Tacoma Printing Pressmen's Union No. 44

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1090 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employees as to whether they have signed
union cards and their reasons for doing so, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint , and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their jobs or with any other
economic reprisals in the event they select a union as their collective-bargaining
representative or promote a union among the employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Joseph F. Miller immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
BELLE STEEL COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated--------------- ---- By-------------------------------------------
(Representitive) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must notbe
altered, defaced, or covered 'by any other material.
Tacoma Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 44 and Valley Publish-
ing Company . Case No. 19-CD-49. June 8, 1961
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D)
of section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and
determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall
have arisen. ..."
On June 27, 1960, Valley Publishing Company, herein called
Valley, filed with the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
a charge alleging that Tacoma Printing Pressmen's Union No. 44,
herein called the Pressmen, had induced and encouraged employees
to refuse to work in Valley's place of business for the purpose of
forcing and requiring Valley to assign its offset preparatory work,
which had previously been assigned to members of the Tacoma Typo-
graphical Union, Local No. 170, herein called the ITU, to members
of the Pressmen in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the .Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties. The hearing was
held before Charles M. Henderson, hearing officer, on August 15 and
16, 1960. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
131 NLRB No. 133.
TACOMA PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 44 1091
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Both Valley-and the Pressmen filed briefs which
were duly considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Valley is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Pressmen and ITU are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. The dispute :
A. The facts
Valley engages in commercial printing and the publishing of weekly
newspapers. In 1957, Valley became a member of a four-company
employer association which had for one of its purposes association-
wide bargaining with the Pressmen. The Pressmen, pursuant to a
consent election, was certified as the bargaining representative of the
employees employed by members of the association. C. C. Dunworth,
a labor relations consultant, was appointed by the association to bar-
gain with the Pressmen. After some negotiations, Dunworth, on be-
half of the association, signed a 2-year contract. The contract in-
cluded all employees operating "all printing presses . . . , including
letterpress printing presses, cameras, stripping, negatives, plate mak-
ing and all offset presses under the jurisdiction of the union." This
description covered the offset preparatory work which the Pressmen
is now demanding.
In 1959 the employer association was dissolved. In December 1959,
Fournier, Valley's president, notified the Pressmen that he had ap-
pointed Dunworth, the same person who had negotiated and signed
the 1957 contract for the association, to negotiate a new contract with
the Pressmen. Neither at this time, nor at any later date, did Valley
inform the Pressmen of any limitation upon Dunworth's authority
as its bargaining agent; nor did it inform the Pressmen that Dun-
worth could not sign the contract for Valley as he had previously done
for the association. Dunworth had several negotiation sessions with
the Pressmen, none of which was attended by Fournier. On March
30, 1960, Dunworth sent a Memorandum of Agreement to the Press-
men with a covering letter requesting it to sign and return the Memo-
randum of Agreement so that he might inform Valley that the
,contract has been renewed. Although space was provided for Dun-
worth's signature on the- Memorandum of Agreement he did not sign -
IPursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Fanning]. -
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it; however, he did sign the covering letter which informed the Press-
men of the steps it was to take to bring the'contract into existence; i.e.,
sign the Memorandum of Agreement and return it to Dunworth.
Thereupon, on April 6, 1960, the Pressmen signed and returned the
agreement to Dunworth. Valley did not sign the agreement, but
nevertheless, during the week, of May 13, 1960, put into effect the pay
increases set forth in the memorandum. The new alleged contract
embodied all sections of the old contract, including the unit descrip-
tion set forth above.
On April 6 and 14, 1960, Fournier and Dunworth conducted negoti-
ations with the ITU. Thereafter, on June 15, 1960, Fournier signed a
contract with the ITU purporting to assign it the offset preparatory
work here in dispute. All offset preparatory work at Valley was then
assigned to members of the ITU. On June 18, 1960, the Pressmen
called its members employed by Valley off the job and began picketing,
demanding that the work be assigned to its members.
B. Contentions of the parties
Valley contends that the Pressmen struck and picketed to force a
change in the assignment of work to which it was not entitled, in vio-
lation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act.
The Pressmen contends that the memorandum of agreement is a
contract which assigns to it the work in dispute, and it is therefore
entitled to strike and picket for such work.
APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a, violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the Regional
Director was satisfied upon the basis of such investigation that there
was reasonable cause to believe that a violation had been committed.
We find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
The evidence indicates that the dispute in this case involves Valley's
assignment of the offset preparatory work to employees belonging to
the ITU, rather than to members of the Pressmen.
The dispute presented herein is essentially a disagreement as to
whether Valley, by a prior contractual relationship, has assigned the
offset preparatory work to members of the Pressmen,-or was free to
assign that work by the later contract to the ITU. This dispute can
be resolved by a determination as to the validity of the alleged prior
contract.
C. C. Dunworth was authorized by the now defunct employer as-
sociation to negotiate the 1957 contract with the Pressmen. That con-
TACOMA PRINTING PRESSMEN 'S UNION NO. 44 1093
tract was negotiated, and signed by Dunworth on behalf of the associ-
ation, and fully bound all the parties. Subsequent to the dissolution
of the association and the expiration of the contract, Valley, on De-
cember 14, 1959, sent a letter to the Pressmen stating in part: "We are
asking Mr. C. C. Dunworth . . . to represent us in all matters per-
taining to negotiation of a new contract...." [Emphasis supplied.]
No further word was sent to the Pressmen, and there was no indication
by Valley that Dunworth's authority at this time was in any way
different from his authority at the time he negotiated for the associ-
ation. Negotiations were held between Dunworth and Respondent, no
other representative of Valley being present. Terms for the new con-
tract were agreed upon, and a memorandum and covering letter were
sent to the Pressmen by Dunworth. That letter to the Pressmen
stated :
The terms expressed in these letters are those agreed upon in
discussion with your International Representative, Mr. Nickino-
vich. I would appreciate your signing and returning to me a copy
of each letter. When this has been done, I will advise the two
Employers involved that the contracts have been renewed and
that the pay adjustment called for should be placed into effect2
This memorandum of agreement was signed by the Pressmen and
returned to Dunworth on April 6, 1960, pursuant to the instruction in
the covering letter sent by Dunworth.
There is no question in our minds that Dunworth was held out by
Valley as having the same authority for effectuating a contractual
relationship with the Pressmen as he had when he represented the
association. Valley took no steps to notify the Pressmen that Dun-
worth's authority was limited in any respect. With this in mind we
must now look to some basic principles of contract law. It has long
been established that an offeror may condition the acceptance of an
offer on certain acts or procedure to be followed by the offeree.3
So it was in this case that after Dunworth and the Pressmen agreed
to the terms of the new contract, Dunworth set forth the procedure for
effectuating the contract. To wit : the signing and mailing by the
Pressmen of a copy of the "memorandum" to Dunworth. With the
fulfillment of these conditions the contract became effective, and as
this contract assigns the disputed work to the Pressmen, the Pressmen
was within its rights to strike for such work 4
2 These "letters" are the memorandums of agreement which Dunworth negotiated with
the Pressmen for Valley and another employer
3 Eliasen v. Henshaw, 4 wheat (U S ) 225 ; 1 Williston on Contracts, sec. 76, p 249,
Restatement of the Law, Contracts, sec 29, p 37
4 Local No. 48, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, et al (Gadsden
Heating and Sheet Metal Company), 119 NLRB 287, and cases cited in footnote 2 therein ;
Local 472, International Laborers Union, Heavy and General Construction , AFI CIO;
et al (Ernest Renda Contracting Company, Inc ), 123 NLRB 1776,,1781-1782; Juneau
Spruce Corporation, 82 NLRB 650, 657.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find additional support for our determination that a contract
was entered into by the fact that on May 13, 1960, Valley effected a
wage increase for its employees in an amount that was provided for
in the agreement and further made this increase retroactive to Decem-
ber 14, 1959, as provided for in the memorandum of agreement.
Accordingly, we find that at the time of the Pressmen's strike and
picketing Valley was bound by its contract with the Pressmen. We
further find Valley acted in derogation of this contract by thereafter
assigning the disputed work to employees who were not members of
the Pressmen.
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following Determination of
Dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
All offset preparatory work which is performed by Valley Publish-
ing Company is assigned in the contract between Valley Publishing
Company and Tacoma Printing Pressmen's Union No. 44 to that
Union. Accordingly, said Union was and is lawfully entitled to force
or require Valley Publishing Company to assign such offset prepara-
tory work in accordance with their contract.
Aerojet General Corporation and Engineers and Architects
Association, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-6685. June 8, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman H. Greer, hearing
officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks . a unit composed of all employees engaged in
tool design, tool fabrication liaison,`quality control, and tool planning
in departments 1041, 1043, and 1044 of the manufacturing division at
the Employer's Downey, California, missile plant. Alternatively,
131 NLRB No. 128.