Times Publishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

638, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION,
LocAL 141. Case No. 16-CA-276. August 15, 1952
Decision and Order
On July 13, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a reply brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. With
the exception noted below, the rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent
with our decision.
1. The Trial Examiner found that during negotiations the Respond-
ent at no time intended to conclude a contract with the Union and
thereby refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8 (a)
(5). The Trial Examiner's finding of bad faith is based primarily
on the Respondent's position with respect to wages and hours. We,
however, are unable to agree with the Trial Examiner's interpretation
of these negotiations, especially in light of the Respondent's history
of collective bargaining with other unions presently representing
craft units in the plant.
Prior to the advent of the Union, the Respondent guaranteed its
mailers a fixed take-home pay, which in effect permitted the Respond-
ent to work them as much as 48 hours a week without the payment of
additional wages. The take-home pay was computed on a 48-hour
workweek-40 hours at the established hourly rate and 8 hours at
time and a half. The Union proposed to increase the hourly rate so
that the take-home pay for a 40-hour week would be larger-or at least
equal to-the current take-home pay for a 48-hour week. The Re-
spondent offered some increase in the hourly rate for a 40-hour week,
which without any overtime work would have resulted in less take-
home pay. At this point, some question concerning overtime was
raised. The Union apparently was pressing for a guarantee of 48
hours, which under the proposed higher hourly rate would have in-
creased the take-home pay; the Respondent not only refused such
100 NLRB No., 107.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 639
guarantee but indicated that it would minimize overtime so as to keep
its labor costs as low as possible under the higher hourly rate.
In these circumstances, we are not prepared to say that reasons other
than economic ones prevented the parties from reaching agreement
on wages and hours. Nor do we believe that the Respondent's repre-
sentative, Barnett, otherwise conducted the bargaining, negotiations
in bad faith, as found by the Trial Examiner. It is not entirely clear
from the record that Barnett in fact repudiated any binding proposal
made by other representatives of the Respondent. Indeed, no show-
ing was made that Barnett withdrew any proposal which had been
unconditionally accepted by the Union. In any event, we are satis-
fied from the record as a whole that the alleged conduct attributed
to Barnett by the Trial Examiner in no material way contributed to
the breakdown in negotiations.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the increase granted the mailers
in January 1951 without prior consultation with the Union was a
per se violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, but that the October
1950 wage increase by the Respondent was not unlawful as the Union
had consented in advance thereto. In our opinion the Union anticipa-
torily consented to both increases and therefore no unfair labor prac-
tice may be predicated on either.
By letter dated September 30, 1950, the union representative com-
plained about the Respondent's failure to give the mailers the 6-cent
increase which it had earlier given the other employees, also pointing
out that the Respondent was now about to negotiate another increase
for these other employees. He then assured the Respondent that it
need have no concern about granting an increase while negotiations
were pending with the Union because other publishers had done so,
and added "I have made no complaint and the government has made
not the least trouble for these publishers...." Following the receipt
of this letter, the Respondent extended to the mailers in October 1950
a wage increase of 5 cents which it had granted its other employees,
and in January 1951 granted them another increase of about 6 cents
as the result of negotiations with one of the other craft unions.
We, like the Respondent, construe the Union's letter as a request
of the Respondent to grant the mailers, pending negotiations, any
increases which it had given or intended to give its other employees.
The reasonableness of this construction is shown by the fact that
when the Respondent advised the Union that it had put into effect
the October and January increases on the understanding that it was
agreeable to the Union, the Union neither took exception to that repre-
sentation nor otherwise protested the granting of the increases.
3. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent refused to bar-
gain with representatives of Local 141 in violation of Section 8 (a),
(5) of the Act. We do not agree.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that at one point during the negotiations the
Respondent took, the legal position that it was under no duty to
bargain with Local 141, as the International alone had been certified
as the statutory agent. When the international representative first
requested the Respondent to meet with representatives of Local 141
during his absence, the Respondent requested a letter from the Inter-
national authorizing the Local to negotiate. The International re-
fused. Thereafter, the Respondent nevertheless met and negotiated
with Local 141's representatives whenever requested. In these cir-
cumstances, we are unable to find that the Respondent in fact refused
to bargain with representatives of Local 141.1
Having found that the Respondent has not engaged in any unfair
labor practices, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of 4the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against the Respond-
ent, Times Publishing Company, Wichita Falls, Texas, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
' In view of this finding , it is unnecessary to, and we do not, reach the issue as, to the
Respondent's obligation to bargain with Local 141. Therefore we do not pass upon the
Trial Examiner's denial of the Respondent's motions to dismiss the applicable allegations
of the complaint as a matter of law.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon- a charge and amended charges filed by International Mailers Union,
Local 141 , executed by Harold A. Hosier , as international vice president , herein
called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region ( Fort Worth, Texas ), issued a complaint
dated April 10, 1951 , against Times Publishing Company, Wichita Falls„Texas,
herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
charges, the complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Re-
spondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint , as amended , alleges
in substance that the Respondent : ( 1) Since on or about April 11, 1950, and at
all times thereafter , has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate unit; and (2) by
said acts has interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees in the
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 641
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) and ( 5) thereof.
On April 20, 1951, the Respondent filed its answer, and during the hearing
and after the General Counsel had amended his complaint, Respondent filed its
amended answer in which it admitted some of the allegations contained in the
complaint but denied that it had engaged in or committed any of the unfair
labor practices as alleged.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Wichita Falls, Texas, on May 8
and 9, 1951, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and
the Union was represented by an international vice president. All participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all
parties.
Prior to and during the hearing, counsel for Respondent filed motions to strike
certain portions of the complaint and to dismiss the complaint.
At the close of the hearing, the undersigned denied the motion to strike and
reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss. Following the close of the hearing,
counsel for Respondent filed a brief and a motion requesting that the undersigned
reconsider his ruling denying the motion to strike, and further moved that the
amendment to paragraph 6 of the complaint be stricken.
Since Respondent's counsel devotes the major portion of their brief to the
legal questions involved in these two motions, it would seem advisable to con-
sider and dispose of the motions at this point.
The background and facts which give rise to Respondent's contentions and
motions are substantially as follows : Local No. 141 of the International Mailers
Union was chartered by the latter on December 17, 1949; during November 1949,
the International filed a representation petition with the Regional Director of
the Board's Sixteenth Region, seeking certification as representative of Re-
spondent's mail room employees; on January 16, 1950, Harold Hosier, a third
vice president of the International, informed the Regional Director, in response
to an inquiry from the latter as to whether Local 141 would administer or bene-
fit from any contract between the parties, in the event the International was
certified, that Local 141 would so benefit;' under date of February 20, 1950, the
parties, with Nelson acting as attorney for Respondent and Hosier as repre-
sentative of the International, entered into an agreement for a consent election
providing for an election to be held on March 9, 1950;2 the election was held
pursuant to-said agreement on the premises of Respondent with all employees
in the agreed-upon appropriate unit voting with results as follows : For the Inter-
national five votes ; against the International no votes ; votes challenged and not
counted one ; 2 on March 17, 19,730, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
issued his certificate of representation designating International Mailers Union,
at times hereinafter referred to as IMU, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the unit defined in the agreement for consent election for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
As is set forth in detail in section III, below, representatives of Respondent,
the International, and Local 141 held a series of meetings commencing in May
1950 and extending into the fall of 1950, without having entered into contractual
relations.
' A copy of such letter was sent to Otis E. Nelson, attorney for Respondent
2 This agreement was approved by the Regional Director on February 22, 1950.
2 The unit consisted of six journeymen mailers only.
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 5, 1950, Hosier, as international vice president, filed a charge against
Respondent on behalf of International Mailers Union, Local 141, alleging a
refusal to bargain collectively with authorized agents "International Mailers
Union"; on June 22, 1950, Hosier filed an amended charge which also alleged a
refusal to bargain collectively with authorized agents of "International Mailers
Union" ; and on June 26, 1950, filed a second amended charge against Respondent,
which alleged a refusal to bargain collectively "with the authorized agents of
International Mailers Union, Local 141."
The complaint, after amendment at the hearing, in part, alleged, as follows :
4. International Mailers Union and the International Mailers Union, Local
No. 141, hereinafter referred to as the Union are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act. (Emphasized portion
added.)
As amended at the hearing, paragraph 6 reads as follows :
6. On or about March 9, 1950, a majority of the employees of the Re-
spondent in the unit described above in Paragraph 5, designated or selected
the International Mailers Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and by operation of law they thereby designated Local
141 of the International Mailers Union as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Respondent and at all times since
that date the union has been the representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining of the majority of the employees in said unit, and, by virtue
of Section 9, subdivision (a) of the Act, has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment. (Emphasized portion added.)
Respondent's motions in their inverse order are as follows:
(1) Motion to dismiss complaint; (2) motion to strike the amendatory lan-
guage from paragraph 6 of the complaint; and (3) motion to strike from para-
graphs 7 and 8 of the complaint, the allegations that International Mailers
Union, Local 141,' has requested Respondent to bargain collectively with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment
with the Union (Local 141) as the exclusive representative on that date (April
11, 1950) ; and the allegation that Respondent at all times thereafter so refused
to bargain collectively with the Union (Local 141).'
As to (1), motion to dismiss, the Respondent contends in substance and effect
that inasmuch as the complaint is based upon the second amended charge
which charge alleges that the Respondent had refused to bargain collectively
"with the authorized agents of International Mailers Union, Local 141," and
since 141 had not petitioned for certification ; had not been voted upon or selected
as bargaining agent by the mail room-employees; and had not been certified as
bargaining representative, the Respondent was under no duty to bargain with
Local 141 and the complaint should be dismissed for such reasons.
The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the certification of
International Mailers Union, the parent organization in this matter, operates
as "a valid designation" of its local afliate, 141. The Board decisions support
the General Counsel's contention.
4 Referred to in the complaint before amendment as the "Union."
5 While the undersigned overruled the motion to strike at the hearing, Respondent's
motion that the ruling in this connection be reconsidered Is hereby granted.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 643
In WilUama P. McDonald Corporation6 in which the employer contended in
substance and effect that a majority of his employees by means of authorization
cards had designated the American Federation of Labor as bargaining agent,
and since Citrus Workers Union #24212, AFL, had petitioned for certification
rather than the American Federation of Labor; and that Local #24218 was
without authority due to the fact that there was no showing of interest by the
local and since the authorization cards designated the American Federation of
Labor, the latter was a necessary party to the proceedings.
The Board held that the employer's contention was without merit and stated
"We have previously held a designation of a parent organization to be a valid
designation of an affiliate," citing Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, 76
NLRB 488.
In re Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company,' the employer contended that inasmuch
as Local 436 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employees Union,
CIO, has been designated by authorization cards submitted to the Board, the
parent union, namely, Wholesale and Department Store Employees Union, CIO,
was without sufficient interest in the matter to represent the employees of the
employer. The Board stated : "We are satisfied, moreover, that the Petitioner
has a substantial interest in this proceeding, inasmuch as its local is merely one
of its branches."
In re Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation; the employer urged the dismissal
of the petition on the ground that the authorization cards designated as bar-
gaining representative not the petitioner, but its international9 The employer
urged the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the authorization cards
designated International Association of Machinists and not Lodge No. 11. The
Board said : "We reject this contention since the above-mentioned principles
enunciated in the Jennings and Falco cases 10 are equally applicable here.
Moreover, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has a substantial interest in this
proceeding inasmuch as a designation of a parent organization is a valid desig-
nation of its affiliate." 11
In re The Nubone Company, Inc.,12 the Board again held that "designation
of a parent organization is a valid designation of its affiliate," N. L. R. B. v.
Bradford Dyeing Association, 301 U. S. 318, N. L. R. B. v. Franks Brothers, Co..
137 F. 2d 989 (C. A. 1).
In its brief Respondent appears to contend that the above-referred-to and
cited cases are not in point. Reference is had to Norfolk Southern Bus Corp.,"
wherein Lodge No. 11 of the International Association of Machinists called IAM,
petitioned for certification. The employees in the appropriate unit had thereto-
fore by authorization cards designated the IAM as their bargaining agent. The
employer objected to Lodge No. 11 participating in proceedings. The Board
overruled such objection and held that Lodge No. 11 had a substantial interest
inasmuch as designation of a parent organization is a valid designation of its
affiliate ; it further appears that as a result of such proceedings the Board issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 5-R-3026, directing that an
election be conducted among the employees of the bus corporation ; that such
6 83 NLRB 427.
7 71 NLRB 579.
6 76 NLRB 488.
6 The international in this
the Petitioner, Lodke No. 11.
case was called International Association of Machinists, and
to O. D. Jennings & Company,
NLRB 467.
11 See footnote 6, supra.
12 62 NLRB 322.
13 76 NLRB 488.
68 NLRB 516; Falcon Manufacturing Company, 73
227260-53-vol 100-x-42
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election was held and as a result Lodge No. 11, International Association of
Machinists, was, on April 19, 1948, certified as a statutory representative of the
bus corporation's employees in an appropriate unit, for the purposes of collective
bargaining. It further appears that upon July 17, 1948, Lodge No. 11 filed a
charge against Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation 14 alleging a refusal to bar-
gain by the bus corporation. A hearing was held in such matter on September
21, 1948, before a Trial Examiner of the Board, in which the respondent con-
tended that the Board had no authority to proceed in the prior representa-
tion case or in the unfair labor practice proceedings and contended that re-
spondent was under no duty to baragin with Lodge No. 11.
In the unfair labor practice case the Board held : ". . . the Respondent asserts
that the organization certified by the Board was Lodge No. 11 of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and not the parent organization and that no
valid request to bargain has ever been made by Lodge No. 11. In other words,
the Respondent takes the position that the collective bargaining requests of
Grand Lodge Representative Dye were acts of the parent organization and that
the requests for collective bargaining conferences should have emanated from
officers of Lodge No. 11. The undersigned finds no merit in this argument, for
it is a well-settled principle of the Board that it is not within the province of
an employer to dictate the employees' choice of representatives to actlor them
in collective bargaining negotiations." '5
In the unfair labor practice case the Board's decision, discloses that when
Grand Lodge Representtive Dye communicated with the bus corporation with
the request that it bargain, his letters on their face indicated that he was
acting on behalf of Lodge No. 11, since his letters in the salutatory paragraph
state, "Re: Proposed Agreement Lodge No. 11, I. A. of M."
In the instant case, the record discloses that under date of April 4, 1950,
Hosier wrote Rhea Howard, Respondent's president, requesting a meeting with
Respondent and enclosed a form of a proposed contract between Respondent
and Wichita Falls Mailers Union No. 141 which proposed form provided for
signatures by the Times Publishing Company, the Respondent, as party of the
first part, and Witchita Falls Mailers Union No. 141, as party of the second
part, and further provided for approval by International Mailers Union. It
is apparent, and the undersigned finds, that the Respondent was informed and
advised prior to the commencement of negotiations that both the International
and the Local No. 141 proposed to bargain on. behalf of the latter, the members
of which are the real parties in interest.
The complaint as amended states a good cause of acts against the Respondent
on behalf of both the International and its Local 141. It is so found. Re-
spondent's motion (1) to dismiss is hereby denied.
As to motion (2), a motion to strike the amendatory language inserted in
said paragraph 6, reading as follows : "And by operation of law they thereby
designated Local 141, of the International Mailers Union as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent." While
the amendment in effect, states a legal conclusion, it also correctly states the
law and further puts the Respondent on notice as to the General Counsel's
theory in the matter. What has been said in connection with the motion to
dismiss, above, is equally applicable in this instance. Respondent's motion
to strike the above-quoted language , being without merit, is hereby denied.
As to motion (3), by which the Respondent, in effect, moves that all reference
to Local 141 be stricken from paragraphs 7 and 8 on a number of theories, (a)
14 83 NLRB 115.
15 Hoppe* Manufacturing Co., 74 NLRB 853, and five other citations-add the other five
from 83 -NLRB page 121.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 645
that Local 141 had not petitioned for its certification ; had not been voted on
or otherwise been selected as the bargaining agent for Respondent 's mail room
employees ; had not been certified as such bargaining agent; and ( b) that the
charge and the amended charge each alleged a refusal to bargain with the
authorized agents of International Mailers °Uhion which' had, in its own name,
been petitioned for, voted upon , and certified as bargaining agent for the mail
room employees and thus was the only Union on whose behalf a complaint
might issue ; and inasmuch as the second amended charge, filed on behalf of
Local 141 and the complaint issued thereon on behalf of Local 141 only,
are, in the opinion of Respondent , filed and issued without authority of law,
said paragraphs 7 and 8 should be stricken.
Such contention ignores the rule adopted by- the Board and approved by
the courts that the designation of the parent organization is a designation of
its affiliate.
The record discloses without dispute that the petition for certification, the
agreement for consent election , and the certification of the parent organization,
namely, International Mailers Union, were all had for the benefit of Respondent's
mail room employees in an appropriate unit and that they , and they only , were the
ones who could benefit from the proceedings . The designation of International
Mailers Union in the manner found above by a vote of the majority of the mail
room employees , designated International Mailers Union and its affiliate Local
No. 141 as the bargaining representatives of the employees in the appropriate
unit herein and above referred to. The Respondent ' s contentions with respect
to motion to strike ( 3) are without merit, and said motion is hereby denied."
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Times Publishing Company, the Respondent, is a Texas corporation, duly or-
ganized under the laws of the State of Texas in 1934; and at all times material
in the instant matter- the Respondent has published and circulated newspapers
both within and without the State of Texas ; at the date of the hearing, Respond-
ent's circulation of newspapers was approximately 48,000 newspapers per day,
19 Respondent ' s counsel also moved ( 1) to strike Hosier's testimony as to what the
conciliator and management representatives said to each other out of Hosier 's presence ;
(2) to strike the contract of Amarillo Globe-Times, a General Counsel exhibit, and (3)
to strike evidence as to the wage - scale - in Respondent 's plant paid to other types of
craftsmen.
As to motion ( 1), the General Counsel in his brief treats the motion as one to strike
what Hosier said to the conciliator out of the presence to company officials . The under-
signed makes no finding based upon alleged conversations between , the conciliatgr and/,or
any of the parties, but does consider the 'fact that Hosiei sought the assistance of the
conciliator in his effort to reach an agreement with Respondent. Motion ( 1) is hereby
denied.
Ast to motion ( 2), the record discloses that Respondent , in support of its contention that
it bargained in good faith , claim that he paid wages comparable to those of newspapers
of comparable size in cities of comparable size. While the undersigned makes no finding
based upon the exhibit, he is of the opinion that as the result of testimony of both parties
concerning wages paid or payable to mail room employees in other newspaper offices,
the exhibit is admissible in evidence Motion ( 2) is hereby denied.
As to motion ( 3), since the Respondent inter atia sought to justify its raise or raises
to mail room employees in the appropriate unit without consulting the Union , on the basis
that it was, in effect, a long-settled practice to grant all employees, regardless of craft, pay
increases at the same time, such evidence --was properly received . Motion ( 3), is hereby
denied.
646- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of which approximately 20 percent was delivered to subscribers outside the State
of Texas ; the retail volume of such newspapers which differs from within the
State to subscribers without the State of Texas is approximately $175,000 per year.
The Respondent utilizes the service, among others, of the United Press, the NEA,
the King Features, the New York Herald Tribune Service, and the Register and
Tribune Syndicate During the year 1950, Respondent purchased approximately
5200,000 worth of newsprint and ink, of which approximately 50 percent origi-
nated outside the State of Texas. During the year 1950 the Respondent received
as revenue from advertising-approximately, $1,200,000, of which approximately
1,1,000,000 represented advertising revenue from advertisers without the State of
Texas. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act."
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Mailers Union and International Mailers Union, Local 141, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.18
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all mailing room employees of Respondent employed
at its Wichita Palls, Texas, plant, exclusive of supervisory employees as defined
by the Act and all other employees constitutes an appropriate unit. During
the hearing all parties stipulated that the above-described unit was appropriate
herein, and that a consent election had been, as described hereinbefore, duly
conducted on March 9, 1950, with the result that a majority of the employees in
the appropriate unit had voted and selected International Mailers Union as
bargaining agent.
The undersigned accordingly finds that the above-described unit at all times
material herein constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
As is set forth hereinabove, pursuant to an agreement for a consent election
executed by the parties on February 20, 1950, an election was held on March 9,
1950, at which all the employees in the above-described appropriate unit voted
and, by a majority vote, designated International Mailers Union as bargaining
agent, and on March 17, 1950, the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
issued his certificate of representation designating International Mailers Union
as exclusive representatives of all the employees in the unit above found to be
the appropriate one. The undersigned accordingly finds that on March 9 and
March 17, 1950, and at all material times thereafter, the Union was and now is
the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
11 Findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered into at the
hearing.
v The Respondent's answer neither admits nor denies that the above-described Unions
are labor organizations under the Act. The finding in this section based upon the testimony
of Vice-President Hosier of International Mailers Union and upon the constitution and
laws of the International Mailers Union in evidence herein.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY
3. The refusal to bargain
647
a. Sequence of events
As has been noted hereinabove , the IMU was certified as bargaining repre-
sentative on March 17, 1950.19 Thereafter and under date of April 4, 1950,
Hosier, as the vice president of IMU, wrote Rhea Howard , Respondent 's president,
requesting a bargaining conference and enclosed a proposed form of contract.
On April 7, 1950, Otis E. Nelson, as^attorney for Respondent, replied to Hosier's
letter and, after a further exchange of letters between Hosier and Nelson,
representatives of the parties, held their first meeting on the afternoon 2° of
May 3,1950.
At this first meeting , Respondent was represented by James Barnett, secretary,
and W . E. Rutledge , circulation manager ; and a Mr. Tabb of the Texas News-
papers Association was also prevent Y1 Tom Hall and Jack Ivy , mail room
employees, members of Local 141, and Vice-President Hosier represented the
IMU and Local 141.
After introductions between the parties had taken place, Hosier asked Barnett
if he was ready to proceed, and if he had a counterproposal to present for the
Union's consideration. Barnett replied that he had no counterproposal at that
time but was reserving the right at a future time to present a counterproposal.
Barnett requested or suggested that Hosier read the Union's proposed contract
aloud , section by section. Hosier suggested that President Howard of the
Respondent Company should be present and was informed by Barnett that
Howard was busy with the delayed building program.
Hosier proceeded to read the proposed contract section by section. When he
came to section 2, which referred to the union or closed-shop provision, Hosier,
at Barnett's suggestion, agreed that the section be deleted as contrary to State
laws of Texas.
As the reading of the proposed contract proceeded it became evident that the
parties could not agree upon wages, number of shifts, and hours in the work-
week, number of apprentices, and a "suitable arbitration clause." 22
As of May 3, 1950, the mailers were receiving 86g/io cents per hour for a 40-hour
week; and under the terms of a so-called "Bello Plan Contract" the mail room
employees in the appropriate unit were paid for 48 hours work per week, with
40 hours at straight time and 8 hours at time Wand a half. In the event the em-
ployees did not work the full 48 hours: they nonetheless received pay for 48
hours, and if they worked over 48 hours they received time and a half for the
additional hours.
The Union's proposed contract called for a 40-hour week and time and a half
for hours over 40 per week. As Hosier read the proposed contract and he came
to the section having reference to rates of pay (which had been left blank), he
proposed a wage scale of $1.75 per hour for 5-day shifts of 8 hours each. Respond-
ent's representatives contended that the $1.75 per hour was unreasonable and
should be reconsidered ; this Hosier agreed to do and as set forth below, he
subsequently did so. The Union's proposed contract called for one apprentice
"Case No . 16-RC-486 (not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions).
20 The meeting had been scheduled for 10 a in. on that date. A delayed plane prevented
Hosier's arrival in time for a morning meeting and he wired Nelson suggesting the after-
noon meeting Hosier testified, however, to events as having taken place at the forenoon
meeting on that day but later corrected his statements as to the "time" of the meeting to
place it in the afternoon of May 3.
Insofar as the record discloses, Tabb took no active part in the meeting
22 The issue with reference to "arbitration clause" will be discussed separately below.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the first five journeymen and 'one apprentice for each additional five
journeymen or major fractions thereof. Barnett contended that there should be
no limit as to number of apprentices. Hosier pointed out that the Union
would be imposed upon by the Respondent hiring an unlimited number of ap-
prentices in that the Union, or its members must not only train the apprentices
but at,the. end. of the apprentice period -must, issue cards to them as journeymen
mailers,,and suggested-that Respondent could employ whomever it saw fit to work
in the mail room but the number designated as apprentices should be limited,
all to the end that the Union would not be charged with the training of an
excessive number of apprentices in comparison with the number of journeymen
mailers in the Respondent's plant. Barnett did not recede from his position
that Respondent should be privileged to employ as many apprentices as it desired.
The apprentice question was temporarily laid aside for future considerations.
Barnett proposed that instead of five shifts of 8 hours work per week, that the
workweek should consist of six shifts of 6 hours and 40 minutes each, amounting
to 40 hours per week. The mailers were working 48 hours a week under the "Bello
Plan" referred to above at "86 4o cents per hour with time and a half for 8 hours
each week guaranteed and a guaranteed amount of approximately $45.20 per
week." Either on May 3, 1951, or on the following day, May 4, Hosier submitted
his "reconsidered" proposal for hourly wages,in the amount of $1.25 an hour
for a five-shift week, 8-hour shift, or a. total of 40 hours per week. That proposal
was not acceptable to Respondent's representative who stated that they had
no proposal at that time other than 868/10 cents that the mailers had been receiving.
Hosier inquired whether Respondent had a counterproposal in matters other
than the wage settlement. He was informed that the matter would have to be
taken up with Mr. Howard, president of the Respondent Company 23
At the next session of the conference between the parties 24 a further discus-
sion was had concerning wages, at which time Barnett proposed a 6-cent per
hour increase for 40 hours for a total of 92/o cents.
Hosier pointed out that in the event the mailers were limited to working 40
hours per week by-accepting Respondent's offer, the result would be that the
employees would be taking an actual cut in "take-home pay." Barnett stated
in substance that if the contract was agreed to. and signed that, as far as possible,
all overtime would be eliminated, and in signing such a contract he would not
include a provision for guaranteed overtime.
Hosier pointed out the men were working at such a low wage scale that they
could not accept Respondent's proposition "without making their poor economic
condition more hazardous." Barnett replied that that was something the Union
would have to consider as a result of its seeking a contract.
Hosier then suggested that the mailers would work the 6-hour and 40-minute
shift for 6 days a week for a $1.25 an hour, or $50 per week per man. This
proposal was also rejected by Respondent's representatives.
During the afternoon meeting of May 4 the matter of the apprentice situation
was again discussed and the union representatives suggested that there be two
recognized apprentices on each shift. This proposal was rejected by Barnett.
Either on the evening of May 3, 1950, or in the afternoon of the following day,
May 4, Barnett took the proposed contract that Hosier had sent to President
Howard theretofore,, which was read section by section at the first meeting of
23 Insofar as the record discloses President Howard never appeared at any of the bar-
gaining conferences.
24 It is not clear whether this particular session took place on the morning of May 4 or
in the aftel•noon of May 4.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 649
the parties, to his office and had the same redrafted , in part at least . The sec-
tion applicable to apprentices in the redraft submitted by Barnett , reads as
follows :
Section 16. Apprentices shall at all times be under the supervision and
control of the foremen. The Publisher shall be entitled to employ as many
apprentices as he deems necessary for the efficient operation of the mailroom.
The proposed contract had a section covering "Arbitration." This section was
deleted in its redraft 25 by Barnett.
A further meeting was held on May 5 at which time wages were again dis-
cussed . Hosier again proposed that the employees would work the day shifts
for the same amount of take-home pay the men were getting for 48 hours. This
proposition was rejected by Respondent's representatives. Hosier reiterated his
prior statements to the effect that he felt the men would be doing the same amount
of work (in a 40-hour week) that they were doing in a 48-hour week. Thus the
over-all cost to the Company would not increase under the circumstances nor
would the men be punished as the result of entering into a contract. Barnett
contended that it would not be possible for him to make such an agreement and
stated that he "was meeting there according to law and was required to meet
under the law. And since he was meeting as required by the Act, he felt that
he was fulfilling his duty under the law."
As a result of the parties' faiure to reach any agreement , Hosier suggested
that since he and the Company agreed that they were not getting any place he
would communicate with the Conciliation Service. He did so with a result
that a meeting was held with the conciliator on June 2, 1950, at Wichita Falls.
The meeting was held in the morning after which the union committee was
excused and the conciliator conferred with Respondent's representatives. The
conciliator then held a conference with the union representatives and after the
union representatives had informed the conciliator of their contentions and their
desire in the matter of the contract, the conciliator returned and talked with the
representatives of the Respondent. Subsequently the conciliator asked Rosier if
the Union would be willing to arbitrate and then said, "Well, I will try to get
the Company to arbitrate." Later on that same day the conciliator contacted
Hosier at the Kemp Hotel and reported that he could see no hope of doing any
good on either side.2e
Hosier left Wichita Falls on May 5 for California. On that day he requested
Barnett to negotiate with Ivy and Hall , Local 141's representatives. Barnett
stated that it was "Okay" as far as he was concerned , but he would have to call
his lawyer "to see if it was Okay." Barnett asked Hosier to give him a letter
to the effect that Ivy and Hall had authority to represent the IMU. Hosier re-
fused to give such a letter, he said he would see what could be done about it.
No letter designating Ivy and Hall as IMU representatives was presented to
Barnett.
One June 6, 1950, Rosier talked with Barnett and again asked him to treat
Ivy and Hall as the duly elected representatives of Local 141; and on June 17
Hosier"by letter asked Barnett to meet with Ivy and Hall. While the record
11 On the first reading of the proposed contract, section 21 covering arbitration, Barnett
said that the Company would not agree to it, and Hosier then stated that "maybe we
wouldn't have arbitration in this contract ." The section, however, was referred to a
latter conference which is discussed below.
Al Barnett testified that the conciliator asked him how far he would go on wages , "I told
him we would offer the same as we had previously offered." The previous offer was 92 S
cents an hour
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicates that on several occasions Barnett did talk with Ivy and Hall in Hosier's
absence, Respondent at all times had insisted that it was not required to
bargain with them as representatives of Local 141 inasmuch as only the IMU
had been petitioned for, voted upon, and certified as bargaining representative;
and that any meeting with Local 141 representatives would not constitute an
official meeting.
On or about July 31, 1950, Hosier met with Nelson and Rutledge as Respond-
ent's -representatives:, Barnett was then absent on a Colorado vacation.
Hosier asked if there was not some possibility of establishing a night differential.
Nelson said that he would have to take that matter up with President Howard.
Nelson and Rutledge then excused themselves and met with Howard, returned
with the word that "Howard had agreed to a proposal of 3 cents per hour dif-
ferential for night work." 28
During the July 31 meeting, the apprenticeship matter was again discussed.
Rutledge stated that he felt that something could be worked out on that. Nelson
then proposed a "3 apprenticeship" and a no-strike, no-lockout clause. Under
date of August 19, 1950, Hosier wrote Nelson enclosing his version of a no-strike,
no-lockout clause to replace the one proposed by Nelson. Nelson's proposed
clause reads as follows :
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
So long as the Union shall live up to this agreement there shall be no lock-
outs and so long as the Employer shall live up to this agreement the Union
will not authorize or cause or permit its members to cause any strike, work
stoppage, slow-down or other interference with production, nor will any
member of the Union take part in any strike, work stoppage, slow-down or
other interference so authorized or permitted or caused. The Union, its
agents, officers and members shall be held responsible for work stoppages,
slow-downs, strikes or other interference with production. The Union agrees
that if any strike is commenced so long as the Company shall comply with
this agreement that no picket line will be established and that it will dis-
avow any picket line which any of its members might establish and that it
will not recognize the same "
Hosier's proposed clause reads as follows :
Proposed Clause for Contract
It is agreed that so long as there is no violation of any part of this agree-
ment no strike or lockout will be put into effect 3°
24 Hosier testified that Ivy and Hall appeared with him. Hall, however, testified that
the June 2 meeting was the last one that he had attended, and the undersigned credits his
statement to that effect. Since it appears that employee J. W. Harper met with Barnett
and Rutledge on at least two different occasions, Hosier's reference to Hall as having
attended the July 31 meeting may have been inadvertent. In any event the record does
not indicate that Ivy, Hall, or Harper took any active part in the July 31 meeting.
u At a subsequent meeting on September 11, Barnett took the position that a di$erential
was unnecessary and in effect repudiated Howard's proposed agreement for a differential.
29 It will be noted that Nelson's proposed clause spells out in minute detail the obligations
that the Union would assume, many of which it might not be able to legally perform,
though acting in the utmost of good faith and purpose. For instance, a minority group
might establish a picket line in connection with matters not covered with the contract, but
which the group might properly take action under the Act.
20 Hosier, in submitting his version of a no-strike, no-lockout clause, in his letter stated :
"The Union agreeing to a no-strike clause of any sort depends on an agreement to a suit-
able arbitration clause."
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 651
In this connection, Barnett testified :
Q. Isn't it a fact that in those negotiations you were told by Mr. Hosier
that he would agree with the no strike clause providing you had a suitable
arbitration clause?
A. No, sir, he didn't discuss it with me at all. It's immaterial to the
publisher's negotiating committee, so far as I was representing, that we not
have a no strike clause in the matter. That was discussed with Mr. Nelson
and Mr. Rutledge while I was out of the city.
Q. Did you ever make an offer of an arbitration clause other than the one
that you read into the record?"
A. No, sir, nor did I receive another clause from Mr. Rosier.
Q. In your original proposal didn't you receive a clause which provided
for the appointment of an impartial third party in the event the two parties
couldn't agree?
A. Yes, sir, I explained that a few moments ago, that I thought it was
immaterial and we never used it in our other crafts and its was just a matter
of cluttering up and making a big long contract out of something.
On September 11, 1950, the parties held a further meeting at Wichita Falls.
Barnett, Rutledge, and Nelson appeared for Respondent, and Hosier and Ivy 2
appeared for the Union. Hosier's chief purpose on this occasion was 'to learn
upon what items of the contract the parties could agree that an accord had
been reached ; and at the same time made a renewed attempt to get a contract
under which the men would not receive less take-home pay ; and if a no-strike
clause was included in the contract it should be protected by a "suitable arbitra-
tion clause." Barnett refused to change his or the Respondent's position as
to either the wage scale or Barnett's idea of a suitable arbitration clause.
Nelson on this occasion contended, in effect, that Local 141 was not legally
entitled to participate in the negotiations, as the IMU, and not Local 141, had
been duly certified as bargaining agent.
It was at this meeting that Barnett repudiated Howard's proposal of a 3-cent
per hour differential for night shift made by Howard on July 31, at a time when
Barnett was on vacation.
The offer of 92.8 cents per hour was again discussed. When Hosier again
pointed out that it would mean an actual cut in take-home pay, Barnett said
"Well, it was the Union's idea of organizing and [while] he was happy to go
along with conditions the way they had been all along" (in the past). Barnett-
reiterated that in the event a contract was signed there would be no overtime,
he stated, "Well, if in my power to prevent there will be no overtime. Forty
hours a week is what the boys will work."
21 Barnett's version of a suitable arbitration clause, as read into the record, is as follows :
In the event of a disagreement as to the interpretation or construction of this con-
tract, which cannot be-interpretation of this contract, it shall be referred to the
foreman by the chairman of the committee, and these two should make an effort to
reach an agreement. If they are unable to do so they shall refer the matter to the
publisher. Each shall be given an opportunity to state his case carefully without
interruption. Publisher shall give careful consideration to all facts considered and
then shall render a decision whach shall be final and binding. ( Emphasis not in the
original.)
82 Hosier , in his testimony, included Hall as also present . As found hereinbefore, Hall
attended no meetings after June 2. It is possible that Harper of Local 141 may have been
present. He testified that he and Ivy met with Barnett and Rutledge on two occasions,
and that Ivy did all the talking (on behalf of Union) and that he himself said nothing.
The record does not indicate that either Harper or Ivy took any active part in the Sep-
tember 11 conference.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Issues; Contentions; Conclusions
The General Counsel, in effect, contends that the record as a whole discloses
Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union ; that it
entered the negotiations with a fixed intention not to arrive at an agreement
acceptable to the parties ; and that such fixed intention is particularly disclosed
by the acts and conduct as follows : (1) That if a contract was entered into
the journeymen mailers would be required to work for less take-home pay than
they received under individual arrangements with Respondent; (2) that not-
withstanding the Union had been duly certified as bargaining agent for journey-
men mail room employees, the Respondent, without consultation with the Union,
granted two pay raises to such employees, namely (a) from 86.8 cents to 92.8
cents and (b) from 92.8 cents to 98.8 cents;- (3) that after President Howard
of Respondent had proposed a 3-cent differential for night work, Barnett sub-
sequently repudiated such proposal, stating that it had been made in his absence
by Nelson and Rutledge; (4) that after Nelson and Rutledge negotiated with
Hosier in Barnett's absence concerning a no-strike and no-lockout clauses, to=
gether with a three-apprenticeship proposition, all proposed by Nelson and
accepted by Hosier with certain reasonable conditions including the adoption of
a reasonable arbitration clause, Barnett took the position that Nelson's proposals
were mere suggestions made by him as legal advisor to Respondent, and not
binding on the latter or Barnett, as chief bargaining agent; and (5) Respond-
ent's refusal to recognize and negotiate with Local 141's representative as
bargaining representative of the Union.
As to contention (1), the record clearly discloses that from the outset Barnett
sought to have the contract provide that Respondent could employ unlimited
numbers of apprentices as such ; that he made it clear on different occasions
that in the event a contract was signed sufficient extra employees would be
hired to make it unnecessary for the mailers to work over 40 hours per week,
whereas at the time of the meetings all mailers were guaranteed a 48-hour week
whether they worked a full 48 hours or not.'a In connection with his request
for an unlimited number of apprentices, Barnett testified :
Q. Now, I believe you testified yesterday that you had never requested
that you have the right to hire an unlimited number of apprentices, is that
correct?
A. Read the question to me again. I don't believe I understand you.
(Question read.)
A. It wasn't my idea, Mr. Jenkins, at any time to hire an unlimited
number of apprentices. However in changing the transition from 48 to 40
hours I didn't know how many men we would have to put on additional, [sic]
I mean because the work day hadn't been settled, either six hours or eight
hours 84 Now, whether they were apprentices or members of the Union or
not, we of course, didn't know that ; that was problematical.
Q. But did you contemplate putting on more men to take up the slack?
A. I am certain we would always have to hire additional men if we went
to 40 hours a week in that department, yes, sir. (Emphasis supplied.)
83 The record disclosed that some mailers worked 52 to 56 hours per week, and of course
were paid overtime rates for all hours in excess of 40.
84 The number of hours per week were the same under either plan , one of which called for
5 days of 8 hours each and one for 6 days composed of 6 hours and 40 minutes each.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 653
Q. But you were aware that on, the matter of wages the thing that was
holding up the contract was this issue of take-home pay, were you not?
A. I think that's right, yes, sir
On direct examination, Barnett testified :
Q. Did you ever refuse or state that you were not going to ever work
more than 40 hours a week?
A. I didn't believe I ever stated that we weren't going to work. We cer-
tainly try to keep down overtime, not only in the mail room but in all
departments88 (Emphasis supplied.)
Both Barnett and Hosier testified that they spent some time in an attempt
to calculate the number of extra men it would be necessary to hire to take up
the "slack" resulting from a change from 48 to 40 hours per week. From the
foregoing and the record, it appears that Barnett made it clear that if a contract
was executed the Respondent would discontinue overtime work in the mail room
with the result that the mailers under a contract would have less take-home
pay for work than they were receiving at the time. Contention (1) has merit
and is so found.
As to contention (2), the Respondent does not dispute that raises (a) and (b)
were made and does not contend that either were made as the result of bar-
gaining between the parties hereto. On the contrary, in connection with these
raises, Barnett testified that they were made pursuant to a contract and another
union. Barnett testified :
Q. Now, was that a result of a contract you negotiated with some other
union?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you hadn't negotiated that with the mailer union, had you?
A. No, sir.
As to raise (a), the record indicates that Hosier may have agreed that the mailers
should receive and accept the 6-cent raise.' The record further indicates that
the raise was granted in October 1950. Since it was granted after Hosier's
complaint the making of such increase may not support a finding that Respondent
paid the increase without the consent of the Union. It is so found.
As to contention (2) (b), however, the record contains no evidence that the
Union was consulted in regard- thereto and that, as Barnett testified, it was
made as the result of a contract with another union. The record contains a
letter from Nelson to Hosier under date of February 3, 1951, which informed
him that "since our last conference the Times had made two increases in pay,"
which increases Nelson stated he understood were agreeable to Hosier. Other
than such statement, the record contains no credible evidence that payment
met with the Union's approval. Under the circumstances, the granting of an
85 Tom Hall , bargaining representative for Local 141, attended meetings up to June 2.
In connection with "overtime" he testified :
Q. Was anything said in that meeting about overtime that you recall?
A. Mr. Barnett said there definitely wouldn 't be any overtime.
Q. Do you recall what meeting it was he said that in?
A. I believe it was the third meeting.
31 Barnett did not deny Tom Hall 's testimony set forth above, nor was his attention
directed -to such testimony . The undersigned credits Hall's testimony above.
84 His letter of September 30, 1950, to Nelson indicates Barnett had, at Nelson' s sugges-
tion, denied the raise.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increase without consultation with the Union was and is per se 38 a violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. It is so found.
As to contention (3), wherein Nelson and Rutledge, after consulting with
President Howard concerning a night differential, informed Hosier that Howard
proposed a 3-cent per hour as a night shift differential. At the next meeting at
which Barnett was present and his attention called to Howard's action, Barnett
promptly repudiated the differential as unnecessary. Barnett's conduct in this
connection was not such as would indicate good faith bargaining. It is so found.
As to contention (4), the facts are substatially included in the outline of the
contention and disclose a further repudiation by Barnett of Nelson's and Rut-
ledge's efforts to reach some agreement ; and further disclose that Respondent in
permitting ]Barnett to dominate Respondent's committee and to repudiate its
efforts to bargain, was not disposed to and did not bargain in good faith with
the Union.
On the whole, it appears to the undersigned that the only times that Respond-
ent's representatives exhibited a desire and disposition to bargain in good faith,
was on those occasions when Nelson and Rutledge, in the absence of Barnett,
made certain proposals for inclusion in the proposed contract, which proposal
Barnett subsequently sought to treat as mere suggestions made by a legal ad-
visor and not binding on him or Respondent. It is so found.
As to contention (5), wherein the Respondent refused full recognition to the
representatives of Local 141. While Respondent's witnesses testified that its
representatives met with Local 141's representatives upon request, the fact re-
mains that Respondent at all times refused to recognize or accept Local 141
representatives as representatives of the Union. For all the reasons set forth
hereinbefore in connection with the undersigned's ruling on Respondent' s motions
to strike and motion to dismiss, the undersigned finds that Respondent by its
refusal to recognize and negotiate with Local 141's representatives as representa-
tives of the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. It is
so found.
The Respondent's counsel contends in-substance and effect that the parties bar-
gained to an impasse ; that Respondent met with and bargained with the IMU
upon request ; that the only thing the Respondent refused to do was to "guarantee"
overtime pay. Since the record discloses that it was Respondent's position that
if a contract were signed, the Respondent would employ sufficient extra help to
make overtime work unnecessary by any mailers, Respondent's contentions are
without merit and it is so found.
The foregoing and the entire record disclose that Respondent in its negotiations
with the Union at no time intended to enter into a contract with the Union ; such
intent is particularly disclosed by the fact that Respondent made it clear that if
a union contract were executed it would permit the employees in the mail room
who comprised the appropriate unit to work but 40 hours per week and thereby
suffer a loss in take-home pay ; and is further shown by Barnett's repudiation of
Howard's proposal of a night differential ; by granting pay raises without consult-
ing the Union ; the repudiation of Nelson's and Rutledge's acts as Respondent's
representatives in dealing with Hosier ; and the refusal to recognize and treat
with Ivy and Hall as union representatives." Accordingly, the undersigned finds
88 Nelson's letter states in part : "For your information, the Times, since our last confer-
ence, has made two increases in pay .. . ," thus indicating that no conference had been
held with the Union in connection with raise (b).
ao The fact that Barnett and Rutledge did meet with Ivy and Hall or Harper on occasion
could not constitute collective bargaining in good faith since Respondent at all times con-
tended that Local 141 had no standing as bargaining agent.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 655
that on May 3, 1950, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of
its employees in an appropriate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that 4it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent, on May 3, 4, and 5, 1950, and at all times
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the
Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union. It will be further
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it. Cf
N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 321 U. S. 426.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Mailers Union and International Mailers Union, Local 141, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All mailing room employees employed in the Respondent's mailing room at
its Wichita Falls, Texas, newspaper plant, excluding supervisory employees as
defined by the Act and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Mailers Union and International Mailers Union, Local 141, was
on March 17, 1950, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the-Act of all employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Mailers Union and
International Mailers Union, Local 141, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit, the 'Respondent`has engaged in` and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mea'nin of Section 8 (a) (5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in'this volume.]
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE.WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with INTERNATIONAL MAILERS
UNION AND INTERNATIONAL MAILERS UNION , LOCAL 141 , as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit :
All employees in the mail room at the Times Publishing Company plant;
Wichita Falls, Texas, excluding all supervisory employees and all other
employees.
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY,
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.
PLASTIC MANUFACTURERES AND DESIGNERS CORP., D/B/A METAL TREAT-
ING Co.' and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 35-RC-750. August 15,1952
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 William G. Wilkerson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the heat
treating of metals and metal parts. The Employer commenced busi-
ness on July 1, 1951, and during the succeeding 10-month period for
which figures were available at the 'time of the hearing, its purchases
amounted to $21,000, of which about 10 percent was obtained directly
and 50 percent indirectly from outside the State. During the same
period, the Employer's sales were about $67,450, of which $48,866
represented sales to companies that were engaged in producing or
handling goods destined for shipment outside the State, or performing
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 105.