Extract
The Kansas City Star Co., 972 (1957)
perhaps, for, I agree entirely with the position of the General Counsel that the pragmatic test is not conclusive. If the Respondent's conduct was such as might reasonably have been interpreted as inducement and encouragement, it matters not that it reached an unfriendly or unperceptive audience. The fact that no employee of any secondary employer refused to perform services in the course of his employment is, however, probative and tends to persuade that the picketing was not so conducted as to indicate to the employees who saw it that they were being induced,, or, encouraged to refrain from performing any service for their respective employers.
, At the end of every avenue of inquiry the employees of the secondary employers, learned that the picket line carried no message to them to induce or encourage a.work stoppage. The failure to picket employee entrances emphasized that this was not an appeal to cease work as is the fact that pickets generally did not appear until after employees had reported for work. The lack of evidence to establish or even, to indicate that drivers for suppliers to the secondary employers failed to make deliveries or to pick up shipments leads me to conclude that none did and lends force to the argument that the picket line was not an appeal for such cooperation.I conclude that the General Counsel has not by a preponderance of the evidence established that the picketing by the Respondent had as an object the inducement and encouragement of employees of employers other than Roberts to engage in a strike or otherwise to cease performing services for their respective employers.In consequence, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed.The Kansas City Star Company and Thomas L. Elliott, Jr., Barney Green, Robert Howard, De Los G. Klem, Lawrence Manker, Paul L. Rupard, Jr., Kenneth Slaughter, Edwin Stevens,Rogers Struzick, Bernard Valdapina, Jr.International Typographical Union, Mailers Local Union No. 7,AFL-CIO and Thomas L. Elliott, Jr., Barney Green, Robert Howard, De Los G. Klein, Lawrence Manker, Paul L. Rupard,Kenneth Slaughter, Edwin Stevens, Rogers Struzick, Bernard Valdapina, Jr. Cases Nos. 17-CA-101P3 through 17-CA1021 and 17-CB-17 through 17-CB-136. December 16, 1957 DECISION AND ORDEROn, December 27, 1956, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and diasist..ther,efrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of -the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent Union and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs.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 119 NLRB No. 132.Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the.case,l and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with such modifications as are reflected below.1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that, by maintaining and enforcing, in conformity with a mutual understanding between them, an employment practice requiring membership in the Union as a condition of employment of journeymen mailers employed on Mondays through Fridays, the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices, the Company within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3), and the Union within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2).2. In the absence of any exception thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation of dismissal of the allegation of the complaint with respect to union approval in the selection and employment of apprentice mailers.3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that apprentices were required by the Respondents, as a condition of employment, to become union members at the end of their first year of apprenticeship, and accordingly that the allegations of the complaint to that effect should be dismissed.4. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the refusal of the Respondents to permit flyboys to become apprentices was lawful. As found above, and as found by the Trial Examiner himself, there was in effect an agreed-upon discriminatory practice that only union journeymen would be hired. The 'asterisked' clause of the Respondents' contract further provided that the employment of the nonunion flyboys '... shall be discontinued as such regular parttime workers leave the Publisher's employment,' and that 'As such regular part-time work is discontin...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
