Newspaper Printing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

I)ECISI()NS ()F NATIONAl LA ()R RELATIONS HOARD
Newspaper Printing Corporation and Nashville Ty-
pographical Union No. 20. Case 26-CA-7111
July 28, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PE Nt IO10
On April 21, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel. '
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, 2 and conclusions 3 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein. 4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Newspaper Printing Corporation, Nashville, Ten-
nessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
I On September 6, 1978, another administrative law judge approved a
unilateral settlement herein General Counsel opposed the settlement. On
October 16, 1978, the Board vacated and remanded the settlement
Member Penello, however. did not participate in that decision
2 The General Counsel has excepted to certain c(redibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re-
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing his findings.
In finding that Respondent unilaterally reassigned typesetting work
done by composing room employees to the job shop. the Administrative
Law Judge erroneously identified the Sunday magazine in question as
"Parade" magazine while the record indicates that an unnamed Sunday
section of the paper initiated in the fall 1977 was involved in this viola-
tion We correct the Judge's inadvertent error
3 In adopting the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, we note
that although the pertinent section of the contract is entitled "Jurisdic-
tion." the parties bargained to impasse over the unit description and not
work jurisdiction alone.
4We find meril to the General Counsel's exception that the recom-
mended Order failed to specify that Respondent make whole employees
who have suffered monetary losses because of the unilateral changes al-
though the Adminstrative Lasw Judge clearly indicated in his Remedy
section that the make whole provision was vwarranted. The recommended
Order will be modified accordingly
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(c) and
(d), and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accord-
ingly:
"(c) Make whole, with interest, employees who
have suffered monetary losses by reason of the un-
lawful unilateral action, during the period of time
from the effective date of the changes until agree-
ment thereon by the parties pursuant to the Sep-
tember 6, 1978, contract.
"(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL. NOT fail and refuse to recognize
and bargain collectively with Nashville Typo-
graphical Union No. 20 as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees in
the appropriate bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT bargain to impasse on a unit-
jurisdiction contract provision modifying the
existing unit-jurisdiction provision.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally reassign typeset-
ting work done by composing room employees
to the job shop.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change existing
terms and conditions of employment including
abolishing the Union's general laws as employ-
ee work rules, eliminating the practice of new
substitutes being added to the sub-board, and
abolishing the practice of hiring substitutes to
replace regular situation holders, abolishing all
priority rights of employees who have not
held a regular situation for 1 year, changing to
a practice of hiring trainees at less than jour-
neyman rate, redefining the Union's jurisdic-
tion among our employees, having supervisors
perform unit work, disallowing starting time
claims on unfilled jobs paying above the pre-
vailing wage rates, denying the journeyman
classification to qualified employees when
hired, removing limitations on Respondent
250 NLRB No. 132
1 144
NEA SPAPER PRINTING CORPORATION
transferring employees between classifications,
changing hours of day and night work, chang-
ing hours qualifying the night rate of pay, es-
tablishing a 90-day probationary period of new
employees, establishing a 65-year old retire-
ment age with waivers solely determinable by
us, instituting a broad management rights
policy, eliminating all over the scale rates, and
eliminating the substitute classification.
WE WIL.L NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WlLt restore and abide by preexisting
practices regarding existing terms and condi-
tions of employment as to those changes in ex-
isting terms and conditions of employment
listed hereinabove.
WE WILL make whole, with interest, em-
ployees who have suffered monetary losses by
reason of the unlawful unilateral action, during
the period of time from the effective date of
the changes until agreement thereon by the
parties pursuant to the September 6, 1978, con-
tract.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
in good faith with Nashville Typographical
Union No. 20 as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit with
respect to wages, hours, and terms and condi-
tions of employment; all to the extent that
these changes have not been incorporated in
the September 6, 1978, collective-bargaining
agreement between the Union and Respon-
dent.
NEWSPAPER PRINTING CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PETIER E. DONNEI.I.Y, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge herein was filed on March 22, 1978, by Nashville
Typographical Union No. 20, International Typographi-
cal Union, herein called Union or Charging Party. An
amended charge was filed on April 17, 1978, and com-
plaint thereon was issued on April 21, 1978, alleging that
Newspaper Printing Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent or Employer, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by issuing a written reprimand to Union President
Joe Jolley for having engaged in union activity. The
complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally changing certain
terms and conditions of employment without having first
bargained to impasse thereon. The complaint also alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
bargaining to impasse on a contract provision changing
the definition and composition of the appropriate existing
contract unit. An answer was timel, filed by Respon-
dent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing %was held before the
Administrative Law Judge on April 24 and 25 and June
II. 12. and 13, 1979.1 Briefs have been timely filed by
Respondent and General Counsel which have been dul1
considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. EMPLO)YFRS BUSINESS
The Employer is engaged in the publication and distri-
bution of newspapers in Nashville. Tennessee. During
the past 12 months, Respondent had a gross volume of
business in excess of $200,00 and received at its Nash-
ville, Tennessee, location. directly from points outside
the State of Tennessee, products valued in excess of
$50,000. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I
find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZArION
The complaint alleges, Respondent in its answer
admits, and I find that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGFD UNFAIR L.ABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Refusal-to-bargain allegations
Respondent and the Union have a longstanding history
of collective bargaining and were parties to a contract
running from July 1, 1972, to June 30, 1975, covering the
composing room employees. During the term of this
contract Respondent, by way of automating its publish-
ing process, purchased and installed new machinery from
the fall of 1973 through June 1974. The main objective
of this effort was to convert from a hot-metal to cold-
metal type of operation. As Respondent began to utilize
the new equipment, it began to reduce the complement
of employees in the composing room, and the employee
complement in the composing unit was reduced from
about 225 in mid-1974 to about 125 in June 1975. During
this period of time Respondent and the Union were
meeting to discuss the effects that these new methods
and machinery were having on the composing room unit,
particularly as to the reduction of employment.
These discussions continued incident to negotiations
for a new contract. It is undisputed that the essential
problem was reaching an accommodation between Re-
spondent's desire for flexibility in the utilization of the
new equipment, through changes in the work jurisdiction
provisions of the contract, 2 on the one hand, and the
I A prior unilateral settlement agreement herein. oppos.ed bh the (icni
eral Counsel. was approived hb ;llla hel' adnllllralle la"I Judge onT Sep-
lember h. 1978 However. ii ..a, ,.tcaled anti remanded b> the lBoard n
October 16. 1978, and the mailer 'a% reeil for the Inlsant hearing Ihc
parties hae also entered Inito a ontral cftecllc Scplembcr h. 197.
until June 30, 1981
2 The pro,ision, of the cnlracl ale ais follo s
I t45
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union's desire to minimize the impact of the new proc-
JURISDICTION
Sec. 3. Jurisdiction of the Union and the appropriate unit for col-
lective bargaining is defined as including all composing room work
and includes classifications such as hand compositors. typesetting ma-
chine operators. makeup men. proofpress operators, proofreaders,
machinists for typesetting machines, operators and machinists on all
devices which cast or compose type or slugs, or film, operators of
tape perforating machines and recutter units for use in composing or
producing type, operators of all phototypesetting machines such as
Fotosetter, Photon, Linofilm, Monophoto, Coxhead Liner, Filmo-
type, and Hadego, and employees engaged in proofing, waxing and
paste make-up with reproduction proofs, processing the product of
phototypesetting machines, paste-makeup of all type, handlettered, il-
lustrative, border and decorative material constituting a part of the
copy; ruling; photoproofing; correction; alteration; and imposition of
the paste-makeup serving as the completed copy for the camera used
in the plate-making process. Paste-make-up for the camera as used in
this paragraph includes all photostats and prints used in offset for
letter-press work and includes all photostats and positive proofs of
illustrations (such as Velox) where positive proofs can be supplied
without sacrifice of quality or duplication of efforts. The Employer
shall make no other agreement covering work above mentioned, es-
pecially no contract using the word "stripping" to do any of the
work above mentioned
It is recognized that the word stripping describes certain processes
of the photoengravers' trade done in the photoengraving room after
the camera in the photoengraving room has photographed a product
sent to that department. and is currently contained in the contract
with the photoengravers union. It is not the intention of the parties
of this agreement, and no language in this section shall be so con-
strued, to disturb, in any way the scope of this operation as currently
practiced in the engraving department. The paste-makeup of type,
cuts and other matter as described in the paragraph above, either in
film or paper from phototype-setting machines (such as Fotosetter.
Photon, Linofilm, Monophoto, Coxhead Liner, Filmotype, Typro
and Hadego) or reproduction proofs on paper or transparencies is
composing room work to be done under the terms of this agreement
before the product is sent to the photoengraving department.
All art work that requires overprinting, benday, surprinting of
cuts, reverses, color work that is produced as complete art shall not
come under the jurisdiction of this contract.
(a) Both parties to this agreement recognize teletypesetting equip-
ment and method of operation, including tape perforator and recut-
ter units, as being composing room work within the jurisdiction of
the unlion
(b) Teletypesetter casting units shall be tended by journeymen
Teletypesetter tape perforator units shall be operated by journeymen
and apprentices
(c) The perforating and monlitoring of the teletypesetter or any re-
lated equipment used shall come within the scope of the operator
class ficalion.
(d) In thc event the regular news sire of Assoc(iated Press or
Untited Press International is received over the regularly leased wires
of the particular wire service in the form of teletypesetter tape such
tape may be used.
Perfoirated tape which is originrated by a Gannett News Service
Office and which is supplied over the Gannett Nes s Service wire
nlal be used fior publication in the Nashville Banner provided such
illpt is perfilrated and transmitted by journeymen and apprentices
wuoirking under coneditions established by an I TU approved conlract
Such tape shall 1not include regularly syndicated coulumns running
uilder bylines like Buchsald, Evans and Novak. Reisel. etc. (ualess
done by a staff member of a Galnnltt property or al Gannett News
Service correspondent) and such regular specialties as Hloroscope
alId the Crosss word Puzele.
All seniding and receiving uilts used in the iransmissionll anld/or re-
ccipt if' perfiurated tape for compnpsilig rooiim work shall he opceralcd
uandl rIaintilini d (except that nialintelianlce which is priovided by the
manlufacturer or o ssor as part of the slllandard services for the least
or purchase of the equipmentl) by jolurnleymen iand ipprclntice cnsLv-
crcdl hy this agreement
All (iNS perfiralted tapes transnitted foir use by publications of
(ianlclt Co.. Inc . under contract with a subohrdinate unlilon of the
11U shhall contaiin idlnitifyitlg codes, of the subordlillle urioll numnler
preparing such tape,
esses on the elimination of employees from the compos-
ing room unit.
Proposals were exchanged on June 2, 1975, prior to
the expiration of the contract on June 30, 1975, and ne-
gotiations were held on June 25 and 27 in 1975.
Other meetings to negotiate a new contract were held
in December 1975 and February 1976 during which Re-
spondent's work jurisdiction proposal was discussed
along with other contract items. In order to expedite ne-
gotiations, it was agreed that Respondent would draft
and submit a complete set of contract proposals. This
was done and, on April 7, 1976, they were submitted to
the Union by Ralph Saunders, assistant finance officer
for Respondent in charge of negotiations for Respondent.
These proposals contained a work jurisdiction proposal
reading as follows:
Jurisdiction
Section 3. Jurisdiction of the Union and the ap-
propriate unit for collective bargaining is defined as
including all work performed in the composing
room, and that work which the Company may from
time to time assign to the composing room. Com-
posing room work shall include the work per-
formed in the classifications of electronic techni-
cians, Ad Make-up machine operators, Paste Make-
up and all other composing room employees, in-
cluding work assigned to the composing room and
performed at or on Linotron 505's, Log-E Film
Processors, Harris 2200 Display Systems, Bruning
Proofing and other proof presses, Ad Desk, Ad
Make-up and Page Make-up or substitute or similar
equipment and processes placed in and assigned to
the composing room from time to time, it being spe-
cifically understood that composing room employ-
ees shall process copy in whatever form, wherever
and however produced that is delivered to the com-
posing room.
Jurisdiction of the Union and bargaining unit
work and/or composing room work shall not in-
clude work performed on or by general purpose
computers, micro processors, mini computers, opti-
cal character recognition devices and/or optical
It is agreed that all other tape must be perforated by employees
covered by this agreement
(e) In the event the Employer party to this agreement decides to
introduce any new equipment. machinery or process which is a sub-
stilute filr, or evolution of present composing equipment. machinery
or process, Employees ciovered by this agreement will perform all
work withil the jurisdiction of the Union regardless of the equip-
mcent or material used or where the work is to he performed
Uponl introduction lif ;iany of the before mentioned equipment. the
enmployee who is affected shall be given the opportunity to retrain in
order to operate said equipment This shall be accomplished by pri-
ority and if ally cmployee is unlwilling or unlable to perfiorm (after
reasonable training period to be determined by a joint traininig com-
nlitte) work satisfactory II the forenain, said employee may be re-
placed by next employee ill said classificaion.ll he affclted personsl
shall he permitted to claim other work that their prionrity eltitles
them to. provided they are comnpetent to perfornm he work
( ()Operatars rf ;lal.' nlachineC or any related CquipmenCt of tile-
typesetter machines shall not he held responsible for time lost due toi
breakduowlns. nIon-typcd or alteraltions (of copy. or non-supply orf
copy. or type which has nolt hben proofrclad
1146
NEWSPAPER PRINTING CORPORATION
scanners, VDT and/or CRT equipment, IBM selec-
trics, leased telephone wire copy, all wire service
input devices, wire copy, syndicated matter and fea-
ture materials, or replacement or substitutes for
same, or the programming or reprogramming, main-
tenance or operation of any equipment within the
jurisdiction of the Union.
These proposals were submitted to the Union with Re-
spondent's representation that this was Respondent's final
contract offer. However, several meetings were held
after April 7, 1976, despite Saunders' representation that
this was its final offer. According to Saunders Respon-
dent continued to meet in the hope of reaching a con-
tract because he felt that the law required it. No meet-
ings were held between August 31, 1976, and February
10, 1977, and there were no substantial modifications in
Respondent's final offer thereafter.
At the meeting on February 10, 1977, Saunders took
the position that the parties were at an impasse and he
maintained this position at several meetings held thereaf-
ter including a meeting with a Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service mediator on October 27, 1977. It
was at this meeting that the Union, upon the advice of
counsel, withdrew its previously advanced work jurisdic-
tion proposal, returning to the work jurisdiction proposal
in the expired contract, set out above.
On January 6, 1978, Saunders wrote to Jolley as fol-
lows:
Since the negotiations between the Nashville Ty-
pographical Union No. 20, and the Newspaper
Printing Corporation have reached impasse some
time ago, we are implementing portions of our final
proposal effective today. A copy of the work rules
and practices are enclosed.
Wishing you a joyous new year.
Enclosed, with this letter was the following notice
dated January 6, 1978, reading:
NOTICE TO COMPOSING ROOM
EMPLOYEES
The following changes in work rules and prac-
tices are effective today:
I. There will be no recognition of the ITU Gen-
eral Laws in governing the relationship between the
parties.
2. No new substitutes will be added to the sub
board, and the employer will not be required, nor
will a regular employee be permitted, to hire substi-
tutes except where a regular situation holder desires
to be off and the Foreman would otherwise be
unable to release them due to production demands.
3. Employees who have not held regular situa-
tions for a period of one year shall forfeit all prior-
ity rights and shall be eligible for rehire on the same
terms and conditions as any other new employee.
4. To cover the production demands, the Compa-
ny may hire trainees at less than the Journeyman's
scale.
The subject matter of these changes had been previ-
ously discussed in connection with Respondent's final
offer. The changes were implemented as written.
On January 27, 1978, Saunders again wrote to Jolley
concerning the institution of additional changes as fol-
lows:
Since my letters of January 12, 1978, to the
Union remain unanswered, I must assume that the
Union doesn't feel any strong compulsion to meet
with the Company or to submit new propositions or
modified proposals.
Since our negotiations began in May, 1975, there
have been many changes in our work environment,
both as a result of technical change and inflation.
Since the parties have failed to reach agreement on
substantial issues and the Company's final offer has
now been outstanding since April 1976, business ne-
cessity and fairness to the employees dictate that
changes are timely. The parties have reached im-
passe in bargaining, therefore the enclosed copy of
changes in work rules and procedures is proposed
to govern our relationship effective with the finan-
cial week beginning February 5, 1978. In considera-
tion of the three and one half years that have passed
since the last salary adjustment we propose to raise
the minimum rates of pay by $50.50 per week. The
Company representatives will be available to meet
with you next week to bargain about the work rules
and procedures and the impact that they may have
on the employees in the bargaining unit. Should we
not hear from you prior to February 5, 1978, we
must assume that you don't desire to discuss any of
these matters and we intend to implement those sec-
tions of the final offer as described-in the enclosed
work rules.
Enclosed were a lengthy set of work rules which in-
cluded those changes in the work rules alleged in the
complaint to have been unlawful changes. (G.C. Exh.
4(b).) The parties met on February 2, 1978, and the work
rules were discussed. Despite the Union's objections, the
changes were implemented pursuant to the letter.
The September 6, 1978, contract now in effect incor-
porates the changes instituted on January 6 and February
5, 1978.
As to the contention of the General Counsel that type-
setting work done by composing room employees was
reassigned to the job shop,3 it appears that some years
ago Respondent published a Sunday magazine section
called the "Tennessean," which was composed in the
composing room by unit employees. Subsequently, the
"Tennessean" was discontinued and in October 1977 Re-
spondent picked up the Sunday "Parade" magazine. For
the most part this magazine is not printed by Respon-
dent, but originally at least some of the advertising type-
setting for it was done in the composing room. However,
after a couple of months, the advertising typesetting was
I hc *1, h 'Ip I i l Ulll,1111111 ll Lid It IrdiJI l l utilllcd %nllcl r rrvsc'.
I11nI.1 )1 O-Ctiplk d o ~.cilh pril1111 ''111 )111m lu'ir nl;llt.rlliJ
1147
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
removed from the composing room and at least some of
it was done, and continues to be done, in the job shop by
nonunit employees. 4
Saunders concedes that the typesetting for some ads,
some 10 to 12 per issue, are done in the job shop, al-
though most of the ads are done at various locations in
Nashville and came in "camera ready," requiring no
composing room work.
2. Joe Jolley's reprimand
On March 8, 1978, Jolley received in the mail a letter
from the Regional Director for Region 26 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board, advising him that an unfair
labor practice charge previously filed by the Union had
been dismissed for lack of cooperation. Jolley then set
about attempting to contact International Representative
Don McFee, according to Jolley, "To let him know
what had happened and see what to do further." In
order to facilitate his ability to contact McFee, Jolley de-
cided to take the night off from work. A few minutes
before the beginning of his 4 p.m. shift on March 8,
1978, Jolley called the plant to advise them that he
needed to be off that day. He spoke to either Robert
Mitchell or Don Williams, day shift employees, asking
for Bob Batson, the night shift foreman who had not yet
come in, whereupon he explained 5 that he needed to be
off on union business to contact McFee and asked that
Batson be so notified. Jolley did not report for work on
March 8. On March 9 he was issued a written reprimand
from Production Manager W. V. Harwell, Jr., for taking
the day off without notice or permission from a foreman.
Apart from the reprimand, Jolley was not otherwise dis-
ciplined.
Jolley testified that he had in the past without repri-
mand obtained a substitute when he needed to be off on
union business, and when no substitute was available he
had left word, as in the instant case.
It appears that there is in effect a rule requiring em-
ployees to secure permission from a foreman in order to
be off from work. Jolley testified that he was aware of
this requirement, but had been off at other times in the
past only "leaving word" as he did on March 8. After
the substitute classification was eliminated on February
5, 1978, Jolley testified that he believes that he had
called in leaving word, as herein, that he would be
absent, but he is not sure.
B. Analysis and Recommendation
1. Refusal-to-bargain allegations
It is the contention of the General Counsel that it was
unlawful for Respondent to insist upon, to the point of
impasse, its contract proposal on unit work jurisdiction
and thereafter unilaterally putting into effect a work ju-
risdiction provision which redefined the work jurisdic-
tion of the composing room unit. In other words, the
While Saunders te.stified that Ihere hld heilc i , c nhange in the corn-
posing room work on "''aradc" magazmnr ince ()hOcher 1977. I find., a%
Jolley ie'clified. Ihal at ltasl romn ol the typcscittig for advcrtising was
Initially performed in Ihe composilg roon by u iil criployc,
' Jollcy canniot recall whetlher he rpoke Ito Willianim or Milchell.
General Counsel contends that work jurisdiction provi-
sions which represent a change from existing contractual
work jurisdiction provisions are permissive bargaining
subjects, so that, while bargaining thereon is not unlaw-
ful, it is unlawful to insist thereon to impasse.
While Respondent does not take the position now that
no impasse had been reached (indeed, Respondent con-
cedes this), Respondent contends that it was not unlaw-
ful, on the facts of this case, to bargain to impasse, or to
implement new work jurisdiction provisions after the im-
passe.
Basic to this argument is Respondent's contention that
there has not really been any change in or modification
in the scope or definition of the unit, and that the new
work jurisdiction provisions did not "disenfranchise" any
employee entitled to representation, but were necessary
changes to provide the flexibility to operate its new
equipment in an economic and efficient manner. This
contention does not withstand even cursory review. A
comparison between the work jurisdiction provisions in
the 1972-1975 contract establishes the Union's work ju-
risdiction to include "all composing room work." The
provision put into effect by Respondent defines the union
jurisdiction inter alia as "All work performed in the
composing room .... " Apart from any other changes,
this change from the language of existing contract was
substantial and meaningful.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent did insist to
impasse upon a work jurisdiction proposal which sub-
stantially modified existing work jurisdiction provisions,
and that such insistence, and the subsequent unilateral
adoption of that work jurisdiction proposal on February
5, 1978, was unlawful in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act. Newspaper Printing Corporation, 232 NLRB 134
(1977); Columbia Tribune Publishing Company, 201
NLRB 538 (1973).
The complaint also alleges that numerous changes in
the existing terms and conditions of employment made
on January 6 and February 5, 1978, were unilateral,
without notice to or bargaining to impasse thereon with
the Union, and constitute refusals to bargain within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Respondent contends that a lawful impasse existed
long prior to the implementation of these changes which
constitutes a legal justification for these changes. I do
not agree. In my opinion, it is immaterial, under existing
Board law, after the unlawful impasse on the work juris-
diction proposal, whether or not impasse had been
reached as to the various unilateral changes prior to their
institution. In circumstances strikingly similar to the in-
stance case, the Board held: "Respondent's insistence on
its jurisdiction-unit proposal, which we have found to be
a refusal to bargain in good faith, precluded a genuine
impasse on the other issues. As stated in Douds v. Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association [New York Shipping
Assn.], 241 F.2d 278. 282 (2d Cir. 1957), 'Parties cannot
bargain meaningful about wages and hours and conditions
of employment unless they know the unit for bargaining. "'
Accordingly, I conclude that by instituting the addi-
tional changes in existing terms and conditions of em-
1148
NEWSPAPER PRINTING CORP()RAFTION
ployment on January 6 and February 5, 1978, Respon-
dent has committed additional 8(a)(5) violations.6
With respect to the allegation that Respondent reas-
signed typesetting work done by composing room em-
ployees to the job shop, it appears that after the first
couple of months the typesetting for advertising in
"Parade" magazine was removed to the job shop, at least
in part. Respondent does not contend that some typeset-
ting for advertising is not done in the job shop; this
much is conceded, but argues that most of the ads come
in camera ready and that very little typesetting for ads is
done in the composing room. Nevertheless, since this
was work customarily performed by composing room
employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by unilaterally removing it to the job shop.
2. Jolley's reprimand
Jolley was the president of the Union and clearly en-
gaged in union activity as an active participant in the
long negotiations herein. However such activity does not
give rise to an automatic presumption of illegality as to
his discipline. There must be a sufficient basis in the
record upon which to conclude that the discriminatory
action was mnotivated by antiunion considerations. This
record will not support that conclusion.
In the instant case, Jolley called in only minutes before
his shift was to begin at 4 p.m. on March 8 to advise that
he would not be coming in that day because of union
business. Despite the fact that there was a longstanding
rule, of which he was aware, that permission to be off
must be requested from a foreman, he never made such a
request, only leaving word with another employee on
the day shift to so advise the night shift foreman, and
this only 10 minutes or so before the shift was to begin.
Nor is there any showing of extraordinary circumstances
which prevented him from calling sooner, at least on the
day of his absence.
While Jolley testified that he had been off before
simply by leaving word of his absence with an employee,
the record is insufficient to support a conclusion that
there existed any condonation by Respondent of such a
custom or practice so as to privilege Jolley to ignore the
rule.
In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that it was
unlawful to issue Jolley a written disciplinary warning.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ation described in section 1, above, have a close and inti-
mate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
i in thee cilrcum tanl'cc I find it unllLccc'; lrl Ito decide hclhcr ,r olr
the change. sould have bheel Icgal had Ihe Inlpa-l.: thhron hbeen lai ful
V. THI RI MI FDt
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It appears that the Union and Respondent have en-
tered into a contract effective September 6, 1978, ending
June 30, 1981. There is nothing in the record to show
that this contract was the product of coercion, or that it
represents anything other than the uncoerced desire of
the parties to bring stability to their bargaining relation-
ship. No contention has been made by the General
Counsel alleging any illegality in this contract. This con-
tract contains many of the provisions found herein to
have been unilaterally instituted in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. A normal remedy in the instant case
provides for the rescission of the unilateral changes and a
making whole for any loss suffered by employees be-
cause of Respondent's misconduct plus interest thereon.
However in the instant case, in view of the September 6,
1978, contract, I shall order such complete relief with re-
spect to the unilateral changes only to the extent that
such changes are not incorporated in the September 6,
1978, contract. Likewise, as to those employees whom
have suffered monetary losses by reason of Respondent's
unlawful unilateral action, relief shall be limited to that
period of time from the effective date of the changes
until agreement thereon by the parties pursuant to the
September 6, 1978, contract, with interest thereon to be
computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpo-
ration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).7
CONCI USIONS OF LAW
1. Newspaper Printing Corporation is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Nashville Typograhical Union No. 20 is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein the following described
unit has been an appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act, such unit being specified in the unit description
of the collective-bargaining agreement between Respon-
dent and Union effective July 1, 1972, to June 30, 1975.
4. At all times material herein the Union has been and
is now the exclusive representative of the employees in
the above-described bargaining unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By bargaining to impasse on a unit-jurisdiction con-
tract provision modifying the existing unit-jurisdiction
provisions, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By unilaterally reassigning typesetting work done
by composing room employees to the job shop, Respon-
7 Sec, gencralls. lt Itmh itmlw at l/cltt,,ia ( ,. I I NI R1! 71t, (1I 2)
149
DE'CISI()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. By unilaterally changing certain existing terms and
conditions of employment, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record and pursu-
ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, Newspaper Printing Corporation,
Nashville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of all the employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit, as described herein above, with regard to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
(b) Bargaining to impasse on a unit-jurisdiction con-
tract provision modifying the existing unit-jurisdiction
provision.
(c) Reassigning typesetting work done by composing
room employees to the job shop.
(d) Unilaterally changing existing terms and conditions
of employment including: abolishing the Union's general
laws as employee work rules, eliminating the practice of
new substitutes being added to the sub-board and abol-
ishing the practice of hiring substitutes to replace regular
situation holders, abolishing all priority rights of employ-
ees who have not held a regular situation for I year,
changing to a practice of hiring trainees at less than jour-
neyman rate, redefining the Union's jurisdiction among
its employees, having supervisors perform unit work, dis-
allowing starting time claims of unfilled jobs paying
above the prevailing wage rates, denying the journeyman
classification to qualified employees when hired, remov-
ing limitations on Respondent transferring employees be-
tween classifications, changing hours of day and night
work, changing hours qualifying for the night rate of
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
pay, establishing a 90-calendar day probationary period
of new employees, establishing a 65-year-old retirement
age with waivers solely determinable by Respondent, in-
stituting a broad management-rights policy, eliminating
all over-the-scale wage rates, and eliminating the substi-
tute classification.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or9 coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and upon request bargain collectively
with Nashville Typographical Union No. 20 as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit described above with regard to rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
(b) Restore and abide by preexisting practices regard-
ing the assignment of typesetting work to the composing
room, to the extent that changes in this practice have not
been incorporated in the September 6, 1978, collective-
bargaining agreement between the Union and Respon-
dent.
(c) Post at its principal place of business in Nashville,
Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' ° Copies of said notice on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed
by a representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHIR ORDEREID that the provisions of this
Order be applied consistent with the above portion of
this Decision.
IT IS FURTHtER ORDIRI:D that the complaint herein be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than specifically found herein.
I While the GCenral Counsel seeks a broad remedy, it is not, in my
opinion, warranted herein
"' [II the event that this Order is enforced hby a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
anlt to a Judgment (of the United Slates Court iof Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
I 15()