Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SAMOFF EX REL. NLRB v. PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPER PRIN

October 14, 1969

Bernard SAMOFF, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION NO. 16, and Bulletin Company



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KRAFT

 This is a petition filed by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, (Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(j), until the Board issues its final order in certain charges now pending before it.

 The petition is based upon the Regional Director's conclusion that there is reasonable cause to believe that respondents have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1) and (3) and § 158(b)(1)(A) and (2).

 A full and complete hearing on the charges has been held by the Board and the notes of testimony of such hearing as supplemented by the hearings before this Court constitute the record in this matter.

 This labor dispute had its genesis in the closing, in early 1969, of the Curtis Publishing Company's printing plant, located in Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania, which resulted in the unemployment of a number of pressmen. The respondent, Bulletin, which was in need of journeymen pressmen sought to hire eight former Curtis employees in February, 1969.

 Pursuant to an oral arrangement, the Bulletin on February 13, 1969 referred the list of eight applicants, who were members of a sister union (Local 749) to John Reilly, business manager of the respondent union (Local 16) for approval. The Bulletin was informed by the Union that the eight Curtis applicants would only be accepted under a court order. Additionally, the Union warned the Bulletin that if the eight Curtis applicants were hired pursuant to a court order, members of the Union would not help or assist them and that the Union wanted nothing to do with them. As a result of such threats the Bulletin refused to hire the eight applicants.

 One of the eight applicants, Richard A. Cummings, sought clearance from the Union which was denied. Cummings then filed unfair labor practices with the Board.

 On April 30, 1969, the Bulletin entered into an informal settlement agreement with the Board and agreed to offer immediate employment to the eight Curtis applicants and posted a notice of the agreement in its pressroom.

 Six of the eight applicants accepted the Bulletin's offer of employment and were scheduled to begin work on May 26, 1969. On May 20, 1969, the Bulletin posted notice of this fact and on May 21, 1969, the respondent Union engaged in a slowdown which caused the Bulletin to run its editions behind schedule. The slowdown continued until May 22, until the Bulletin notified the Union that the Curtis people would not be put to work as scheduled.

 At the initial hearing before this Court on August 19, 1969, the parties entered into a Stipulation which in effect required the Bulletion to offer the eight Curtis people employment and the Union agreed not to engage in any work stoppage without prejudice to its right before the Board to contest the qualifications of the Curtis people to be hired by the Bulletin as qualified journeymen pressmen.

 On August 27, 1969, Cummings and a Mr. Roberts commenced employment with the Bulletin. Immediately upon their commencement of work they were subjected to profanity, assaults and threats of bodily harm by members of Local 16. Bottles of ink were dumped on their heads and clothing, hard boiled eggs were thrown at them by groups of employees who continually surrounded them at their presses.

 In the face of such harassment, the Bulletin found itself incapable of protecting the safety of the Curtis people and on September 4, 1969, released the Curtis employees, and, to date, has not allowed them to resume employment.

 The Union contends that under the testimony of Cummings and Roberts no official of Local 16 participated in or ratified the deplorable conduct of the individual union members who were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.