Satellite Lithograph Corp.

302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Satellite Lithograph Corp. and Marcelino Pedraza Local 1 , Amalgamated Lithographers of America, In- ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO and Satellite Lithograph Corp. Cases 2-CA-11203 and 2-CB-4477 January 24,1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On September 21, 1967, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Company had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He also found that Respondent Union had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain. affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Company filed excep- tions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions. I 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications: While we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent Company unlawfully discharged Ed- ward Fraser in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we do not agree that the discharge of Mar- celino Pedraza was equally violative of the Act. Prior to the event in question, Pedraza, an unskilled worker, had been employed for a period of 3 weeks. Although he worked with Fraser as his helper on the night shift, there is no evidence that he engaged in union activity of any kind or that Respondent Company believed that, like Fraser, he was also ac- tive on behalf of the Union. On the contrary there is evidence in the record to warrant a finding that Pedraza, the least senior of the employees, was There being no opposition, we hereby grant the motion by the General Counsel to correct the transcript so as to substitute the name "Gill" for the name "Gellman" wherever the latter name appears on pp. 272, 274, 275, 303, 304, 308, 309, and 311 thereof discharged for economic reasons when the Re- spondent Company was compelled because of business reasons to reduce its work force. Accord- ingly, we shall dismiss the complaint to the extent it alleges that Pedraza was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. THE REMEDY The Trial Examiner found that the strike which the Union called on or about November 21, 1966, was occasioned by the Respondent Company's discharge of Fraser and Pedraza and that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its onset. In view of the Respondent Company's unlawful discharge of Fraser, which we have found, in agree- ment with the Trial Examiner, we also agree with the Trial Examiner that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike. Accordingly, in order to effec- tuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondent Company, upon unconditional request therefor, to reinstate all unfair labor practice .strikers who have not engaged in acts of violence, as herein found, dismissing if necessary other em- ployees who may have been hired to fill their posi- tions, and make each such employee whole for any loss of pay he may suffer as a result of any refusal to reinstate him upon such application. Backpay, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the formulas set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: A. Respondent Satellite Lithograph Corp., New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as herein modified: 1. Renumber paragraphs A., 2(b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs A., 2(d), (e), and (f), and add the follow- ing as new paragraphs A., 2(b) and (c): "(b) Upon application, offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights, all strikers described in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," dismissing, if necessary, any. persons hired after they went on strike, and make each such employee whole for any loss of pay he may suffer as a result of any refusal to reinstate him upon such application. Backpay, if any, will be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, z In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Ex- aminer's finding that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 169 NLRB No. 44 SATELLITE LITHOGRAPH' CORP. with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716." "(c) Notify the above-described employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to Tull 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." 2. In renumbered paragraph A., 2(e), in line 2 thereof, substitute for the words "to be furnished" the words, "on forms provided." 3. Add the following new paragraph after the fourth indented paragraph of "Appendix A" at- tached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: WE WILL, upon application, fully reinstate all unfair labor practice strikers who have not en- gaged in acts of violence, to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any per- sons since hired; and make them whole for any loss of- pay they may suffer as a result of any refusal to reinstate them upon such appli- cation, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. 4. Add the following new paragraph below the signature line of "Appendix A" attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: Note: We will notify the striking employees designated above, 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. B. Respondent Local 1, Amalgamated Lithog- raphers of America, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified; In paragraph B., 2(a), in line 4 thereof, substitute for the, words "to be furnished" the words, "on forms provided." IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the com- plaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it al- leges violations of the Act not found herein. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner: The CA complaint herein (issued February 27, 1967; charge filed January 16, 1967), as amended, alleges that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by discharging Edward Fraser and Marcelino Pedraza on or about November 17, 1966, because of their union membership and other concerted activity; and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by said acts and by 303 promises of benefit, statements of increases received and withheld, interrogation, and threats, all in connection with union membership and sympathy and other concerted ac tivity. The CB complaint (issued February 28, 1967; charge filed January 31, 1967), as amended, alleges that the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the acts of its pickets who attempted to and did block com- pany entrances and exits and customers using them, by threatening employees of the Company and others, by in- juring employees, and by threatening and damaging pro- perty of other employers, all to induce company em- ployees and others not to cross the picket line set up by the Union. The answers, as amended, place in issue questions of agency or status, and deny the allegations of violation. The Regional Director on March 7 consolidated the cases and set them for hearing, which was held before me at New York, New York, on May 1 through 4, 1967, in- clusive. Pursuant to leave granted to all parties, a brief has been filed by the Company. The General Counsel has submitted a two-page paper in which he has not at- tempted to cover the allegations of his complaints. (One can anticipate exceptions for "failure to find," with detailed but subsequent recital of other instances men- tioned in the testimony.) Ignoring completely the allega- tions of independent violations of Section 8(a)(1)- as also of Section 8(b)(1)(A) - the General Counsel appears be- latedly to agree that the significant aspects (in the CA portion; perhaps there are none in the CB!) are the 8(a)(3) issues; but now only after loss of time in pursuing other details as originally submitted and thereafter enlarged. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND CONCLUSIONS OF'LAW 1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZA- TION INVOLVED The facts concerning the Company's status as a New York corporation, the nature and extent of its business,' and its engagement in commerce within- the meaning of the Act are admitted: I find and conclude accordingly. I also find and conclude that, as admitted, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Alleged Independent Violation of Section 8(a)(1) The leading antagonists here are Evans , president and sole stockholder of the Company , and Fraser , his half- brother. Both are apparently actively concerned with the interests of their "people." In addition to his normal busi- ness interest, Evans sees the plant as the only one of its kind in New York City which provides employment for Negro pressmen and the opportunity to train others. Faced with organization by the Union herein , as we shall see, he maintained that it is lily-white and denies opportu- nities to Negroes; he declared his preference for another union, although allegedly because it "is good for the boss and Local 1 is no good for the boss." No less militant, Fraser saw no conflict between the pursuit of racial goals and organization under the aegis of Local 1. Evans' esti- 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mate of his own attitude and actions in a so -called larger sense and of their "social significance" is not our present concern as we judge the inherently discriminatory nature of his acts. Nor need we appraise or pass judgment on Fraser's rodomontade or the value of his above -the-law attitude, manifested at the hearing, except as it is reflected in acts which bear on the issues before us. Our concern and the issues as presented and tried are whether the Act was violated as alleged. A series of formal proceedings involving the parties ap- parently began on April 9 , 1966, when the Union filed a representation petition ' with the Board ; it withdrew the petition on June 17 . Thereafter on October 27, the Union filed a representation petition2 with the New York State Labor Relations Board. Pursuant to a consent agreement entered into on November 4, a State Board election was scheduled for November 22; but the election was post- poned with Fraser's filing of an unfair labor practice charge3 with that Board on November 21. Then on December 13 the Company filed with the National Board a charge4 alleging that the Union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act; this charge was withdrawn on January 17 , 1967, the Company in the meantime having on January 13 filed a charge 5 under Section 8(b)(7)(C), which charge is now pending . In addition to the charges in the instant consolidated proceeding , filed as noted above, there is now also pending a representation peti- tion6 filed by the Union on January 20. With proof of discrimination and of interference by Evans, findings of further interference by "working foreman" Gentile (Evans also works on the presses) will add nothing to the remedy . But the testimony in the latter respect does reflect on the credibility of the Company's position and its witnesses. Without detailing all of it, the testimony reliably indicates that Gentile has been con- sulted by Evans with respect to increases in pay, and has effectively recommended hiring of an employee . Early in 1966, Gentile , who had known Marshall , told him on inquiry that there was no job at the time but that he should keep in touch with him . About 3 months later Gentile suggested that Marshall come to the plant and there, it appears uncertainly from the latter 's testimony, he was hired in Evans ' absence. This was not denied by Evans or Gentile. At one time , Gentile ordered Fraser to work on a given machine or to take off . It can be noted also that it was in evident recognition of Gentile's status that Evans later told him to call Fraser and tell him that both the latter and Pedraza were to be laid off. Whether or not Gentile offered employee Dobson $25 for information concerning the employees ' attitude toward the Union (Gentile denied this ), the former did not deny but could tell us only that he did not recall ask- ing any employees how they were going to vote. Gentile's uncertain reply was matched by his manner at that point and I find and conclude that , in context, he did unlawfully interrogate. Marshall testified without contradiction that , about the first week in November , Gentile called him into the of- fice, told him that he had convinced Evans that he still had Marshall's vote, and asking whether he could still count on him, told him that he (Marshall) was getting a raise. This was unlawful interrogation and an unlawful an- nouncement of reward for opposition to the Union. Although Evans in general terms denied that he had committed certain forms of interference, and although he did refer to conversations and deny others with Dobson, he does not appear to have contradicted Dobson's testimony that Evans told him about 2 weeks before the strike which began on November 21 and has continued since, that because of his union activities, he had not received a raise. I find and conclude that Gentile similarly violated the Act when he told Marshall that Evans would not approve his health insurance card be cause he thought that Marshall was favoring the Union; as did Evans when he told Fraser that he would grant no increase inasmuch as the Union had been called into the picture. The allegation of threats in connection with union membership or assistance is supported by the testimony that about 2 weeks before the employees went on strike Gentile, after asking Dobson what he was going to do about the Union, warned that if the shop went union many would be fired and Dobson would not work on a press. This was followed by a promise of a $10-wage in- crease at Christmas and a bonus, conditioned on the shop not going union. At approximately the same time, Evans made a similar promise of various benefits to employee Vafakos. If as Evans testified, progress had earlier been made toward adoption of a pension plan but, because of the Union, he was now "not pushing it," that would be a complementa- ry violation. The explanation that increases were regular and customary, offered in connection with that given to Marshall and noted above, can be cited to show violation when Evans pointed out, as we have seen, that because of the Union's presence he would grant no increases. The reply to the Company's plaint that it was prejudiced by the long pending procedural moves is that, were benefits periodically and regularly granted, they could have been granted now; were they not expected, they should not have been promised or their absence not so "innocently" explained. The sequel to Evans' admitted statement con- necting union activities with refusal of a wage increase is his actual withholding (not alleged to be violative) of such increase except to Marshall for the reason as he told us specifically with respect to Dobson that "it was too close to the union and the election. There was too much in- volved then." Evans, I find and conclude, similarly promised benefits to strikers in the latter part of November on condition that they terminate the strike and return to work. Quite unnecessary and whatever their bearing on the allegations of discrimination, bits of testimony which crept in or were purposely injected into the hearing can be ignored in findings of independent interference. To cite an instance, Dobson regaled us with a statement, by someone at a personnel agency in June before he was referred to his job, to the effect that Evans did not want a union and presumably would not hire anyone who had "anything to do with the union"; and then with Evans' statement to him that the job was open to him if he didn't have anything to do with the Union. If it be deemed "litigated" because Evans thereafter denied that he asked Dobson at the time of his hiring in June about his union membership, this like several other conversations, series of conversations (some of which included alleged threats, promises of benefit, or interrogation by Evans), or acts was not alleged even after amendment. At times testimony was submitted concerning interference by 12-RC-14324. 4 Case 2-CB-4462. z SE-40849. Case 2-CP-381. Case SU-40909. B Case 2-RC-14549. SATELLITE LITHOGRAPH CORP. 305 Evans which in the complaint or its amendments was charged to Gentile. Such variations are neither "minor" nor "inconsequential," a point which I need not support in view of the facts themselves and the absence of any claim to the contrary. In the confusion of allegations and dates, the General Counsel frolicked with testimony nowhere referred to in his complaints or the amendments thereto. Testimony was submitted ' pro and con, and repeated, concerning Evans' provision of drinks and, suggesting a bribe or at- tempt to curry favor with the employees, whether that was customary. But from the overall picture presented, this was only an instance of camaraderie which reflected the informal relationship between this employer and his employees; and it was not alleged as violative. I find no violation in this. Nor need we concern ourselves with other details of such a party or meeting. The Company should not be held to account to the ex- tent that it fails or barely attempts to meet such testimony; and if we can judge from his memorandum, the General Counsel appears to agree. Were we to concern ourselves further with such testimony, different in nature and some of it months removed from the violations al- leged, we can weigh such items as Dobson's unexplained and hardly understandable testimony that, after Fraser and Pedraza had been discharged, the latter told him that Fraser had been but definitely did not say that he had himself been fired or laid off. If too troublesome or trifling to be handled adequately at the hearing or before (or since), such items do not now become more important at the Company's expense. If a great deal of time was saved at the hearing, as counsel declared, by exclusion of ex- traneous matters, more could have been saved. If there has been offense or waste, we need not now compound it. B. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(3) Having reviewed the testimony and begun to list the violations indicated, I have been again impressed as I was at the hearing with the evident fact that witness after wit- ness, especially as they testified in defense against the al- legations of violation, apparently believed that the end (of exculpation) justified the means (of falsehood). Reference was made to proof of this which we need not here detail and which refers to other laws. Aside from and in addition to observation of the witnesses, the cold record indicates that we were favored (?) with more (or less?) than honest mistakes in observation or recollection. Thus aside from the interference by Gentile, who as found above was clearly a supervisor despite the position taken by the Company in its answer and, progressively weaker, at the hearing, Evans was himself guilty of independent inter- ference and as clearly discharged his half-brother because of the latter's emphatic support of the Union; Pedraza's discharge was a corollary of Fraser's, their relationship being that of helper to pressman, and was similarly dis- criminatory. The Company's position and explanation with respect to the layoffs was early declared as,follows: "There was a layoff because a customer came in and stopped the presses literally. They lost 2 big orders. They knocked off their night shift." We were told that the customer, Andel Printing, came in at noon on November 17 and without warning stopped a horserace printing job. The Company knew and had for some time anticipated that the second job, a bingo printing also from Antel, would be completed by Friday, November 18. Having left the subject, coun- sel for the Company thereafter told us also that Fraser's work was unsatisfactory, and he was therefore selected for layoff when a layoff was necessary. Leaving for the moment consideration of the quality of Fraser's per- formance on the job, this latter reason was neither em- braced nor mentioned in the original statement of position and explanation concerning elimination of Fraser's night shift, also a valid but quite different reason. This grasping at straws resulted in further floundering with later reference to another large job, from Rosskamm Printing, which had been taken away. But this had oc- curred several days, perhaps a week, before action was taken against Fraser. Indeed, with respect to one of the Andel jobs, Evans told us that as much as 2 or 3 weeks earlier he had feared that there would be no more reor- ders. Yet with all of this, until the election became im- minent and Fraser's part prominent, there was no sug- gestion that anyone, let alone Fraser, would be laid off. None of this suggests the suddenness and immediacy with which action was taken, Evans instructing Gentile to call Fraser and Pedraza to the shop that afternoon be- fore they were due to report for work. Curiously, although Gentile testified that the horserace job was being run on the Ebco machine and on one or both of the Company's two-color presses, cancellation of the job led to the layoff of only one pressman, Fraser. We come now to consideration of Fraser's union activi- ties and the Company's knowledge thereof. Not only had Fraser distributed union cards in the shop and gotten signatures, but he appeared at the State board on behalf of the Union several times; particularly three times dur- ing the 3 weeks immediately preceding his discharge. Evans had knowledge of such activities and accused him of organizing the Union at the plant; details of their con- versations in this connection are unnecessary. We have already noted Evans' opposition to the Union. But now matters were coming to a head, Fraser's connection with the Union was being formalized, and an election was im- minent. Where there are so many inconsistencies in the ex- planations offered in defense, there is no need for further detail in thus stating the reasons for my findings. We have no more warrant for extending this Decision than there was for extending the hearing, which early threatened to' go on indefinitely. Applying a flensing knife even to the extent of withholding details noted but not necessary to a decision, suffice it to note here that, after all of the testimony concerning loss of printing jobs or orders, which did not stand up under scrutiny, Evans himself told us that he kept five pressmen and three helpers when he let Fraser and Pedraza go although he had work for only four men at the time, the reason for the greater retention and refusing to alternate the men with fewer hours being allegedly that he would lose pressmen whom he would later need if he laid them off or distributed the work. But now he had in fact dismissed Fraser, an experienced pressman and the employee with the greatest length of service! Evans allegedly explained to Fraser that he had laid him off but kept Dobson, a helper, on the job so that the latter could become more proficient; i.e., the de- sideratum of proficiency was to be attained by letting the more proficient mango! Fraser was not wedded to the night shift. That he was the only pressman on that shift reflects his responsibility. His experience and seniority dictated retention according to the Company's own explanation, with transfer if that were necessary; and this is nowhere denied as the Com- 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany attempted to show only that these were outweighed by his shortcomings , suggested neither before nor at the beginning of the hearing. Had there been a sudden need to eliminate a pressman, the selection of Fraser, the old- est in service with the Company, was discriminatory; I so find and conclude. We need not gloss over his short- comings. But they had not loomed so large in the Com- pany's eyes, or in Evans', as to warrant earlier discharge or discipline. It does not appear that the Company had noted or indicated any objection to his latenesses which subsequent questioning suggested came to mind as an af- terthought. Nor need we emphasize the element of apparently satisfactory work since Fraser had been reemployed by the Company after quitting and had been steadily in- creased in pay. But a new factor had now been added, his marked union activity; and whatever the personal rela- tionship and Evans' attitude, these were exacerbated by that activity, which now moved Evans to act against Fraser. In overruling the defense, I have found it un- necessary to rely on the testimony by Dounis, whom I credit that, after his question why Fraser had been let go and Evans' reply that work was slow, he had replied that there seemed to be a great deal of work, Evans' rejoinder being that he had let Fraser go because he did not want him or his union; that Evans added that, since the A&P job was finished, they could now handle other customers' jobs; and that Evans himself, although he usually spent not more than an hour or two on a machine, worked on one all day on November 17 and 18. The latter fact was confirmed by employee Vafakos. Even if it need not now be decided, it may be noted in passing, since there were contrary contentions at the hearing, that these employees were discharged, not tem- porarily laid off. Fraser testified that Evans had used both terms and had said that he would take him back only if the Union lost the election, and that he would not at all once a strike began. It was also testified that Evans declared that Fraser and Pedraza were through: he would go ahead with the election but did not want them to vote. Whether laid off or discharged, the employment of these two was discriminatorily terminated. C. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) Quite as clearly does the credible evidence indicate restraint and coercion of employees in the exercise of their rights, as alleged, by threats to and assaults on em- ployees of the Company and of others, and by threats and damage to property. This occurred in front of and away from the plant, and was committed by strikers Fraser, Dobson, Marshall, and Pedraza. If one does not credit all of the testimony offered to explain what may have been an excessively vigorous defense by Hamrick against at- tack by Dobson and Fraser, the issue here is only whether the latter two attacked, and that I find. Nor can there be even a reasonable doubt concerning the Union's responsibility for at least the acts committed by the pickets at the plant site, such responsibility continuing from its initial issuance of signs to the pickets. The Union having provided the strikers with picket signs as Olm- stead, its director of organizing, testified, and admittedly being engaged in the picketing, it cannot disclaim respon- sibility for their acts as they picketed. As for the events which occurred away from the shop, these were of the same nature and were continuations or extensions of the activities directly authorized or for which the Union was thus responsible. The liability might be found to exist whether the Union specifically authorized or encouraged certain acts or whether, having set the stage and initiated activities, it failed to limit them and to deter its represent- atives. Citation of direct authority is unnecessary here, but reference to a recent converse situation where an em- ployer was held responsible for the acts of others' will un- derscore the Union's responsibility here. Although the al- legation of representation and agency names Fraser alone, the Union is alleged to have engaged in unlawful restraint and coercion by Fraser, Dobson, and "various of its pickets." The allegations of misconduct at the plant site have been sustained; I so find and conclude. It is un- necessary to pass upon the Union's responsibility for misconduct elsewhere. Despite the discrimination against them, the violence engaged in deprives Fraser and Pedraza of reinstatement rights. As for backpay, Fraser's can run only from his ter- mination on November 17 until December 2, when the first act of violence was committed against Evans' half- brother "right after the first of December." (If there is evidence to support an earlier cutoff date, it has not been pointed out, and I have not noted it.) A broker or customer was threatened on December 2. I do not credit Fraser's version that he was merely responsive on the latter occasion. His combativeness was apparent even at the hearing. The General Counsel has disclaimed backpay for Pedraza. Fraser told us that during a tavern discussion on November 18, when as noted above Evans stated that he would rehire Fraser only if the Company won the elec- tion, Dobson apparently speaking for himself and the other employees present urged Evans to rehire Fraser. Dobson's version was similar, he allegedly insisting that Fraser first be taken back while Evans urged that the men first come to work and vote the Union down. Further, during the first week of the strike Evans promised the strikers various benefits if they returned to work without the Union. Such an attempt to undermine the Union would prolong the strike and, had it not already been an unfair labor practice strike, convert it into one. But beyond all of this and most directly bearing on the nature of the strike is Olmstead's uncontradicted testimony that early in the morning of November 21, before the strike commenced, it was made clear in a conversation between him and Evans that the men would strike that afternoon unless Fraser and Pedraza were put back on the job. For its bearing on reemployment rights of nonviolent strikers, I find and conclude that this was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that: A. The Company, Satellite Lithograph Corp., New York, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 1, Amalga- mated Lithographers of America, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor or- ' General Metal Products Company, 164 NLRB 64. SATELLITE LITHOGRAPH CORP 307 ganization, by discriminatorily discharging any of its em- ployees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or con- dition of employment. (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees, announcing rewards or penalties, threatening, and promising benefits, all in connection with union membership or sympathy or other concerted activity. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Edward Fraser whole for any loss of pay sustained by him between November 17 and December 2, 1966, with interest to be computed in the customary manner. 8 (b) 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 to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due. (c) Post at its place of business in New York, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."S Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re- gional Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by the Com- pany immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 B. The Union, Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening and assulting employees of the Com- pany and of others, and threatening and damaging proper- ty, in order to induce employees not to cross the Union's picket line. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B." Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re- gion 2, after being duly signed by official representatives of the respective Respondents, shall be posted by the Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 2, signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B,"11 for posting by the Company, the latter willing. Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by the Union as in- dicated, be forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such posting. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 12 B The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827, Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, Republic Steel Corporation v. N.L R B, 311 U S 7, F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 1' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith " 11 See fn 9, supra 12 See fn. 10, supra APPENDIX A 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 discourage membership in Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees, announce rewards or penalties , or promise benefits, in connection with union membership , sympathy, or other concerted activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations , to join or assist Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or- ganization, and to engage in other concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL make Edward Fraser whole for any loss of pay suffered between November 17 and December 2, 1966, as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America , International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or- 350-212 0-70-21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ganization, except to the extent that such right may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. SATELLITE LITHOGRAPH CORP. (Employer) Dated By (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, 745 5th Avenue, Squibb Building, New York, New York, Telephone 751-5500. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS 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 you that: WE WILL NOT threaten or assault employees of Satellite Lithograph Corp. or of other employers or threaten or damage property, in order to induce em- ployees not to cross our picket lines. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of this Union, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Dated By LOCAL 1 , AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMER- ICA, INTERNATIONAL TYPO- GRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 5th Floor, 745 5th Avenue, Squibb Building, New York, New York, Telephone 751-5500.