Stratford Lithographers, Inc.

STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. 469 Stratford Lithographers, Inc. and Local 1, Amalga- mated Lithographers of America, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and Joseph Pagano and Philip Cusumano and Pablo Campos. Cases 2-CA-11142, 2-CA-11161, 2-CA- 1124 1, and 2-CA-1 1241-2 November 27, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On July 21, 1967, Trial Examiner Harry R. Hinkes issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceedings, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un- fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 en- tire record in this case, including the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, exceptions, and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Stratford Lithographers, Inc., New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add at the end of paragraph I (f) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order the phrase "ex- cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo- sure Act of 1959." 2. Change paragraph 2(f) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order to read as follows: "(f) Post at its premises in New York, New York, copies of the notice attached to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material." Substitute the words "a Decision and Order" for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice [sic] in the event that this Order is enforced by a decree ofa United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words, "a Decision and Order," the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" 3. Substitute arabic numeral "10" for "20" in the first line of paragraph 2(g) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, and delete the word "Recommended." 4. Add the following phrase to the end of the sixth indented paragraph of the Notice: except to the extent that such right may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Manage- ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 5. Add the following as the last paragraph of the Notice. "All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other organization." While in agreement with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by making various changes injob tenure of employees, we do not adopt his observation implying that the Respondent had the burden of proof on this issue The General Counsel established a prima facie case of violation, and, while the burden of going forward to show economic justification for the changes shifted to the Respondent, the ultimate burden of proof to establish unlawful discrimination remained with the General Counsel This burden the General Counsel satisfied TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HARRY R. HINKES, Trial Examiner : The complaint herein was issued on March 15, 1967, pursuant to a charge filed on November 4, 1966, by Local 1, Amalga- mated Lithographers of America , International Typo- graphical Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, a charge filed on November 23, 1966, by employee Joseph Pagano, and charges filed on February 28, 1967, by em- ployees Philip Cusumano and Pablo Campos Each of these charges was served on Stratford Lithographers, Inc., herein called the Respondent or Company. The Respondent is alleged to have engaged in unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as 168 NLRB No. 65 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD well as by the demotion , discharge , and constructive discharge of certain employees because of union or con- certed activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act . By answer duly filed , Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint as well as the supervisory status of Sheldon Kalver , its president, and William Esposito , but denied the alleged supervisory status of Joseph Ciccimaro and Lionel Smith as well as the unfair labor practices alleged . Respondent 's answer also denied the complaint 's allegation that all lithographic production employees of Respondent employed at its plant , exclusive of paper cutters , office clericals, errand boys, shipping and receiving employees , guards, watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(l 1) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . At the hearing, however, this denial was withdrawn by counsel for the Respondent. A hearing was held before me at New York, New York, on various dates between March 28 and April 7, 1967, at which all parties were represented and were af- forded full opportunity to participate , examine witnesses, and adduce relevant evidence . During the presentation of the Respondent's case in chief , its Exhibit 19 , purporting to be a summary of its sales and to have been taken from invoices, was received in evidence subject to the condi- tion that, after the hearing closed , counsel for Respondent would provide counsel for the General Counsel with the invoices from which the summary exhibit was prepared so that he could satisfy himself on the accuracy of Exhibit 19 by comparison with the invoices. It was further agreed that , in the event of a discrepancy which could not be ad- justed between counsel , I would entertain a motion to strike Respondent's Exhibit 19 and give the parties an op- portunity to suggest proper action . Accordingly , counsel for the Respondent submitted the requested invoices on various dates between April 7 and May 22. Respondent's Exhibit 19 is a critical piece of evidence, inasmuch as the action taken by the Respondent in Oc- tober 1966, as well as thereafter , is argued to have been necessitated by a decline in its sales. It appears , however, that not all invoices are reflected in that exhibit, thus sug- gesting that Respondent 's sales were greater than in- dicated by Exhibit 19. This omission was communicated by counsel for the General Counsel to counsel for the Respondent on May 26, after the former had compared Respondent's Exhibit 19 with the invoices submitted by the Respondent . In response , counsel for the Respondent offered to supply other documents and to produce Pres- ident Kalver for questioning to resolve the issue. Counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion to strike Respond- ent's Exhibit 19 together with all testimony based thereon. In reply thereto , counsel for the Respondent has submitted an affidavit from President Kalver ex- plaining the omission as well as a number of additional documents which , it is argued , justify the dismissal of the motion to strike. The fact , if it is a fact, that the Respond- ent can explain the omission by other documents not presently in evidence or by an ex parte statement of its president cannot satisfy the requirements which have been laid down with respect to the admission of Respond- ent's Exhibit 19. None of the documents and testimony now offered to justify and substantiate Respondent's Ex- hibit 19 is self-explanatory and their reception in evidence at this time, after the close of hearing, would not be permissible without affording counsel for the General Counsel full opportunity to explore the basis of the proffered explanation . Nor is a reopening of the hearing warranted in the absence of any excuse or explanation from counsel for the Respondent for his failure to have seen to the completeness of his Exhibit 19 before hearings closed . Nevertheless , I must deny the motion to strike Respondent's Exhibit 19 and the testimony based thereon . Respondent's Exhibit 19, purporting to be a summary of Respondent's sales, may not be complete, if indeed some of the invoices are missing. It would there- fore appear that the probative value of that exhibit is seri- ously undermined . Its admissibility , however, is not destroyed because of its incompleteness . As far as it went Exhibit 19 was correct , but its reliability is doubtful because of its apparent incompleteness. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and Respondent and have been given careful consideration by me' Upon the entire record in this case , I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under , and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. At all times material herein , Respondent has maintained an of- fice and plant and place of business at 17 East 22d Street, in the City and State of New York, where it is , and has been at all times material herein , engaged in the produc- tion, sale, and distribution of printed material and related products. During the past year, which period is repre- sentative of its annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, printed , sold, and distributed at its plant products valued in excess of $175,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State in which it is located . The complaint al- leges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material , engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that the Union is now a dLhas been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1I). THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent , Stratford Lithographers , Inc., came into existence about 10 years ago. Its first lithographic production workers were William Esposito (now its general superintendent) and Joseph Ciccimaro . Early in The unopposed motion to counsel for the General Counsel to correct the transcript at a number of instances is hereby granted STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. 471 1960 another production worker , Smith , was hired. Shortly thereafter Knipl was hired. Thereafter, various additions were made to the lithographic production force, Villane in 1962 , Campbell and Susser in 1963, Koshel and Campos in 1964 , LoGuidice in 1965, Cusumano and Pagano on February 7, 1966 , and Pravata in June 1966. Throughout this period of time, Respondent 's practice was to utilize an employment agency of whom it requested "trainees," having previously found that requests for delivery boys or messengers resulted in the referral of undesirables . In recruiting its help Respondent emphasized the desirability of some technical background , machine shop work , or printing press ex- perience, and in interviewing applicants , held out the prospect of advancement from the initial jobs of general helpers to press operators and pressmen. Immediately prior to July 1966, there were three presses in operation at the Company: a 29-inch, a 35- inch, and a 38-inch two-color. Another 38-inch two-color press was purchased by the Company in July 1966, and designated as the 38-J, the older 38-inch two-color press being designated as the 38-A. Each of these presses was run by a pressman and, in some instances , by an addi- tional worker called an operator or feeder . In addition, here were trainees or general workers who participated in the production work of these presses , working on or around them. The Respondent limits itself to presswork , purchasing from outside supplier the printing plates from which it prints. In its experience the Respondent had sustained periods of little activity . Thus, various of the employees testified, without contradiction , of periods in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, and 1966 , when one or more presses were inopera- tive. At such times, even though many of the employees, having no work to do, merely loafed , played cards, or slept , the Respondent made no layoffs. During July and August 1966, sales activities of the Respondent slackened somewhat . At the same time the new 38-inch two-color press was being installed . In Sep- tember , Respondent's sales increased. On September 6, a new employee , Laurenceau , and on September 9, another employee, Sodano, were hired . Both of these ad- ditions to the work force were hired to be messengers or errand boys rather than trainees. B. The October Events Until October 1966, no union represented the Respond- ent's lithographic production employees . On or about October 7, the Union signed up four of the Respondent's employees . Campbell , Villane, Cusumano , and Campos. On or about October 11, the Union signed up employee Knipl . About the same time salesman Jones, who ac- counted for a substantial part of Respondent 's sales, quit. On October 17, the Union filed a petition for an elec- tion among the Company 's lithographic production em- ployees. President Kalver received notification of the fil- ing of the petition from the National Labor Relations Board on October 18 About the same time still another employee, Pagano , came to the Union's headquarters and asked the Union's business agent to sign an authorization card. The business agent declined the offer saying that Pagano's signature was unnecessary . In testifying, Pagano stated that he was willing then and was still willing to have the Union represent him. C. The Composition of the Unit For the week of October 17 to 21, the following em- ployees were engaged in lithographic production work: Knipl LoGuidice Campbell Pagano Koshel Cusumano Campos Ciccimaro Villane Smith During the week ending October 28, LoGuidice left to enter military service and Villane was fired for fighting on the job, thus eliminating these two employees from the list of production workers as of the previous week above. Of the workers listed above, the Union obtained authorization cards from Kmpl, Campbell, Cusumano, Campos, and Villane. In addition , Pagano had orally authorized the Union to represent him, an authorization which Pagano confirmed during his sworn testimony at this hearing.2 There appears to be no dispute as to the inclusion in the unit of Knipl , Campbell, Koshel, and Campos, as well as Villane and LoGuidice up until the time these two left the employ of the Respondent . The Union contends that Cic- cimaro and Smith occupied supervisory positions and should be excluded. The Company argues to the contrary and, in addition , argues for the exclusion of Cusumano and Pagano . Moreover, it contends that employee Susser should be included as utility pressman. These issues will be taken up in turn. I Ciccimaro Although Superintendent Esposito first testified that Ciccimaro was a "senior pressman " in October 1966, he later stated that Ciccimaro was "more than a senior pressman." He also added that Ciccimaro ordered ink, directed the employees to bring up skids, and did "what- ever he felt would be helpful." Esposito claimed to be the one who actually transferred employees within the plant and that Ciccimaro merely carried out his orders. Esposito conceded , however, that his activity was only to designate which press would work overtime and not the man on the press. He also admitted that Ciccimaro had the power to transfer employees at times, and saw to the proper quality maintenance of jobs and that all presses were running. Esposito claimed to be in charge during the day, but admitted that during overtime periods Ciccimaro was in charge and conceded that Ciccimaro may have as- signed Cusumano to one of the presses. The testimony of the workers, however, was much more specific and I credit their testimony In essence, they testified that Ciccimaro wore street clothes, unlike the other workers in the pressroom who wore uniforms. They further stated that he was not assigned to any specific press but walked around okaying . jobs, ruling sheets, and starting jobs. Moreover, Superintendent Esposito introduced Ciccimaro to the other employees when they were hired, and called him foreman . Various employees testified that Ciccimaro told them what to do I 1 Ben Ginsburg , Inc, ddb/a Brunswick Meat Packers , Brunswick Tal- low Co, 164 NLRB 887 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and made the assignments . Although Esposito testified that the other workers merely respected Ciccimaro's judgment because of his experience, he admitted that Cic- cimaro's judgment prevailed over that of other pressmen and this arrangement was adopted and approved by Esposito. Moreover, Esposito's dependence on Cic- cimaro's judgment was patent when Esposito testified that he could not recall any time that Ciccimaro was wrong. Ciccimaro was not called to testify by the Respondent although he is still employed by it. Nor is this issue touched upon in the brief received from counsel for the Respondent . After careful consideration of the record evidence on this issue I conclude that Ciccimaro was a supervisor in October 1966, within the meaning of that word in Section 2(1 1) of the Act. 2. Smith Smith, who was hired by the Respondent in 1960, was, - next to Ciccimaro , the most experienced and most senior pressman at Stratford . According to the Respondent there was an oversupply of pressmen around April or May 1966, as a result of which , when Smith was not on a press, he was a "wanderer." Some of the workers also testified that Smith was only a pressman when running a press The issue, therefore , is narrowed to the activities of Smith when not running the press and the extent of such activities. Respondent admits that Smith would assist younger pressmen , but that he was not skilled in dealing with others or apt in his choice of words. This characterization of Smith is supported by some of the testimony of the workers. Some of the workers further testified that Smith had no authority to take a man off a press, but that his authority extended only to general helpers, errand boys, and operators . Respondent argues that, since all press- men had authority over general helpers , errand boys, and operators , Smith 's functions were not that of a super- visor. This view of Smith 's functions , however, is oversim- plified . It ignores the additional testimony of witnesses which I credit and which casts a different light on Smith's work . Thus, Pagano testified that other pressmen merely asked operators to do things, but Smith ordered them Both Cusumano and Campbell testified that Ciccimaro introduced Smith to them as his assistant foreman and in- structed them to listen to Smith when Ciccimaro was not there. Moreover , Smith did assist Ciccimaro in telling others what colors to run , ordering inks , ruling up sheets, giving job tickets , and assigning work. It appears clear to me, therefore , that when Smith was not running a press his activities were supervisory. Moreover , Smith ran a press but infrequently between May and October 1966. Except for occasional night work, Smith had no assigned press until the new 38-J was installed . Even during such night shifts, Smith would de- cide what time to quit and would be the one who closed the place. Smith was the senior pressman on such night shifts, Ciccimaro being away. As a result, the other work- ers on the night shift regarded Smith as in charge and would go to him if something was needed. On balance , therefore , I find that Smith was, in fact, assistant to Ciccimaro and a supervisor. Respondent's at- tempt to characterize Smith as a "wanderer" is incredible considering the fact that his salary was substantially higher than any other worker engaged in production with the exception of Ciccimaro. There was a period of approximately 1 month in 1966 when Smith was the pressman on a press during the day as his regular assignment . This was immediately follow- ing the installation of the new 38-inch two-color press when it was important to get the machine started right and to eliminate any "bugs." As of the beginning of October, however, Knipl was assigned the pressman 's job on the 38-J. Smith resumed his regular supervisory functions during the day. I conclude , therefore , that Smith 's activi- ties were of a supervisory nature assisting Ciccimaro dur- ing daytime work in October 1966, because of the way Ciccimaro held him out to other employees , because of the assignments that he made to other employees, and because of the orders he issued and which were obeyed by other employees. Insofar as Smith may have had any night-shift duty in October 1966, it consitituted but a small proportion of his total time and, even though he was working on a specific press for such night shifts, his ac- tivity was, nevertheless , colored with supervisory func- tions because of the way in which he directed the work of the other night-shift employees in addition to running the press to which he was assigned . Smith 's activities, although not encompassing the authority to hire or fire any other employee, did include the authority to direct them responsibly , which direction was not merely routine but required the use of independent judgment within the definition of the term "supervisor" in Section 2(11) of the Act Smith , like Ciccimaro, is still employed by the Re- spondent but he did not testify in the proceeding , leaving the testimony of the employees concerning Smith uncon- tradicted by either Ciccimaro or Smith , the two most knowledgeable about this issue. 3. Susser The Company argues for the inclusion of Susser in the unit. According to Esposito , Susser was hired in 1963 as an errand boy and progressed from that to press operator and pressman . In 1965, he was on military leave for some 4 or 5 months and returned to the employ of the Respond- ent in the beginning of 1966. He was then assigned to work in the office . According to Esposito , Susser spent the major part of his time working with him in the office. As Esposito said, "there was no place for him in the pressroom, more or less." When things were busy , Susser was kept busy practically full time assisting Esposito, and, when things were not busy, he assisted Esposito to the extent that he could but otherwise did nothing. Esposito was able to recall but one or two times that he used Susser in the pressroom in 1966 before October. Susser, like Esposito and Ciccimaro , wore street clothes, not a uniform like the production workers. I conclude , therefore, that Susser was not a production employee of the Respondent in October 1966, and that he must be excluded from the unit . His work on presses at that time and for months before was a rare and sporadic matter and of brief duration. I his would not be sufficient to create a community of interest on the part of Susser with the production workers of the Respondent.' ' Berea Publishing Company, 140 NLRB 516, The Horn & Hardart Company, 147 NLRB 654 STRATFORD LIGHOGRAPHERS, INC. 4. Cusumano Cusumano was referred by the employment agency to be a printing press trainee in February 1966. At the em- ployment interview, Esposito and Kalver told him that he would be doing odd jobs like helping the pressmen, going on errands occasionally, and working in the shipping de- partment, but that eventually he would be put on a press. Cusumano told them that he did not want an errand boy's job but was assured that his errands would be "just once in a while." As a trainee he worked around the presses making dampers, filling solvents, and doing other general work. After about 2 months, he was made an operator on the 35-inch press working under Villane who was the pressman He continued in that activity from about April through October 1966. Although Kalver testified that he did not want Cusu- mano in the unit because he did not have as much opera- tor experience as others, his desires in this matter are not determinative of the issue. There is no doubt that for several months prior to October 1966 Cusumano had been a regular, full-time operator of a printing press, en- gaged in production. He must therefore be included in the unit. 5. Pagano Pagano, like Cusumano, was hired as a trainee in February 1966, and was promised work on the press in time. For the first month of his employment his primary duties were cleaning up the shop, running errands, and working in the shipping department. Then he was taught how to make dampers and blankets for the presses and did general work around the presses. After about 2 months of such activities he was instructed by Ciccimaro to keep his eye on the presses and what was going on and, on a few occasions, he helped out on the press. Then he was taught to wash up the presses and, in September 1966, was assigned by Ciccimaro to be night-shift opera- tor on the 38-J under Smith who was the pressman. This night-shift work as an operator ended in about a week and Pagano returned to his day-shift work of helping out the pressmen and operators and working around the presses. About 2 weeks before the end of October 1966, LoGuidice, the 38-J operator, received his draft notice and Ciccimaro told Pagano to work with LoGuidice. Cic- cimaro further instructed Pagano to do nothing else but to stay with LoGuidice and learn "the little different things about the press." LoGuidice left for military service sometime during the week ending October 28, and Pagano then became the operator on the 38 J under Knipl as pressman I conclude and find that during the early part of Oc- tober 1966 Pagano was engaged in the work of a general helper around the presses, and that, starting around the middle of October, his work was to learn the job of opera- tor on the 38-J press, the job to which he was assigned on or about the middle of the week ending October 28. There can be no doubt that in October 1966 Pagano was an employee engaged in lithographic production and had no function as a papercutter, an office clerical, an errand boy, a shipping or receiving employee, a guard, a watchman, or as a supervisor, and must, therefore, be in- cluded in the unit. 6. Conclusions as to the composition of the unit For the week ending October 21, 1966, the following 473 employees were engaged in lithographic production work, exclusive of supervisors: Knipl Villane Campbell LoGuidice Koshel Pagano Campos Cusumano Record evidence shows that six of the above eight em- ployees authorized the Union to represent them, a clear majority. As of the week ending October 28, the following em- ployees were engaged in lithographic production work, exclusive of supervisors: Knipl Campos Campbell Pagano Koshel Cusumano Record evidence shows that five of these six em- ployees authorized the Union to represent them, again a clear majority. In both instances the Union's majority is unaffected even without Pagano's oral authorization. Even were we to add the name of Susser to the unit, the result would be the same. Koshel was the only unit em- ployee who had not given the Union authorization to represent him. He also had spoken against unions in con- versations with Pagano and Cusumano, in the presence of Smith. D. The Respondent's Reaction Following the Receipt of Notification of the Filing of the Petition Kalver testified that upon receipt of the notification of the filing of the petition on October 18, 1966, he spoke to some friends because he was upset about it. It was not until 2 days later, on October 20 , 1966, that he spoke about it for the first time to anyone in the plant. At that time he spoke to Esposito and showed him the notifica- tion he had received from the N LRB . He further testified that on the following day, October 21, Knipl came into his office for the okay of a color sheet. Having been ad- vised by one of his friends , "to be careful what you say," Kalver asked Knipl "circumspectly ," " Is there any trou- ble in the plant ?" According to Kalver, Knipl denied trou- ble and Kalver told Esposito that Knipl did not know anything about "this." Knipl 's testimony , which I credit, was that Kalver told him that he could not understand why "this had happended" and that Kalver had nothing against unions . When Knipl asked Kalver what he meant, Kalver said "You know what I am talking about" and, despite Knipl's repeated denials, insisted that Knipl knew what he was talking about. On October 21, Esposito told Ciccimaro about the Union's trying to organize Respondent 's plant . Ciccimaro told Esposito he had not heard about it . Campos testified that around the middle of October 1966 Ciccimaro asked him whether he knew anything about the Union , saying "The Union is trying to get in." Campos denied knowing anything about it, although , as a matter of fact , he had al- ready signed a union card at that time. The Respondent has offered no contradiction to this testimony , and admits that Ciccimaro reported back to Esposito that Campos and Campbell had told Ciccimaro they knew nothing about the Union. Campbell and Campos testified to a conversation they had with Ciccimaro a couple of days after the notification concerning the Union's petition was received by the 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent. According to both of these employees, Cic- cimaro asked why they had to go to an "outside source." Ciccimaro told them "Youse didn't have to go to an out- side source . Anything you wanted in the shop I would have got for you All you had to do was ask me. I would go into the office and fight for you." Around the same time, Smith approached Campbell and asked him if he knew why the Union was coming in. When Campbell denied knowing, Smith told him that the "Bosses were willing to pay half the Blue Cross and Blue Shield for the employees ," costs which the employees had borne themselves up until then . Here, too, the Respondent has offered no contradiction of this testimony. On October 24, Respondent was notified that an infor- mal conference on the Union 's petition for an election would be held on November 1. On October 25 or 26, Villane had a fight with Campos, as a result of which Villane was fired. Afterwards, Cam- pos had a conversation with Kalver. Kalver asked him about the shop 's morale, to which Campos replied that everybody seems happy, but Kalver replied "Come on, Paul, you know better than that ," and pressed Campos to tell him about any problems. According to Kalver, he felt terrible, realizing that a fight had taken place, he had received notification from NLRB , salesman Jones had left him on short notice , and his monthly sales volume was down. According to Kalver, he then spoke to his friends about the Union 's advent , and they advised him to run a more efficient operation because his labor costs were going to go up. Kalver then examined his labor costs for the months of October and September 1966 and found his labor costs for October 1965 to be 20 percent less than the labor costs of October 1966, despite a higher volume in 1965. A similar relationship of lower labor cost and higher volume was found for November 1965, as compared with the anticipated labor costs and sales volume for November 1966. Kalver then told one of his friends that he was thinking of cutting his labor costs by letting go the delivery boys hired in September. Kalver then called his accountant and asked to see him im- mediately but had to content himself with an appointment the following Saturday, October 29. In the meantime, on October 28, he was referred to an attorney by a friend and made an appointment with the attorney for the fol- lowing Monday, October 31. On Saturday, October 29, Kalver met with his accountant and was joined by Esposito. They discussed cutting labor costs and decided to release the delivery boys, Laurenceau and Sodano. To take their place , Pagano would be moved from 38-J operator and Cusumano from 35-inch operator . Instead, Susser would come out of the office and take Pagano's place as 38-J operator , and Ciccimaro would take Cusu- mano's place as 35 -inch operator. Smith would take Knipl's place as 38-J pressman, Knipl becoming 38-A operator. Koshel , who had been the 38-A operator, would become the 29 -inch pressman, replacing Campos who would become pressman on the 35-inch press. On October 31, the day before the scheduled informal conference concerning the Union 's petition, the above decisions were carried out. Pagano and Cusumano were told by Esposito and/or Smith that they would go back to the presses later but until then they were not to work around the presses, even as helpers . Thus, later, when Campbell asked Cusumano and Pagano for help, Smith ordered them away, and even when Smith asked for their help, Esposito ordered them away. The shift thus decided had the effect of changing the roster of production employees as follows Production Su ervisors Employees and Others Before Oct. 28 Campos X Esposito Knipl X Ciccimaro Campbell X Smith Koshel Susser Pagano X Laurenceau Cusumano X Sodano Oct. 31 Campos X Esposito Knipl X Pagano Campbell X Cusumano Koshel Ciccimaro Smith Susser X - Union authorizations On November 1, the Respondent 's attorney appeared at the scheduled informal conference and proffered an eligibility list of production employees as shown above under the date of October 31. The Union refused to ac- cept the Company' s list and instead filed its charge in Case 2-CA-1 1142. E. Events Following the Company's October 31 Reassignments About I week after the October 31 reassignments, Smith approached Cusumano and asked him how he felt about the Union , and then , about a week afterwards, Cic- cimaro told Cusumano that he had a great future with the Company and that he wanted to make Cusumano a press- man or operator but that , if Cusumano went for the Union , it would not be good for Cusumano, he wouldn't benefit by it, and money would be taken out of his pay for the Union. Although Knipl remained in the appropriate unit, it should be noted that his job was changed from that of pressman on the 38-J to that of an operator on the 38-A, a job of much lesser responsibility and importance. Kalver in his testimony explained Knipl's transfer on the basis of Knipl 's alleged loss of "pressmanship " during his military service. It should be noted , however , that the military service ended at the beginning of 1966 and that thereafter Knipl was entrusted with the work of a press- man even on the newest and most advanced press in the Respondent's shop , the 38-J. Esposito had even told Knipl he was doing well on the new press and this is cor- roborated by company records showing Knipl to have earned more overtime during the week ending October 28 than any other employee. Kalver further attempted to explain the switch affecting Knipl when he testified that Knipl did not replace Campos as pressman on the 29-inch press because Knipl might have thought it a demotion. It STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. is difficult to understand Kalver 's rationale . If Kalver was so concerned about Knipl 's feelings on being transferred from pressman on one press to pressman on another press, he should have been equally, if not more so, con- cerned about transferring him from pressman to operator, a job of lesser importance. Nevertheless, Kalver admitted that he did not know how Knipl felt about becoming an operator on the 38-A. Ciccimaro was made operator on the 35-inch press. This in itself was odd inasmuch as Ciccimaro was admit- tedly a throughly seasoned pressman , and his skills would be underutilized as a mere operator on the 35-inch press where he would be working under Campos who was a relative newcomer. The Respondent attempts to explain this transfer by stating that Ciccimaro was put there so that he could observe and lend a hand to both Campos, on the 35-inch press, and Koshel on the 29-inch press. The testimony of Campos, which I credit, establishes, how- ever, that Ciccimaro performed the operator's duties for only about 2 hours of the day and spent the rest of his time doing the same supervisory activities he had done before, with the exception of assigning employees to their tasks. Even this, however, was resumed by Ciccimaro within about 30 days after the reassignment of the em- ployees had been made. Moreover, Ciccimaro did not do all of the customary duties of an operator while working as an alleged operator . Thus, for example, he refused to load the feeder for Campos, obliging Campos to do that work himself I conclude and find, therefore, that Cic- cimaro's alleged transfer to the job of operator on and after October 31 was a mere sham and that, to all intents and purposes, he remained the supervisor he had been prior thereto. On or about November 22, Pagano and another delivery boy, not herein involved, were laid- off and referred to a printing industry agency for possible em- ployment elsewhere . In this connection it should be noted that the Respondent in its answer filed in this proceeding stated that Pagano was promised a recall at its first need of errand boys. At the hearing, however, it was conceded that the Respondent 's answer was not correct and that Pagano was not told he would be recalled. Nevertheless, Respondent did recall Pagano on February 10, 1967, of- fering him an errand boy job which was the same activity he had for the Respondent before his layoff in November, but unlike the work he did for the Respondent prior to October 31. Pagano refused the offer of employment. Respondent 's personnel practices also underwent a change. Whereas it had always been rather generous in its allowances for tardiness , absences , and extended lunch periods, it embarked on a much stricter program after Oc- tober 3 1. Thus, when Knipl absented himself on account of illness, upon his return he was asked to obtain a doc- tor's certificate although such a requirement was not im- posed on him in the past nor had it been imposed on other employees for similar absences prior to October 1966. Similarly, when Campos refused to work overtime on November 22, he was given a letter of reprimand. In the past, the matter of overtime was strictly voluntary and several of the employees had refused overtime without any censure whatever. About Christmastime 1966, Kalver interviewed each employee, as was his practice at such season in previous 475 years. In previous years he had given his employees pay raises and bonuses on such occasions and at Christmas 1966, he did the same. Thus, Ciccimaro got a $15 weekly pay raise, and Smith , Susser , Campbell, and Koshel got $10 weekly pay raises. Campos and Knipl, however, got no pay raise whatever but were promised a pay raise to be effective the following March 3 1. The employees also received United States Savings Bonds. Thus, Ciccimaro got a $750 bond and Smith, Campbell, Susser, and Koshel got $250 bonds. Knipl and Campos, however, were not given any. Kalver told Knipl that his raise and bonus would be given if Knipl caused "no trouble " When Knipl asked what Kalver meant, Kalver merely said Knipl knew what he meant. Similarly, Kalver told Cam- pos that his raise and bonus were delayed because Cam- pos was "on report." Cusumano was given a $2.50 weekly pay raise and a $25 bond. At the same time Kalver told the employees that he likes to give the em- ployees something new every year4 and that this year the employees who had worked for the Respondent for more than 1 year would have their Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance premiums paid by the Company. In the past the Company had done so only for those employees who had been with the Company for 5 years or more. In February 1967, Campos was laid off, allegedly for lack of work for him. Cusumano then approached Esposito and asked for the job that Campos had. Esposito, however, said that there was no opening and told Cusumano that his job was running errands and al- ways had been running errands, despite the fact that Cusumano had been working the presses for many months before October 31, 1966. Cusumano refused to continue to occupy the job of delivery boy and quit. Campbell was assigned the job of pressman on the 35- inch press and was given a raise in pay because he was then obliged to run the press without the assistance of an operator or feeder. In a conversation with Campbell at that time , Esposito told him that Campbell's work was very good and that he did not have any problem with Campbell. He also told Campbell that Campbell was being hurt because Esposito did not know whether Camp- bell was for or against the Union and could not be trusted. This conversation was not denied by Esposito. Finally, on March 31, 1967, the date which marked the end of the 90-day probationary period for Knipl, Re- spondent again failed to give him any wage increase or bonus. F. The Respondent's Defense Reference has previously been made to the testimony of President Kalver to the effect that the actions taken on October 31, 1966, were brought about by decline in the sales volume, the loss of an important salesman, and the realization that some savings in costs would have to be made, particularly in view of the higher costs occasioned by the purchase and installation of the new 38-J press. He conceded, however, that his actions were triggered by the receipt of the Union 's petition for an election. As found earlier, Kalver checked his labor costs for October 1966 carefully and compared them with the labor costs of October 1965. He then "idly went through the rest." As Kalver put it, "as a matter of fact I don't be- 4 In fact , however , only pay raises and bonuses had been given em- ployees in past Christmases The extra hospitalization insurance benefit announced Christmas 1966 was a departure from past practice 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lieve it took any time at all." He did not think he checked anything other than the total labor costs minus the office wages or salaries. When asked how he could judge his costs without considering sales volume at the time, he replied that he did not have to check that because it is a figure he "consistently lives" with and that he is "con- sistently aware" of his volume. Nevertheless, at the time of the hearing in April 1967, he was unable to state what his volume of sales was 12 months earlier in April 1966. Later he testified that he had some basis for a comparison but could not remember what it was. Still later he testified that he must have had access to his annual tax report for the necessary sales volume. He added, however, that he was not sure that he used it. He also admitted that he did not consider how much overtime pay was involved in the total wage figures which he considered at the time. I find Kalver's testimony concerning his comparison of costs unreliable. I find it hard to believe that the owner of a small business who had been actively engaged in its operation for about 10 years would have been so completely unaware of his labor costs as his testimony would suggest. Moreover, having found that his labor costs were higher than he thought they ought to be, it strains my credulity to believe that such a businessman would study labor costs without considering the sales volume generating such labor costs or that he would ignore overtime figures or the numbers of personnel in- volved or other important details before embarking upon a radical program of transfers, demotions, and layoffs, ac- tions which he had never undertaken before. Nor can I believe that Kalver and Esposito, having lived for years with a certain shop arrangement and practice, would radi- cally alter that arrangement and practice practically over- night, unless it was important to do this before November 1, 1966, the date of the scheduled conference at the NLRB office. Kalver also testified that he was upset because he had lost an important salesman, an event which could, of course, diminish his future sales volume. It is significant, however, that Kalver elected to carry on with a "develop- ing salesman" until March 1967, 1 week before the hear- ing in this case, when the important salesman who left in October 1966 was replaced by a new salesman. As respects the increased expenses resulting from the installation of the new 38-J press, it is hard to see how Kalver could have arrived at any specific figure for that new press expense back in October 1966, inasmuch as in April 1967, when Kalver testified in this proceeding, he was still unable to give more than a wide range for the added expense involved in the 38-J. Kalver further testified that as of October 1966 he foresaw a poor sales volume for the following month, November, and that his actions were also prompted by this consideration. As he put it, he could know the volume of his November business in late October. It is hard to reconcile that statement, however, with the action of Kalver's hiring two additional messengers in Sep- tember 1966 just before the Company experienced drasti- cally lower sales volume in October 1966. I cannot but conclude that Kalver was unable to predict the business anticipated for a coming month at sometime during the previous month and that he was unable in October 1966 to predict the lower sales volume experienced in November 1966. There are other inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of the company witnesses. Thus, Kalver first testified that he had been instructed by the employ- ment agency to request trainees rather than delivery boys because the employment agency could collect a larger fee from the applicant. He later modified his use of the word instructed to state that there was an "understanding" between the Company and the agency and finally said that he had not been asked to place his order for trainees rather than delivery boys so that the agency could charge the greater fee. Similarly, the testimony of company wit- nesses made little or no mention of the qualifications of its employees except to suggest that they were not qualified to be operators or pressmen, with the result that only one employee had the alleged qualifications to be an operator. Yet the record is quite clear that Respondent enjoyed the satisfactory performance of many others in that capacity over the years. In sum, I find that the testimony of the Respondent's two chief witnesses, Kalver and Esposito, was incon- sistent, evasive, and, therefore, lacking credibility An ex- ample of the testimonial evasion is found in the testimony of Esposito concerning his power to impose discipline. On direct examination he answered readily that he had the power to "impose discipline." On cross-examination, however, he was not sure that he had the meaning of the statement, that the word "impose" confuses him, that he could not answer the question without a little explanation of the word "impose," that he didn't think one can impose discipline, that he didn't think it is a correct sentence, that he feels that he should be a little careful because words seem so important, that maybe if the question were put in another way he might be able to answer it, and so on. At another point Esposito testified that it was company pol- icy to switch presses, in apparent justification for the reassignments made on October 31, 1966. Employee Campbell, however, testified that operators had never been demoted to helpers if their presses were running. This testimony was not contradicted. Since record evidence shows that all of the presses were running on or about October 31, 1966, and some of them on overtime, it is clear that the alleged company policy of switching presses could not explain why some of the operators whose presses continued running at that date were demoted to helpers contrary to established company practice in previous years. On balance I conclude and find that a preponderance of credible evidence establishes that the reassignments of October 31, 1966, were not dictated by economic con- siderations but were, as admitted by President Kalver, triggered by the receipt of the Union's petition for an election. The reassignments were preceded by so-called "circumspect" questioning of employees and the coercive effect of such questioning is indicated by the refusal of some employees to admit to their union sympathies or ad- herence. Some of the conversations were more direct in containing express or implicit promises of benefits to the employees and suggestions that the employees did not need a union but that company supervisors would fight for them. The Company then proceeded more directly to dismember the bargaining unit on the eve of the scheduled informal conference so that on the day of the conference the Company was able to produce a list of em- ployees in the unit, the majority of whom it had reason to believe would support the Company rather than the Union. In so doing it used the two messenger boys, Lau- renceau and Sodano, as pawns eliminating them as em- ployees and replacing them with two of the union ad- herents from the pressroom, Pagano and Cusumano. To STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. 477 insure the loss of Pagano and Cusumano from the bar- gaining unit, Respondent then limited their functions to delivery services and specifically instructed them not to be used around the presses despite their work around presses for some time previous. No justification for this limitation of their functions has been shown. The Supreme Court has stated: Some conduct, however, is so "inherently destruc- tive of employee interests," that it may be deemed proscribed without need for proof of an underlying improper motive... . ... once it has been proved that the employer en- gaged in discriminatory conduct which could have adversely affected employee rights to some extent, the burden is upon the employer to establish that it was motivated by legitimate objectives since proof of motivation is most accessible to him. [N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers Inc., 388 U.S. 26.] The record evidence of this case is clear that the Respondent's motivation had little or no legitimate objec- tives. Certainly Respondent has failed to carry its burden of establishing by a preponderance of credible evidence that its actions of October 31, 1966, were motivated by legitimate objectives. Nor was the Respondent satisfied with its dismember- ment of the bargaining unit. Thereafter it maintained its policy of no presswork for Pagano and Cusumano despite earlier assurances of their return to presswork. Their refusal to continue working as mere delivery boys and Pagano's refusal of reinstatement as a delivery boy must be deemed justifiable in view of my conclusion that their demotion to delivery boys was an unfair labor practice. The denial by the Respondent of Christmas salary in- creases and bonuses to Campos and Knipl as well as the diminished salary increase and bonus to Cusumano must be deemed to be a continuing implementation of the antiu- nion behavior of the Respondent. Respondent attempts to justify its treatment of these employees by testimony that the performance of these employees was not satisfac- tory. The uncontradicted testimony of the employees of the Respondent, however, is that the acts of which these employees are accused, such as lying on skids, taking ex- cessive lunch periods, refusing overtime, or being absent, were all committed by the employees generally before October 31, 1966, without censure or reprimand. The in- stitution of these stricter standards immediately after the Respondent received notification of the Union's petition for election suggests that the reason for their institution was the receipt of that petition. Respondent has failed to establish by a preponderance of credible evidence any other reason for them at that time. It follows, therefore, that Respondent's postponement of pay raises and bonuses to Knipl and Campos for alleged "trouble" or "on report" was a continuation of its antiunion policy. It is significant to me to note that of the six employees con- stituting the bargaining unit on October 28, Campos, Knipl, Campbell, Koshel, Pagano, and Cusumano, only Koshel, who had spoken against unions, had not given the Union his authorization. As for the others, Pagano was forced to quit in November, Campos and Knipl were de- nied pay increases and bonuses in December, Campos being laid off later, and Cusumano was given a diminished increase and bonus at that time and later forced to quit. Only Campbell appears to have suffered no loss as a result of his union adherence, but this is easily explained in Esposito's conversation with Campbell in February 1967, wherein Esposito told Campbell he didn't know whether Campbell was for or against the Union. The record makes mention of the Respondent's ignorance of the union sentiments of some of its em- ployees. Regardless, however, it is clear that prior to Oc- tober 31, 1966, when the unit consisted of six employees, Respondent knew that Koshel had antiunion sentiments. By transferring Pagano and Cusumano out of the unit, it knew that at the most there were only three union ad- herents left in it. By transferring Ciccimaro, Smith, and Susser into the unit, it could be assured of a majority within the unit whose sympathies were with the Com- pany, thus defeating any chance of a union victory by election. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union activities and attitudes, by offering or granting benefits to discourage union activities, by threatening losses to employees if they join the Union, and by solicit- ing employees to abstain from joining the Union, using the offices of the Respondent instead, Respondent has in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thus engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By the dismissal of certain of its employees, the transfer of others, the refusal to reinstate those im- properly removed from their jobs, and the denial of Christmas bonuses and pay raises to certain of its em- ployees as well as by the lesser grants given one em- ployee at that time, Respondent has discriminated in re- gard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees, thereby discouraging membership in or activities on be- half of the labor organization, thus engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and, in view of the flagrant and widespread na- ture of these practices, that it cease and desist from in any manner infringing on the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Since I have concluded that the movement of personnel on October 31, 1966, and thereafter was motivated by the Respondent's union animus, I shall recommend that it be ordered to restore such employees to the positions held prior to October 3 1, 1966, and make them whole for any loss of earnings suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against each of them by payment of a sum of money equal to that which each employee normally would have earned as wages from the date of discharge or layoff to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement to the position held by that em- ployee prior to October 31, 1966, or the date of each em- ployee's return to duty, whichever is earlier, less any net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440) and in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with in- terest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In addition, I shall recommend that the Respondent be or- 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dered to grant the salary increases and the bonuses which Knipl, Campos, and Cusumano would normally have received at Christmastime 1966, together with interest thereon computed in the same manner as interest on earnings. In addition, I shall recommend that the Respondent be required, at the request of the Union, to bargain collec- tively with said Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. Having further found that the Union represented a majority of the employees in said appropriate unit from about the middle of October 1966, and thereafter, which majority Re- spondent attempted to destroy by its unfair labor practices, an order requiring the Company to bargain with the Union is necessary to restore as nearly as possible the situation which would have obtained but for the Company's unfair labor practices. Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield, Inc., 161 NLRB 762, and cases cited in fn. 2 thereof; Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, I recommend that Respondent, Stratford Lithographers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Offering or granting benefits to discourage union activities; provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any economic benefit or any term or condition of employment which it has heretofore established (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union activities and attitudes. (c) Threatening losses to the employees if the em- ployees join the Union. (d) Soliciting employees to use the offices of the Respondent to represent them instead of a union or- ganization of their choice. (e) Discourging membership and activity on behalf of Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Inter- national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees or by discriminating against employees in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to the position held by such employee prior to October 31, 1966, or a substantially equivalent posi- tion , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges: Knipl Pagano Campos Laurenceau Cusumano Sodano (b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Make each of the above employees named whole for any loss of earnings and Christmas bonuses and bonds suffered by reason of the discrimination against each of them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci- sion entitled "The Remedy." (d) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the following appropriate unit, and emobdy in a signed agreement any understanding reached. All lithographic production employees of the Respondent employed at its plant, exclusive of papercutters, office clericals, errand boys, shipping and receiving employees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant and necessary for a determination of compliance with paragraphs (a) and (c) above. (f) Post at its premises in New York, New York, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT offer or grant benefits in order to discourage union activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate you unlawfully concern- ing your union activities and attitudes. WE WILL NOT threaten losses to you if you join the Union. WE WILL NOT solicit you to use us or our super- visors to represent you instead of the union of your choice. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in and ac- tivity on behalf of Local 1, Amalgamated Lithog- raphers of America, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. 479 by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees or by discriminating against employees in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to the position held by such employee prior to October 31, 1966, or a substan- tially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges: Knipl Pagano Campos Laurenceau Cusumano Sodano bonuses and bonds suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against each of them. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclusive representa- tive of all the employees in the following appropriate unit, and embody in a signed agreement any un- derstanding reached: All lithographic production employees of the -Respondent employed at its plant , exclusive of papercutters , office clericals , errand boys, shipping and receiving employees, guards, watchmen , and all supervisors as defined in Sec- tion 2(1 1) of the Act. STRATFORD LITHOGRAPHERS, INC. (Employer) Dated By WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli- cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL make each of the employees above named whole for any loss of earnings and Christmas (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 5th Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Telephone 751-5500.