American Newspaper Pub. Ass'n v. National Labor Rel. Bd.

• Citation: 193 F.2d 782
• Decision Date: 27 December 1951
• Docket Number: 10331,10356.,10332,No. 10329,10329
• Parties: AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASS'N v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION et al. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16 et al. UNION EMPLOYERS SECTION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA, Inc. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

193 F.2d 782 (1951)

AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASS'N v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION et al.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CHICAGO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 16 et al.

UNION EMPLOYERS SECTION OF PRINTING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA, Inc. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

Nos. 10329, 10331, 10332, 10356.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

December 27, 1951.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Elisha Hanson, Arthur B. Hanson, both of Washington, D. C. (Hanson, Lovett & Dale, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for American Newspaper Publishers Assn.

David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Cousel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George J. Bott, General Counsel, and Fannie M. Boyls, John F. Preston, Jr. and Duane Beeson, all of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.

John C. Butler, Chicago, Ill., H. Thomas Austern, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae.

Clarence R. Martin, Indianapolis, Ind., Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Henry Kaiser, Eugene Gressman, all of Washington, D. C., for International Typographical Union, and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, and others.

William R. Bowes, Chicago, Ill., Gerard D. Reilly and Charles Edward Rhetts, both of Washington, D. C. (Reilly, Rhetts & Ruckelshaus, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Union Employers Section of Printing Industry of America.

Before KERNER, LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.

SWAIM, Circuit Judge.

This opinion will undertake to cover four cases. The principal parties involved are the National Labor Relations Board, the International Typographical Union, some of its subordinate local unions and its officers and agents, the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association and the Union Employers Section of Printing Industry of America, Inc. These parties will be referred to herein as the "Board," "ITU," "ANPA," "CNPA" and "PIA," respectively.

The ANPA is a membership corporation, the members of which are publishers of newspapers throughout the country. Although ANPA does not serve as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining with labor unions, it has for many years had a Special Standing Committee in existence to collect and disseminate information pertinent to collective bargaining, and to advise and cooperate with member companies with respect to their relations with labor unions. Through its Special Standing Committee ANPA has participated in general policy discussions with international unions and has been signatory to arbitration agreements with international unions which the local unions and individual publishers have customarily adopted. The CNPA is an association of the publishers of the principal Chicago newspapers.

The ITU was organized in 1852 as an amalgamation of previously existing typographical societies some of which had existed since 1815. The ITU's membership now consists of some 90,000 members belonging to about 850 locals. The ITU now asserts jurisdiction over composing room employees who are organized into subordinate local unions and mailing room employees who are organized in separate Mailers Locals.

The PIA is a New York corporation which at all times material herein has been designated by its various member commercial publishing companies as their agent for the purpose of bargaining collectively with labor organizations, including the ITU, concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment of their respective employees.

The first of the four cases, No. 10329, is a petition by the ANPA to review and modify an order of the Board, entered in the Board's case No. 9-CB-5, which directed the ITU, its officers, agents and representatives, to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices in which the Board had found the ITU and its agents had been and were engaging in their dealings with the ANPA and various member newspaper publishers.

The second case, No. 10331, is a petition by the Board for enforcement of this same order of the Board.

The third case, No. 10332, is a petition by the Board for enforcement of its order directed to the ITU and to its Chicago local to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices in which the Board found that they had been and were engaging.

The last case, No. 10356, is a petition by the PIA to review and modify an order entered by the Board in the Board's case No. 2-CB-30, directing the ITU to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices in which the Board found that the ITU and its local unions had been and were engaging in their dealings with the PIA.

Case No. 10329.

In November 1947 the General Counsel of the Board, as a result of charges filed by the ANPA, filed a complaint against the ITU and its officers and agents, alleging that the ITU and its officers and agents, had been and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S. C.A. § 141 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "Act."

The complaint alleged various unfair labor practices by the ITU and its agents in violation of § 8 of the Act, in that, since August 22, 1947, they had (1) caused or attempted to cause the publishers to hire only members of the ITU as employees, and thus to discriminate against non-union employees in violation of § 8(a) (3), which constituted a violation by the ITU and its agents of § 8(b) (2) of the Act; (2) caused or attempted to cause publishers to pay money "in the nature of an exaction, for services which were not performed, or not to be performed," in violation of § 8(b) (6) of the Act; (3) restrained or coerced employer members of the ANPA in the selection of their representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances by insisting and demanding, and causing their subordinate local unions to insist and demand that the employers employ only foremen who were members of the ITU, which restraint or coercion was in violation of § 8(b) (1) (B) of the Act; and (4) restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by § 7 of the Act by refusing and causing the subordinate local unions to refuse to bargain in good faith with the employer publishers. The complaint did not allege that this was in violation of § 8(b) (3) of the Act, but did allege that it was a violation of § 8(b) (1) (A).

The ITU filed an answer denying generally the material allegations of the complaint. This proceeding before the Board will be referred to herein as the ANPA case.

Hearings on this case were held in various cities and on various dates from December 9, 1947 to May 18, 1948. For the purpose of the hearing only, this case was consolidated with the Board's case No. 13-CB-6, which was pending on a complaint issued against the ITU and its subordinate local union as a result of charges by the Chicago Newspaper Publishers Association. This latter case will be referred to hereafter as the Chicago case. A petition to enforce the Board's cease and desist order in the Chicago case is our case No. 10332.

Facts Prior to Taft-Hartley.

For a better understanding of the actions, demands and practices of the ITU which led to the complaints being filed in these cases it is necessary to understand some of the basic principles on which the ITU was founded and which the ITU claims to be vital to its continued security. Prior to about 1885 the ITU did not "bargain" with employers as that term is presently understood. Instead it adopted a schedule of prices and other conditions of employment under which its members were willing to work. No ITU member would work for an employer except for the pay and under the conditions so fixed by the ITU. One such condition was that its members could only work in a composing room where all the employees were members of the union. A member violating this condition was penalized by being suspended or expelled from the ITU. Other conditions of employment on which the ITU traditionally insisted were: (1) that the composing room be under a foreman who was a member of the ITU and who had the power to hire and fire employees, (2) the right of the ITU to determine the kind of work to be assigned to its members, (3) the right of its members to refuse to work on "struck work" (work coming from or going to a shop considered unfair to union labor), (4) that the employers recognize the "apprentice system" of the ITU, and (5) the right of the ITU to compose all of the print used in publishing a newspaper.

On this last condition is founded the ITU's claim to "reproduction" or "setting bogus." This condition requires payment by publishers of substantial amounts regularly for composition work which is never used nor intended for use. Commercial advertisers often submit their advertisements to publishers in the form of a matrix (an impression on thin cardboard of an advertisement, including the printed matter thereof) which serves as a mould from which a metal plate is made for use on the printing presses. An advertisement submitted in this form goes directly to the stereotype room where a plate is made to be used in the printing of the advertisement. The ITU permits publishers to publish advertising submitted in this manner only on the condition that after the advertisement is published a tear sheet containing the advertisement be taken from the published newspaper and that members of the ITU then be permitted to set the advertisement in type, place it in a form, run a proof of the form and correct any errors. In other words, the ITU insists on doing exactly the same composing room work on an advertisement submitted on a matrix as it would do if the advertisement had been submitted in the form of flat copy with the advertisement typewritten or drawn by hand. After a calculation has been made of the time consumed in setting the type on such "reproduction" work,...