The Renton News Record

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
show. Mrs. Bernstein testified that the sole reason for terminating Shannon's
employment was management's desire to eliminate the overstaffing of its depart-
ments.10 I believe that, as personnel director, she was in a position to know the
reason.
Mrs. Bernstein 's testimony was corroborated in material respects by that of
Supervisor Troy. He testified that on July 16 as well as at an earlier date, he had
been informed by management representatives that there should be a layoff in his
department but that he never carried out these instructions or submitted any pro-
posed layoff schedule. It was his practice, whenever there was an insufficient amount
of work to keep all of his men busy, to inform them of the number of men he needed
and they would arrange among themselves as to which of them would take time
off.
It is clear from Respondent's records that the amount of package room work had
declined in July and August, prior to Shannon's termination. Stanley Bruzgis, the
regular salaried employee, was absent from work for over a month prior to August 5
and Kinzel had been off from work for the week ending July 22, thus leaving only
three employees to perform the package room work during 1 week and only four for
the remainder of the month. And in August, with Stanley Bruzgis out until
August 5, with Shannon and Kinzel both on vacation between August 5 and 14, and
with Shannon in layoff status after August 19, the department was again operating
with three or four employees for most of that month. No one has been employed to
replace Shannon and some of the remaining employees have occasionally had to take
time off for lack of available work since Shannon was laid off.
For the reasons set forth above, I am convinced and find that Respondent was
motivated by economic considerations, and not by Shannon's union or other con-
certed activities, in effecting his layoff and failing to recall him to his regular job
prior to the hearing. I accordingly find that Respondent has not violated Section
8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record in the
case, I hereby recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
10 At one point Mrs. Bernstein referred to Shannon's termination as a discharge Re-
spondent contends that it was only a layoff and that he will be recalled when there is need
for another regular extra package room porter I do not regard it as important, in these
circumstances, whether the termination be labeled a discharge or a layoff but I shall treat
it as a layoff.
Carl Rochet and Charles Ruud , partners, doing business as
The Renton News Record, and Bellevue American Publishing
Company, Inc., and Northwest Business Machines Company,
Inc., and The Production Company, Inc.' and Seattle Typo-
graphical Union No. 202, AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-CA-2043.
April 04, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 20, 1961, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
' Hereinafter referred to collectively as the Respondents and individually called Renton,
Bellevue, Northwest, and Production, respectively.
136 NLRB No. 55.
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD, ETC. 1295
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Es#miner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.2 The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent
herewith.
1. The Trial Examiner found Production and Northwest to be
alter egos of Renton and Bellevue. For the reasons set forth below,
we do not agree.
In order to meet the demands of increased competition and expand-
ing markets, Renton and Bellevue had long sought ways to improve
their operations for the purpose of increasing their output and im-
proving the mechanical quality of their newspapers. Early in 1959
these employers, along with three other area weekly newspaper pub-
lishers,' commenced negotiations which culminated in the purchase of
a recently perfected Goss offset press with a sufficient capacity not
only to print the weekly newspapers of these five publishers, but also
to perform printing jobs for other newspapers and customers. Pro-
duction was formed to operate this press. Renton and Bellevue each
owns about 29 percent of the stock of Production, but there is nothing
in the record to indicate that either Renton or Bellevue exercises any
greater control than does any of the other three owners.
Contemporaneously with negotiations for the Goss press, the five
publishers decided to utilize coldtype composition. This method of
'composition was considered to be best suited for their needs because
it gave an increased volume of production at lower costs, provided a
superior final product, and afforded an increased flexibility of opera-
tion over the hot-type composition used with letterpress equipment.
It also allowed more extensive and easier use of photographs, greater
variety in advertising and type faces, and the machinery and equip-
ment required were less expensive than that used in hot composition.
Northwest was established to perform the coldtype composition neces-
sary in the offset-press printing operation'
The record shows that, under the agreement establishing North-
west, Thomas J. Coad, who had not previously been associated with
I In view of our conclusions as set forth below , we do not find it necessary to pass on
the correctness of the Trial Examiner ' s ruling denying Respondents ' request for docu-
ments of the Goss Company which were in the possession of the General Counsel.
"Kirkland Publishing Co , Inc , Courier-Herald Publishing Co., Inc, and Puyallup Valley
Tribune, Inc
*Although Northwest performs this work for the five nonvoting stockholders , it also
serves other customers and actively solicits additional accounts.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Renton or Bellevue, owns all of Northwest's voting stock, comprising
one-third of the total stock. He actively manages Northwest, includ-
ing control of its labor relations and personnel policies. Renton and
Bellevue each owns only a minor interest in Northwest (about 19 per-
cent of tke total stock), while the other three publishers each owns
about 9.5 percent of all the outstanding stock.
Under all the circumstances of this case, and particularly in light
of the lack of sufficient common ownership and control over the opera-
tions and labor policies of Northwest or Production by Renton and/or
Bellevue, we find that neither Production nor Northwest is an alter
ego of Renton and/or Bellevue.5 In any event, as it is clear from the
record that Production does not perform any composition work, with
which the dispute is solely concerned, it would not aid the Board in
effectuating a remedy for the unfair labor practices found hereinafter
to enter an order against Production.
2. For the reasons set forth in Town d Country Manufacturing
Company, Inc., et al.,' we agree with the Trial Examiner that Renton
and Bellevue violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by their
refusals to bargain with the Union concerning their intended change
of operations and its effects upon the composing room employees.?
3. The Trial Examiner found that Renton and Bellevue violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging their composing-
room employees and failing to offer them employment at Northwest.
We do not agree. The Trial Examiner bases this finding, in part,
upon Coad's failure to offer jobs to the discharged employees and his
action in advertising for new employees to be trained to perform com-
position work for Northwest. However, it is clear that Renton and/or
Bellevue had no control over the hiring for Northwest. And, as we
have found that Northwest is not an alter ego of Renton and/or Belle-
vue, Coad was under no obligation to offer jobs to their composing-
room employees. As to Renton and Bellevue, on the basis of the facts
summarized in paragraph 1, above, we find that they discontinued the
use of hot-type composition and contracted this work to Northwest
because of compelling economic necessity. In view of this, and as
the record is devoid of evidence of discriminatory motivation for the
discharge of their composing-room employees, we find that Respond-
ents Renton and Bellevue did not discharge those employees in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5 Cf Royal Oak Tool & Machine Company, at al., 132 NLRB 1361
G 136 NLRB 1022
'Member Leedom finds that Renton and Bellevue violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act only by their refusals to bargain with the Union concerning the effects of their
intended change of operations upon the composing-room employees See Fibreboard Paper
Products Corporation, 130 NLRB 1558, and Town & Country Manufacturing Company,
Inc., supra, footnote 10.
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD , ETC. 1297
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents Renton and Bellevue failed to
fulfill their statutory bargaining obligations within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act when they closed their respective
composing rooms without prior notice to, or consultation with, the
Union, we shall order that they take appropriate action as set forth
below.
The change in the method of operations in this case is the result of
technological improvements. Obviously, such improvements serve the
interests of the economy as a whole and contribute to the wealth of
the Nation. Nevertheless, the impact of automation on a specific cate-
gory of employees is a matter of grave concern to them. It may in-
volve not only their present but their future employment in the skills
for which they have been trained. Accordingly, the effect of automa-
tion on employment is a joint responsibility of employers and the
representatives of the employees involved. To the extent that this
responsibility imposes a statutory obligation on either party to bar-
gain in good faith about wages, hours, and conditions of employment,
it is a matter over which this Board has jurisdiction. Certainly, in
some cases, the adverse effect of changes in operation brought about
due to improved, and even radically changed, methods and equipment,
could be at least partially dissipated by timely advance planning by
the employer and the bargaining representative of its employees.
Obviously, this is not possible, where, as here, the employers did not
advise the Union in advance of the change, and, in fact, never did
notify the Union, but rather, when the time came, informed the em-
ployees. For this reason we have stated that in remedying violations
like those in the instant case, we would ordinarily order the Respond-
ent to restore the status quo ante by reinstating its employees with
backpay and to bargain with the Union over any future changes in
operations." As set forth in the Town d Country decision, such an
order is appropriate to afford a full remedy, and the order to bargain
concerning a proposed change is based on experience which has shown
that "candid discussion of mutual problems . . . results in their reso-
lution with attendant benefit on both sides. Business operations may
profitably continue and jobs may be preserved." 9 However, there are
factors in the instant case which persuade us that the usual order
should not be adopted in remedying the unfair labor practices found
here.
We are satisfied, on the facts before us, that Respondents Renton
and Bellevue were faced with the choice of either changing their
8 Town & Country Manufacturing Company, Inc ., supra.
0 Town & Country Manufacturing Company, Inc., supra.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
method of operations to one at least equal to that of their competitors,
or being forced to go out of business. They selected the former alter-
native. The change adopted to accomplish their purpose involved a
totally different process and required the participation of other weekly
newspapers and an individual, none of which is a party to this
proceeding.
In view of all these factors, the issuance of our usual order would
have a detrimental impact on the participants in the establishment of
Northwest, who are not parties hereto, and as to Renton and Bellevue
would be punitive rather than remedial. Accordingly, we shall not
direct Respondents Renton and Bellevue to reinstate the composing-
room employees or to bargain with the Union about any proposed
termination of their composing-room operations. Nevertheless, as we
have found that Respondents Renton and Bellevue refused to bargain
with the Union about the effects of the termination of operations upon
the employees, we shall order them to bargain with the Union con-
cerning this matter.10
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents Renton and
Bellevue, their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Seattle Typo-
graphical Union No. 202, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of their respective nonsupervisory composing-room employees, con-
cerning the effects of the discontinuance of their composing-room
operations on such employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their respective employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union concerning
the effects of the discontinuance of their composing-room operations
on their respective nonsupervisory composing-room employees.
10 Member Leedom agrees to the order because it is limited to remedying the only viola-
tion which he has found ; see footnote 7, supra.
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD , ETC. 1299
(b) Post at their respective plants copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice , to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall , after being
duly signed by their respective authorized agents , be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by them for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places in their respective plants
where notices to employees are customarily posted . Respondents
Renton and Bellevue shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
signed copies of said notice for posting by the Union, it willing, in
places where notices to members are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the aforesaid Regional Director, shall
after being signed by Respondents Renton and Bellevue, as indicated,
be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director , in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Decision and Order , what steps they have
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations by Northwest Business Machines
Company, Inc., and The Production Company, Inc.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS OF SEATTLE
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 202, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-
named Union concerning the effects of the discontinuance of our
composingroom operations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our respective employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
641795-63-vol 136-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our respective employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming members of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by
an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
CARL RoCHET AND CHARLES RUUD, PARTNERS, DOING
BUSINESS AS THE RENTON NEWS RECORD,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BELLEVUE ADIERICAN PUBLISHING
COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle 4, Washington,
Telephone Number Mutual 2-3300, Extension 601, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented by counsel, was heard before the
duly designated Trial Examiner at Seattle, Washington, between November 29 and
December 21, 1960, on complaint, as amended, of the General Counsel i and answers
of the respective Respondents. The issues litigated were whether Respondents, or
any of them, violated Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended from time to time, herein called the Act.
During the course of the hearing , the parties , through respective counsel, presented
evidence and counsel for each party, except for Seattle Typographical Union No. 202,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed briefs on or about March 1, 1961, which
have been carefully considered. In his brief, counsel for Northwest Business Ma-
chines Company, Inc., herein called Northwest, moved to dismiss the complaint, as
amended, on the ground that it "does not allege and there is no evidence that this
respondent is subject to jurisdiction of the Board." The motion is hereby denied.
Likewise, in said brief, counsel for Northwest moved to strike the "testimony and
exhibits (1) relating to the Goss Company of Chicago, Illinois; or (2) consisting
of or relating to any communications between the Goss Company or any of its em-
ployees, agents or representatives, and respondents, or any of them or any of their
employees, agents or representatives." The motion is hereby denied.
On consideration of the entire record in the case and from his observation of the
witnesses , the Trial Examiner hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Carl Rochet and Charles Ruud ,2 copartners, doing business as The Renton News
Record, herein called Renton , published during all times material a weekly news-
paper at Renton, Washington.
1 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing
2 The names of the partners have been corrected to read as stated herein.
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD, ETC. 1301
Bellevue American Publishing Company, Inc., herein called Bellevue, published
during all times material a weekly newspaper at Bellevue, Washington.
During all times material, Renton and Bellevue have been members of Printing
Industry of Seattle, Inc. (herein called the Association), an employer association
composed of newspaper publishers located in and about Seattle, Washington. One
of the Association's principal purposes is to bargain collectively, via a committee,
with the Union representing certain employees of its constituent members.
Renton and Bellevue, together with the other members of the Association, publish
newspapers which carry advertisements of nationally sold products and annually
derive gross revenues from said publishing operations in excess of $200,000.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is found, in line with established Board
authority, that Renton and Bellevue are employed in, and during all times material
were engaged in, business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act and that their combined business operations, including the busi-
ness operations of all the Association members, meet the standard fixed by the Board
for the assertion of jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Renton
and Bellevue.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pertinent facts
Since about October 12, 1956, Renton and Bellevue have been members of the
Association, and since said date have been bound by the collective-bargaining con-
tracts the Association negotiated on behalf of its employer-members with the Union.
In November 1959, the Association and the Union entered into a 2-year bargain-
ing contract covering the composing-room employees of the Association's members
including the composing-room employees of Renton and Bellevue.
Bellevue, during all times material, was in some competition with the weekly
newspaper published by Kirkland Publishing Co, Inc. (herein called Kirkland), at
Kirkland, Washington, on one side of the area Bellevue served and in minor com-
petition with Renton along the Renton-Bellevue border. The Courier-Herald
Publishing Co., Inc. (herein called Enumclaw), which publishes a weekly newspaper
at Enumclaw, Washington, and the Puyallup Valley Tribune, Inc. (herein called
Puyallup), which publishes a weekly newspaper at Puyallup, Washington, were also,
although to a minor degree, competitors of Bellevue and Renton.
The record is clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that for a number of years prior
to the opening of the hearing herein, the operations of Renton, Bellevue, and
Puyallup have been subjected to increasing business and economic pressures.
In 1959 the Goss Printing Press Company, of Chicago, Illinois, announced the
development of a Suburban press, a press specifically designed to meet the needs of
weekly newspapers.
About April 1959, Renton and Bellevue tentatively reached an agreement to share
in the purchase and use of the so-called Suburban press on which Bellevue then held
an option. The parties formalized their understanding on August 5, 1959, when an
agreement was entered into by Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland (partly owned by Belle-
vue), Enumclaw (owned by the president of Bellevue), and by Puyallup to form a
corporation which became known as The Production Company, Inc., herein called
Production
Production was incorporated on April 27, 1960, and since its inception has been
owned two-sevenths each by Renton and Bellevue and one-seventh by each of the
other parties to the aforementioned August 5, 1959, agreement.
Production holds title to the Goss press and the lands and buildings which house
it and to date Production has been financed by capital contributions, individual ad-
vances of credit, and upon the corporate and individual guarantees of those who
organized it.
Contemporaneously with the organization of Production the aforementioned
publishers were negotiating with Thomas J. Coad, the owner of Cascade Publishing
Company, the publisher of a weekly newspaper at Portland, Oregon, to form the
Northwest Business Machine Company, Inc., for the sole purpose of operating the
Goss press.
Under the agreement entered into on November 25, 1959, by said publishers and
Coad, it provided for a capital investment of $42,000; Coad was to acquire all the
class A (voting) stock for $14,000, and Renton and Bellevue were each to invest
$8,000 in class B (nonvoting) stock; and each of the other parties to the agreement
obligated itself to invest $4,000. One-half of each subscription has been paid.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Northwest has also secured a $30,000 loan from Seattle First National Bank, secured
by a chattel mortgage on the company's equipment and by the personal and corpor-
ate guarantees of the parties to the said November 5, 1959, agreement, save Coad
who signed the banknote only as president of Northwest.
Since commencing operations, Northwest has been housed in a building owned by
Production and composes the weekly of Renton and Bellevue on Production's Goss
press.
In May 1960 word reached the Union that a two-building plant was being erected
in Kennydale, Washington, a town about 2 miles from Renton, and that one of the
buildings was to be used to house a pressroom and the other would house "a camera
and other equipment." 3
In June 1960 Raymond G. Cavanagh, the Union's president, went to Bellevue's
plant and informed Bruce Heiberg, Bellevue's publisher and owner of 50 percent of
Bellevue's capital stock, that he had heard rumors that Bellevue was planning to
change its operations. Heiberg replied, to quote from Cavanagh's credible testi-
mony, "I don't run my business on rumor and I have nothing to say." During the
course of the conversation, Cavanagh "informed Mr. Heiberg under Section 4 of
the contract that the local union was entitled to a 9'0-day notification in the event
the employer was to change his operation." Heiberg replied that he had no com-
ment to make.
Throughout the entire period of negotiations with Coad and the publishers here
involved, the parties not only refused to divulge to the Union that they intended to
form Northwest and Production for the purpose of composing and printing Renton's
and Bellevue's newspapers, but they constantly advised each other to conceal from
the Union their activities which ended with elimination of the pressrooms of Renton
and Bellevue. In fact, during this period, Coad was in close touch with the inter-
national representative of the Amalgamated Lithographers of America, looking
toward a possible bargaining contract for Northwest even though Northwest had no
employees as yet.
On August 2, 1960, Northwest came into being, with Coad as its operating head.
On August 9, 1960, Cavanagh, accompanied by Paul Jackson, the Union's counsel,
went to the Renton plant and informed Carl Rochet, Renton's publisher and co-
owner of Renton, that he understood that Renton was contemplating making certain
operating changes and that he expected Renton to "abide by the contract" the Union
had with the Association. According to Cavanagh's credible testimony, the fol-
lowing then ensued:
Mr. Rochet informed us he had been instructed to make no comment. I
again reminded him of the contract we had with his firm. Mr. Rochet in-
formed me they had always abided by the contract and would continue to do
so. I said, "You mean as long as you have members of Seattle Typographical
Union working in your composing room." And he said , yes. We discussed it
a little bit further and Mr. Rochet told us he had no comment to make.
Upon leaving Rochet, Cavanagh and Jackson went to the Bellevue plant and saw
Heiberg. Heiberg refused to discuss any matter in Jackson's presence. Thereupon
Heiberg and Cavanagh went into Helberg's private office where the following, accor&
ing to Cavanagh's credited testimony, took place:
I told him (Heiberg) we knew certain things were taking place as far as
his composing room was concerned. Mr. Heiberg replied, "If you know so
much you don't have to ask me." And we discussed it a few minutes more and
he said, "I have no comment to make." This ended the conversation.
Between June 6 and August 2, the date when Northwest was incorporated, Coad
was continuously engaged in performing duties for Northwest. Among these duties
was the opening of a training program for coldtype setting on Mercer Island, Wash-
ington; the interviewing of the persons answering the advertisements placed in Belle-
vue's. Renton's, and Kirkland's weeklies and in a Seattle daily newspaper, for typists
and the like; and the actual training of those accepted applicants "in the general
field of printing."
On August 17 Coad informed all the applicants who had successfully passed all
the necessary tests that they would commence work the following day at North-
west's Kennydale plant.
At about 9 a in the following day, August 18, Charles A. Ruud, a Renton partner,
called all the persons working that day in Renton's composing and press rooms and
told them, according to Ruud's testimony which portion the Trial Examiner credits:
s The Goss Suburban Press uses a camera.
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD, ETC. 1303
... we were contracting out . . . the printing of the newspaper , but that we
were staying in the commercial printing business , that I was reducing the force
and that I hoped to build the business back to where it was and build it up to
where I could increase the force again . I told them that I was ready to negotiate
there with them if they had any negotiating to do then or any other time,
I was ready .. .
When asked by one of the composing-room employees present at the meeting re-
ferred to immediately above, whether the newspaper in the future was to be printed
at the Kennydale plant and whether the Renton partners were owners of the Kenny-
dale plant, Ruud replied in the affirmative to the first question , and stated in reply
to the second , that he and Rochet were part owners of said Kennydale plant. Rudd
also informed the assembled employees that no employee would be terminated for
at least a week ; that at the expiration of that period , all employees would be dis-
charged except one man; and that if any man felt it was a financial hardship to
receive but a week's notice of termination , said person could remain on the payroll
for another week or so.
On August 18 Renton ceased printing its weekly at its own plant and since said
date all work necessary to publishing that periodical has been done by Production
and Northwest.
About 9:30 a.m. on August 18, Helberg informed A. R. Renfroe , Bellevue's com-
posing-room foreman and chapel chairman , that, as of that date, all the composing
room employees were discharged , except those who desired to remain another week;
and that Renfroe should so inform the other composing room employees . Renfroe
did as instructed and he also informed the night shift foreman of Helberg's discharge
decision . Whereupon, all Bellevue's composingroom employees were discharged
and its weekly printing work has been transferred to Production and Northwest.
B. Concluding findings
It is undisputed that the Union was, during all times material, the exclusive repre-
sentative of Renton's and Bellevue's composing-room employees. It thus follows
that any change by Renton or Bellevue in the terms and conditions of employment of
those employees without prior notice and consultation with the Union constitutes a
refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act Renton
and Bellevue apparently take the position that the determination by an employer to
subcontract work performed by their respective employees is a matter of managerial
prerogative. But controlling law is to the contrary. As the Tenth Circuit said in
N.L R B. v Brown-Dunkin Company, Inc., 287 F. 2d 17, decided January 19, 1961,
regarding a case very similar to the instant one:
The contention is also made that the respondent did not deny the Union the
right to bargain concerning the terms and conditions of employment in violation
of Section 8(a)(5). The unassailed facts are, however, to the contrary. While
the Union appears to have had some intimation of the impending Anderson-
Rooney contract, it was not until the morning of the effective date of the contract
that the Union learned it had been consummated. And this information was
obtained through the employees, not the employer. Under no stretch of the
imagination can it be said that these circumstances gave the Union a fair oppor-
tunity to bargain with respondent about not subcontracting the work, or wih
Anderson-Rooney concerning the conditions of the new employment. This is
not to say that the Union must first approve before an employer may contract
out work, but it is to say that reasonable notice and a chance to bargain must
be afforded before an employer enters into a contract affecting the hire or tenure
of its Union workers' employment. This is so because "Such unilateral action
minimizes the influence of organized bargaining. It interferes with the right of
self-organization by emphasizing to the employees that there is no necessity for
a collective bargaining agent." May Dept. Stores v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376, 385.
See also N.L.R.B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U.S. 217; N.L.R.B. v.
Burton-Dixie Corporation, 210, F. 2d 199.
In addition, the evidence, as epitomized above, clearly establishes that Renton,
Bellevue, and all the other publishers concerned made all available efforts to conceal
from the Union the impending moves to abandon the Renton and Bellevue composing
rooms. When the Union's representatives appeared at Renton and Bellevue in an
attempt to ascertain the truth or falsity of the rumors that these two concerns were
about to abandon the operations of their composing rooms, they were refused any
and all information, thus not affording the Union an opportunity to exercise its
statutory right of bargaining.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing and in their respective briefs, Respondents ' counsel contended that
the main reason for not informing the Union about transferring the publishing
work of Renton and Bellevue to Production and Northwest was their fear of a strike
or other serious reprisals . In other words , Renton and Bellevue refused to bargain
with the Union about their contemplated change of operations because they feared
they would be visited with economic losses. The choices selected were without
the pale of the Act. Between the penalties attached to a disregard of the obligation
imposed by the Act to bargain with the duly designated collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the respective employees and the economic hardships that might develop,
Renton and Bellevue elected to bow to the latter and accept the former . Renton
and Bellevue must be directed to reverse their positions to conform to the require-
ments of the law. As the Ninth Circuit carefully pointed out in N.L.R.B. v. Star
Publishing Co., 97 F. 2d 465, "The act prohibits unfair labor practices in all cases.
It permits no immunity because the employer may think that the exigencies of
the moment require infraction of the statute. In fact, nothing in the statute permits
or justifies its violation by the employer " A contrary principle making enforcement
of the provisions of the Act dependent upon considerations of the economic hard-
ships imposed upon an employer would, as here, nullify the rights of employees,
guaranteed them by the Act, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing.
The Trial Examiner finds, upon the entire record in the case, that Renton and
Bellevue each did not bargain with the Union as the majority representative of their
respective employees in the appropriate unit and have thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(5) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
further finds, by the foregoing, Bellevue and Renton each has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its respective employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) thereof.
The Trial Examiner also finds that Renton and Bellevue also acted in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Their failure to inform the Union of their intended
relocation and change of operations was motivated , at least in part, by a desire to
avoid employing members of the Union at Northwest. This conclusion becomes in-
escapable when consideration is given to the fact that Northwest, through Coad, ad-
vertised for and obtained inexperienced help and, after training them, put them
to work instead of retaining in their employ their respective experienced union
employees.
Upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner also finds that Production and
Northwest are the alter egos of Renton and Bellevue and as such are severally and
jointly liable with Renton and Bellevue for the unfair labor practices found to have
been committed by the two last named
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the business operations of Respondents Renton and Bellevue and the other
Association members, as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents Renton and Bellevue failed to fulfill their statu-
tory bargaining obligations within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (l) of the
Act when they closed their respective composing rooms without prior notice to or
consultation with the Union which represented the persons employed in said com-
posing rooms, the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondents Renton and
Bellevue now take appropriate steps to remedy their respective failures by bargaining
on that issue The Trial Examiner has also found that Respondents Renton and
Bellevue discriminatorily discharged their respective nonsupervisory composing-room
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act Accordingly, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondents Renton and Bellevue reinstate
these composing-room employees either by reopening their respective composing
rooms or by having their alter egos, Respondents Northwest and Production, em-
ploy said persons at the same wages and under same working conditions as when
they were in Respondents Renton's and Bellevue's respective employ. It will also
THE RENTON NEWS RECORD, ETC. 1305
be recommended that Respondents, jointly or severally , make the aforesaid non-
supervisory composing-room employees whole for earnings lost as a result of the
discrimination against them . It is important to note in this connection that an
order reinstating the aforesaid nonsupervisory composing -room employees by Re-
spondents Renton and Bellevue or of their hiring by Respondents Northwest or
Production and making them whole for lost earnings would be warranted on the
basis of Section 8(a)(5) violations alone and without regard to the 8 ( a)(3) viola-
tions. The termination of employment of the aforesaid nonsupervisory composing-
room employees flowed directly from Respondents Renton 's and Bellevue's unilateral
actions. In order, therefore , to adapt the remedy to the situation which calls for
redress and to give substance to the remedial order to bargain , it is necessary to
restore the status quo ante without which effective bargaining in behalf of the
composing-room employees here involved cannot be conducted. The broad remedial
powers vested in the Board by the Act afford ample authority in the Board to give
reinstatement and backpay where the deprivation of employment status is a conse-
quence of a Section 8(a)(5) violation.
Backpay is to be computed and paid in accordance with the formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Having found that Respondents Northwest and Production are, and always have
been , the alter egos of Respondents Renton and Bellevue, it will be recommended
that Respondents Northwest and Production be held severally and jointly liable for
the unfair labor practices herein found and that they be ordered to cease and desist
from engaging in such conduct.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the unfair labor practices committed by
Respondents in the instant case are such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to
the purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended that Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Seattle Typographical Union No. 202, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Carl Rochet and Charles Ruud, partners , doing business as The Renton News
Record , and Bellevue American Publishing Company, Inc., and Northwest Business
Machines Company, Inc., and The Production Company, Inc., are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All composing-room employees , excluding supervisors as defined in the Act,
of the members of Printing Industry of Seattle , Inc. (of which Respondents Renton
and Bellevue now are, and during all times material have been, members), con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein , the Union has been the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By closing their respective composing rooms and transferring their respective
composition work to Respondents Northwest and Production and by terminating
the employment of their respective nonsupervisory composing -room employees, all
without prior notice to or consultation with the Union, Respondents Renton and
Bellevue have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(S) and (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminatorily terminating the employment of their respective nonsuper-
visory composing -room employees in the manner set forth above, Respondents
Renton and Bellevue have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. Inasmuch as Respondents Northwest and Production are the alter egos of
Respondents Renton and Bellevue, they are jointly and severally liable for the
unfair labor practices herein found.
8. Inasmuch as all the Respondents ' business operations affect commerce, the
aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]