Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-12-17
Charge That Printers
Refused 10 Bargain
Reinstated by NLRB
BY tns AssoeIofsd Press

NViuSluIVu W NLND
BY tns A.soetoisd Press
A charge of refusing to bar
gain in good faith was reinstated
against the AFL International
Typographical Union today by
the National Labor Relations
Board.
The charge had been dismissed
December 9 at the unions request
by Arthur Left, the NLRB trial ex-
aminer who is hearing the Nation
wide case brought against the ITU
by the American Newspaper Pub
fishers Association.
Mr.. Left based his decision on the
ground that the wrong section of
the Taft-Hartley Act had been in
voked.
The office of Robert N. Denham,
NLRB general counsel, appealed to
the full five-man board.
In announcing today that it has
overruled Mr.. Left, the NLRB left
the way open to change of mind
after hearing evidence The hear
ing will be resumed here Friday.
Board Explains Decision.
Mr.. Denham has charged the
printers union and its national Of
f1cers with several violations of the
Taft Hartley Act. The union has
denied the charges.
Under the law the five board
members act as judges. Mr.. Denham
as the prosecutor. The publishers
association is cooperating in the
prosecution.
Board officials, explaining today's
unanimous decision, told reporters
the board was not ruling at this
time on whether Mr. Left was legally
right or wrong.
On the contrary. they said, the
board was restoring the refusal-to-
bargain charge only to make it pos
sible to hear the facts and later
decide on the correctness of Mr..
Leff's position.
In the December hearing at In
dianapolis. Mr.. Left turned down
motions by the union to dismiss l6
other paragraphs of the Denham
complaint (almost the entire COM
plainD. The union appealed to the
board on these. Today the board
refused to consider this appeal and
the 16 paragraphs will stand.
Union Sees "Irregularity'
The union took quick exception
to the board actions.
Gerhard Van Arkel, who was
NLRB General counsel until the
Taft Hartley Act became law and
who now represents the ITU, told
reporters it was certainly irregular"
for the board to reach its decision
without giving union lawyers al
Chance to be heard and submit
briefs.
Mr.. Van Arkel said: This re-
quires unions to 60 to hearing on
any theory advanced by the gen.
eral counsel, whenever he chooses
to make allegations which on their
face may not be violations of the
law"
Mr.. Van Arkel said further: THE
board is putting the union to al
long hearing and an expensive one" ~
On the other hand, Joseph c.
Wells, NLRB associate general coun-
sci, told a reporter the board de-
cision greatly shortens this case"
Mr.. Wells said that had the board
upheld Mr.. Left, All amendment
would have been proposed to the
official complaint so as to charge
refusal to bargain under a different
section of the Taft-Hartley law,
Is CD 80, which says refusal to
bargain is an unfair labor practice.
And that section, he said, would
have required so much evidence
concerning local collective bargain
ing situations, all over the country,
that it might have made the hear
ing almost interminable." Even
so, he said, presentation of evil
dence may take about two months.
AS the complaint now stands, re-
fusal to bargain is charged under
Section 8 OBJ %, which makes it
an unfair practice to coerce or
restrain employees in the exercise
of their rights.
This was why Mr.. Left dismissed
that portion of the complaint. He
said at the December 8 hearing
L find it difficult to see how these
paragraphs can be a violation of
Section 8 OBJ %. Had this al
legged violation of OBJ 90, it
might have been different"
COersion by Union Seen.
Allen Sinsheimer, attorney rep
resenting Mr.. Denham, argued as
follows:
Section OBJ % makes it an
unfair practice to coerce or restrain
employees in the exercise of the
rights under Section 7. Section 7
says employees have the right to
bargain collectively-and that means
in good faith. When a union fails
to bargain in good faith it is CO.
ercing employees in that right"
Mr.. Denham's office did invoke
Section 8 CD 80 in a complaint
issued September % against the
national union and its Local II at
Baltimore. But the Denham staff
considered it important to invoke
the other section in its Nation wide I