Newark Morning Ledger Company And American Newspaper Guild, 988 (1940)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
Newark Morning Ledger Company And American Newspaper Guild, 988 (1940)
In the Matter of NEWARK MORNING LEDGER COMPANY and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD Case No. C-1033.-Decided March 23, 1940 Newspaper Publishing Industry-Discrimination: discharge for union leadership and activity; (Leiserson dissents) complaint should not have issued initially in view of collective bargaining agreement between employer and union, and while discharge involved occurred after signing of contract it grew out of internal differences in union antedating contract-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded-Evidence: background: conduct otherwise constituting unfair labor practices but not alleged in complaint, properly ruled admissible by Trial Examiner as 'background' to discriminatory discharge; (Leiserson dissents) acts otherwise constituting unfair labor practices but unsupported by allegations of complaint should not be considered as background in decision where acts occurred prior to date when collective bargaining agreement between union and employer was signed.
Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.Mr. Charles Goldman, Mr. Burton Pike, and Mr. Sidney Cutler, of New York City, for the respondent.Isserman, Isserman, & Kapelsohn, by Mr. Abraham J. Isserma'n, of Newark, N. J., for the Guild.Mr. Harry Brownstein, of counsel to the Board.DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by American Newspaper Guild, herein called the Guild,1 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued a complaint, dated March 17, 1938, against Newark Morning Ledger Company, Newark, New Jersey, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.'American Newspaper Guild, Newark Newspaper Guild, and the Ledger Unit thereof are at times hereinafter collectively referred to as the Guild. See Section II, infra. 988 989 A copy of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing thereon was duly served upon the respondent and upon the Guild.With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Agnes Fahy,- an employee of the respondent, because she joined and assisted the Newark Newspaper Guild, a local of the Guild herein called either the Guild Local or the Local, and participated in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said employee within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. The complaint further set forth in paragraph 6 thereof, and in related allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9, that the respondent urged, persuaded, and warned its employees from and after July 1937 to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Guild Local, and kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of members of said labor organization in its employ, thereby and by other acts, interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 31, 1938, the respondent filed its answer admitting that it discharged Fahy, but denying generally that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The answer averred as a separate defense that the charge upon which the complaint issued was insufficient for failure to state facts as required by the Act and by National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, herein called the Rules and Regulations, and, therefore, thq complaint was insufficient. Prior thereto, on March 21, 1938, the respondent made request of the Regional Director for a copy of a certain affidavit of Fahy, the employee mentioned in the complaint, which affidavit had been referred to in the charge, and also made application for a bill of particulars with respect to the allegations of the complaint.The affidavit in question was incorporated by reference into the charge, and set forth in detail various facts relating to the unfair labor practices charged. On April 16, 1938, a copy of the affidavit was furnished the respondent. On July 15, 1938, the respondent was informed by the Regional Director that if it wished to urge its application for a bill of particulars, it should do so before the Trial Examiner at the hearing mentioned below.Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Newark, New Jersey, from July 22 to September 2, 1938, both inclusive, before Waldo C. Holden, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Guild were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to b...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
