Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 v. Hearst Corp.

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ³¹¹ Members of the Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 and of the Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, filed for unemployment compensation because their employer, the Hearst Corporation, Baltimore News-American Division, ceased publication of its newspapers as a result of a work stoppage caused by an alleged labor dispute. The Board of Appeals of the Department of Employment Security of this state ruled that the unemployment was not caused by a work stoppage due to a labor dispute at the premises in which the claimants were last employed and that they were eligible for benefits. The decision of the Board of Appeals was appealed to the Superior Court of Baltimore City by the Hearst Corporation, and at the same time, a motion was filed to bar the payment of benefits pending final disposition of the case. The motion was overruled; the petition to bar the payment of benefits was dismissed (O’Donnell, J.); and benefits were paid.

The trial was held on the merits before Judge Cullen, and the decision of the Board of Appeals was reversed on the basis that there was a stoppage of work caused by a labor dispute at the Hearst Corporation’s plant in Baltimore. The claimants were denied benefits under Code (1957), Article 95A, Section 6 (e) which disqualified individuals who were unemployed as the result of a work stoppage caused by a labor dispute at the premises at which they were last employed. This appeal was brought by Baltimore Typographers Union No. 12, Truck Drivers and Helpers Union No. 355, and the Department of Employment Security from the decision of the Superior Court of Baltimore City reversing the Board of Appeals. The undisputed facts involved in the case were stipulated by the parties and are as follows : The claimants involved in this case, consisting of members of Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 355, were employed by the Hearst Corporation, Baltimore News American Division.

The Sunpapers and the News-American are daily newspapers of general circulation published in Baltimore, Maryland. The Sun is published by the A. S. Abell Company (hereinafter referred to as Abell) and the News-American is published by the ³¹² Hearst Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Hearst). Eor many years, in addition to unions representing separate groups of employees at each paper, Hearst and Abell have jointly bargained with unions representing certain of their respective employees and have entered into joint collective bargaining contracts with those unions. Two of the six unions with whom they have such joint agreements are Baltimore Typographical Union No. 12 (Local No. 12) and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 355 (Local No. 355).

In the contract with Local No. 12, Section 8 provides as follows : “Section 8. The language and spirit of this Agreement guarantees the prompt and faithful performance by the Union and the Office of all obligations imposed by the terms of this Agreement. Both parties agree that whenever any differences of opinion as to the rights of either under the Agreement shall arise, or whenever any dispute as to the construction of the contract or any of its provisions takes place, such difference or dispute shall be promptly resolved in the manner provided in this contract without strike, lockout, diminution, or interruption of any kind, to the end that fruitless controversies shall be avoided, good feeling and harmonious relations be maintained, and the prosecution of the business in which the parties have a community of interest shall be assured.” Similarly, the agreement with Local No. 355 contains this clause : “Continuous and uninterrupted delivery by the Companies of their newspapers and orderly collective bargaining relations between the Companies and the Union to secure prompt and fair disposition of grievances being an essential consideration for this Agreement, it is agreed that the Union and its members individually and collectively will not, during the term of this Agreement, cause, permit, or take part in any strike, sit-down, picketing or other curtailment or re- ³¹³ striding of the delivery of the Companies’ newspapers until the procedure hereinafter provided for the settlement of grievances has been exhausted; and the Companies agree not to engage in any lockouts. Should any complaint or grievance arise which cannot be amicably adjusted between the parties hereto within 5 days (this time may be extended by mutual agreement) then such matters shall be submitted to arbitration upon the written request by either party as follows : “Should any complaint or grievance arise which shall affect one Company (signatory to this Agreement) then the Company shall immediately designate one person, and the Union shall immediately designate one person.

The two persons designated shall select a third neutral and impartial person. “Should any complaint or grievance arise which shall affect both Companies (signatories to this Agreement) then each Company shall immediately designate one person, and the Union shall immediately designate two persons. The four persons designated shall select a fifth neutral and impartial person.” Both provisions are commonly referred to as “no strike” clauses. Prior to April 17, 1965, Abell was negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the American Newspaper Guild (the Guild), the bargaining agent for Abell’s writers, editors, reporters and other employees with lesser skilled jobs. The Guild does not represent any employees of the News American, whose employees with similar occupations are represented by an independent union.

On April 17, 1965, having failed to reach an agreement, the Guild called a strike and placed a picket line around Abell’s publishing plant in Baltimore. After the establishment of the picket line, the Sun continued to publish through April 20, 1965, despite the fact that on each day after pickets appeared, there were a diminishing number of printers (members of Local No. 12) and teamsters (members of Local No. 355) who appeared for work as scheduled. Members of other unions at the Sun continued to appear for ³¹⁴ work as scheduled. On April 19, 1965, the printers who did appear for work left early to attend a meeting.

At that meeting, the following telegram from the President of the International Typographical Union to the President of Local No. 12 was read to those in attendance: “Following telegram received today from Stephen Becker, Baltimore Sun Business Mgr.: 'On 2:40 and 3 :40 P. M. shifts today only five of 39 men reported. Others were around building but failed to cross Guild picket line. Picket line orderly and well policed. Urge your assistance to have all ITU members honor contracts by reporting for work.’ Mr. Becker has been advised that you have been informed of local Union contract responsibilities and that ITU has asked you to make a full and complete report regarding compliance by our members.

It is the obligation of each member to fulfill contract requirements. Failure of members to perform work in accordance with the contract cannot be recognized as a lockout under any circumstances. Members should be aware of the dangers of the use of electronic and computer equipment available to set type. It is imperative that every individual member of Baltimore Typographical Union do his part to protect the Union’s contract and our Union jurisdiction by performing normal work as required by contract and ITU laws. “By order of the Executive Council International Typographical Union” None of the printers returned to work after the meeting.

Prior to the commencement of the strike, the publisher of the News American posted a notice to all of its employees on April 15,1965 which reads as follows: “TO ALL NEWS AMERICAN EMPLOYEES: “The Washington (D.C.) Newspaper Guild, who is attempting to negotiate an agreement with another newspaper in Baltimore, has issued a bulletin that re ³¹⁵ fers to statements purportedly made by the Publisher and the General Manager of this newspaper. “The statements attributed to us are completely inaccurate. “On Tuesday morning, I called a meeting of our Retail, National and Classified Salesmen and told them that we were beginning to receive inquiries from certain advertisers as to whether they could be accommodated in our paper in the event that the Sunpapers were struck. “I advised our sales staff that in the event of a strike at the Sunpapers, it was the intention of the News American to continue normal operation. However, I further advised them of the fact that a number of Unions, operating in both plants, were working under a single contract jointly signed by both the News American and the Sunpapers; that in the event that any one or more of those Unions who hold jointly-signed contracts fails to report for work on their normal schedules by reason of the fact that they are so instructed by their Union, the News American would consider this a complete breach of contract and would be forced to suspend publication. “The News American has no part in any negotiations between the Washington (D.C.) Newspaper Guild and the Sunpapers. The Washington (D.C.) Guild holds no contract with the News American. We are, however, very vitally concerned with the performance of any Union with whom we have a good and legal agreement. “I have every confidence that every Union will live up to its agreement, in which event there will be no interruption in the publication of this newspaper.

Sincerely. /s/ MARK COLLINS, Mark Collins, Publisher”. Having been notified by Abell that it could not publish beyond April 20, 1965 due to the lack of printers and teamsters, the ³¹⁶ News American then posted the following notice on April 20, 1965: “TO OUR EMPLOYEES: “The Washington Newspaper Guild (Local #35 AFL-CIO) began a strike against the Baltimore Sun on April 17,1965. “The Guild began and is now picketing the Sun plant. “The Sun and the News American have a joint contract (amongst others) with each of the following Unions: Baltimore Typographical Union #12 and Truck Drivers’ & Helpers’ Local Union #355. “Sun employees covered by the two enumerated contracts have refused to cross the Guild picket lines and to report for work at the Sun plant. “The News American deems such refusal a violation of the joint contracts with the Unions above named, and is a threat to the interest of the Sun and News American in bargaining on a group basis. “Under the circumstances, you are hereby notified that the News American is suspending publication temporarily. “You are directed not to report for work until further notice after the completion of your present shift. “Your compensation ceases as of the last shift worked. “Your employment with this newspaper has not been terminated. The purpose of this notice is to advise you of a period during which there will be no work to be performed by those employees who are not specifically requested to work. “We regret the result of the Union’s actions. However, we hope that this unfortunate strike situation will be terminated in the very near future.

Sincerely, /s/ W. H. MILLS, William H. Mills, General Manager”. ³¹⁷ Consequently, Hearst closed down after publication of its issue of tlie News American dated April 21, 1965. At the time it ceased publication, Hearst was not engaged in contract negotiations with any of the unions representing its employees. Nor was there any negotiation in progress between Hearst and any of its employees as to wages, hours or conditions of employment. Subsequent to the cessation of publication by both papers, Local No. 12 issued emergency travel cards (E cards) which permit a printer to obtain work outside his local’s jurisdiction without losing his local seniority or job during a time when he is unemployed due to a strike or lockout.

At the same time, members of Local No. 12 began receiving strike benefits from the Union. Thereafter, on May 6, 1965, the President of the International Typographical Union wrote an article which appeared in a union publication entitled “The ITU Review”. That article indicated members of Local No. 12, in refusing to cross Guild picket line in contrast to 1 the members of other unions, had failed to meet their contractual obligations and were thus not entitled to benefits afforded members validly on strike. Accordingly, on May 17, 1965, the E cards were ordered withdrawn by the International Union.

Thereafter, the Sun printers returned to work and the News American resumed publication on May 27,1965. During the time the News American was shut down, several efforts were made to end the impasse. First, on April 21, 1965, Local No. 12 filed charges of unfair labor practices against Hearst with the National Labor Relations Board. Secondly, on April 24, 1965, officials of the News American met with representatives of News American unions and offered to print a paper with a joint masthead or individual issues of both the Sun and the News American at Hearst’s plant.

Finally, all Sun-paper unions, including Local No. 12 and Local No. 355 met with Abell representatives on May 4, 1965 and suggested the strike would end if the Guild were offered union security. None of these efforts was successful. The N.L.R.B. was not able to give the matter timely consideration, and the offers made in both meetings were rejected. Consequently, the shut-down did not end until May 27, 1965 under the circumstances previously ³¹⁸ described.

When publication resumed that day, there had been no change in the terms or conditions of employment of Hearst employees, none having been in issue at any time during the period involved. The statutory provision applicable to this case is Code (1964 Rep. Vol.), Article 95A, Section6 (e), which provided: “Stoppage of work because of labor disputes.—For any week with respect to which the Executive Director finds that his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which he is or was last employed, provided that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Executive Director that— (1) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and (2) He does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute; provided, that if in any case separate branches of work which are commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate premises are conducted in separate departments of the same premises, each such department shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed to be a separate factory, establishment or other premises.” By Laws of Maryland 1966, Chapter 153, page 352, effective June 1, 1966, the legislature amended Section 6 (e) to read, in part, that an individual is not entitled to benefits “for any week with respect to which the Executive Director finds that his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work, other than a lockout, * * *.” (Emphasis added.) Article 95A, Section 6 (e) (1966 Cum. Supp.).

The first issue to be determined is whether the unemploy ³¹⁹ ment was due to a stoppage of work existing because of a labor dispute at the premises at which claimants were last employed. There is no doubt that there was a stoppage of work at the Hearst plant. Hearst shut down its plant, suspended publication of its newspaper, and laid off claimants and other employees on April 21, 1965. Stoppage of work may be caused by a lockout.

Saunders v. Unemp. Comp. Board, 188 Md. 677, 687 , 53 A. 2d 579 . The Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law does not define “labor dispute” nor has this Court defined it.

The term has been defined by the legislature in Code (1964 Repl. Vol.), Article 100, which deals with work, labor, and employment. Article 100 regulates the hours of work in factories, the employment of minors, etc. and provides conditions and procedures whereby an injunction may be obtained in a labor dispute. 1 Section 74 (c) of that Article defines a “labor dispute” as follows : “The term ‘labor dispute’ includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representations of persons in negotiation, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, or concerning employment relations or any other controversy arising out of the respective interests of employer or employee, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer or employee.” The definition of “labor dispute” found in cases dealing with disqualification for unemployment benefits is very much similar to the one stated above. ³²⁰ “The term ‘labor dispute’ has been defined as any controversy concerning wages, hours, working conditions, or terms of employment, or arising out of the respective interests of employer and employee, and frequently is held, sometimes by reason of express provision, to include any controversy concerning terms, tenure, or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.” 81 C.J.S., Social Sectirity and Public Welfare, Section 174, page 262. See cases cited therein. “Labor dispute” as used in Article 95A, Section 6 (e), included any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment or arising out of the respective interests of employer and employee and included lockouts 2 as well as strikes.

See Ablondi v. Board of Review, 8 N. J. Super. 71, 73 A. 2d 262, 264 (1950) ; 28 A.L.R. 2d 287