Vail-Ballou Press, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 378 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. and BINGHAMTON PRINT-
ING PRESSMEN'S AND ASSISTANTS' UNION, No. 57, I. P. P. AND A. U.,
OF BINGHAMTON , N. Y., and BINGHAMTON TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
No. 232
In the Matter Of VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. and BINGHAMTON PRINT-
ING PRESSMEN'S AND ASSISTANTS' UNION , No. 57 , I. P. P. 'AND A. U.,
OF BINGHAMTON, N. Y.
In the Matter Of VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. and BINGHAMTON TYPO-
GRAPHICAL UNION , No. 232.
Cases Nos. C-899, R-8921, and 8-882, respectively .Decided
September 15, 1939
Book Printing and Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Co-
ercion: announcement to employees of, policy of continued opposition to outside
labor organizations-Company-Dom ,in.ated Labor Organizations : background :
prior to passage of the Act the respondent continually manifested hostility to
outside . organizations and expressed willingness to deal with inside organiza-
tions ; offered increased wages and improved working conditions to dissipate
interest in outside organizations ; dominated , interfered with, and contributed
support to formation and administration of five departmental associations :
entered into contracts with the associations requiring membership be limited
to employees in particular department , precluding initiation fees and limiting
dues to nominal amount ; after July 5, 1935: administration of associations :
dominated and interfered with , by treating contracts as in effect , and by renewal
of one contract ; support to , contributed by continuing to treat associations as
representatives and permitting them free use of meeting place in plant , without
retracting or disavowing previously expressed opposition to outside organizations ;
interfered with, by distributing to officers of associations literature of un-
affiliated unions; respondent ordered to disestablish associations-Contracts:
with company -dominated organizations found to have been used to frustrate
self-organization among employees ; respondent ordered to cease giving effect-
Investigation of Representatives : questions concerning representation : company
on ground of existence of contracts with associations , found to be company
dominated , refused to meet with • representatives of outside unions claiming to
represent employees-Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees
in composing room and pressroom , exclusive of supervisory employees , held to
constitute separate units-Election Ordered: to take place at such time as the
Board shall hereafter direct-Procedure : intervention in representation case by
labor organization claiming to represent separate and distinct group of em-
ployees and seeking to establish separate unit of such employees , improperly
granted ; filing of petitions in representation case by said labor organization
alleging existence of question concerning representation of separate and distinct
group of employees , properly denied.
15 N. L . R. B., No. 40.
378
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 379
Mr. Peter Crotty, for the Board.
Lee, Levene, O'Brien c Kramer, by Mr. David F. Lee and Mr.
David Levene, of Binghamton, N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Daniel B. Shortal, of Buffalo, N. Y., for B. P. P., B. T. U.,
and the Bookbinders; Mr. Francis P. Fenton, of Washington, D. C.,
for B. P. P. and B. T. U.; Mr. Anthony J. De Andrade, of Boston,
Mass:, for B. P. P.; Mr. Alfred J. Whittle, of Tuckahoe, N. Y., for
B. T. U.; Mr. John B. Haggerty, of Washington, D. C., for the
Bookbinders.
Mr. Vincent Burns and Mr. William Stix, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION.
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 11, 1938,. Binghamton Printing Pressmen's and Assist-
ants' Union, No. 57, I. P. P. and A. U., of Binghamton, N. Y., herein
called B. P. P., chartered by International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, and Binghamton Typo-
graphical Union, No. 232, herein called B. T. U., chartered by Inter-
national Typographical Union, each filed with the Regional Director
for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), herein called the Re-
gional Director, a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Vail-
Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton, New York, herein called the
respondent, and requesting an investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives pursuant to Section• 9 (c) of the; National Labor Rela-
tions Act, herein called the Act.'
On February 9, 1938, representatives of B. P. P. and of B. T. U.
jointly filed with the Regional Director a charge alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices,.within the meaning of Section 8 (1) : and (2) and Section 2 (6)
:acid' (7) of the Act. .
On May 4, 1938, the National . Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant. to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
"Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation of the
'In the formal documents and exhibits In the record , B. P. P. and B. T.U. are var-
dously, designated . In our Decision , Order, and Direction of Elections , unless their, full
deslgnataon is given; the" international as well as the local organizations of the two unions.
s ll bereferred ' to as B. P. P. and B. T. U. ' '
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
questions concerning representation and authorized the Regional Di-
rector to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due_ notice and, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (b), and!
Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations,
further ordered that the three cases be consolidated for purposes of
bearing-and that one record of the hearing be made.
Upon the charge theretofore filed, the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector, issued its complaint, dated May 13, 1938, alleging that the-
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Notices of the hearing upon
the complaint and upon the petitions, together with a copy of the
complaint and of the petitions, were duly served on the, respondent,.
B. P. P., and B. T. U. Notice of the hearing to be held upon the
petition filed by B.,P. P. was served on Pressmen and Assistants.
Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, herein called the Press-
men's Association, a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees directly affected by the investigation. Notices of the hearing
to be held upon the petition filed by B. T. U. were duly served on
The Day ' Linotype Operators and Machinists Association, herein
called the Day Operators' Association, on Night Operators and
Machinist Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballow Press, herein called
the Night Operators' Association, on The Proofroom Workers' Asso-
ciation, herein called the Proofroom Association, and on Floormen's,
Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, herein called the Floormen's.
Association, labor organizations claiming to represent employees di-
rectly affected by the investigation, which Associations, together with
the Pressmen's Association, are hereinafter collectively referred to as
the Five Associations.2
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent fostered,.
encouraged, dominated, and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of each of the Five Associations and contributed finan-
cial and other support to each of them; and that thereby, as well as.
by discouraging membership in the Unions through individual con-
ferences with its employees and in other ways, and by threats to close
its plant if the Unions were designated as.the collective bargaining-
agency of its employees, the respondent interfered ,with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
the Act. The respondent filed an answer admitting certain specific
allegations of the complaint but denying the jurisdiction of the Board
and the averments of unfair labor practices.
2 We have designated each Association by the name given in its bylaws which, in,
some instances , differs slightly from that used in formal documents and exhibits in the-
record:
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 381
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing in the complaint and
representation cases was held in Binghamton, New York, from May
23 through May 27, 1938,. before Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. At the opening of the hearing the
respondent filed a special appearance and moved to dismiss the com-
plaint and the petitions for want of jurisdiction. The Trial Ex-
aminer reserved ruling on the motion. On May 25, 1938, International
.Brotherhood of Bookbinders, herein called the Bookbinders, applied
to the Trial Examiner for leave to intervene in the representation
cases, which was granted.3 . The Bookbinders, at that time and again
at the close of the hearing, moved to amend the complaint to include
allegations that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, with respect to a labor
organization "known as the Bookbinders Trade Association," or a
name similar thereto.' The motions to amend were severally denied.
At the close of the hearing the respondent renewed its motion to dis-
miss the complaint and the petitions for lack of jurisdiction and
further moved that they be dismissed for insufficiency of proof to
support the allegations thereof. These motions the Trial Examiner
likewise denied. -
The Board and the respondent appeared by counsel ; B. P. P. and
.B. T. U. appeared by counsel or by other representatives; and all
participated in'the hearing in the complaint and representation cases.
The Bookbinders was represented by counsel, and from May 25
through May 27, 1938, participated in the hearing in the representation
cases. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
.all parties.-5 In the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
various rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
'evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. We hereby affirm all rulings,
except that allowing the Bookbinders to intervene in the representation
-case, which is hereby reversed for reasons subsequently stated.'
On August,.30, 1938, the Trial Examiner made his Intermediate
Report, which was filed with the Regional Director and duly served
This application for leave to intervene was made orally . On May 26 , 1938 , the Book-
binders requested the Trial Examiner to grant leave for the filing , nune pro tune, of a
ipetition for investigation and certification . Apparently because the Bookbinders had
already been allowed to intervene , the Trial Examiner denied the request on the ground
that such action was unnecessary . On May 27, 1 938, the Trial Examiner permitted the
Bookbinders to file as an exhibit a written application to intervene in the representation
cases.
4 The name of this organization appears in an exhibit in evidence as "Bindery Trades
Association."
5 Participation by the Bookbinders was limited to issues arising in - the representation
cases.
6 See infra, page 406.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon the respondent, B. P. P., and B. T. U.; in which he found that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and take certain affirmative action to remedy the
situation brought about by those practices.
On September 19, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions'to• the Inter-
mediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner. Pur-
suant to notice, oral argument was had - on January 26, 1939, before
the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent, B. P. P., B. T. U.,
and the Bookbinders appeared by.counsel or ether representatives and
participated in the oral argument. At that time the respondent also
filed a brief. The Board has considered the exceptions and brief of
the respondent but, save in so far as they are consistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds the exceptions
to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., a New York corporation,
is engaged in the business of book manufacturing. It maintains a
sales office in New York City and operates a plant at Binghamton,
New York, which employs about 182 persons and has a daily produc-
tion capacity of from 8,000 to 10,000 books. The respondent manu-
factures and sells composition, printing plates, printed sheets, and
bound books. Its purchases of raw materials in 1937 aggregated
$81,666.02. Binders' boards, shooks, cloth, glue, and plate boxes, to
the value of approximately $48,000, were obtained from manufac-
turers outside New York State ; metal bases, metal flux, and nickel
salts, to the value of more than $14,000, were purchased through the
New York City sales offices of manufacturers whose plants are located
in New Jersey.° Substantially all of the paper used by the respondent
is purchased by publishers and shipped to its plant from the State
of Maine, to be stored for them until drawn upon for printing. In
1937, paper to the value of approximately $70,000 was shipped to the
plant..
During 1937; the respondent's sales amounted to $661,550, of which
$106,399.47 represents sales made to customers outside New York
State. Some of its products sold to customers in New York State pass
7 Some of the facts concerning the value of raw materials purchased by the respondent
are derived from the respondent 's brief.
VAIL-BALLOU. PRESS, INC: 383
through Pennsylvania in transit to the purchasers. The respondent's
principal customers in New York State are Dodd, Mead and Company,
D. Appleton and Century Book Publishers, Simon and Schuster, The
Crowell Publishing Company, The Dial Press, The Viking Press, The
Columbia University Press, and Funk and Wagnalls, all of:which sell
their publications throughout the United States. -
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Binghamton Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, No. 57,
I. P. P. and A. U., of Binghamton, N. Y., chartered by International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, which
is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi-
zation which admits to membership persons, including employees of
the respondent, who are journeymen, pressmen, press assistants, and
apprentices, including foremen.
Binghamton Typographical Union, No. 232, chartered by Interna-
tional Typographical Union of North America, which is affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization which
admits to membership persons, including employees of the respondent.,
who are journeymen and apprentice linotype operators, linotype ma-
chinists, make-up men, stone-hands, and proofreaders, including
foremen.
The Day Linotype Operators and Machinists Association, Night
Operators and Machinist Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou
Press, The Proofroom Workers' Association, Floormen's Association
of the Vail-Ballou Press, and Pressmen and Assistants Welfare Asso-
ciation of the Vail-Ballou Press are labor organizations admitting to
membership all employees, excluding foremen, in 'the respective sec-
tions of respondent's plant, and on the shifts, designated by their
names.
III. THE UNFATR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The respondent's labor relations prior to July 5, 19351,
As early as 1925, B. T. U. sought to organize the respondent's em-
ployees. Beginning about that time, and until about 1929, the re-
spondent annually caused its employees to sign "yellow-dog" con-
tracts by which they obligated themselves not to. join outside labor
organizations and stipulated that, in the event of a failure to agree
upon wages, their contractual relationship with the respondent would
terminate.
$ While actions of the respondent occurring before the effective date of the Act do not
constitute unfair labor practices, they are important ; nevertheless, as lending color to
and explaining the respondent 's acts after that. date. See National Labor Relations
Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 91 F . ( 2d) 458, 459 (C. C. A. 9), 303 U. S. 272; Na-
tional Labor Relations Board v . Pennsylvania Greyhound Linea , Inc., 303 U. S. 261;
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery
Act in June 1933, J. B. Ballou, who is now president of the respond-
ent, spoke to the employees at a meeting held in the plant lunchroom.
Workers were notified of the assembly, either orally by their fore-
men or bya posted announcement. Immediately prior to the gath-
ering, the employees turned off the.machines at the direction of their
superiors. Ballou stated to the employees that the new legislation
gave them the right to form and join any kind of organization they
cared to.9 In conjunction with that declaration, however, Ballou
made clear not only the ,respondent's continued aversion to "outside
interference" but also its desire to demonstrate what "benefits" might
be obtained from a company-limited organization. This thinly veiled
suggestion that employees form a plant organization was, as will ap-
pear, but the introduction to a series of more explicit proposals which
ultimately contributed to the formation of the Five Associations.
In' August 1933, employees were again summoned, in the same man-
ner, to the plant dining room. There they found their foremen,
together with Merl Vail, then treasurer and now vice president, and
James A.. McGarrity, then secretary and now treasurer, of the
respondent. An employee, acting as chairman of the meeting, intro-
duced one Kelly, who requested the officials and foremen to leave
the room. We attribute no significance to their departure, however,
in view of the circumstances under which the meeting was assembled,
together with the fact that-as in the case of the meeting addressed
by Ballou-employees were paid for the time spent in attendance
and Kelly's statement to the meeting that, prior to coming to Bing-
hamton, he had spoken to McGarrity by telephone. Having identi-
fied himself as a member of a guild of binders in New York City
which united, chiefly for social purposes, organizations whose mem-
bership and economic activity were principally limited to employer
units, Kelly turned to a theme previously voiced by Ballou. He
stated that inside unions were working successfully elsewhere, that
they afforded employees benefits which could not be obtained through
outside unions, and that their dues and assessments were consider-
ably less than those of affiliated unions. Having suggested that
each department should elect a representative to consult with the
management, he assured a questioner that the "office" wanted such
action taken.
The very afternoon of Kelly's address, various departments held
meetings to elect representatives, who from time to time presented
6 Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat . 195, enacted June 16,
1933, , provided that each code adopted pursuant to it should declare the right of em-
ployees to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of. their own choos-
ing, free from interference , restraint , or coercion from employers of labor, and should
prohibit employers from requiring as a condition of employment membership in a com-
pany union or non-membership in a freely chosen labor organization.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 385
grievances to the management. However, upon the adoption in
February 1934, pursuant to the N. I. R. A., of the Graphic Arts
Code, Vail,"' at a meeting with the representatives, advised them
that he did not wish to "bother with" an organization which did not
combine all of the departments, that he wanted an organization
formed, "social or otherwise ..., tinder one head," and that the
respondent would pay its employees for the time spent in the meetings
of such an organization. A vote on this proposal was taken in each
department, but the plan was rejected by the day linotype operators
and the testimony is conflicting as to whether it was ever put into
effect.
While we do not determine whether it has reference to the 1933
or the 1934 organization, there is evidence, from which we find, that
Vail convoked the first meeting of one of these organizations and
introduced the representatives to each other, and that stenographic
minutes of that meeting were kept by his or McGarrity's secretary.
Clarence Maywalt, a make-up man, attended this meeting, although
he was not an elected representative, complained that the floormen
were not treated fairly, and expressed an opinion that the : respond-
ent would not observe any contract it might make. Thereafter; when
Maywalt inquired as to why he had not received a pay increase,
Which his foreman had indicated he might be given, McGarrity laid;
him off for 2 weeks, saying, "I don't think you think much of this
company from what I have been hearing . . . I think we will give
you a couple of weeks to change your attitude." The respondent
made no attempt to explain McGa.rrity's statement' or his action,.
and we conclude-from Maywalt's testimoniy-that they were predi-
cated on what Maywalt had said at the meeting of representatives.
The enactment of the N. I. R. A. apparently led to a renewal of
efforts by B. T. U., which began in September 1933 to organize the
respondent's employees. In May or June 1934 Barrett, a vice presi-
dent of International Typographical Union, advised the respondent
that it claimed to represent a majority of the composing-room opera-
tors. In the same month, on a Thursday evening, B. P. P. held an
organizational meeting in Binghamton which was attended by a
majority of the respondent's pressmen. Many of the pressmen ex-
pressed a desire to join the Union and, either then or at a meeting
of their own at or about that time, voted to become members. The
respondent's reaction to these stirrings among its employees was an
immediate and thorough-going campaign to prevent them from affili-
ating with outside organizations and to cause them to form company-
10 The witnesses , and consequently our findings , in some instances do not distinguish
between M . D. Vail and S. E. Vail who, until his death in December 1937, was president
of the respondent.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD
limited organizations of a more formal character than it had there-
tofore instigated. Its campaign differed from the earlier ones only
in that the respondent further developed the tactics to which we
have referred above and carried their to their logical conclusion.
Having received Barrett's claim, the respondent on May 31, 1934,
called a group of women linotype operators' to the library room of
the office.12 The employees.were advised by Vail and McGarrity that
Barrett had asserted the right to represent them and were asked
whether they belonged to the Union: When all of them denied that
they were union members, the company executives asked them to
persuade the remaining women operators to allow the respondent a
"chance to talk" to them before joining the Union. The following
day the respondent went through the same procedure with a different
group of operators.13 These women were asked to sign a written
statement that they'did not belong to the Union, but they refused to
do so until they could talk with their fellow employees. Vail re-
quested them to use their influence to get the other girls to sigh 14 On
Monday morning, June 4, a number of girls, including several girls
from each of the prior groups, were called to meet with Vail and
McGarrity in the office.15 Vail told them that he had received assur-
ances of non-Iembership from other girls and he again endeavored
to obtain disavowals of membership from those present.
Such inquisitions as these, together with requests for written dis-
avowal of membership in B. T. U. and bids for cooperation in
obtaining the signatures of other employees, could only lead employees
to understand that the company was still opposed to outside organiza-
tions. On Monday afternoon, moreover, J. R. McNair, linotype
foreman, summoned all the women to a session in the office with Vail
and McGarrity which lasted for 4 hours. McNair asked them to give
respondent "a chance to do something" for them before they decided
on the Union, and advised them that they "could get most anything
from the company . . . if [they] formed a company organiza-
tion : to keep outside unions out." At the respondent's suggestion
11 The day-shift operators are women, whereas the night -shift operators are men.
12 Included in this group were Helen Beers, Dorothy Clark , Helen McLean, Airs . Graus-
bury, and Mrs . Brawley.
13 In the second group were Pauline DeBarr , Lois Lawson, Betty Dickinson , Myrtle
Ottman, and Miriam white.
14 Dorothy B. Sturdevant , one of the women operators , had joined B. T. U. In 1933.
It is apparent , also, that Pauline DeBarr was a member or that she had applied for
membership in B. T. U., for following this conference she made a report of it by tele-
phone to the Union's headquarters in Indianapolis. That in May and June 1934 others
as well had applied for membership is evident , not only from the concern manifested by
the respondent upon hearing of Barrett 's claim but also from DeBarr ' s testimony that
she had "been appointed " as their representative "by the Ballou girls that had made
application to Join the union ( B. T. U.)."
15 Among those who went to the office at, this time were Beers , Gransbury , Clark,
Dickinson , and DeBarr.
VAIL'-BALLOU' PRESS,, INC. 387
a nd` in the presence of its dfficers; the women elected a committee,18
with the understanding that the members would ascertain the com-
plaints of the employees and present them,to the management. All
employees were paid by the respondent: for the time spent in the
office, as were-the committee members for time spent in consultation
the next day. The following day a list of demands, formulated by
the committee; was submitted. to respondent. One of the proposals
was that no employee of the department could be discharged without'
the approval, by a two-thirds vote, of the employees-in the com-
posing room. The suggestion was rejected with the terse comment
that it "smacked of unionism." 17.
,The respondent, with equal celerity, addressed itself to the action
of its pressmen. Informed of their decision to affiliate with B. P. P.,
M: D. Vail, though conceding their right to join an affiliated union,
stated to the pressmen that he "would like to see [them] have [their]
own organization" ' because they "knew [their] working conditions
better than an outside organization." 18 The. respondent, how-
ever, apprehensive that this argument alone might not persuade the
pressmen to make the choice it desired, concluded that the scales
should be weighted against their joining B. P. P.
On Monday morning following the Thursday organizational meet-
ing -of B. P. P., above referred to '19 Lester Gifford, a pressman, came
to,see McGarrity with a number of proposals, which he had drafted,
for wage increases and for better working conditions.. The current
manifestation among employees of interest in the outside union was
a matter of common knowledge, and, despite Gifford's denial, it
clearly was a topic of discussion: at this conference. Gifford ad-
mitted he told McGarrity that discontent over wages and working
conditions were the two things that made the men "dissatisfied
enough to want to joint this union . . ." Moreover, after 2 hours.
Gifford left the conference with McGarrity's promise to make the
concessions which he had asked for. The respondent' advanced no,
explanation for its sudden acceptance of Gifford's proposals. The
record is devoid of any indication that the offer of increased,wages
,and better working conditions should be attributed to purely economic
factors related to the respondent's business. The company's conduct
is comprehensible, however, if consideration is given to the respond-
ent's continuously hostile attitude toward "outside interference" and
Ito the fact that it was clear to the management that the outside union
16 Consisting of DeBarr, Lawson , and Sturdevant.'. '
"This manifestation of a desire of employees to obtain , something which "smacked of
unionism" may, perhaps , account for a request made later In the month by McGarrity
that Sturdevant find out how the others felt toward the Union.
16This occurred shortly before the Monday evening' meeting, discussed below , at which
the Pressmen 's Association was organized.
"See supra, page 385.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had won a large and enthusiastic following in the pressroom. We
have previously observed that the respondent, in order to discourage
employees from joining outside unions, had asked that it be given an,
opportunity to demonstrate what it could do for its workers. Under
these circumstances the conclusion is inescapable , and we find, that
in granting Gifford's demands the respondent was endeavoring to
show the pressmen that concessions could be obtained from it with-
out recourse to outside unions and , thereby, to discourage member-
ship in B. P. P.20
Gifford at once made a report of his conversation with McGarrity
to several pressmen who, along with him, decided that it would be
advisable to "get the fellows together tonight and see what they
all think about it." 'Gifford obtained McGarrity's permission to use
the dining room for a meeting that evening. At the meeting of
the pressmen, Gifford presented McGarrity's proposal to the men,
who concluded that "for the present the best thing to do" was to
"take up" the concessions obtained by Gifford and to form an or-
ganization in the department. Someone then suggested that a "per-
manent organization" of the respondent's pressmen be formed. The
suggestion was adopted, and a committee was elected, with Gifford
as chairman, to prepare bylaws for the new organization and to
draft an agreement.21 No sooner had this been done than, at Gif-
ford's request, McGarrity came to the meeting. He confirmed what
Gifford had said about the benefits granted by the respondent. And,
upon learning that the men had decided to form an organization
among themselves, McGarrity asserted that he would "back (them)
up" and that the respondent would be very friendly to the fledgling
association.22
20 Because he felt that the "right time" had not come , Gifford did not approach Mc-
Garrity with his proposals immediately after the B. P. P. meeting , which occurred on
Thursday , but waited until the following Monday . From his testimony it appears that
his presentation of,the demands on Monday was precipitated by a conversation which
he claims to have had with two pressmen that morning . According to Gifford, one of
them remarked that he did not have sufficient money to join B. P. P. the following eve-
ning , as he was pledged to, and the other intimated that in promising to join B . P. P. he
had acted with excessive haste. Even If Gifford's testimony is believed as to this inci-
(lent, it would only confirm our conclusion that the outside union activity was discussed
by McGarrity and Gifford at their morning conference and therefore corroborate our
finding that the respondent 's purpose in making the wage and other concessions was to
discourage such activity.
21 On August 8, 1934, the "rates" obtained by Gifford in his initial meeting with
McGarrity were embodied in a contract entered into between the respondent and the
organization- formed by the pressmen-The Pressmen ' s Association.
22 Gifford 's testimony reads as follows :
What he ( McGarrity) said, that he would back us up if these pressmen and
assistants had agreed that they wanted an organization within themselves, which
was not a company organization and was never started as one, and never was one,
and which the company has never dominated , which they decided they wanted.
And I called Mr. McGarrity In to verify that statement , and Mr. McGarrity did
verify that statement . Perhaps I can't say the exact words, but they would be
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 389
To appreciate the factors which led to the formation of the
Pressman's Association it is necessary to bear in mind that the re-
spondent had repeatedly manifested its bitter opposition to outside
unions. Of utmost importance, too, is the fact that on several occa-
sions the respondent had explained to its employees, or to a group of
them, the benefits to be derived from inside organizations, had
openly suggested the formation of various types of departmental
aiid plant committees, and had met and negotiated with • such com-
mittees, and that shortly before the Monday night meeting of the
pressmen occurred Vail had overtly suggested establishment of a
company-limited association by telling the pressmen that "he would
like to see (them) have (their) own organization:" The respondent
certainly intended that this continually expressed favoritism for
company-limited organizations should affect employees in their
choice of a collective bargaining representative. So long as em-
ployees remained sympathetic with the outside union, however,
there was obviously small possibility that they would form an un-
affiliated organization among themselves. From testimony by Gif-
ford which has already been mentioned, it may be inferred that
B. P. P.'s membership campaign had derived its effectiveness in
large measure from the men's dissatisfaction with wages and work-
ing conditions. By increasing wages and improving working con-
ditions the respondent conceded at least some of the benefits which
employees hoped to gain through affiliating with B. P. P. Because
this action disposed of the outside union's chief appeal, it likewise
removed a major impediment to the establishment of an inside or-
ganization.23 McGarrity's -personal confirmation, by his appearance
at the evening meeting, of the benefits previously announced by
Gifford was, no doubt, intended to render the tactic more effective.
McGarrity did not confine himself, however, to verifying those con-
cessions . Upon learning that the pressmen had decided' to establish
very friendly toward such an organization , but the pressmen and assistants had
made their association before Mr . McGarrity was ever brought into the picture.
We are uncertain whether the words in Gifford 's first sentence following the second
comma are his own characterization of the organization , or whether they constitute part
of his summary of McGarrity ' s remarks . If the former is true, the words represent
nothing but Gifford's personal conclusions and are at variance with our findings based
on the record . If the latter is true, the words bespeak a circumspection on the part of
McGarrity entirely at variance with other statements and acts of various representatives
of the respondent , including McGarrity . There is, moreover , a fundamental inconsistency
in McGarrity ' s declaration of willingness to "back .. . . up" the men if their association
was not a "company organization." The very expression of this willingness constituted
such support of the organization in its formation as would, and did , contribute toward
making it a union subservient to the respondent.
23 Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Staekpole Carbon Company , 105 F. ( 2d) 167
(C. C. A. 3) ; National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 F. ( 2d) 383;
National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 98 F.
488 (C. C. A. 9), cert. den . 306 U. S. 643.
(2d)
199549-39-vol. 15-26
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an inside organization, he assured them that he would "back (them)
up" and that the respondent would be very friendly to their- asso-
ciation. By this statement he unquestionably rendered support to
the projected organization. This becomes especially evicl.eiit when
McGarrity?s remarks are considered against the background of the
,company's uncompromising opposition to outside unions.
We find that the respondent fostered, encouraged, dominated, and
interfered with the formation of the Pressmen's Association, and
contributed support to its formation.
Formation of the Day Operators' Association and of the Night
Operators' Association followed a similar course. For reasons that
may readily be appreciated, the day linotype operators were under
such tension, resulting from their uncertainty "whether to go one way
,or the other," that they were unable to "settle . . down to
work." Helen McLean, one of their number, taking it upon herself
to see the management to ascertain what it might have "to offer,"
told McGarrity that she had changed her mind towards the Union
and was dissatisfied with "the way things were going out on the
machines because of our activities." McGarrity pursued this open-
ing by pointing out that other girls probably felt as McLean did:
He told her, moreover,
... that if a number of us was interested in forming a
company association that he might be able to get the pressmen's
contract 24 because they seemed satisfied with their's
[and] that it would benefit us a great deal more to
have that association rather than an outside one.
As a consequence of this conversation, McLean procured from Gif-
ford a copy of the pressroom contract.25
While there had been discussion among the. day operators about
"company organization," McLean was "the first one to really sug-
gest starting one." When McLean had decided to form an. inside
association, McNair told her that she was doing the "wisest thing."
Although it does not appear whether McLean's suggestion to the
other employees about starting an organization antedated her visit
to McGarrity or McNair's expression of approval, it is not to be
doubted that his expression of approbation and support gave her
and her fellow employees the encouragement which persuaded them
to carry on.
21 See footnote 21, supra.
This contract, together with a copy of the agreement which had been entered into
on August 28 between the Proofroom Association and the respondent and which was
itself based on the pressroom contract, was used by members of the Day Operators' Asso-
ciation in -preparing their contract, which was concluded with the respondent on
September 20.
VAIL-I;ALLOU PRESS, INC. 391
Mary Cullen, a Linotype operator who knew that McLean had
gone to see the management 26 and had talked with her about the
pressmen's organization, learned the outcome of her talk with Mc-
Garrity. Subsequently, McLean and Cullen invited Gifford to speak
At a meeting of the day and night linotypists and machinists, which
he did.
A notice of the meeting, intended to be read by employees, was
placed- in a basket on McNair's desk or posted on a bulletin board
above it. As an employee went to the meeting, McNair said to him,
"Say, LaSure, don't forget we are depending on you." One or two
employee witnesses seemed to be unable to distinguish the manner in
which they were informed of this meeting from that in which the
respondent had announced. the assemblies addressed by Ballou and
Kelly. Indeed the respondent did nothing to make it possible for
employees to draw any such distinction. Because it' permitted an-
nouncements of the Gifford meeting to be displayed in the same
place as those which had apprised employees of meetings summoned
by the management, it is plausible that, the respondent sponsored
the meeting and authorized the holding of it; but it is unquestion-
able-taking into consideration the notices, McNair's remark to La-
Sure '27 and the fact that the meeting was held on company property-
that, the respondent's conduct was such as to induce employees rea-
sonably to believe that it was sponsoring the meeting and had author..
ized the holding of it.
In his speech Gifford explained that he had conferred with Vail-
.and McGarrity about forming a pressroom organization and clearly
indicated that the respondent approved of. the action he had taken
in establishing that association. He spoke of the disadvantages, such
as ,high dues and assessments for the defense of Tom Mooney, which
characterized outside organizations and told employees that they
would probably obtain the greatest benefit from an organization
among themselves. While he said that in order to establish an in-
side organization it would be essential to have the respondent's co-
operation, he unmistakably intimated that the respondent would "go
along" with such a project. We are of the opinion that the cir-
cumstances surrounding the meeting and the respondent's conduct
antecedent to it were such that employees there present must have
believed, with reason, that Gifford was speaking, to them by authority
of the respondent. For this situation the respondent was accountable.
20 McLean told Cullen that she was "going in to see Mr. Vail ." Actually McLean talked
with McGarrity. These two facts are not Inconsistent , since, for any number of reasons,
McLean may have seen fit or been obliged to confer with MeGarrity instead of Vail.
n Because McNair did not testify and because no other Interpretation for the remark is
anywhere suggested , 'we conclude that It had reference to the meeting to which LaSure
was going and to the formation of a departmental association.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after, and undoubtedly as a result of, the Gifford meeting
Conrad Jones, a night linotype machinist, consulted McGarrity to
ascertain whether the respondent would be favorably disposed toward
an organization comprising both the day and night shifts of lino-
type operators and machinists. McGarrity "thought it would be a
good idea to have a, company organization," said "he would do every-
thing to help" the employees form one, and approved of amalgamat-
ing the day and night shifts into a single association.
Following Gifford's speech, the day operators, who were women,
together with the day machinists, determined by vote to form an
association limited to the day shift of the linotype department. That
organization became the Day Operators' Association. During the
negotiations which led to execution of a contract between it and the
respondent, M. D. Vail told the women representatives that his
father, S. E. Vail, then president, of the respondent, was bitterly
opposed to outside unions and that lie intended to carry on the fight.
During the same conferences he "instructed" the girls to call their
organization something other than "Union," saying that he strongly
objected to that term.28
After the day crew had decided to form a separate association, the
night linotype men likewise determined to have an organization of
their own. Jones conveyed this information to McGarrity, who again
assured him of his readiness to "help . . . form it." At this or an
earlier conference McGarrity gave Jones a printed copy of the press-
room contract and bylaws "to use as an outline for our bylaws and
contract." The very copy that Jones received was used in drafting:
the agreement of the Night Operators' Association with the re-
spondent.29
We conclude that the respondent sponsored, encouraged, domi-
nated, and interfered with the formation of the Day Operators' and
IRA similar . statement was made to the night operators by Vail or McGarrity.
s9 Agreements were signed by the respondent and the Associations . on the following
dates : the Pressmen 's Association , August 8 ; the Proofroom Association , August 28; the
Floormen 's Association , August 29 ; the Day Operators ' Association , September, 20; and
the Night Operators ' Association , November 22 . The pressmen ' s contract served as a
model for all the subsequent contracts and they are virtually identical to it, except for
provisions pertaining to wages and working conditions peculiar to a particular department.
Each of these contracts , originals or duplicate originals of which were introduced as
exhibits , is typewritten on several pages to which are attached , in the same format as the
contract , a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the Association authorizing its execu-
tive committee to sign the agreement and also a copy of the Association 's bylaws. In
several, if not all , instances these contracts , resolutions , and bylaws were typewritten by
a company stenographer . Also introduced as exhibits were several copies of the press-
men's contract and bylaws printed together on a single large sheet . Since McGarrity
gave one of'these copies to Jones , it is likely that they were printed by the respondent.
The pressmen's contract and bylaws appear under the captions : "Agreement and By-
Laws to be adopted by the Employer and Employees . . Section II of the pressroom
agreement , moreover, sets forth the "objects of these By -Laws and this Agreement . .
A similar caption and statement of objectives are found in the agreement and bylaws of
the Night Operators ' Association and of the Floormen's Association.
A
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 393
of the Night Operators' Associations and contributed support to their
formation.
Up to this point we have discussed the circumstances surrounding
and leading to the formation of the Pressmen's Association, the Day
'Operators' Association, and the Night Operators' Association.- We
reach the same conclusion as to the respondent's role in the formation
of the Proofroom Association 31 and the Floormen's Association.'
Indeed, many of the same, as well as numerous other and similar cir-
cumstances, affected and led to the establishment of all of the Five
Associations. .
We have pointed out above that the organizational meeting of the
Pressmen's Association was held in the plant lunchroom. This dining
room was used by all the other Associations as well as for their early
meetings. Moreover, Gifford-who was chairman of its bylaws and
contract committee of the Pressmen's Association, and who became
its .first president-upon invitation spoke to employees in each of the
other, departments about his experience in connection with the press-
room group. Indeed, the plant is small and the entire matter was
.already common knowledge.
It is clear, from the entire record, that sentiment for an inside or-
ganization in the linotype, proofroom, and floormen's departments
had its origin in the news which had been communicated throughout
the plant-informally as well as by Gifford's speeches-concerning
the material benefits originally promised to the pressmen and in the
hope that like concessions would be made to employees in other de-
partments. For example, George Reckhow, a hand compositor, learned
that the pressmen had formed an organization and that they were
obtaining wage increases. Because "it looked like a good thing," he
invited Gifford to speak at a night meeting of the floormen's depart-
ment, which was held at the plant. Gifford outlined the benefits that
the pressmen were receiving through their organization. Undoubt-
edly as a consequence of Gifford's speech, a committee of floormen
consulted the management. They subsequently reported to a meeting
of the department, held on August 13, that before any "agreement"
could be made with the company "it would be necessary for the de-
partment to formally organize." 83 Without delay a resolution was
passed establishing the Floormen's Association.
We have seen that wage increases promised to Gifford were em-
bodied in the contract concluded between the respondent and the
80 Gifford's address to the day and night operators and machinists appears to have oc-
curred in August 1934. During the same month both the Day Operators' and the Night
Operators' Associations began to negotiate their contracts with the respondent.
31 The Proofroom Association was organized on July 23, 1934.
32The Floormen's Association was organized on August 13, 1934.
33 It is manifest, and we find, that this is what the management told the committee.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOB , -REIsATIONS BOARD
Pressmen's Association on August 8.34 The contracts subsequently
entered into with the Floormen, the Day Operators, the Night Oper-
ators, and, apparently, the Proofroom, likewise provided for wage
raises. The respondent, in effect, made a bargain with the various
departments giving them wage increases in exchange for the forma-
tion of inside organizations.
We have noted that, prior to the inception of the Pressmen's Asso-
ciation, a majority of the employees in the pressroom had decided to
affiliate with B. P. P.35 We have seen that a number of the day
linotype operators had joined or applied for membership in
B. P. P.-a sufficient number to arouse considerable concern among
the respondent's executives.36 That a comparable sentiment existed
in the proofroom about the time of the formal beginning of the Proof-
room Association on July 23, may be inferred from a secret ballot
conducted among the proofroom employees shortly thereafter, which
resulted in rejection of a proposal that an organization be formed
limited to the respondent's employees. Within a week another vote,
this time an open one, was taken-with the opposite result. Such an
about-face, if indicated by a second secret ballot, would not be en-
lightening, but in' view of the respondent's previous declarations M.
favor of a company-limited organization and against outside organi-
zations, the reversal must certainly be attributed to an understand-
able reluctance of employees to avow openly any but the attitude
favored by the Company.
In this connection it is relevant to call attention to an identical pro-
vision appearing in the agreement of each of the Associations with
the respondent whereby the Association warrants "that its member-
ship . . . embraces 100%" of the persons eligible and that it was
formed by employees "of their own- free will and free of all em-
ployer interference." We are assured by the respondent's brief-
and it may also be inferred from the record-that "when the asso-
ciations were formed the members of each group voted unanimously
to join the associations." In view of the prior organizational sym-
pathies of a considerable number of the employees and the unwilling-
ness shown by others to form an inside organization, we are con-
vinced that this unanimity could have been, and was, achieved only
by the respondent's interference and coercion with their choice of
a collective bargaining agency. The very fact that the pressroom
contract handed to Jones by McGarrity for use as a model contained
this "100%" provision was tantamount to an injunction to all.ljno-
type employees on the night shift to join the Night Operators' As-
84 See footnote 21, supra.
w See page 383, supra.
31 See footnote 14, supra.
SAIL-BALLOU, PRESS, Iii C. '395
sociation. That day-shift -employees in the Linotype department
were not any more at liberty to' refrain from participation in the
activities of the Day Operators' Association is evident . from the
circumstance that a resolution authorizing the executive committee
of that Association to execute a contract with the' respondent was
placed for signature by employees, and was signed by them, on a
type bank within a few feet of foreman McNair's desk.37
Prior to August 28, 1934, when the second contract with an inside
organization was signed,88 the respondent had, moreover, by the
discharge of several employees made difficult, if not impossible, any
effective action by employees interested in promoting affiliation with
an outside organization to match the drive for a company-limited
form.
During the first part of August 1934, the respondent discharged
four linotype operators, purportedly in order to reduce. the number
of married women employees. Seven or eight others of similar
family status were, however, retained. Whether or not the re-
spondent discharged any of the four women for their union activity
it is unnecessary to decide,39 for from the statement of McNair, their
foreman, made within a week thereafter, it is clear that respondent
intended that the discharges should be understood by its employees
as an expression of its opposition to outside unions. McNair on.
that occasion stated to Lois Lawson, a linotype operator, that the four
women would never be reemployed, "that the company was strongly
against outside unions and that it was their policy when a lot of
talk came up about outside unions, they merely discharged a few girls
and that would be the end of that." We have pointed out above.
that the women in this same group had already been called into the-
office, questioned about their affiliation with B. T. U., requested to
sign a disavowal of membership therein, and asked to set up an
organization of their own. Three of the four discharged women had
been members of B. T. U. and two of them, Sturdevant and DeBarr,
had been members of the committee of three who, in June 1934,,
had presented the demands of the women linotype operators, in=
eluding that which the respondent declared "smacked of unionism."
DeBarr, moreover, had been designated leader of the union mem-
bers in the shop.4o
w The contract of the Night Operators ' Association was left in the same place for.signa-
ture by members . It appears from the record , however, that McNair was seldom at the-
plarit at night.
SB With the Proofroom Association.
® The four women were reinstated by the respondent in October 1934, after their,cases
had been presented to the National Labor Relations Board set up pursuant to Public Reso-
lution No. 44 , 73rd Congress , 2nd Session.
40 See footnote 14, supra.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent's intention that the discharges should discourage
efforts to affiliate with an outside organization was apprehended
by the linotype operators. Following Gifford's speech at the meet-
ing of operators and machinists, Cullen assumed the chair and
began to circulate a petition for the organization of an inside
association. A lively debate took place as to whether action should
be postponed in order, according to Cullen, who opposed any delay,
to permit those unfavorable to the inside organization "to see the
union representative to get legal counsel so [as to] know what to
do." -Cullen bluntly told employees that they could sign "or else"
be "fired"; and McLean, who but a short time previously had con-
ferred with McGarrity, said to John Monkovich, in operator who
was urging more time for consideration of the proposed action, "I
know you are one of them . . . Three of them have lost their jobs
already . . . Unless we go along with this program the crest of us
will get it too."
By causing its employees to believe that it had discharged several
persons because of their union membership, the respondent created
a situation in which employees might reasonably anticipate. that
they would be dismissed if they failed to form and join an inside
organization. We conclude that the respondent, by creating this
situation, gave assistance and support to the formation of the Five
Associations.
Thus far we have discussed the means whereby the respondent
fostered, encouraged, dominated, interfered with, and contributed
support to the formation of the Five Associations. We shall now
consider the respondent's conduct with respect to the maintenance
:and administration of those organizations.
Once the Associations- were formed, the respondent recognized
and negotiated with them as collective bargaining agencies for the
various departments. Recognition endowed each of them with the
prestige and stability requisite, under the circumstances, to insure
its, continued existence. Through recognition of the Associations
the respondent contributed support to them.41
41 Recognition, in some form, is a prerequisite to collective bargaining, the basic func-
tion of labor organizations. Since recognition is a sine qua non of bargaining relations
between an employer and a labor organization, it inevitably tends to strengthen the latter.
Having that tendency, however, it is subject to abuse, for an employer can use recognition
to strengthen an organization which he has created, or which he favors, at the expense of
,other organizations to which he is opposed. We have seen -that, in June 1934, B. T. U.
sought recognition as collective bargaining representative of the composing- room em-
ployees. That it was refused to B. T. U. by the respondent may readily be inferred from
the treatment accorded the women linotype operators at that time. Both B. T. U. and
B. P. P., moreover, were constantly the object of expressions of the respondent's hostility.
The Associations, on the other hand, were not only favored but actually instigated by the
respondent. We conclude that the respondent, by recognition, intended to and did
strengthenand thereby contributed support to=the Associations.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC.' 397
The fact that the respondent was dealing with labor organizations
of its own creation made arm's length bargaining with any of the
Associations impossible. Accordingly, we attach little significance
to the fact that negotiations-sometimes protracted in duration-
were held as a preliminary to the execution of the contracts with!
each of the Associations.'
Indicative of the respondent's interference with the Association
is an express provision of each contract which obliges the Association
party thereto to confine its membership to employees of the re-
spondent-and, indeed, to employees of a single department of the
respondent's plant.43 It is entirely immaterial-and the record fails
to disclose-whether the restriction as to membership was inserted
in any or in all of the contracts at the respondent's instance, for
it is manifest that an organization is neither free nor independent
unless it is competent to determine, without employer interference,.
who may become a member. That the Associations lacked this
fundamental feature of autonomy, by virtue of having vested in
the company a veto power over such determinations, is an unmis-
takable mark of their subservience to the respondent.44 It is cer.:_
tainly not beyond probability that one or more of the Associations:
should determine, for the purpose of bargaining more effectively
with the respondent, to admit to membership persons not employed
by the company; but, unless the respondent consented to amendment
of the contract, the organization would be precluded from taking
such action. Moreover, in view of the respondent's continuous cam-
paign against "outside interference," its employees knew that there,
was small likelihood that its consent would be given. Indeed with-
41 For the dates on which the contracts were executed , see supra, footnote 29. The Five
Associations came into existence at the instigation of the respondent and survived because
of its encouragement . This negatives the respondent 's contention that the fact that two
of the Associations consulted attorneys Is an indication that they were free from domina-
tion and interference by the respondent in their formation. Indeed the attorney consulted
by one of the organizations , after examining the final draft of its contraet , told its repre-
sentative that she "better go home and consider a union instead of a company organiza-
tion." We attach no probative value to that statement and mention it merely because of
the respondent 's contention.
43 Each contract contains substantially the following provision , which is invariably
denoted Section VI :
The Association . . . agrees that It .. . will maintain the simple (sic) condi-
tions of membership , to wit :
a. (Four to 12 ) months' employment in the Vail -Ballou ( name of department).
b. Payment of one month's dues , of a nominal sum, in advance.
The words , "of a nominal sum," do not appear in the Day Operators ' contract.
" We are not unmindful of the fact that each of the contracts may be cancelled by
either party upon 60 days ' notice prior to the anniversary date. If an Association , unable
to obtain the respondent 's consent to an amendment of the contract changing its condi-
tions of membership , were to pursue the course of cancelling its agreement , it would lose
the benefit enjoyed by It under the contract, Hence, while upon cancellation of the
agreement the Association would be free to admit as members whomsoever it pleased, it
would have had to pay heavily for the right to do something which , but for the contrac-
tual provision under discussion , it could have done without incurring any detriment.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out the respondent's permission the Associations could not even
:amalgamate with each other.
By their original contracts, four of the Associations 45 were bound
to admit members, otherwise eligible, upon payment of a month's
,dues "of a nominal sum." 4' That the respondent should concern
itself with the dues charged by the Associations is the plainest sort
of interference with their administration. This provision, moreover,
dust as the requirement of employment discussed above, is an
'indication of the subservience of the Associations to the respondent.
A free organization is, and must be, able to exercise independent
,control of its revenue power. Any of these four Associations might
plausibly choose to charge new members an initiation fee or to fix
its monthly dues at more than a "nominal" sum, but it could not
take such action without obtaining the respondent's assent to it.
By vesting in the respondent the power to prevent such assessments,
the contracts augmented and insured the respondent's domination of
these Associations.
. After their formation, the Five Associations continued to hold
their meetings on company property, some convening monthly or
bi-monthly, others less frequently. At least one meeting was held
during working hours, but generally they were conducted at lunch
'time or directly after work. Notice of some of the meetings was
'given by posters on, department bulletin boards. Under these cir-
cumstances it is clear that the respondent authorized the use of its
'property for the purpose of the meetings and facilitated the holding
,of them. At least three of the Associations-the Pressmen's, the
Day Operators', and the Floormen's Associations-used the respond-
ent's equipment and materials to print membership cards or ballots.
Whether or not this was known to respondent, it is true that its
conduct had led employees reasonably to believe that such action by
-them was permissible.
Minutes of the Proofroom Association contain the following entry
for December 10, 1934: "Mr. McGarrity has suggested an educational
program." This was not the sole instance in which McGarrity
evinced an interest in the affairs of that Association. Late in - 1934
,or early in 1935 Jeanette Clark resigned the presidency. Learning
.of her action, McGarritv told her that he was sorry that she had
46A11 except the Day Operators' Association. Cf. supra, footnote 43.
4e
while we are not concerned, for the same reason as we stated in the previous para-
graph, with the immediate source of this provision, it is relevant to point out that the
respondent advised the Night Operators' Association to charge dues as a means of main-
taining the interest of its members ; and that on at least two occasions prior to or about
the time, that the. Associations were- formed -the respondent caused its employees to be
informed'that the lower dues of an- inside organization made it more' desirable than an
-outside one.
VATL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 399
withdrawn and asked her to reconsider. It is revealing, if not
surprising, that soon thereafter she resumed her office.
At least from or about the time of the beginnings of the Five
Associations, the respondent distributed to its employees at their
place of work and mailed to them pamphlets on various subjects,
including that of labor organizations. With such of this literature
as-is devoted to general civic topics, we are not concerned; circulation
thereof by respondent does not, however, detract from or minimize
the importance and significance of the distribution of other pamph-
lets manifestly intended to make known to employees their employ-
er's confirmed hostility to outside labor organizations. In one of
the pamphlets, entitled "Labor and Rackets," 12 or more pages are
devoted to racketeering in the labor movement and but two sentences
to an admission that "organized labor . . . is not without its worthy
accomplishments." Even this tribute is immediately qualified by
the statement, "But, as a whole its record furnishes little real basis
for confidence in a sustained, sound and unselfish leadership or a
high integrity of purpose." Union leadership is charged with plan-
ning "through the CLOSED SHOP . . . to create a nation-wide
monopoly in human labor, owned and- controlled by themselves."
The. organizer, who is characterized as a "professional agitator" and
linked with the "alien communist" as a peddler of "lies, half truths,
sedition, and anarchy," is charged with proposing to make working
people and management subservient to a "Labor Dictatorship" and
is accused of advocating abandonment of the "OPEN SHOP" prin-
ciple, which is referred to as the basis upon which "American Labor
and Management, working in harmony" for 158 years, have cre-
ated this country's unrivalled prosperity. The anti-union animus
of another pamphlet, entitled "Labor and Liberty," which purports
to offer a comparative analysis of the "union shop" and the "Open
Shop," is typified by its simple resolution of the following question:
Q. Why do not more workers belong to the unions?
A. Because the average American worker feels he can obtain
just as good or better working conditions and sell his services
where he will, without restrictions, and without paying out
part of his earnings in uiiion'dues.
B. The respondent's labor relations after July 5, 1935
Enactment of the National Labor Relations Act on July 5i 1935,
occasioned no change in the respondent's labor relations. From the
acts set forth above, it is clear, .and we find, that -prior,-to that date
the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of each of the Five Associations and contributed.'
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
support to them. That this domination, interference, and support-
continued after July 5, 1935, admits of no doubt.
The contracts entered into by the Five Associations in 1934, which
have been referred to above, provided that they should continue.
from year to year, subject to termination by either party by notice.
given 60 days before the anniversary date. No notice of termination
has ever been given with respect to the contracts of the Day Oper-
ators', the Proofrooin, or the Floormen's Association and we find
that their 1934 contracts have at all times remained in full force
and effect.47 Although notice of termination of its contract was
served on the respondent in September 1937 by the Night Operators'
Association, the agreement was unquestionably in effect from 1934
until November 1937, when the 60-day notification period elapsed.
Neg,9tiation of a new contract was begun, but was interrupted on
account of the death of S. E. Vail, the respondent's president. Dis-
cussions were not resumed and a new agreement was never made.
While members of the Association entertain some doubt as to.
whether, as a matter of law, their old contract is still in force, the
respondent has repeatedly asserted that it continues in effect. In
August 1936, the Pressmen's Association entered into a contract
substantially identical with its 1934 agreement, except for the pro-
visions as 'to wages. As in the earlier contract, the agreement pro-
vided that the Association
. will maintain the simple conditions of membership, to wit:
a. Six month's employment in the Vail-Ballou Press Room.
b. Payment of one month's dues, of a nominal sum, in
advance.
Again, as in the case of all of the 1934 contracts, the 1936 agreement
is part of single document, captioned "Agreement and By-Laws to
be adopted by the Employer and Employees," and in the contract
the Association "warrants that its membership . embraces 100%
of the employees in the department." The 1936 agreement differs,
however, in that its intended duration is 5 years, with the possibility
of extension. . We find that the 1936 contract has at all times since
August 1936 been in full force and effect.
We have found that by provisions in its contracts with, each of the
Associations restricting their membership to employees of the re-
spondent, precluding initiation fees, and limiting their dues to a
nominal amount the respondent interfered with and dominated the
Associations. These clauses endowed the respondent with power to
veto action which the members of the organizations might well con-
44 From time to time minor amendments , here of no consequence , have been agreed upon
by the parties.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 401
,elude to be necessary in order to assure themselves a means of achiev-
ing equality of bargaining power with the respondent. By treating
these contracts as in force and effect after July 5, 1935, and by there-
.after making a new agreement with the Pressmen's Association which
included the same provisions, the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of each of the Five Associations,48 and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
-of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Assistance was given the Associations after July 5, 1935, by per-
mitting all of them to continue to meet on company premises49
'Though no request for like facilities was made by any outside labor
organization, it is clear that such a request would have been futile
.and that the respondent's employees well knew that it would be 50
We find that by allowing the Associations to meet on its property
the respondent contributed support to them. Indeed, mindful of the
-circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Associations, we
conclude that the respondent, by continuing to treat them as repre-
sentatives of its employees and by affording them facilities for meet-
ings, without retracting or disavowing any of its previous anti-
union expressions, plainly manifested, and intended to manifest, its
unabated opposition to affiliation of its employees with any outside
'organization and its continuing favoritism toward inside organiza-
tions; and we find that the respondent thereby interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Late in the fall of 1937 Conrad Jones received from one Galloway
a group of letters addressed to the presidents of each of the Asso-
'S we consider pertinent the following portions of the Congressional committee reports
on the bill which, upon passage, became the Act :
The so-called "company-union" features of the bill are designed to prevent inter-
ference by employers with organizations of their workers that serve or might serve
as collective bargaining agencies. Such interference exists . . . when, by provi-
sions in the constitution or bylaws, changes in the structure of the organization
cannot be made without the consent of the employer. (Report of the Committee'
on Education and Labor, Senate Report No. 573, Calendar No. 595, 74th Congress,
1st Session, p. 10.)
An extremely common form of interference is the provision in the constitution or
bylaws of company unions that changes may not be made except with the consent
of the employer. (Report of the Committee on Labor, I-louse of Representatives
Report No. 1147, 74th Congress, 1st Session, p. 18.)
10 The Trial Examiner found that no rent had been charged for this use of the company's
premises. The respondent's exceptions are of a general nature and nowhere in its brief,
which comprises a detailed factual argument on all aspects of the case, does the respond-
ent question this finding by the Examiner. One of the Associations, moreover, has never
collected any dues from its members and has never had a treasury. We infer, therefore,
that no rent was paid by the Associations for the right to hold their meetings on company
property.
50 Cf. footnote 53, infra.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciations.51 Not caring to distribute literature in the shop unless he
"knew what it was," Jones went to Vail and McGarrity to obtain
information concerning the letters. Stating that the respondent had
submitted the names of the Association leaders to Galloway, who was
the head of a group of independent unions, the executives explained
that Galloway's plan, under which each plant would have a union
of its own, was intended "to stop" outside unions 52 "from getting in
and pushing us into in organization that they might want us to get
into." They thought that it would be a "good thing" to investigate
Galloway's organization, but specifically advised Jones to pass out
the letters. Subsequently Vail told Jones that "they had looked into
the things and we"could do as we saw fit, but he thought we should
drop it; that it might be as bad as any outside organization for us."
Not only is this incident indicative of the respondent's continuing
hostility to outside unions, but it is illustrative of the persistence of
the respondent's interference with the Associations. We find that
by its conduct in relation to distribution of the Galloway literature
the respondent interfered with the administration of the Five Asso-
ciations and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In December 1937, S. E. Vail, the respondent's president, died.
During the next month Merl Vail, who had succeeded to the presi-
dency, summoned Jones to the office. Saying to Jones that he' under-
stood that there was talk "through the plant that we are in favor of
the outside union now that Mr. S. E. Vail . . has passed away" and
that "we have changed our policies," Vail inquired whether he had
heard it. When Jones denied that he had, Vail stated :
I think it is peculiar, and I heard that you are putting 'up
that propaganda . . . Well, I want you to understand, and I
want everyone to understand that our policies are the same as
they were when S. E. was here ... [In] relation to unionism,
if the workers want to organize and want an inside organiza-
tion, we will do everything in our power to help them ... If
61 Since 1936 or earlier Jones has been a "machinist foreman ." He supervises the night
shift of linotype operators . He relays instructions to the night men from' McNair, the
day foreman , who is seldom at the plant at night; he sees " that the work is got out the
way it should be" ; he makes suggestions to operators ; he assigns new work to operators
as they finish their jobs ; and he settles problems that arise . Although he had never
recommended the employment or discharge of any worker , he expressed the opinion that
his recommendation would carry considerable weight. McGarrity testified that Jones is
not a foreman , but Jones and other employees asserted that he is . Whether or not Jones
is a full-fledged foreman , we find from the nature of his activities and duties that he is a
supervisory employee.
52 The executives , according to Jones, spoke of "the C. I . O. or something like that."
The reference to the C. I. O. may perhaps be explained by the fact that at the time Charles
P. Howard, president of the I. T. U., was a 'member and the secretary of the Committee
for Industrial Organization.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 403
they are going to form 'an outside organization . . . we are
willing to fight it.63
Vail went on to say, "It would be a good idea, I think, if the
workers all understand our policy," and instructed Jones to "let
them know about it." Accordingly, Jones related the conversation
to the night operators. In view of the foregoing facts, we find that
the respondent, by making this statement of anti-union policy to
Jones and by causing him to relate it to other employees, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7.of the Act and gave additional
assistance to the Five Associations.
The respondent did not call as witnesses Ballou, M. D. Vail,
McGarrity, or McNair, although they were all implicated in a num-
ber of occurrences and incidents developed by the Board' s case.54
On the basis of all facts set forth herein, and upon the entire
record, we find that the respondent, from and after July 5, 1935,
dominated and interfered with the administration of each of the Five
Associations and contributed support to each of them; and that
thereby, and by other acts and conduct set forth above, the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.55
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead -to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from cer-
tain activities and practices in which we have found it to have en-
gaged and, in aid of such order and as a means for • removing and
s3 The findings we have made hitherto concerning the respondent 's labor-relations poli-
cies need not here be recapitulated . However, we note that the statement of Merl Vail is a
bold admission that the respondent 's policy prior to 1938 had been, as we have found, and
that it would continue to be, one of opposition to outside and encouragement of inside
organizations.
5+ McGarrity testified as a Board witness on matters pertaining to the nature of the
respondent 's business.
Since the Trial Examiner denied the Bookbinders ' motions to amend the complaint to
include allegations concerning domination , interference with , and support of the Bindery
Trades Association , we have neither considered nor passed on any evidence relating to
those allegations.
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.avoiding the consequences of such activities and practices, that it be
directed to take certain affirmative action, more particularly described
'elow.
We have found that the respondent has since July 5, 1935, domi-
mated and interfered with the administration of the Five Associa-
tions and contributed support to them. The respondent must cease
:and desist from such practices. Moreover, the effects and conse-
quences of the respondent's domination, interference with, and sup-
port of the Five Associations, as well as continued recognition by the
respondent of them as bargaining representatives of its employees,
constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees
,of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing. The Five Associations have
been utilized by the respondent as instrumentalities to defeat the
rights of its employees under the Act. Because of the respondent's
illegal conduct with relation to them, they are incapable of serving
the respondent's employees as genuine collective bargaining agencies.
Accordingly we will order the respondent to disestablish and with-
draw all recognition from the Five Associations as representatives
.of its employees for the purposes of dealing with it concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
.conditions of employment.
We have found that in 1934 the respondent entered into contracts
with each of the Five Associations; that three of these contracts, by
virtue of their terms, since July 5, 1935, have been and now are in
effect ; that the respondent asserts that a fourth of these contracts,
with the Night Operators' Association, is still in effect; and that the
-fifth contract, with the Pressmen's Association, has since July 5,
1935, been renewed with modifications and, as modified, is currently
in effect. We have found that the contractual relationships existing
-thereunder since July 5, 1935, have been a means whereby the re-
spondent utilized employer-dominated labor organizations to frus-
trate self-organization among- and defeat collective bargaining by its
-employees. Under these circumstances, any continuation, renewal,
or modification of the contracts between the respondent and the Five
-Associations would perpetuate the forces which have deprived em-
ployees of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act and would render
ineffectual other portions of our remedial order. We shall therefore
direct the respondent to cease giving effect to any contracts existing,
-or claimed by it to exist, between it and each of the Five Associations,
or to any modifications or extensions thereof.
By engaging in unfair labor practices the respondent has made
serious incursions upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by
-the Act. In order to insure the full freedom of the respondent's
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 405
employees to exercise those rights, it is essential that they be informed
that the respondent will no longer engage in its unfair labor prac-
tices and that it will act in conformity to the provisions of our order.
We shall therefore direct the respondent to post notices stating that
it will cease and desist from certain conduct specified in our order
and that it will take the affirmative action therein required.
We have found that the respondent in 1938 issued to employees a
statement of policy expressing an intention to oppose their affiliation
with any outside organization. We find, that the effects and con-
sequences of that interference, restraint, and coercion constitute a
further continuing obstacle to the free exercise of the right of em-
ployees to self-organization and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing. Accordingly, in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, we will order the respondent to
include in the notices to be posted in its plant a statement that
employees are free to become or remain members of B. P. P. and
B. T. U.
We shall dismiss, for want of evidence to support it, the allegation
of the complaint that the respondent threatened that it would close
its plant and terminate operations if the majority of its employees
-designated the Unions as their agency for collective bargaining.
VI. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Iii. November and December 1937, B. P. P. jointly with B. T. U.
wrote to the respondent claiming to represent a majority of the em-
ployees of the composing room 50 and pressroom departments of the
respondent's plant and asking for a conference for the purposes of
collective bargaining. On December 29, 1937, the respondent replied
by letter that it recognized as representing its employees certain com-
mittees constituted by them 57 and that, until advised to the contrary
by those committees, it would assume that its employees wished to
continue without change the contracts, entered into with the respond-
ent through those committees.
We have found, in Section III above, that each of the Five Asso-
ciations is a company-dominated organization. We have further
found, in Section V above, that in order to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act, it is necessary that the respondent disestab-
lish and withdraw recognition from the Five Associations and cease
giving effect to its contracts with them: Consequently, the reasons
assigned by the respondent for declining to meet with B. P. P. and
B. T. U. do not preclude the existence of questions concerning
representation.
66 Composing-room employees compri se compositors , make -ups, stone hands, linotype
operators, linotype-machine tenders, proofreaders, and other skilled workers.
67 The respondent undoubtedly referred to the Five Associations.
199549-39-vol. 15-27
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. P. P. and B. T. U. both claim to have members among the re-
spondent's employees. We find that questions have arisen concerning
the pressmen and composing-room employees of the respondent.
In our Statement of the Case we have referred to rulings of the
Trial Examiner permitting the Bookbinders to intervene in the rep-
resentation cases, but denying the Bookbinders leave to file a peti-
tion for investigation and certification. Neither the application for
leave to intervene nor the application for leave to file a petition
related directly to the questions concerning representation which the
petitions filed by B. P. P. and by B. T. U. alleged to exist. B. P. P.'s
petition alleged that a question existed concerning the representation
of persons employed by the respondent as printing pressmen and assist-
ants, who were asserted to comprise an appropriate unit. The petition
filed by the I. T. U. alleged that a question existed concerning the
representation of persons employed by the respondent as compositors,
make-ups, stone hands, linotype operators, linotype-machine tenders,
proofreaders, and other employees considered as skilled composing-
room help, who were alleged to comprise an appropriate unit. The
Bookbinders did not seek to intervene or to petition for investigation
and certification on behalf of any employees in these classifications,
whether considered separately or as part of any allegedly more inclu-
sive unit. On the contrary the Bookbinders claimed to represent an
entirely different group of the respondent's employees, the bindery
workers, who were alleged to constitute a separate appropriate. unit.
Under these circumstances, both the request for leave to intervene and
the application for leave to file a petition for investigation and certifi-
cation should have been denied. The proper procedure for the Book-
binders to follow would have been to file a petition with the Regional
Director for investigation and certification of representatives, which
would then have been passed upon by the Board.5,
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent,
described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
68 Cf. Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, effective from April 27, 1936, through July 13, 1939, the relevant
provisions of which remain the same in the Board' s Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
effective July 14, 1939.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC.
VIII. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
407
By its petition B. T. U. claims that the following employees of the
respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining : Compositors, make-ups, stone hands, linotype opera-
tors, linotype machine tenders, proofreaders, and other employees
considered as skilled composing-room help.59 By its petition B. P. P.
alleges that the printing pressmen and assistants employed by re-
spondent, exclusive of supervisory officials, constitute a unit appro=
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The units sought by
these two unions follow well-established craft lines in the industry
and the record discloses no reason for deviating from them.6°
Supervisors are eligible for membership both in B. P. P. and in
B. T. U. In view, however, of the joint action of B. P. P. and
B. T. U. in seeking to bargain collectively with the respondent, their
joint representation at the hearing, and the express exclusion by
B. P. P. of supervisory employees from the unit alleged by its petition
to be appropriate, we do not infer, because of B. T. U.'s failure to
allege in its petition that they should be excluded from the unit
therein asserted to be appropriate, that B. T. U. desires supervisory
employees included in the unit. Since there is, consequently, no clear
indication of a desire on the part of B. T. U. that supervisory em-
ployees be included, we shall follow our usual rule with regard to
supervisory employees and exclude them from the composing room,
as well as from the pressroom, unit.61
Rre find that the following two groups of the respondent's em-
ployees each constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that these units will insure to employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) compositors, make-ups, stone hands, linotype operators, linotype-
machine tenders, proofreaders, and other employees considered as
skilled composing-room help, exclusive of supervisory employees; and
(b) printing pressmen and assistants, exclusive of supervisory
employees.
w B. T. U. 's petition names as organizations claiming to represent these employees, the
Day Operators ', the Night Operators ', the Floormen 's, and the Proofroom Associations.
00 See Aronsson Printing Company and Detroit Printing Pressmen's and A ssistants'
Union No. 2 , et at ., 13 N. L. R. B. 799; Matter of Lightner Publishing Corporation of
Illinois and Chicago Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 3, Chicago Typographical Union No. 16,
12 N. L. R. B. 1255; Matter of Horace G. Prettyman and Arthur J. Wiltse, co-partners,
doing business as the Ann Arbor Press and International Typographical Union, 12 N. L.
R. B. 640; Matter of Jackson Daily News, Inc . and Jackson Printing Pressmen and
Assistants Union No. 215, 9 N. L. R . B. 120.
0 See Matter of Union Envelope Company and Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and
International Printing Pressmen and Asistants ' Union of North America, 10 N. L. R. B.
1147.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IX. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The questions concerning representation which have arisen can
best be resolved by, elections by secret ballot. Since the respondent
has, by engaging in various unfair labor practices, interfered with
the exercise by its employees of the rights guaranteed them by the
Act, we shall not now set the date for the elections but shall order
that it be conducted at such time as we shall hereafter direct. Con-
currently with our determination of the date for the elections,, we
shall specify the date on the basis of which eligibility to vote in the
elections shall be determined.
We have found that the Five Associations have been dominated,
interfered with, and given support by the respondent in their forma-
tion and administration. We have further found that they cannot
serve the respondent's employees as effective collective bargaining
agencies. Accordingly, we make no provision for their inclusion
on the ballot.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Binghamton Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, No. 57,
I. P. P. and A. U., of Binghamton, N. Y.; Binghamton Typographical
Union, No. 232; The Day Linotype Operators and Machinists Asso-
ciation; Night Operators and Machinist Welfare Association of the
Vail-Ballou Press; The Proofroom Workers' Association; Floormen's
Association of the Vail-Ballou Press; and Pressmen and Assistants
Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the admin-
istration of The Day Linotype Operators and Machinists Associa-
tion, Night Operators and Machinist Welfare Association of the
Vail-Ballou Press, The Proofroom Workers' Association, Floor-
men's Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, and Pressmen and As-
sistants Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, and by
contributing support to said Associations, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 409
5. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The following employees of the respondent constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: Compositors, make-ups, stone
hands, linotype operators, 'linotype-machine tenders, proofreaders,
and other employees considered as skilled composing-room help,
exclusive of supervisory employees.
7. Printing pressmen and assistants, exclusive of supervisory
employees, employed by the respondent, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of The Day Linotype Operators and Machinists Association,
Night Operators and Machinist Welfare Association of the Vail-
Ballou Press, The Proofroom Workers' Association, Floormen's
Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, and Pressmen and Assistants
Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press or the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees, or
in any manner contributing support to The Day Linotype Operators
and Machinists Association, Night Operators and Machinist Wel-
fare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, The Proofroom Workers'
Association, " Floormen's Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, and
Pressmen and Assistants Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou
Press, or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to its contracts relating to hours, wages, or
working conditions, or any modification or extension thereof, with
The Day Linotype Operators and Machinists Association, Night
Operators and Machinist Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou
Press, The Proofroom Workers' Association, Floormen's Association
of the Vail-Ballou Press, and Pressmen and Assistants Welfare
Association of the Vail-Ballou Press;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from The Day Linotype Operators
and Machinists Association, Night Operators and Machinist Wel-
fare Association of the Vail-Ballou Press; The Proofrooni Workers'
Association, Floormen's Association of the Vail-Ballou Press, and
Pressmen and Assistants Welfare Association of the Vail-Ballou
Press as representatives of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
work, and completely disestablish said Associations as such repre-
sentatives;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices to
its employees, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as
provided in Section 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order, that the
respondent will take the affirmative action described in 2 (a) of this
Order, and that the respondent's employees are free to remain or
become members of Binghamton Printing Pressmen's and Assistants'
Union, No. 57, I. P. P. and A. U., of Binghamton, N. Y., and of Bing-
hamton Typographical Union, No. 232;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTFIER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent threatened that
it would close its plant and terminate operations if the majority of
its employees designated the Unions as their agency for collective
bargaining.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with the respondent, Vail-Ballou Press, Inc.,
Binghamton, New York, elections by secret ballot shall be conducted,
at such time as the Board shall hereafter direct, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third Region, act-
VAIL-BALLOU PRESS, INC. 411
ing in this matter as agent for the Board, and subject to Article III,
Section 9 , of said Rules and Regulations , among the following em-
ployees of the respondent employed by the respondent during a
period or at a time which we shall in the future specify :
(a) Among the compositors , make-ups, stone hands, linotype
operators , linotype-machine tenders, proofreaders, and other em-
ployees considered as skilled composing -room help, exclusive of
supervisory employees, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Binghamton Typographical Union, No. 232; and
(b) Among the printing pressmen and assistants , exclusive of
supervisory employees, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by Bingham-
ton Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, No. 57, I. P. P. and
A. U., of Binghamton, N. Y.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision , Order, and Direction of Elections.