future A majority vote of 51 percent or more of
the local membership is needed to close the strike, and accept the conditions
of employment of the new printing corporation
The meeting, held as agreed, was attended by almost the entire membership of
the Union, and by S T. Carter, an International representative, with some of the
pressmen and stereotypers present as guests. Poynter brought with him mimeo-
graphed copies of a statement entitled "To Typographical Union Local 860, and
Readers of the Evening Independent and St. Petersburg Times" and of a document
entitled "Statement of Policy and Conditions of Employment in Composing Room
of News Printing, Inc." These documents are attached hereto as Appendix A and
B respectively.
Besides reading this "Statement to the Public" and portions of the "Conditions
of Employment." 8 Povnter also spoke extemporaneously. In this extempora-
neous talk Poynter confirmed the tact, stated in his original telegram to the
Union, that the January Conditions were to be posted "as of today."'
To some unidentified member of the audience who questioned Poynter about
writing these January Conditions without asking "us anything about it," Poynter
stated :
8 These Conditions of Employment will hereinafter be referred to as the January Con-
ditions.
9It should also be noted that the January Conditions themselves also state that the
Conditions "shall be in effect from January 12, 1946. . . .
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 695
Ref ore when we sat around a table you were working for us Remember
you are not our employee now. We do not have any employees How
can we negotiate with people who are not working for us? I am here as a
courtesy to you. We are now a new corporation and we are posting these
conditions as of today. We are releasing this statement in tomorrow's paper.
Therefore, how can we negotiate with you? There is no basis for negotia-
tion. We believe in negotiations and will be -lad to negotiate with our
employees.
Poynter was then asked by Carter if he understood correctly that "you will
not negotiate with your striking employees' " Poynter answered :
News Printing, Inc has no employees, but we .will be glad to negotiate
with our employees when we have them The Times and Independent vv ill
front now on be printed by News Printing, Inc. and will be ready to negotiate
with any of its employees, at any time. I want to make this clear because
I am not going to be placed in a position whei e you saw we will not negotiate.
As far as we are concerned we are always open for arbitration-we believe
in it but we will not negotiate at the point of a gun and as far as we are
concerned the strike in (sic) a gun being pointed at us
After a little more discussion Carter inquired:
Is the new company willing to sit down and negotiate with this Union on
the conditions of employment?
Poynter answered as follows :
The new company is not willing to negotiate with strikers. We are not
willing to negotiate with strikers but we are willing, I repeat, to negotiate
with the employees about anything. We will not negotiate with strikers
because we have demonstrated that we do not depend on your union to
get along-we can publish a paper without it. . . . Remember we have
no printers . . we are posting conditions whereby they can become our
employees.10
After Poynter had stated that'the new corporation preferred to hire union
printers, Carter again inquired as to whether the Respondent News would be
willing to sit down with a union committee and negotiate either a contract or
conditions of employment if Respondent News was one of the Florida employers
which felt it could not sign a bilateral closed-shop contract. To this Poynter
replied :
News Printing, Inc is willing to discuss any of the conditions of its "Con-
ditions of Employment" with any representative or representative of a
majority of the emplo} ees in its composing room. News Printing, Inc is
not willing to negotiate with non-employees. News Printing, Inc. realizes
10 The above quoted findings are made from a transcript of the meeting taken by a public
stenographer of St Petersburg, Florida, who stated in her letter of transmittal of the
transciipt to the Union and to the Respondents that, while the transcript was not alto-
gether complete and indicated omissions by dots, "eveiything that is on these sheets was
said . This statement was corroborated by several witnesses called by the Boaid
who had tend the transciipt a few days after the meeting While the Respondents objected
to the document, none of their witnesses were able to indicate any incorrect statements
contained theism nor to do more than testify generally that mote was said than was shown
in the transcript. Under these circumstances and particularly in view of the similarity
of context and language of Poynter's quoted remarks in the transcript with the context
and language contained in the Respondents' mimeogiaphed statement -(Appendices A & B),
the undersigned finds that this transcript, while admittedly incomplete, is accurate so far
as it goes and is a fair account of the talks made at the meeting.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that it will be accused of a lock out and that the composing room employ ees
will be known by such endearing terms as "rats, scabs and strike breakers".
Poynter ended the meeting with the assurance that the Respondent News would
not make any long term employment contracts before January 21, urged the
membership to study carefully the January Conditions so that the Union would
vote to liquidate the strike and accept the positions under the January Condi-
tions to which they were being given first chance.
That afternoon at 3 p. m., following a talk by Carter against the January
Conditions, the membership of the Union voted to reject them. The Respondents
were so informed by the following letter dated that day :
This to inform you that St. Petersburg Typographical Union No. 860
voted this afternoon to reject your ultimatum.
The vote was 54 to 1.
In accordance with democratic procedure observed by our Union, the
sanctity of the ballot was preserved and a vote was taken secretly.
Because of the delay in delivery of the stenographic transcript of this
morning's meeting until Monday, this letter will have to serve as the Union's
statement at the moment. Publication of this letter will be appreciated.
A complete statement of the Union's position will be available within a few
clays.
Meantime we wish to reiterate that we are perfectly willing to negotiate
with the Evening Independent, the St. Petersburg Times and or News Print-
ing Co. in the traditional manner of a subordinate union of the International
Typographical Union.
The following day the Respondent News acknowledged receipt of- this letter
from the Union expressing surprise that 55 people felt competent to vote on a 9
page quasi-legal document in so short time despite the time provided by the
Respondents for deliberation of the January Conditions and stating further that
Respondent News "will start filling the jobs from elsewhere."
d. Events subsequent to January 12
Beginning on January 14 following the Union's rejection of the Respondents'
January Conditions, the Respondents began advertising nationally for printers.
It was sometime subsequent to this date that the Respondents hired their first
printer after the strike of November 20. Up until January 14, the Respondents
continued to publish their papers without any printers through the use of execu-
tives and employees from the other departments in the composing room After
January 14 these employees were transferred to the pay roll of the Respondent
News for bookkeeping purposes only. As new printers were hired they also were
placed upon the pay roll of Respondent News.
On January 16, 1946, the Union attempted to file charges of unfair labor prac-
tices against these Respondents but, due to improper phraseology of the original
attempt, the first charge was actually filed in the Board office on February 1, 1946.
Since the meeting of January 12, 1946, the Union has maintained its picket
line aiound the Respondents' plant. On March 21, another International repre-
sentative, George Heutmaker, had the situation explained to him at length by
Poynter and, on March 23, offered the Respondents a standard form of I. T. U.
contract. On March 26 at the Union's request a meeting between the parties
occurred but neither side offered any solution to their problems Poynter was
considerably annoyed when the Union referred to the meeting as "exploratory."
On April 11 the Union submitted another proposed agreement through Inter-
national Representative Heutmaker.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 697
However, there was little or no bargaining on this proposal even after it was
made. On April 17 Brown wrote the Union at Poynter's request inquiring if
Huetmaker was the "official representative" of the Union, whether the membership
of the Union had ratified the proposal and further asking for a resolution or
letter to that effect. On April 18 the Union replied by letter calling attention
to the inconsequential nature of Poynter's inquiry but giving answers thereto.
On April 30, over the signature of Brown and Ulrich, the Respondents rejected
the Union's proposal because of the inadequacy of the arbitration clause and
the even higher wage provisions proposed therein. Respondents then inquired
whether the Union would be willing to accept the January 12, 1946, arbitration
and standing committee's provisions if converted into a bilateral agreement.
The next step was taken on May 27, 1946, when the Union wrote the Respond-
ents a letter, which, after a long discourse on what the Wagner Act required and
did not require, proposed arbitration of "the only questions properly to be settled
at this time," i e wages. The next to last paragraph of this letter read as
follows :
Are you willing to concede the proposition that we have upon reinstate-
ment the rights and privileges that we had on November 20, 1945, under the
"conditions of employment" that were then posted and in effect? We hereby
make application for reinstatement upon the condition that you reinstate
us with lull restoration of our rights, without any discrimination against any
one of us Upon reinstatement the only remaining problem would be wages.
You have our proposal as to how the wage issue would be determined.
The Respondents replied on June 12 with a seven page letter. This letter was
full of questions asked purportedly in the interest of "expediting such negotia-
tions" with the Union. On-the other hand, Poynter' admitted on the witness
stand that it said neither "Yes" nor "No" to the Union's alleged request for
reinstatement. Both this letter and the Respondents' letter of April 30 spent
considerable space on the question of arbitration and its alleged futility in the
face of the I. T. U. laws. All the correspondence subsequent to January 12, both
that of the Respondents and of the Union, is full of self-serving statements
obviously included in the communications for the purpose of justifying their
respective positions for the, present hearing and for publication rather than for
the purpose of actually trying to settle the differences between the parties.
e. Concluding findings
(1) The Respondents' defenses
As stated by counsel during the hearing, the Respondents, admitting that a
few things said on January 12, 1946 when "taken out of context", "superficially"
give the appearance that they refused to bargain depend on two grounds: first,
that the Respondents never refused to bargain but, on January 12, were trying
to "revive" bargaining and, indeed, bargained with the Union at all times to and
including the date of the hearing," and second, that the Union refused to bargain
with the Respondents on the "most important" issues of arbitration and recog-
nition of I. T U. laws, thereby relieving the Respondents of the duty to bargain
collectively with the Union.
Respondents outlined the second defense in their brief as follows :
(a) As a matter of law, a union's refusal to bargain with an employer
ielieves the employer of-the duty to bargain with the Union.
"Questions were objected to by Respondents' counsel on the ground that they would
interfere with the negotiations then in process.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) The record here establishes a blunt refusal to bargain by the Union
with respect to two principal subjects: (i) the recognition of the "general
laws" of the International Typographical Union and (ii) arbitration
(c) The subjects of the Union's refusal to bargain were matters of great
concern to the respondents and therefore legitimate subjects of collective
bargaining."
(d) The Union's refusal to bargain caused the strike and since the refusal
had not been remedied by January 12, 1945 (sic), respondents were under
no duty to bargain with it on that date.
Respondents then point out, as the evidence at the hearing showed, that the
general laws of I. T. U cover numerous working conditions in the composing
room and provide, in some instances, for what may be called "make-work" condi-
tions. They also show that the I T U laws further prohibit interpretation of
any of those laws by arbitration It can further be assumed that arbitration is a
matter of great concern to the Respondents and a proper subject for negotiation.
The question raised in the Respondents' brief is both important and interesting
if it actually is at issue under the facts of the present proceeding The- facts
here show that prior to August 1, 1945 the parties had agreed through collective
bargaining to the terms of a contract for 1946-1947. This agreement was
reached without a mention of either recognition of I T. U laws or of arbitration.
The only question remaining then was the form in which these terms should be
put in order not to run foul of the Florida Amendment This dilemma was
solved late in July 1945, when the Union demanded that its "Conditions of Employ-
ment" be posted in the composing rooms and that they be operated in accordance
therewith The Respondents agreed to the posting and thereafter operated the
composing rooms as provided therein. Thereby an agreement was reached, the
Union's so-called "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition constituting the offer and the
Respondents' agreement and abiding by its terms constituting the acceptance
thereof '8 Nor can it be said that this resulting agreement was illegal by reason
of duress for the Respondents still enjoyed their full freedom to accept or reject
the offer and, indeed, did not even see fit to exercise their known right to protest
the conditions.
,On November 19, 1945, the only question at issue between the parties was the
question of wages and, as an incident thereto, hours This issue was created by
the Union's request for a change of wage rates under Section 31 of the posted
>z The undersigned assumes, of course, that recognition of I. T. U laws and arbitration
are matters of great concern to the Respondents and could be legitimate subjects of collec-
tive bargaining. However, in view of the findings made herein that these matters never
were made the subject of negotiations in the present case, the undersigned reaffirms his
decision to strike the expert testimony given by Respondents' witnesses Mellett, Poynter
and Beckett. This decision naturally includes the exhibits offered in connection therewith
ii This finding would be correct even if made under the ordinary common law mules of
contracts despite the objection of the Respondents and despite the numerous published
statements made by the I T. U. president that such Conditions of Employment did not
create a contract with the employer.
The undersigned is further cognizant of the fact that paragraph 4 of the Preamble of
these Conditions and the omission of the grievance and aibitration procedure provisions
differ trom the terms agreed to during the negotiations piior to August 1, 1945 The facts
`do not require that the undersigned decide the exact terms of the contract here found
The difficulty in transforming all the terms of a bilateral agreement into a unilaterally
worded document in order to circumvent the Florida Amendment were ably and fully
covered by Poynter during his testimony. Phrasing a bilateral guevance and arbitration
procedure and employer recognition of I T. U. laws into a supposedly unilateral statement -
without divulging its true bilateral character would be well nigh impossible The existence
of the intent to contract and particularly the Respondents' i ecogmtion of the Union in the
instant case clearly distinguishes this case from the C B Cottrell d Sons case, 34 N. L R B
457, 467, cited by the Respondents as conclusive authority against the finding of the exist-
ence of a contract in the instant proceeding.
LIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 699
conditions and by the Respondents' willingness to negotiate that problem. All
parties agree that thereafter they reached an impasse over a difference of a very
few cents per hour. The Respondents then offered three or four times to arbi-
trate this difference in order to break the impasse but this solution the Union con-
sistently refused because it did not believe in arbitration. The Union then sought
to break the deadlock by use of economic pressure, the strike It is clear, how-
ever, that arbitration was mentioned at this time only as a means for breaking
the impasse and not as a subject matter for negotiations"
The strike of November 20, 1C45 was caused by the deadlock reached between
the parties in their negotiations on the wage issue and by the refusal of the
Union to arbitrate that issue in order to break the impasse.
As in Point (d) of Respondents' argument, they claim that the strike was
caused by the "Union's Refusal to Bargain," it is necessary here to define terms.
"Collective Bargaining" is the process by which an employer (or his represent-
ative) and the representative of his employees attempt to settle all questions
involving the employer-employee relationship, including both the original creation
of an agreement covering employment as well as the interpretation and applica-
tion of that agreement from (lay to day, by direct negotiations between the two
above mentioned parties On the other hand, "Arbitration" is that method of
resolving disputes between the two parties to the employment relationship
through the intervention of an impartial third person whose selection and deci-
sion on the matters in dispute the original parties have agreed in advance to
accept as binding Through collective bargaining, i. e. direct negotiations between
the original parties. therefore the parties can agree to utilize arbitration to re-
solve any questions which they cannot solve through direct negotiations Arbi-
tration is not, however, either an integral part of collective bargaining nor a
substitute therefor Arbitration may be considered as one step beyond collective
bargaining beginning, as it does, only when collective bargaining has failed
through the reaching of an impasse by the introduction of a third party whose
agreed duty'it is to make a binding decision on disputed points for the original
parties. In the process, of collective bargaining there is no duty on either party
to arbitrate their differences in the absence of an agreement to do so reached
through direct negotiations between the parties.' Absent that agreement either
party is legally entitled to resolve the issue by a test of economic strength.
It is, therefore, clear that the Respondents are in error in claiming that the
strike was caused by the Union's "refusal to bargain " Although the Union
was not willing to arbitrate the difference, the facts show that it was at all times
ready to bargain on that issue Although the Union has refused to arbitrate,
it has not refused to bargain.
The Respondents' briefs and the assertion of their counsel that "We are going
to try here whether a Union can refuse to negotiate on arbitration and still
compel negotiations on wages" raises a purely theoretical problem which was
never raised by the facts of this case which clearly demonstrate that neither
arbitration nor recognition of the I T. U laws was ever made the subject matter
i' Brown testified that the "general matters" up for negotiations between September 15
and November 20, 1945, were "a change in wages and, possibly, the hours that Rent with
it" Du'ing his testimony Poynter added "arbitration" as a subject of the negotiations
during this time The undersigned accepts the testimony of Brown, who was in actual
attendance at the negotiations, while Poynter was not The undersigned believes that
Poynter included arbitration as a subject because of the Respondents' offer to bleak the
impasse through arbitration of the wage difference
'S Daugherty Labor Problems in American Industries (Revised edition 1938) page 450,
452 See Golden and Ruttenberg, The Dynamics of Industrial Democracy (1942) page 43-
Also How Collective Bargaining Works (20th Century Fund, 1942) , R'osenfarb, The
National Labor Policy (1940) , and The Enforcement of Collective Labor Agreements by
Arbitration, 13 Univ Chi L Rev 445, 462-470.
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining between the parties. The only time the Respondents
attempted to raise either issue was incidentally through the terms of the January
Conditions on January 12, 1946, but, on that occasion, the Respondents, as will
be shown hereinafter, also refused to bargain with the Union by the submission
of these unilaterally conceived conditions of employment which were not subject
to negotiation.
On November 20, 1945, after the Union had resorted to the strike weapon to
secure its wage demands, the Respondents were free to continue their operations
by filling the positions of the strikers permanently if they so desired. Section
2 (3) of the Act provides, and the courts have held, that economic strikers having
ceased work as a result of a current labor dispute remain employees at least
while that dispute remains current as it has remained at all times material
herein. The law is settled that economic strikers are only entitled upon appli-
cation for reinstatement to those positions remaining unfilled at the time of their
application.16 It is also clearly established that the existence of a strike in no
way relieves the parties of their duty to bargain during the pendency of a strike.
This situation continued to exist until January 10, 1946, when Poynter on behalf
of the Respondent News requested and secured an invitation to address the Union
and its members in order "to give them the courtesy of seeing the statement to
the public we intend to publish and `Conditions of Employment' the corporation
intends to post."
(2) Status of the Respondent News
On December 17, 1945, Respondent Times-and Independent notified the Union
that henceforth Respondent News, a new corporation, would do all the hiring of
composing room employees and that the Union should negotiate thereafter with
Nelson Poynter as the representative of Respondent News.17 Respondent News
was formed by, and owned in equal shares by, Respondents Times and Independ-
ent for the expressed purposes of doing the publishing for the other Respondents.
The officers and agents of Respondent News were all responsible officials of the
other Respondents.
Also sometime in December 1945, the Respondent Times and Independent also
notified the Pressman and Stereotypers Unions that the Respondent News would
"honor" the contracts those Unions then had with the other Respondents.
Poynter also stated that the Respondents were not attempting to evade any re-
sponsibility through the "mumbo-jumbo" of a new corporation. The testimony
shows that the Respondent News was acting as the agent for, and on behalf of,
the Respondent Times and Independent in their relations with their employees.
The undersigned, therefore, finds that the Respondent News is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
(3) The refusal to bargain
The events occurring on January 12, 1946, and particularly the Respondents'
mimeographed "Statement" and the terms of the January Conditions prove un-
questionably that on January 12, 1946, the Respondents refused to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondents' em-
ployees in the above found appropriate unit.
The Respondents acknowledged that certain statements made during that
meeting give the "superficial" appearance of such a refusal when taken "out of
context" and out of the existing setting. Assisted by the detailed explanations
16 N L. R B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U S 333.
17 By inadvertence this letter of notification with its attached news article was not
offered in evidence during the hearing, so that this finding is based on oral testimony in
regard thereto.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 701
of the existing circumstances from both sides, the undersigned finds that the
Respondents on January 12, 1946, refused to bargain with the Union and that
this refusal consisted of the following :
First: The Respondents by unilateral action established new conditions of
employment without negotiating such conditions with the long recognized and
well established bargaining agent of the employees affected thereby 18
The January Conditions promulgated by the unilateral action of the Respond-
ents without consultation about them with the Union contained numerous changes
in the conditions of employment from those in force on November 20, 1945. The
expiration date for the January Conditions was July 31, 1949, instead of July 31,
1947, as had previously been the case. The January Conditions provided a totally
new grievance procedure including arbitration. And they further provided for
the creation of a new bargaining representative as well as a new Joint Standing
Committee. The above are merely examples of the changes in conditions of em-
ployment provided for by the Conditions.
Although Poynter testified that he was attempting to "revive bargaining" on
January 12, 1946, through these Conditions and that he considered them only
"tentative" and not "immutable," implying thereby that he intended them as a
sort of counterproposal subject to negotiations with the Union, the undisputed
facts show that the Respondents publicly stated that they intended to post those
January Conditions on January 12, that they were so posted and that, by the terms
of the Conditions themselves, were to be in effect from that date. The mimeo-
graphed "Statement" shows that the union members were being offered the first
opportunity to obtain employment "under the foregoing terms." Further, Poyn-
ter orally refused to negotiate with either the Union or the strikers regarding
said Conditions and stated further : "We are now a new corporation and we are
posting these conditions as of today. We are releasing this statement in tomor-
row's paper therefore how can we negotiate with you?" He gave the employees
10 days' time in which to either accept or reject the January Conditions-not
to bargain about them. Any concept Poynter may have had about negotiating
these January Conditions was never publicly expressed until the time of the
hearing From all the evidence the January Conditions were immutable, not
subject to negotiation, and unilaterally established by the Respondents.
Second : The Respondents stated verbally and in their mimeographed State-
ments that they refused to negotiate with the strikers or with the Union.
The law is well established that strikers whose work has ceased in connection
with a current labor dispute remain employees and that the existence of a strike
in no way relieves the employer of the duty to bargain with the recognized bar-
gaining agent at least so long as the dispute remains current and the strikers have
not been replaced 11
When Poynter made his statements that the Respondents had no employees
and therefore could not bargain with their representative and also that any
striker whom the Respondents rehired would be considered as a "new employee,"
he in good faith believed this to be the law. But lie had learned to the contrary
by the time of the hearing.
At the hearing he attempted to explain these remarks as constituting "an in-
vitation" to the union members to return to work by indicating that by so doing
they would not jeopardize their union standing as no non-union employees had
been employed. Poynter further attempted to explain that the statements were
18N. L R B v Chicago Apparatus Co, 116 F. (2d) 753 ( C C A 7) , John J Onghton,
at at v N L. R. B., 118 F (2d) 486, 494 (C C. A 3) ; and N. L. R. B. v. Geomge P. Pilling
C Son Co, 119 F (2d) 32 (C. C. A. 3)
1' McQuay-Norris Mfg Co. v. N. L R. B , 116 F (2d) 748 (C C A 7) ; cert. denied 313
U S. 565
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
careless , extemporaneous remarks made in the heat of battle. In view of the
facts the statements are also contained in the mimeographed aml carefully pre-
pared statements, these explanations are not convincing
Third : By their January Conditions the Respondents withdrew recognition
from the long established and acknowledged bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit 20
This rejection of the Union as such exclusive representative constitutes a
refusal to bargain Unless and until the employees change or eliminate their
representative, the employer is bound to bargain with such representative ir-
respective of the fact that the employees are on strike. Recognition is a matter
of right and not the subject of collective bargaining The fact that the Re-
spondents would have welcomed the future selection of the Union as the repre-
sentative of its "new employees" is immaterial
Fourth : The Respondents required as a condition precedent under the terms
of the January Conditions that the strikers abandon the strike officially, re-
nounce their bargaining representative, be hired individually as new employees
and then select a representative before the Respondents would bargain.21
Such a condition precedent to bargaining clearly violates Section 8 ( 5) of the
Act The provisions of the January Conditions, as well as Poynter' s expressed
willingness to bargain with the employees "when we have some," made these
requirements mandatory. However, the Respondents were still bound to deal
with the Union as the then exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. The
Respondents cannot evade their duty to bargain by requiring such conditions
precedent.
Fifth: The Respondents were in reality dealing with the individual printers
and not with their duly authorized bargaining agent, the Union.
The January Conditions dealt solely with the conditions upon which the in-
dividual workman could secure employment with the Respondents including
therein a program by which a future bargaining agent could be selected By
requiring the acceptance of these conditions by the individuals prior to hiring,
the Respondents insisted upon the creation of an individual contract of employ-
ment which under the circumstances violated Section 8 (5) of the Act."
(4) The Joint Standing Committee
In view of the findings that this Committee as a condition of employment has
been found to be violative of the Act under Section 8 (1) and (5), the under-
signed finds it unnecessary to pass on its legality under Section 8 (2) as alleged.
(5) Events subsequent to January 12, 1946
As heretofore found the Respondents and the Union carried on a desultory
correspondence interspersed with an innocuous meeting or two after January
12, 1946 A reading of this correspondence clearly proves that each party was
motivated by a desire to justify and to strengthen its position for the present
hearing rather than for the purposes of attempting to settle the existing points
of dispute.
"Jeffery-Dewitt Insulator Company v N L R B, 91 F (2d) 1,14 (C C A 4) ; cert
denied 302 U S 731 N L R B v Boles-Coleman Lumber Co, 98 F (2d) 18 (C C A 9)
and N L R B v Reed d Prince Manufacturing Company, 118 F (2d) 874 (C C A 1), cert.
denied 314 U S 595
21N L R B v Arthur L Colten, et al , 105 F (2d) 179 (C C A 6) ; and N L R B v.
b'aosteel Metallurgical Corp , 306 U S 240
=2 National Licorice Company v N L R B , 309 U S 350 and Matter of John S Doane,
63 N L It B 1403
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 703
It is clear, and the undersigned finds, that the unfair labor practices which
occurred on January 12, 1946, converted the strike which had commenced on
November 20, 1915, as an economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike
and prolonged said strike. Under these circumstances the strikers are entitled,
upon request, to full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions with the Respondents as none of the positions were filled prior to the
unfair labor practices of January 12, 1946.
Counsel for the Union aigues that such an unconditional request for rein-
statement was made by the Union by letter of May 2^7, 1946. In view of the
circumstances existing at the date of that letter and of the somewhat qualified
and conditioned iequest which was made, the undersigned finds that, under
all the circumstances, this letter does not constitute an unconditional request for
reinstatement by the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT O'F THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondents described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and have led to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flew of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain allirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1 St. Petersburg Typographical Union, Local 8601, affiliated with the I. T U.
(A F. L.), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act
2 All employees in the Respondents' composing room including the proof-
readers of the Respondent Independent constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective baigaining within the meaning of Section 9, (b) of
the Act.
3 St Petersburg Typographical Union, Local 860, affiliated with the I. T. U.
(A. F. L.), was on January 12, 1946, and at all times material thereafter has
been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of
the Act
4 By refusing on January 12, 1940, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with St. Petersburg Typographical Union, Local 860, affiliated with
the I T. U. (A F. L ), as the exclusive representative of all their employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondents have engaged in and are
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
cf the lights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged
rn and are 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 within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
7:11242-47 vol 72 46
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of tact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Respondents,
Times Publishing Company, Evening Independent, Inc, and News Printing, Inc.,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with St. Petersburg Typograhical Union,
Local 860, affiliated with I. T U (A F. L ), as the exclusive representative of all
their employees in the Respondents' composing room including the proofreadei s of
the Respondent Independent;
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise
of the 'right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
St. Petersburg Typographical Union, Local 860, affiliated with I. T U. (A. F. L.),
or any other labor organization of their own choosing, to bargain collectively
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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with St Petersburg Typographical
Union, Local 800, affiliated with I. T. U. (A. F. 1. ), as the exclusive representative
of all of their employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(b) Upon request therefor, reinstate all those employees who were on strike
on January 12, 1946, to their former or substantially equivalent employment ;
(c) Post throughout their composing rooms in their plants at St. Petersburg,
Florida, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report,. marked
"Appendix C " Copies of this said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Tenth Region, after being signed by the Respondents' representatives
shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon the receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thercaftcr,in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customaiily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this intermediate Report, what steps
the Respondents have taken to comply therewith
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) (lays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondents notify said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondents to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board, may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washing-
ton 25, D. C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 705
counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the
other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as
required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made ir_ writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
THOMAS S. WILSON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 25, 1946
APPENDIX A
To Typographical Union Local 360, and readers of The Evaning Independent and
St. Petersburg Times.
Fifty-one per cent or more of the voting members of the local printers union
will decide whether News Printing, Inc. is to have a union or non-union com-
posing room for the next year or two.
The corporation prefers to have union printers, and is posting conditions of
employment whereby union printers can man its composing room. If this state-
ment is challenged it is a fair question to ask to have the name, the date and
the circumstances whereby a membership card in the ITU was ever lifted for
a man working under these conditions
Before the current strike, The Independent and The Times operated under a
notice posted by the union saying that its men would work in these newspaper
composing rooms only under certain conditions, and at certain wages. It was a
one-sided arrangement with no arbitration provision.
That is why the corporation now posts the conditions of employment with
broad arbitration provisions for both the corporation and its employes. Florida
law forbids a two-party agreement guaranteeing a closed shop. The corpora-
tion believes that its one-party, posted notice is fair and equitable for both
parties in that it has arbitration clauses for any and all differences
These conditions of employment also contain clauses that are fundamental
to union printers, clauses such as priority and struck work.
Composing room employes of News Printing, Inc. will be regarded as new
employes. This would be true if The Independent and Times were posting the
conditions. A reporter, or advertising solicitor, who quits his job, and then re-
turns is considered a new employe without prejudice. The printers will be re-
ceived without prejudice.
News Printing, Inc. is ready to hire printers despite the fact that for almost
two months St. Petersburg newspapers have published without printers and
without strikebreakers Even the publishers have been amazed at their ability
to maintain editions and advertising volume under the new techniques. The
publishers are far from satisfied with the quality of their papei s. The delivery
of a few gadgets which have been on order will cure most of the basic defects
of quality. Page costs are satisfactory.
This has been accomplished by reducing each operation to a smaller skill,
and thus reducing the training period In a small way, it is the same technique
that enabled American Industry to make 100,000 planes a year when experienced
plane manufacturers said that 50,000 were impossible.
'WAGE AND HOURS.
St. Petersburg printers can make as high as $3,294 per year under the wages
posted by the corporation-$1.40 per hour with a premium of 50 cents per night
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for night work This is the same scale that St. Petersburg newspapers pay
their journeymen stereotypers. pressmen, and engravers for S hours per day
or night.
The corporation provides for an S-hour day but a majority of its composing
room employes may elect to reduce this to 71/2 hours for 73/2 hours pay-an annual
decrease of $182
Likewise, no composing room employe need work the 15 extra days per year
which the corporation is willing to guarantee. This amounts to $252 per year
of guaranteed overtime to take care of the wide seasonal fluctuation in our
advertising.
These scales and guru antees ale some of the highest in the South, and among
the highest in the country when weighted against advertising rates
You will note that the corporation's night scale is 614 cents less than the two
newspapers were willing to pay prior to the strike in older to induce "travelers"
or out-of-town printers to come here for part-time work Such "travelers"
were obliged to pay high seasonal rents, but the strike has revealed so much
waste that the publishers are copvinced resident printers (who pay pre-war
rents, or own their own homes here) can man the composing room of News
Printing, Inc We don't anticipate needing out-of-town printers again until the
autumn of 1947
The following table tells the wage stout in St. Petersburg .since before the war.
Hourly rates paid St Petersburq newspaper printers since before iVorld IVar Ii
Day Night Day Night
1938------------------------------ $1 00 $1 0625 1942 (freeze)------------- --------- $1 09 $1 15
1939 (war breaks)----------------- 1 04 1 10 1943 (Little Steel) -_----_ 1 196 1 265
1940 __ 1 04 1 10 Posted by News Pnuting, Inc ---- 1 40 1.4675
1941 _ - 1 09 1 15
If the local union rejects these conditions of employment we will be obliged
to bring in a few key printei5 to train the large number of local apprentices
we will recruit from retuning war veterans and others with mechanical talent
We can guarantee such key men employment on a six-clay week, with annual
wages as high as $3525; We can also insure union punters death and pension
benefits equal to those afforded by the International Typographical Union.
Within a year or more such non-anion printers as are in our employ no doubt
will be offered cards by the International Typographical Union Unlike most
publishets, we will welcome rather than resist such unionization, because we
will again have union printers working with an arbitration clause in their con-
ditions of employment
Because it is the older area who are displaced by such a change, we hope that
St Petersburg will not have to go through this cycle that Tampa and other cities
have witnessed in the past 25 Yeats The corporation is ambitious to go alter
laige-scale job piiiting It has some of the best press equipment, and access
to one of the largest engraving plants in the south The corporation is ambitious
to develop viork at it profit to itself and its employes It can best do this by
devoting its times to development of business rather than Iiaining new printers
when St Petersburg already has its share of competent printers.
But the corporation can not make this decision Fifty-one per cent or more
of the membership of Local SbO can vote to liquidate the strike, and start
wheels turning in the corporation's composing loom. `.gani we repeat that lie
protei union to non-union printers
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 707
After almost two months of strike it is time to take stock, and answer some
,of these questions
1 Can the corporation save money by hiring printers
2 How many printers thought the strike could last only a few days at most?
3. How many thought that the publishers would surrender during the Christ-
mas advertising season?
4 How many thought the publishers must surely fold because of a picket
line?
Members of Local International Typographical Union No. 860 are offered the
first opportunity to obtain employment under the foregoing conditions. We
would appreciate the courtesy of a response concerning your intentions by, or
before, January 21, 1946. We will make no long-term commitments to printers
outside the local union until that date
News Printing, Inc.,
By NELSON POYNTER,
President.
APPENDIX B
STATEMENT OF POLICY AND CONDITIONS OF E\IPIOYDIENT IN COMPOSING
ROOM OF NEws PRINTING, INC.
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA
1 This Statement of Policy and' Conditions of Employment shall be in effect
from January 12, 1946, to and including July 31, 1949, (and thereafter within
the limitations hereinafter set forth), in regard to the employment in its com-
posing room of Linotype Operators, Intertype Operators, Ludlow Operators,
Monotype Operators, Printer-Machinists, Hand Type-high Compositors, Type-
high Make-ups, Printer Apprentices and Machinist Apprentices.
2. It shall be the sole right of the Corporation to determine the specific days
on which production shall be maintained, and the Corporation shall be the judge
of the number of workers required. No payment shall be made for any shift
on which no work is performed
3. Fomemen-a The Corporation shall designate a general foreman, a day
foreman and a night foreman, none of whom will work with his hands niore than
forty (forty) hours per week. The general foreman, or his alternate foreman
in charge (who shall hereinafter be designated the foreman) shall employ all
composing room help, and may discharge composing room employees (1) for
incompetency; (2) for neglect of duty; (3) for violation of office rules which
shall be conspicuously posted in the composing room ; and (4) to decrease the
force. Members legally discharged according to the provisions of this section
may be reinstated only at the option of the foreman.
b. The foreman shall he the judge of competency He shall supervise and
direct all employees of the composing room, and shall have the right to transfer
all employee to any position to facilitate production, provided, an employee in
his regular position may not be transferred to work with which he is not familiar
and discharged from it for incompetency
4 Jount standing eoniaaittee-a A majority of the composing room employees
may select a committee consisting of two persons to discuss with two representa-
tives of the Corporation any issues that may arise between any employee or em-
ployees and the foreman or the Corporation as to interpretation or application
of any provisions of this Statement of Policy and conditions of employment.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. When an employees' committee of two member's is selected, the Corporation
also will appoint two members as its representatives to form a Joint Standing
Committee of four (4) members. The Corporation and the employees may change
their respective representatives on the joint standing committee at any time.
Additional representatives of the Corporation and of employees may attend the
meetings as observers without power to vote.
c. To the Joint Standing Committee there shall be referred in writing for
settlement any and all disputes arising out of interpretation or application of
this Statement of Policy and conditions of employment, including disputes re-
garding discharged employees ; provided that the employee or employees affected,
the Corporation, or the foreman shall request the joint standing committee to
act in any case In the event of a grievance where money is involved, the total
amount of money shall be set out in the written statement of the dispute sub-
mitted to the committee.
d. The Joint Standing Committee shall meet within seven (7) days from the
date on which the Corporation, the loreman, or any aggrieved employee notifies
an employee-member and an employer-member of the Committee that a meeting
is desired , and shall proceed forthwith to settle any disputes brought before it.
Any decision made on such disputes by a majority of the four-man Committee
shall be final and binding on both parties to the controversy
e. If the Joint Standing Committee cannot reach a majority agreement on any
dispute within ten (10) days (which time may be extended by majority agree-
ment) from the date on which the dispute is first considered by it, at the request
of the two representatives of either party, the members of the Committee shall
form a Board of Arbitration and shall select a fifth member who shall act as
Chairman of the Board. Said fifth member may be selected in any manner agreed
upon by a majority of the four members.
f. If said four members fail to select a fifth member within twenty (lays from
the date on which the Committee members of either party requested the forma-
tion of the arbitration board, the selection shall be made in the following manner:
Each party to the dispute shall nominate five persons If both nominations lists
include the names of two or more of the same persons , lots shall be drawn to
determine which one of the persons nominated by both pasties shall be asked to
serve as Chairman. If that person will not agree to serve, other duplications
will be asked to serve in the order drawn by lots. If there is only one duplica-
tion, that person will be asked to serve. If there are no duplications on the two
lists of nominations, each party may strike three names from the other party's
list. The remaining four names shall be submitted to Judge Hobson, Judge
Bird, or Judge wehle of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida,
from which the judge designated may select the order in which one or mare of
the nominees shall be invited to serve as Chairman. The judge shall be informed
that, if he does not believe any person on the list submitted to him has all needed
qualifications to render a fair, unbiased, intelligent decision in the case, he may
decline to make any selection. In the event that no selection is made, of that
the person or persons selected decline to serve as Chairman, the four-man board
shall again go through the same procedure of selecting a Chairman until the
services of a Chairman are finally obtained. It shall require the affirmative
votes of at least three of the members of the five-man Board of Arbitration to
decide the issues, and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties
involved in the dispute. The decision of the Board of Arbitration shall be signed
by all the members thereof, but becomes legal and binding when signed by a
majority. Any fees and expenses of the Chairman of the arbitration board
shall be pro-rated equally between the Corporation and the employees' group.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 709
g Members of the four-man board shall attempt to agree upon basic procedure
for the arbitration prior to selection of a Chairman If the majority of the
four-man Board fails to agree on any point of procedure, the Chairman' s rulings
on such points shall govern However, any offer made in conciliation shall not
be revealed to the Chairman. If and when, and only in the event that, the
Corporation pleads inability to pay its books shall be open to inspection by the
board of arbitration. There shall not be submitted in evidence or argument any
articles of association, charter, constitution, laws, by-laws, general laws, regula-
tions, resolutions or rules of any character of the Corporation or of any group
or organization of its employees , except the office rules of the Corporation's com-
posing room and this Statement of Policy and Conditions of Employment
h If a discharged employee be reinstated by the Joint Standing Committee or
Arbitration Board, such Committee or Board has jurisdiction to determine
whether there shall be pay for lost time, and if so, the amount thereof ; provided,
in no case shall reimbursement he in a sum greater than the regular woiking
time actually lost, multiplied by the employee's regular straight-time rates there-
for. From this amount shall be deducted all earnings of the employee while his
case is pending and all unemployment compensation from all sources ; and the
employee shall show that diligent effort was made to obtain other employment.
i. Pending and during arbitration, business in the composing room of the
Corporation shall continue in accordance with the terms of this Statement of
Policy and Conditions of Employment. An employee who appeals from his dis-
charge may not enter the Composing room pending settlement of his case, or may
be temporarily reinstated while his case is pending, at the option of the
Corporation.
5 Amendments.-If the Corporation or an authorized representative of a
majority of the composing room employees wishes to propose amendments to this
Statement of Policy and Conditions of Employment, it shall notify the other in
writing oi' its wishes on or before June 1, 1949. and accompany the notice with a
statement in detail of changes desired. The respondent party may on or before
July 1, 1949, formulate a counter-proposal setting forth the conditions it will seek
to establish. If no counter-proposal be filed, the existing Statement shall be
considered to be the respondent party's counter-proposal.
6 Itencival.-If notice is not given by the Corporation or an authorized repre-
sentative of the employees as above described, such failure to give notice shall be
construed as a renewal of this Statement for Three (3) years, and the wages,
hours and working conditions set out herein shall thereafter continue in force
from year to year until opened for negotiations by the procedure above described.
7. Wage and hour negotiations.-a. If during the life of this Statement either
party wishes to propose a change in wages or hours only, as set out in Section 3
of this Statement, such proposal shall be presented in writing by June 1, 1947, or
June 1st of any succeeding year If mutual agieement be not reached on wages
and hours, the differences shall be arbitrated as provided in Section 4 of this
Statement. Any wage or hour settlement reached by conciliation or arbitration
puisuant to such proposal shall become effective on August 1st of the year in
which the then-current negotiations were commenced.
b If mutual agreement be not reached in negotiations for amendments to this
Statement to become effective after its expiration date, the differences shall be
arbitrated as provided in Section 4 of this Statement.
8 The Corporation recognizes that fruitless controversies must be avoided
and every effort made to maintain harmonious relations ; and will in every case
give prompt attention to grievances reported by employees or their representatives
and will in good faith endeavo -to settle all differences by conciliation or arbi-
tration. Pending settlement of such differences, all employees (except dis-
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charged persons who may be barred from the composing room) will he expected
to continue their work in a regular and orderly manner, without interference or
interruption
9. Miyes and hours-a. The regular straight-tune rate for journeymen shall
• be $1 40 per hour plus a premium for work done after 6. 00 P. M and before
7: 00 A. M. of fifty cents (500) per night -
1) A work week shall consist of 5 days or 5 nights or a combination of days
and nights equalling 5
c The work clay or the work night shall consist of a minimum of S hours.
Work of more than 8 hours per shift shall be considered as overtime and shall
be paid for at price and one-half of the regular rate. If a majority of the em-
ployees so elect, the work day or work night shall consist of 71/2 hour-, at the
hourly rate stated in Section 9a.
10 Vacations -One clay's vacation with pay will be awarded for every fifty
(50) clays worked in the composing room of the corporation between June 1 of
each year and May 31st of the following year, commencing June 1, 1946, up to
150 clays worked. A total of four (4) days vacation with pay will be awarded
for a total of 175 to 200 days worked : and it total of five (5) days vacation with
pay will be awarded for a total of 225 to 250 days worked Vacations shall be
taken during the months of June, July, August and September, immediately fol-
lowing the year earned. The foreman will endeavor to give vacations at the
time requested, but the foreman shall have the sole right to designate the indi-
vidual's vacation period
11. Holidays.-All work performed on holidays shall be paid for at double the
regular rates Not less than 5-hour shifts shall be worked on holidays. The
following shall be considered holidays: New Years, Fourth of July, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving and Christmas. The night shift shall observe the eve rather than
the night of the holiday.
12. Extra work guarantee-Because an abnormal percentage of newspaper
advertising in St Petersburg is published in the winter months; and because
many printers and other local citizens like to take more than aNeiage summer
vacations ; and because it is uneconomic for most individuals to work' here for
only a few weeks and pay winter rents; the Corporation guarantees a mnimum
of fifteen (15) days of extra work (at time and one-half) each year to all of its
regular composing room employees. It will be optional with the individual ein-
ployee as to whether lie elects to work these extra days. Employees who desire
this extra work shall notify the foreman about November 1st each year
13. Lunch pet iod.-Forpman shall provide for the time to go to lunch, but shall
not send an employee to lunch until he has worked at least three (3) hours, nor
shall lie keep an employee more than five hours from starting time before allow-
ing lunch, except in cases of emergency; lunch time, which shall be designated by
the foreman, will not be paid for by the Corporation.
14. Pules.-a. The foreman shall have the responsibility of naming hours of
woik for his force or any part of it. Reasonable notice of changes in regular
starting time shall be given by the foreman All time during the scheduled work-
ing hours of individual employees belongs to the office, and employees shall per-
form any duties in the composing room assigned to them by the foreman. No
einplo.^ec shall be allowed to leave the office during working hours except with
the permission of the foreman. The lorem.tn shall designate the particular days
or nights or combination of clays and nights constituting a situation.
b All work other than that performed by regular situation holders shall be
classed as extra work and be given out by the foreman to that extra whom he
deems most competent to perform it. Former situation holders who have been
discharged to reduce the force shall be given preference in the order of their
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 711
priority standing, provided that in the judgment of the foreman such preference
does not interfere with maximum efficiency Any employee believing himself
discriminated against shall have the right to appeal to the Joint Standing
Committee as herein provided.
c. No meetings of employee groups shall be held during working hours except
by permission of the foreman
d Employees who have left the building and are called back after more than
thirty (30) minutes and less than eight (8) hours from termination of regular
hours of work, shall receive $1.00 for the call, plus the regular over-time rate for
the actual time worked on said call-back.
e. No employee shall receive less than one day's pay except when discharged
for cause, or excused at his own request, or working on a "call-back".
f If a majority of the composing room employees of the Corporation are
members of the International Tpyographical Union and working on their jobs,
the Corporation shall refuse to permit its facilities to be used for work received or
destined for struck composing rooms, unfair employers or publications.
15 Pick-ups -The Corporation shall own all "pick-ups", both machine and
hand set. platter once paid for shall always remain the property of the Corpora-
tion, either in type or mat form, to use in any or all editions and publications or
as many times as desired, with such changes as the office may wish to make.
"Kill" marks, corrections or changes in type or mats, or plates, shall not deprive
the Corporation of the right to "pick-ups". The composing room of the Corpo-
ration shall not be called on to reproduce any mats
16 Apprentices -a. Apprentices may be employed in the ratio of one to every
five journeymen If enough competent journeymen are not available, this ratio
shall be increased, and shall not be reduced even though competent journeymen
are available at a later date
b Apprentices shall serve an apprenticeship of six years unless a joint com-
mittee of representatives of the Corporation and journeymen employees shall
agree unanimously that an apprentice has become competent to work as a
journeyman in less than six years.
e Apprentices shall have a medical certificate to show they are physically fit;
shall have the equivalent of a common school education ; shall be able to read
manuscript intelligently, and shall not be less than 16 years of age nor more
than 25 years of age at the beginning of their apprenticeship. It a foreman finds
that an apprentice is unfitted to become a competent journeyman, the apprentice-
ship shall be terminated at once.
d. Apprentices' pay shall be fixed by the Corporation during the first year of
their apprenticeship. During the remaining years of their apprenticeship, they
shill receive not less than : Second year, 40% ; third year, 50% ; fourth year,
60% ; fifth year, 70% ; sixth year, 90% of the minimum journeyman's scale pro-
vided herein. °
e. The training of the apprentice shall be under the direction of the foreman
who shall assign the work of the apprentice and permit him, during the term of
his training to familiarize himself with the different branches of the compositor's
work. At or before the beginning of the second year, all apprentices shall be
obligated to start a recognized course in printing and quarterly thereafter shall
be obligated to pass examinations submitted by an apprentice committee selected
by authorized representatives of the composing room employees The recognized
course in printing shall be completed by the apprentice before he may be advanced
to journeyman status.
17. Substitutes.-A journeyman situation holder shall accept full responsibility
for covering his situation either in person or by engagement of a substitute who
is competent to perform the duties normally assigned to the situation holder, at
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the regular minimum straight-tinge rates specified herein Substitutes engaged
by regulars and failing to report shall be subject to discharge at the option
of the foreman When a regular does not report within ten (10) minutes of
the time he is scheduled to begin work, the foreman may put on a substitute in
his place, and suspend the regular for that shift; or any employee reporting late
may be required to make up the lost time immediately following the shift, at
straight-time rates Any employee reporting ten (10) or more minutes late
for three (3) days or more in any calendar month may be dischai ged for habitual
tardiness Employees shall not be discharged for infrequent failure to engage
substitutes or to report on time when such failures are caused by bona fide illness
or emergency. -
18. General.-Acceptance of employment by any person under this Statement
of Policy constitutes agreement on his part to maintain as high a standard of
efficiency as reasonably possible, thereby guaranteeing a maximum amount of
creditable production Any employee who deliberately limits his production, or
who directly or indirectly encourages. advises, or suggests such limitation will
be subject to discharge.
19. Any person covered by this Statement of Policy who leaves a position, other
than a temporary position, and who is a member of any reserve component of
the land or Naval forces who is on active duty or who may be assigned to active
duty, or who is enlisted or inducted into the land or Naval forces for training
and service, and who, in the judgment of those in authority over hint, satisfactorily
completes such active duty or period of training and service, and who (1) obtains
a certificate to that effect upon the completion of such period of training and
service, (2) is still qualified to perform the duties of his former position, and (3)
makes application for reemployment within 90 days after he is relieved from such
active duty or service, shall be restored to such position or to a position of like
seniority, status and pay Further, any person who is restored to a position in
accordance with the foregoing shall be considered as having been on furlough or
leave of absence during his period of training and service in the land or Naval
forces shall be so restored without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate
in insurance or other benefits offered by the Corporation pursuant to established
rules and practices relating to employee on furlough or leave of absence in effect
with the employer at the time such person was ordered into such service. It is
understood and agreed that this clause shall not be construed as requiring the
Corporation to restore a position which may have been abolished through re-
duction of regular situations It is further understood and agreed that any
employee hired to fill a vacancy created by reason of another employee going
into the Armed Forces under the Selective Service Act of 1940 shall be deemed
to be a temporary employee in a temporary position.
20. Any provision in this statement that is found in violation of federal or
Florida Law will be eliminated from the Statement but will not affect the rest
of this statement of policy and conditions of employment
APPENDIX C
No,iICE TO ALL Eaipi.OYEEs
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not refuse to bargain collectively with the St. Petersburg Typo-
graphical Union , Local 860, affiliated with the 1 . T U (A. F L ), as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described below.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 713
We will not unilaterally make any changes with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, and/or other terms or conditions of employment.
We will not in any manner interfere with the efforts of the St. Petersburg
Typographical Union, Local 860, affiliated with the I. T. U (A F L ), to
negotiate on behalf of our employees in the appropr,ate unit
We hereby rescind our "•Statennent of Policy and Conditions of Employ-
ment in Composing Room of News Printing, Inc.," which became effective
January 12, 1946.
We will reinstate upon request all those employees who were on strike
on January 12, 1946 to their former or substantially equivalent employment.
We will bargain collectively with St Petersburg Typographical Union,
Local 860, affiliated with I. T. U. (A F. L ), as exclusive representative of
our employees in the bargaining unit described below.
The bargaining unit is • All composing room employees including the
proofreaders of the Evening Independent.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, By ------------------------------------
EVENING INDEPENDENT, INC, ------------------------------------
NEWS PRINTING, INC., ------------ ---------------
FmvlOJCYS ( Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.