Local 235, Lithographers, 490 (1970)

Local No. 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union and Henry Wurst, Inc.

Lithographers & Photoengravers International Union Local 235 and George W. Gates Co., Inc.

Lithographers & Photoengravers International Union Local 235 and Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service,

Inc. Cases 17-CB-702, 17-CC-374, and 17-CC-375

December 28, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER

By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS

On July 31, 1970, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Employer filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. The Employer also filed a Motion to Strike Respondent's Exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,' the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.

1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by the various conduct set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Respondent contends that it should not be held responsible for such behavior because it took all possible steps to repudiate the unlawful conduct which occurred. These steps I The Employer has moved to strike Respondent's exceptions on the ground that they do not comply with Section 102 46 of the Board's Rules in that they do not 'designate by precise citation of page the portions of the record relied on and the supporting brief does not contain any specific page reference to the transcript ' Section 102 46 states that any exception which does not comply with the requirements of that section 'may be disregarded ' Although Respondent's exceptions do not fully comply with 187 NLRB No. 63 consisted generally of oral and written instructions to strikers not to commit acts of violence. Such instructions are not sufficient to absolve a labor organization of responsibility for acts of violence committed by pickets on the picket line and other agents of the union during the course of an authorized strike.2

2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.

   Henry Wurst, Inc., herein called Wurst, is engaged in printing and lithographic work. George W. Gates Company, herein called Gates, is engaged in performing bookbinding services for printers and lithographers. At the time the unfair labor practice charges were filed Gates was a separate corporation. Subsequently it was merged with Wurst and became a division of the latter. Unruh-Pummill Mailing Service, Inc., herein called Unruh, is engaged in a mailing service. Wurst and Unruh are owned by members of the Wurst family; Gates was similarly owned until it was dissolved and merged into Wurst.

   Wurst, Gates, and Unruh occupy separate sections of a single U-shaped building. Material is printed in the Wurst section, and moved successively to the Gates and Unruh sections for binding and mailing.

   Gates and Unruh also do bindery and mailing work for employers other than Wurst. Similarly, not all of Wurst's binding and mailing work is performed by Gates and Unruh. However, 75 percent of Wurst's bindery and mailing work is done by Gates and Unruh. Such work for Wurst comprises a somewhat smaller proportion of the total business of Gates and Unruh, respectively. Wurst advertises that the three operations are performed under one roof. It also holds itself out to the public as 'specialists in Direct Mail, dealer help publication printing' which is in a 'central location . . . for fast, economical, nationwide distribution whether by mail, rail, truck or plane.' In order to insure a smooth flow of work and to correct any difficulties, production supervisors of Wurst, Gates, and Unruh meet once a week to schedule production operations, to check on work flowing through the building, and to determine whether additional Wurst work should be given to Gates and Unruh or to other subcontractors.

   Notwithstanding the facts that the Companies are commonly owned, are located in the same building, and their operations, as the General Counsel concedes, 'tend to resemble continuous flow of prodthe requirements of the rule, we have decided not to disregard them as the Employer has not shown prejudice as the result of the deficiency, and we have found the exceptions to be without merit 2 United Mine Workers of America (Solar Fuel Company), 170 NLRB No 178, Teamsters Local 783, et al (Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776

   LOCAL 235, LITHOGRAPHERS 491 uction,' the General Counsel contends that Gates and Unruh are (in respect to Wurst) neutral 'other persons' as those words are used in Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act and therefore are entitled to the protection of that section of the Act in a dispute between Wurst and its employees. In support of the claim that they are 'other persons,' Gates and Unruh refer to the facts that they maintain separate bookkeeping systems, have separate supervision, and do not interchange employees, and their managers have complete authority in determining labor policies and running day-to-day operations. Based on the contention that Gates and Unruh are neutrals, the General Counsel contends that the picketing of the common premises was unlawful because it was directed not only at the employees of Wurst, the primary Employer, but also at the employees of Gates and Unruh, alleged neutrals.

   The Trial Examiner found that 'Wurst, Gates and Unruh constituted a single employer and that no neutral employer or other person was involved in the dispute.' We agree that Gates and Unruh are not neutrals. Wurst, Gates, and Unruh are engaged in an integrated, straight line operation on common premises, i.e., Wurst does the printing, Gates, the binding,

   Unruh, the mailing. On the basis of these facts, we find that Gates and Unruh are not neutrals or wholly unconcerned persons within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.3 We therefore conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that by picketing the common premises occupied by Wurst, Gates, and Unruh, the Respondent Union did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.4 ORDERS

   Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local No. 235, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decisions It is hereby further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.

   3 National Union of Marine Cooks (Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company), 87

   NLRB 54, 56, see Warehouse Union Local 6, ILWU (Hershey Chocolate Corporation), 153 NLRB 1051, 1061 Cf Bachman Machine Co v N L R B, 266 F 2d 599, 605 (C A 8) 4 The present case is readily distinguishable from American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No 26, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No 25, and Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen (Knight Newspapers, Inc), 138 NLRB 1346, enfd 322

   F 2d 405 (C A D C ), where the Board held that a labor dispute at one autonomous division of a single company or commonly controlled companies did not excuse picketing at other autonomous divisions located elsewhere in these cases, there was no integration of operations of the separate divisions The instant case is similarly distinguishable from Bachman Machine Company v N L R B, 266 F.2d 599 (C A 8), and J G Roy and Sons Company v N L R B , 251 F 2d 771 (C A I), where the courts held that two family owned corporate employers engaged in different lines of business at different locations were not a single employer for purposes of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because there was common ownership and control and one company was a substantial customer of the other Again there was the lack of integrated operations present in this case The court noted in Bachman that that case would have presented a different problem 'if the two companies were engaged in an integrated operation, as in the IrwinLyons Lumber Company case, 87 NLRB 54 ' (supra at 605) Drivers,

   Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No 639, Teamsters (Poole's Warehousing), 158

   NLRB 1281 , also cited by the General Counsel is similarly inapposite In that case the Board held that commonly owned warehouse and trucking operations carried on respectively at two different locations were not so closely interrelated or allied with each other as to justify picketing of the warehouse in a labor dispute involving the trucking operation and its employees 5 The Employer excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to require the Respondent to 'backpay those persons who, as a result of the [Respondent's] illegal activity, lost employment or who were coerced into terminating their employment with Wurst ' We find no meet in this exception In United Furniture Workers of America (Colonial Hardwood Flooring Company, Inc), 84 NLRB 563,...