The Roberts Press

454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD George J. Roberts & Sons, Inc. doing business as The Roberts Press and Herbert Moller and Long Island Typographical Union No. 915 , affiliated with The International Typographical Union and Carol Tusso. Cases 29-CA-1702, 29-CA-1712, and 29-CA- 1818 February 9, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On May 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in certain other unfair labor prac- tices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to those allega- tions. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision together with a supporting 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 Exmainer made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and mod- ifications.' 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons fully set forth by him, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the threatening and in- timidatory remarks concerning union membership and activities made by Roberts, Sr., to employees Si- nert, Rostocki, and Moller on June 10, 1969,2 and to The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to certain credi- bility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the practice of the Board not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor- rect. Such a conclusion is not warranted here . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3) 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1969 Bonanno on June 19, and by his interrogation of these employees concerning their union membership and activities. We also find, in agreement with the General Counsel's contention, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Roberts, Sr.'s speech to the employees on June 13 .3 In that speech, which is fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, Rob- erts clearly indicated to the employees that the Respondent's decision to computerize the composing room operation, and, hence, to discharge the compos- ing room employees, was immediately prompted by the Union's demand for recognition and bargaining. By telling employees that they were being discharged because of the advent of the Union, the Respondent clearly interfered with and discouraged employees in the exercise of their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. 2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons stated by him, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Moller on June 10 for his leading role in the Union' s organizing campaign; by permanently laying off the remaining 11 composing room employees on June 19 because they had signed union authorization cards; and by refusing to reemploy Tusso on and after July 31 be- cause of her friendship with the striking composing room employees and Respondent's belief that her sympathies were with their cause. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, however, we also find that the Respondent's refusal to reemploy Andrew Fawcett, Jr., when jobs become available was due to his mother's union activities and its belief that his own sympathies were with her cause and, therefore, the refusal violated Section 8(aX3) of the Act. Fawcett, a student employed in the summer as a delivery man, is the son of Evelyn Fawcett, one of the composing room employees who was discriminatorily discharged on June 19 and began picketing on June 20. On June 19, when Fawcett had completed about two-thirds of his delivery work, he was advised by Supervisor Piroz- zi that his services were no longer needed and that the remaining deliveries would be made by the Respondent's salaried drivers. Pirozzi, however, promised to call Fawcett whenever delivery work was again available. Fawcett was never recalled, despite the fact that the Respondent hired several new deliv- ery employees in July and August. Although Fawcett himself never joined the Union or engaged in its activities until he joined the picket line in September, we find that because of his relation- ship with one of the strikers, his situation is similar to that of Tusso, who the Trial Examiner correctly found 3 The Trial Examiner made all of the essential findings regarding the coerciveness of that speech and relied upon it in finding that the discharges of June 19 violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Therefore, it appears that his failure specifically to conclude that the speech also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was inadvertent. 188 NLRB NO. 51 THE ROBERTS PRESS was discriminatorily denied reemployment because of her association with, and suspected allegiance to, the discriminatorily discharged striking composing room employees. In view of the Respondent's strong ani- mus against the Union, its supporters and sympa- thizers, as evidenced by the widespread and serious unfair labor practices found above, we find that the Respondent's refusal to recall or rehire Fawcett, Jr., was in reprisal for his mother's active support of the Union and hence was unlawful.4 Accordingly, we shall modify the Trial Examiner's recommended Or- der by adding the name of Andrew Fawcett, Jr., to the list of discriminatees. 3. For the reasons fully discussed by him, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent's decisions to computerize the composing room function and, when that failed to materialize, to subcontract that operation to Gallo were discrimina- torily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We further find, however, on the basis of facts described by the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent's subcontracting agreement with Gallo was itself merely a sham by which the Respondent sought to avoid bargaining with the Union and that, therefore, the employees purportedly hired by Gallo were really employees of the Respondent and are sub- ject to discharge, if necessary, to permit full reinstate- ment of the discriminatorily discharged composing room employees.' After Videographic, the firm seek- ing to computerize Respondent's composing room, refused to execute the contemplated contract as a result of the picketing, the Respondent, on July 1, entered into an agreement with Gallo, its former composing room foreman, whereby the latter was to perform some of the composing room work (exclud- ing camera work and platemaking) as an independent contractor. Gallo operated with a maximum of five employees, one of the first hired being the only one of Respondent's composing room employees who had not signed a union card. These employees performed the same composing room functions on the same ma- chines and with the same materials as were previously performed for Respondent by the discriminatees. The machines and materials continued to be owned by the Respondent and remained at all times in its plant. The proofreading and art and camera work, however, which was formerly done by the discriminatees, were performed either by the Respondent or by a contrac- 4 The fact that Fawcett, Jr., did not wish to cross the picket line on June 20 to pick up his paycheck and requested that it be brought to him outside the plant does not, in our opinion , support the inference that he would not have done so when work became available. Chairman Miller dissents from his colleagues' conclusion with respect to Respondent's refusal to reemploy Fawcett, in that he is not persuaded that there is adequate basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to this alleged violation 3 Having found that the subcontracting arrangement was a mere sham, we find it unnecessary to require that it be rescinded or otherwise modified 455 tor. As of the time of the hearing, Gallo had per- formed work only for the Respondent, had a desk in the Respondent's plant,6 utilized Respondent's tel- ephone, and continued to be covered under Respondent's Blue Cross policy. We are persuaded that Gallo's relationship to the Respondent continued as before and involved a change in name only. Accordingly, we shall modify the Trial Examiner's recommended Order to require that the Respondent reinstate its composing room em- ployees who were discriminatorily discharged to their former positions, discharging, if necessary, any em- ployees hired since their discharges, including em- ployees ostensibly hired by Gallo .7 4. Finally, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing, on and after June 10, to recognize and bar- gain with the Union as the bargaining representative designated by a majority of its employees in an appro- priate unit. As indicated above, the Union had valid authorization cards from 12 of the 13 employees in the unit found appropriate when it requested recognition and the Respondent's presidient, in checking the cards, admittedly did not doubt the authenticity of the employees' signatures. And, in view of the widespread and serious unfair labor practices which the Respon- dent committed immediately after being confronted with the Union's bargaining demand, a fair election to resolve the question concerning representation is impossible. Considering all the circumstances in light of the guiding principles set forth in the Gissel Packing Co. case,' we are persuaded that the unambiguous cards validly executed by a majority of the employees in the unit represent a more reliable measure of em- ployee desire on the issue of representation than would an election in this case, and that the policies of the Act will be effectuated by the imposition of a bargaining order to remedy the 8(a)(5) violation found herein. Further, we are satisfied that a bargain- ing order would be necessary even in the absence of an 8(a)(5) violation to remedy the Respondent's other unfair labor practices. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 6 Gallo's use of his home address and telephone number primarily for purposes of advertising for employees in local newspapers does not persuade us that he maintained a "principal office" as a separate entity. 7 Even assuming, however, that Gallo was a bona fide subcontractor, as contended by the Respondent, we might nevertheless require, on the facts as found herein, that the Respondent restore the status quo ante by resuming this operation See Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 379 U S. 203. a N L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co, Inc., 395 U.S. 575. For the reasons stated in his separate opinion in United Packing Co. of Iowa, 187 NLRB No. 132, Chairman Miller concurs in the issuance of a bargaining order , but only to remedy Respondent's egregious violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). He finds it unnecessary to consider whether Respondent's unilateral refusal to bargain was, technically, a violation of Section 8(aX5) I 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, George J. Roberts & Sons, Inc. doing business as The Roberts Press, Patchogue, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Delete paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order and substitute the following therefor: "(b) Discharging, refusing to employ, or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their un- ion membership, activities or sympathies." 2. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended Order and substitute the following therefor: "(b) Offer to the employees named below imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs are not available, to substantially equiva- lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges of employment, dis- charging, if necessary, any replacements hired since the discrimination against them, and make said em- ployees whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" por- tion of the Trial Examiner's Decision: George Scott Douglas Otto Angelo Stekardis William G. Rostocki Rose Mary Bonanno Arther Leffert Evelyn Fawcett Amelia Harris James Vedder Herbert Moller Richard Vedder Carol Tusso Morton Sinert Andrew Fawcett, Jr." 3. In footnote 68 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. 4. Substitute attached Appendix for Trial Examiner's Appendix. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, affiliated with the International Typographical Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with this Union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if any understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All composing room employees including all employees who perform machine composition, hand composition, proofreading, teletype setting, plate making, camera and stripping, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT discharge, refuse to employ, or otherwise discriminate against employees because of their union membership, activities, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals if they join the Union or otherwise engage in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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. WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs are not available, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges of employment, discharging, if necessary, any replacements hired since the discrimination against them, and make said employees whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them: George Scott Douglas Otto Angelo Stekardis William G. Rostocki Rose Mary Bonanno Arther Leffert Evelyn Fawcett Amelia Harris James Vedder Herbert Moller Richard Vedder Carol Tusso Morton Sinert Andrew Fawcett, Jr. GEORGE J. ROBERTS & SONS, INC. doing business as THE ROBERTS PRESS (Employer) THE ROBERTS PRESS 457 Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Fourth Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 212-596-3535. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF HE CASE ROBERT COHN. Trial Examiner: Upon original charges filed by Herbert Moller, an individual, on June 11, 1969,' and Long Island Typographical Union No. 915 (hereinafter the Union) on June 20 (subsequently amended July 11), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for Region 29 of the Board, on August 6, issued an order consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing. The consolidated complaint alleged, in essence, that George J. Roberts and Sons, Inc., doing business as The Roberts Press (herein the Respondent of Copany) violated Section 8(axl), (3), and (5) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), by m threatening and interrogating its employees respecting their union membership and activities, by discharging employees because they joined and assisted the Union, and by refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gainmg representative of employees in an appropriate unit. By its duly filed answer, the Respondent denied each and every allegation of the complaint including the jurisdiction of the Board. A hearing on these charges was held before me in Brook- lyn, New York, on 7 hearing days commencing October 1, and concluding October 17. However, prior to the time a decision was rendered in that consolidated proceeding, a motion was filed with me by counsel for the General Coun- sel of the Board which stated, in essence, that an additional charge had been filed against the Respondent by Carol Tusso, an individual, and that the alleged violations in that case arose out of substantially the same facts and circum- stances litigated in the prior case, and that the cases should be consolidated. This motion was granted by me on Decem- ber 23, and a hearing was held in that proceeding on Janu- ary 20 through January 22, 1970, in Brooklyn, New York. The issue in that proceeding (Case 29-CA-1818, charge being filed October 2) was whether the Respondent violated ' All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1969 unless otherwise specified Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminating against two employees (Carol Tusso and Andrew Fawcett). Subsequent to the hearing, helpful posthearing briefs have been filed with me by counsel for the General Counsel and by Counsel for the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this consolidated proceeding, including arguments of counsel and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION At its sole place of business in Patchogue, Long Island, New York, the Respondent is engaged in the publication, sale, and distribution of a classified directory called a "Han- dy Guide," in some 20 separate trading areas in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island . These Handy Guides, which closely resemble an ordinary telephone book, contain both white and yellow pages , listing names, addresses, and telephone numbers of both individuals and commercial es- tablishments.2 The Handy Guide is published annually by the Company and is distributed solely in said trading areas by employees of the Respondent,3 free of charge to persons in these areas. The Company's revenues are substantially all derived through the sale of advertising to commercial estab- lishments. The Handy Guide is the sole publication and business activity of Respondent except that it also publishes and distributes a supplement to the Handy Guide known as an "Atlas" which contains similar listings by street addresses rather than by names. The Atlases are also distributed by Respondent free of charge, and the only revenue derived from them is an amount approximating $ 12,000 annually which results from the Respondent's rental of said Atlases to organizations or subscribers for various purposes. Counsel for the General Counsel bottoms her contention that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act both on an inflow theory as well as the contention that the Respondent's volume of business meets the retail standard of $500,000 annually. In support of the inflow theory, the evidence shows that the great bulk of material shipped to Respondent from out- side the State of New York, consists of aper purchased by and shipped to Respondent from Mpaine by the Great Northern Paper Company . Its records showed that during the calendar year 1968 , it sold and shipped to Respondent from the State of Maine, paper valued in the amount of $40,261 .50.4 This amount, plus record evidence that other 2 The listings on the white pages are alphabetical and contain both individ- uals and commercial firms, including display advertisements . The listings on the yellow pages are solely commercial and, like the "yellow pages" in a telephone directory, are alphabetized by services rendered, and also contain display advertising The question of whether some of these distributors are "employees" is an issue in the proceeding ° This figure includes approximately $3,000 freight charges, which Respon- dent contends should not be included in the gross figure . However, the Board has ruled adversely to Respondent 's contentions on this point (V E. Paturzo, Brother & Son, Inc, 114 NLRB 1161 , 1163). Likewise without ment is Respondent's contention that the Board should consider the Company's purchases from Great Northern Paper Company for the period September 1, 1968, through August 31 , 1969 (when its purchases were some $13,000 less than during calendar 1968) as the appropraite annual period See Jos. Mc- Sweeney & Inc., 119 NLRB 1399, 1401 , F M Reeves and Sons, Inc., 112 NLRB 295, at fn. I 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD materials and supplies valued in excess of $11,000 during the same period were shipped either directly or indirectly to Respondent from outside the State of New York ,5 satisfies the Board's current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises , such standard requiring "an an- nual minimum of $50,000 out-of-state inflow or outflow, direct or indirect" Michael Pipitone, 181 NLRB No. 102, citing Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85). Accord- ingly, I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that the Board should assert jurisdiction herein. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Uncontradicted and credited testimony of the president of the Union indicates that the Union is an organization which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and other condi- tions of employment respecting employees whom it repre- sents for such purposes. The evidence further shows that the Union in fact represents employees in the printing and pub- lishing industry in several counties on Long Island. Accord- ingly, I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (CASES 29-CA-1702 and 1712) A. Background Respondent's print shop is divided generally into an of- fice area and a shop area. There is some dispute as between the General Counsel and the Union on the one hand, and Respondent on the other, whether certain rooms fall in one category or the other .7 Nevertheless, it may be said that the shop area generally consists of several composing rooms, a letter press room, an offset press room, and a storage area.8 (General Counsel would probably contend that this area should also include two proof rooms and , perhaps, the dark, art, and camera rooms, too.) In the area designated as `.office" are the executive offices, clerical, and sales offices, as well as the aforesaid disputed rooms (proofreading, art, dark, and camera). As of June 19,9 the supervisory hierarchy of Respondent was as follows : George J. Roberts, Sr., is president of the corporation which owns and operates the Roberts Press. The record reflects that he is quite active in the day-to-day management of the operation, and takes a personal hand 3 See G C Exh. 5(a) and 5(b) and Stipulation at transcript pp. 439-440. 6 It would also appear that the Board would assert jurisdiction under its standard as relates to retail enterprises "which fall within its statutory juns- diction and which do a gross volume of business of at least $500,000 per annum." Carolina Supplies and Cement Co, 122 NLRB 88, 89). The Respon- dent stipulated that during the calendar year 1968 its gross volume of bus- iness approximated $525,000. r See Reap . Exh. I Although there is a heavy, dark line on this exhibit (which was prepared by the Respondent) denoting a distinct separation between the "office" and "shop", uncontradicted testimony by employees, which I credit, indicated that the heavy lines did not reflect a larger or heavier partition than usual separating the areas. In other words , there are various partitions on the premises which separate some persons and functions from others and the partitions which are reflected by the heavy dark lines are no more dominant or imposing than others $ There is also a storage area in a separate building on the Company's premises. 9 This is a critical date in the case since , as it will appear more fully hereinafter, there occurred a mass layoff or discharge at that time which resulted in a rather substantial alteration in the manner in which Respondent organized its production therein. His son, George Roberts, Jr., is the vice president of the corporation and the plant manager . A third member of the family, George Roberts IV is also active in the opera- tion of the business as the person in charge of the bindery. The plant supervisors, who reported directly to Roberts, Sr., were Anthony Gallo, foreman of the composing room; Le- votti, foreman of the pressroom ; and Louis Pirozzi, foreman of the delivery department. The overall employee comple- ment of the plant, excluding supervisors, but including of- fice employees (of which there were 10) was approximately 48. B. The Union Campaign, the Request for Recognition, and Respondent's Reaction Thereto According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Jack Douglas, president of the Union, the first contract with that organization by an employee of Respondent was made by Herbert Moller, a compositor, near the end of April. Douglas gave Moller some authorization cards to be distributed among the employees of Respondent which was accomplished substantially during the month of May. The cards-12 in number-were returned to Douglas, and he along with vice president of the Union, Joseph Gagnon, proceeded to the premises of the Company on June 10 and requested a meeting with Roberts, Sr. They first encoun- tered him in the receptionist' s area, and after the usual introductions, Douglas advised that the Union "represented the employees of the composing room working in his firm." Roberts replied that he was not interested, that he did not know anything about any union activity in his plant and doubted that the Union even had jurisdiction in Suffolk County. Douglas persisted, however, that they should sit down and discuss the matter and that he could prove his assertion of representation by showing Roberts signatures on authorization cards. Whereupon, they proceeded to Roberts' office, and Douglas handed him a letter which stated as follows: June 10, 1969 Mr. George J. Roberts The Roberts Press 380 Grove Avenue Patchogue, N.Y. Dear Sir: Please be advised that Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, International Typographical Union, has been authorized in writing by a substantial majori- ty of the employees in your firm who perform compos- ing room operations to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining in all matters concerning wages, hours and working conditions. The employees involved include all journeymen and the apprentices performing composing room operations such as Machine composi- tion, machinist work, hand composition, lockup, mar- kup, proofreading, Tele-typesetting keyboard and monitoring operations, pastemakeup, platemaking, camera and stripping. Local 915 and the International Typographical Un- ion have a long and honorable history of fair collective bargaining. We will demonstrate to you by any reason- able voluntary method that the employees have desig- nated Local 915 as their bargaining agent. We are also prepared to meet promptly with you and your associates for the purpose of negotiating an ac- ceptable labor-management contract covering wages, THE ROBERTS PRESS hours and working conditions for the employees of your firm as set forth. Looking forward to early and amicable negotiating meetings, Sincerely yours, Jack Douglas President When Roberts expressed some surprise that the employ- ees had gone to the Union instead of coming to him with their problems, and further expressed some doubt as to whether the Union actually represented the employees, Douglas proceeded to show him the 12 authorization cards. Roberts took the cards and went over them individually, making comments as to certain of the individuals whose signatures appeared on the cards. These comments were generally sufficiently of sa nature killed to be thatit the printer,'0 and claimed that the two women classified as proofreaders were not, in fact, proofreaders.'' Douglas then attempted to arrange a time for a meeting with Roberts for the purpose of negotiating a collective- bargaining agreement, but Roberts replied that he would need time-possibly a month. When Douglas retorted that a month was too long, they finally agree to a period of 2 weeks and that Roberts would get in touch with Douglas12 The foregoing conversation took place shortly after the noon hour that day. Later in the afternoon, following the departure of the union men, Roberts, Sr., accompanied by Composing Room Foreman Anthony Gallo, proceeded from the office area into the makeup room of the composing area where Roberts engaged employee Sinert in a conversa- tion. Roberts was concededly angry and upset. He queried Sinert with such questions as "what the hell do you think you people are doing?" And "what kind of man are you-I thought you were my friend?" He reminded Sinert that he had given his family work there (Sinert's son had delivered Handy Guides one summer). When Sinert replied that he was not the only one that signed a card, Roberts turned toward another employee, Angelo Stekardis, and asked him if he signed a card also. When Stekardis answered in the affirmative, Roberts said that he guessed that he was not satisfied. Stekardis admitted that he was not satisfied in the way Roberts ran the shop. At this nt in the conversation, Roberts' voice had become very loud and boisterous.13 C. The Dischrage of Herbert Moller Herbert Moller, an employee in the composing room of the Company for approximately 8 years and concededly an 10 Roberts used the term "two-thirder," which, in print shop parlance apparently means an apprentice or one who is not sufficiently qualified to be a journeyman printer. i 1 Roberts wanted to show the cards to his son , George, Jr, but learned from his secretary that he was not in the office that day. 12 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Doug- las which was not, in its essential respects, contradicted by Roberts Roberts did testify that when he gave the cards back to Douglas he said that he was not interested in negotiations because there were important matters under consideration that he could not discuss with Douglas at the time (these matters had to do with a change in the structure of the business which will be more fully discussed, infra) Roberts advised that he could have a decision in a month, but when Douglas asked if he could not make it sooner, Roberts replied, "Well, perhaps I could have a decision for you in a couple of weeks. Gagnon was not called as a witness, the parties stipulating that, if called, his testimony would substantially parallel Douglas' 13 Credited testimony of Sinert, and Stekardis who were, of course, present, and that of employee Rose Mary Bonanno, who heard some of the conversa- tion from the next room 459 experienced and skillful journeyman in the trade, had as his principal job at that time the operation of the Ludlow ma- chine which was located in a room adjacent to the makeup room where the above-described conversation was going on. He went to the doorway of the Ludlow room and heard some of the conversation. He then advanced several feet into the makeup room, and Roberts turned toward him and asked whether it was he who gave out the authorization cards. When Moller responded that he (Moller) did not think that it really mattered, Roberts retorted, "Well, to me it does."ta Roberts then asked why the employees had not taken up their problems with their foreman to which Moller re- sponded that they knew the foreman would only pass the complaints on to him (Roberts) and that had not been fruit- ful in the past, and he went on to assert that the employees were only exercising their rights in seeking union represent- ation. This remark apparently irritated Roberts, Sr., to the extent that he told Moller that if the latter did not have his glasses on he would punch him in the nose . Moller took his glasses off and leaned up against the stone (a type of ma- chine), and said nothing. Roberts, however, made no effort to carry out his threat, but went on talking about the fact that there was no union in Suffolk County and that "he was not going to be the first one."15 Roberts and Gallo then left the room. Shortly before quitting time that day, Gallo came into the Ludlow room where Moller was working with two checks in his hand, and advised Moller that Roberts had decided to terminate him. When Moller inquired the reason, Gallo responded that Roberts felt that Moller was disgruntled and that he (Roberts) would not feel safe if he remamed.16 Mol- ler stated that he would like to hear this from Roberts him- self and Gallo led the way to Roberts, Sr.'s office. Gallo remained outside. In Roberts' office, Moller stated that he understood that he was being laid off or fired, and Roberts acknowledged that this was true. When Moller asked the reason, Roberts replied that Moller was disgruntled and discontent and that he (Roberts) did not feel sale with Moller being in the plant any longer." When Moller asked if his work was unsatisfac- tory, Roberts replied no-that he would not have kept him there that long if that was the fact. Roberts, upon inquiry from Moller, agreed to give the latter a recommendation but refused to give him a written recommendation at that time. The conversation terminated when Moller stated that he would have to bring this to the attention of the NLRB, and Roberts responded that Moller could take it anywhere he liked. D. Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) By Roberts, Sr. Rose Mary Bonanno, whose principal Job is operating the teletypewriting machine (also called a TTS operator), testi- fied that she had a conversation with Roberts during the afternoon of June 19 after the union men had left. He was carrying a piece of paper in his hand and asked her if she had signed "that thing." When she acknowledged that she 14 Credited testimony of Moller. is Credited testimony of Moller 16 Credited testimony of Moller. Gallo, although recalling that he advised Moller of the discharge pursuant to instructions from Roberts , did not recall what was said at the time. 17 See testimony of Moller. Roberts denied that Moller asked the reason for the discharge. I do not credit his testimony in this regard. 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had, Roberts indicated disappointment that she had done so, particularly after she had, in the past, requested-and he had given-work for her husband. He stated, "Well, you will know where you have to go for work now." She replied that she had to do what she thought was right, and that terminated the conversation.'8 E. The June 19 Layoff 1. Negotiations with Videographic The complaint alleges that on or about June 19 , Respon- dent discharged 11 named employees because said employ- ees joined the assisted the Union. These employees, along with Herbert Moller, constituted the 12 employees who signed union cards, as aforesaid, and substantially all of them worked in the section of the plant designated as the composing room area .19 It is the contention of Respondent that the layoff was prompted solely by its decision to "com- puterize" the functions previously performed in the composing room, i.e., economic rather than union considerations. The facts leading up to the layoffs are as follows: According to the testimony of Roberts, Sr., a representa- tive of Videographic Systems Inc. (herein called Vide- ograpphic), approached him in October 1968 respecting possible computerization of lithographic functions current- ly being performed in Respondent's composing room. How- ever, in a letter dated December 9, 1968 , to deographic's representative, Roberts, Sr., noted that after study of his proposal their cost of performing such functions exceeded the Respondent's cost b some $28,000. Nevertheless, Rob- erts promised to give the proposal further consideration, and he testified that during his stay in Florida from ap proxi- mately December until April, he gave it some thou t. On May 22, Videographic submitted to Respon dent a "revised proposal" which promised substantial savings to the Respondent as compared to the November proposal. This was followed up by a personal meeting between repre- sentatives of the two firms, and a subsequent letter from Videographic to Roberts on May 27 thanking him for the time spent and suggesting a method of amortizing the initial programming cost over a period of 5 years. However, even these proposed savings and alterations in methods of pay- ment did not satisfy Roberts , for on May 31 he dispatched the following letter: Videographic Systems, Inc. 375 Kings Highway Hauppauge, W Y. 11787 Dear Mr. Guadagna: Atten: Mr. S. J. Guadagna 18 Credited testimony of Bonanno . Roberts acknowledged the conversa- tion and conceded that he said "something that I was disappointed in her-I was disappointed in the fact that she found it necessary to take the action that she did." Although the evidence does not reflect that either participant in the conversation used the word "Union," I believe it to be a reasonable inference that both knew that such was the subject matter of the conversation [see, e.g., Angwell Curtain Co. v. N LR B, 192 F.2d 899 (C.A. 7)]. is Two of the employees (Hams and Fawcett) were proofreaders who worked under the supervision of Composing Room Foreman Gallo. Rose Mary Bonanno, the TTS operator, worked in another proofroom , also under his supervision . The remaining employees all worked in the composing room area under Gallo except for the artist and camera man, Douglas Otto, and his assistant, James Vedder Otto reported directly to Plant Manager George Roberts, Jr. After thoroughly comparing all the expense of our present system of composition I have to advise that the difference of costs is too great to make any change of method. It is not without some rather mixed emotions that I write the above, for while I am sure our business rela- tions would be mutually pleasant, it is gratifying to me to realize that the system we have perfected through the years is able to be competitive to your most sophisticat- ed operation. The difference in cost is not small. It is over $25,000 and can be traced to our tremendous 85% repeat stand- ing matter, which appears to be too much for even your fine computer to overcome. I want to thank you and your associates for all the courtesy you have shown me, and to assure you of first consideration should any change occur. Yours sincerely /s/ Geo. J. Roberts Geo. J. Roberts, Pres. GEO. J. ROBERTS & SONS, INC. However, Videographic was not willing to be rejected so easily, for on June 4 its representative dispatched a three page letter to Roberts pointing out some asserted savings in cost and other advantages of utilizing a "computer type- setting service" such as theirs. This letter was followed up by a meeting of the parties on June 12 which was initiated by a telephone call from the Videographic representative made 2 or 3 days prior to June 12.20 That meeting, which lasted- several hours, apparently resulted in substantial agreement in principle between the two parties2' However, it is a fact that full agreement was not reached at that meeting since, on June 16, the Videographic repre- sentative dispatched a letter to Roberts, Sr., putting all points in writin "so that all parties would have a clear understanding of the points involved.1"22 Moreover, on June I6 or 17, George Roberts, Jr., contact- ed Gibson to arrange a meeting to resolve a couple of ques- tions that Roberts had on his mind. Accordingly, an appointment was made for Roberts to come over to the Videographic pplant on June 18. The discussion that day had to do primarily with how Videographic intended to proof- read copies and what guarantee Videographic would make to the Roberts Company that the former s work would be correct. At the conclusion of the meeting, Gibson told Rob- erts, Jr., that Videographic was in the process of having contracts drawn up an d that they would be in touch with him. Roberts responded that it was "perfectly all right with him to go ahead "23 Gibson testified that he received the contract from his attorneys on the afternoon of Friday, June 20, and so ad- vised Roberts, Sr., on the following Monday morning, June 23. It was in that conversation, however, that Roberts ad- vised Gibson that "we have a little labor difficulty here- they put up a lockout sign and they are picketing."24 This information resulted in Gibson's advising Roberts that he would have to take up the matter with his supervisors, which 20 Testimony of Roberts, Sr 21 Roberts testified that "we told Videographic that we are favorably dis- posed towards establishing their system Gibson, the Videographic represent- ative, testified that Roberts, Sr., stated upon leaving, "David, it looks like we're going to do business 22 Resp . Exh. 13. 23 Testimony of Gibson 24 This referred to the layoff of June 19 and the picketing by employees which commenced on June 20, of which more anon THE ROBERTS PRESS he did. Shortly thereafter he called Roberts and advised that Videographic could not sign the contract because they felt that they did not want to negotiate anything where there was a labor difficulty. This was apparently the last contact between Videographic and the Respondent. 2. The June 13 speech The first advice Respondent gave its employees concern- ing its negotiations with Videographic was through a speech Roberts, Sr., made to all employees during working time on the afternoon of June 13. At the outset of the speech, Rob- erts stated that he had called all the employees together to listen to what he was about to report "even tho this matter concerns only 12 of 48 that are engaged in publishing and delivering of the Handy Guide ...." He then proceeded to capsule his previous contacts with the computer company stating that he first rejected their proposal on December 9 because of his "dread of having the burden of notifying the people effected [sic] that we would have to dispense with their services."" He recounted that the company contacted him again in the Spring, but that he "again deferred a deci- sion for very much the same outstanding reason." Then Roberts turned to the advent of the Union: Last Monday [sic], out of the blue sky, I was called on by two men representing Typographical Union # 915. I promptly told them that we were not interested. They in turn told me that they had been asked to come in by 12 of our employees who requested that the union rep- resent them. Naturally I was disturbed to say the least, and in my discussion with the Union representatives the question came up of which other shops in Suffolk County were organized and I learned that there were none. I now want to read you the letter that was left with me by the Union representatives. READ THE LETTER We advised the gentlemen that we would have an an- swer for them by the 24th of June. Now I personally do not wish to appear to be against Unionism. Just about 50 years ago I was a member of Big 6 Union as an apprentice. I commuted to Long Island City from Medford, from which I took a ferry to 34th Street and walked down 1st Ave., past the hospital to 23rd Street and the East River at J. J. Little & Ives. I was an apprentice on the floor of 13 Linotype Machines. I later moved into the Electrotype Department and subse- quently took a job with Doubleday-Page at Garden City trying to get into their press room. My father carried a Big 6 card for about 30 years. His card was #5419 and I use his type gauge nearly every day, and naturally have always had respect for Big 6 . This Nas- sau Union is probably doing a good job in Nassau County and we do not have any ill will against any union. You may be aware of the fact that many book and directory publishers, as well as newspapers, operate no printing or binding facilities of their own. These opera- tions are farmed out to shops that specialize exclusively in this type of work. The advantages of this arrange- ment are obvious. Now we do not operate a job print- ing shop in the true sense of the word but in the course of our advertising business we do have a composing 25 As noted heremabove, this was not the reason he gave Videographic, since he expressed to them that the cost was excessive 461 room. I do not want to depart from truly presenting the facts to you, but, it is many years since we accepted a single job of printing. I have been requested many times by personal friends that knew I was a,pnnter, but have always declined any printing of any kind whatev- er. Every dollar we take in is strictly advertising reve- nue. We now, however, find ourselves helpless to remedy in any way this unfortunate situation that has devel- oped. We have reluctantly decided to purchase our composition from outside sources. I must now an- nounce-effective next Thursday [sic] night we are closing down our composing room, proofreading and art departments. We, of course, will endeavor to make this transition as painless as possible. We cannot how- ever, discuss the shop operation with you at this time. I suppose I should mention that our lawyer is Mr. Sidney Siben of Siben & Siben of Bay Shore.26 Accordingly, on June 19, all employees in the composing room department, including the two proofreaders (Harris & Fawcett)), the TTS operator (Bonanno), and the two em- ployees in the art and camera department (Otto and James Vedder) were terminated27 On the morning of June 20, the affected employees established a picket line around the premises of Respondent, contending a lockout, which pick- et line continued to the date of the hearings herein. F. Events Subsequent to June 20 Anthony Gallo, foreman of the composing room depart- ment, was separated from Respondents payroll on June 19 along with the other employees. However, according to his testimony, he returned to the plant on June 20-although not requested to do so-to get his personal belongings, to clean up the area, and to advise Roberts of the stage of production as it applied to the composing room. 28 He fur- ther testified that he took a couple of days off during the first of the week beginning June 20, but that about the middle of the week he commenced talking with Roberts, Sr., concerning his taking over the composing room functions on an independent contractor basis. Apparentl agreement was reached between the two men rather early because a written contract was executed on July 1, and Gallo testified that he had a copy of the contract about a week prior thereto 29 Gallo testified that he commenced hiring employ- ees on July 1 and that the aforesaid Gordon Ball was one of his first employees. His employee complement reached at its maximum a total of five employees who work on the same machines that the employees of Respondent formerly 26 G.C. Exh 22 27 One remaining employee in the composing room (Gordon Ball) was also laid off at this time, but is not included as discnminatee in this proceeding apparently because he was the only employee in the department who did not sign a union card He was one of the first employees hired by Gallo, of which more anon 28 The record indicates that there were two books in process at the time of the layoff 29 The contract (G C Exh 7) between Respondent and Anthony L. Gallo provides, inter aka, that Gallo will "prepare and furnish all composition and linotyping from copy to be supplied by the publisher," for a period of I year between July 1, 1969, and July 1, 1970 The price stipulated by the agreement for each addition of the Handy Guide is $2,110, however, provision is also made for adjustments in price per addition if required by any "additional editorial adjustments ." It is provided that Gallo has the sole and exclusive right of hiring and firing his own personnel to enable him to provide the services, and that he assumes full responsibility for compliance with all Federal and State unemployment, workmen's compensation, and income tax laws The agreement further stipulates that the services to be performed by Gallo "do not include camera work or plate making of any kind," and that if such services are necessary they will be performed by the Respondent. 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD worked on, such machines still being owned by the Respon- dent.30 Gallo further, testified that he is now operating under the trade name "Periodical Service Company," which was reg- istered on or about July 30, and that although his sole work presently is for the Respondent, he is attempting to get additional customers. None of Gallo's employees performs proofreading or art and camera work. Such work is performed by Respondent, either by its employees or contracted out. Aside from the five employees on his payroll, Gallo contracts out the TTS work formerly performedby Rose Mary Bonanno. As of the time of the hearing, Gallo has received six payments of $2,110 each for work performed on the Handy Guides. The record reflects that Gallo uses his home address and telephone number as his principal "office," at least for pur- poses of advertising for employees in local newspapers. However, he testified that he has a desk in the office which Mrs. Fawcett and Mrs. Harris formerly utilized in the proof- room adjacent to the makeup room. He also utilizes the Respondent's telephone which is located on one of the supervisor's desks in that office. Finally, Gallo testified that his employees are not covered by Blue Cross or any like health or hospitalization policy, but that he is still covered under the Respondents Blue Cross policy in this respect. IV ANALYSIS AND CONCLUDING FINDINGS (CASES 29-CA-1702 and 1712) A. The Discharge of Moller The record establishes that Moller, a concededly long- time, experienced employee, was the instigator and leading adherent of the Union in the plant. It may reasonably be inferred that Roberts, Sr., became cognizant of that fact when, shortly after he learned of the union activities in the plant from the union representatives and through his inter- rogation of Sinert, Rostocki, and Moller, the latter (unlike the other two) did not cower before him. Rather, it was Moller's firm but unprovocative assertion that the employ- ees were only acting within their rights by going to the Union with their grievances rather than to Roberts that irritated the latter to the point of threatening violence. Clearly this staunchness exhibited by Moller conveyed to Roberts that he was at the very least a guiding representa- tion, and, as the record shows, this lead directly and imme- diately to his discharge.31 Respondent's proffered reasons for the discharge do not withstand close scrutiny. In the first place, the reason given Moller at the time (That Moller was disgruntled and Rob- erts would not feel safe with him in the plant) was not that utilized by Respondent at the hearing. Rather, Respondent adopted the broader and safer term "insubordination," which is not substantiated by the record. Roberts, Sr., testi- fied as follows as respects the reason he discharged Moller: I felt that he humiliated me by engaging me in a conversation-while I was having a conversation with two other men, Mr. Moller came out and made it his business to get into the conversation, and his remarks 30 Gallo acknowledged that he is still using materials, principally lead, which were formerly used in the operation prior to June 19 and presumably owned by the Respondent. 31 This sort of timing has been often held to be an indicia of discriminatory motivation. See N.L.R.B v. Edward P Tepper, 297 F.2d 280 (C.A. 10); Martin Sprocket & Gear Co., Inc v. N LR B., 329 F.2d 417 (C A 5), N L.R.B. v. Council Manufacturing Corp, 334 F 2d 161 (C.A. 8), and cases cited therein became heated. And I thought he was out of place, coming out and kind of addressing me down for the employees rights and so forth. And prior to that I felt that he was purposely-purposely-purposely estab- lishing, I couldn't call it a slowdown, but I thought it was a make-work arrangement. And the culmination of my investigation of the amount of work he was putting out, I found that-I checked his work severaF nights and found it was very, very much less than what a journeyman would be producing. So that these two men were in this room and Mr. Moller engaged me in the dispute in front of them, it kind of made me feel humiliated. And while I had always not taken him too seriously, I know he had peculiarities, idiocyncrasies, I overlooked for a lon time. And I felt that this particular thing was kind o a challenge--challengi' g my-the respect that I think I should leave had there because I had nothing but respect for every employee I ever had. I don't think I had any that didn't respect me for- In the context of Roberts, Sr.'s, extremely hostile and almost violent antiunion attitude expressed on June 10, I can only conclude that he characterized Moller's temerity in standing up for employees' rights as a type of insubor- dination which he would not tolerate. Moreover, his ref- erence to Moller's "make-work arrangement"32 as a reason for the discharge is not substantiated by the evidence. Mol- ler testified that he had been using these type leads since he had worked there, with full knowledge and acquiescence of Foreman Gallo, which was not denied by the latter. Moreo- ver, although Moller testified that he had no recollection of Gallo ever complaining to him about any alleged slowdown in the department during the few months prior to his dis- charge, the most that Gallo could say as respects this subject was that he did "kind of mention it" to Moller one day. However, in the same conversation, Gallo advised Moller that he (Gallo) would be needing an assistant and indicated that Moller be his first choice since most of the other men were trainees. This hardly reflects a dissatisfaction with his work by Moller's immediate supervisor, and tends to con- firm the validity of Moller's testimony at the exit interview where he stated that Roberts, Sr., told him that he did not consider Moller's work unsatisfactory, that "I would not have kept you this long if I didn't think you were ca- pable.113 In sum, I find and conclude that the reasons proffered by Respondent for the discharge of Moller were pretextual and that the real reason for the discharge was in retaliation for his union activities and for the purpose of discouraging union membership in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act. In addition, I find that the threatening and intimidatory remark concerning union membership and activities made by Roberts, Sr., to Sinert, Rostocki, Moller, and Bonanno on June 10, and his interrogation of these employees con- cerning their union membership and activities in that con- text, constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion of their Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 34 32 This is with reference to one occasion in the spring of 1%9 when he noticed Moller using one point leads which presumably have an effect of delaying productions. 33 A lessening of production in the composing room may well have been extant in the Respondent's plant in the late spring of 1969. However, the cause appears to be more directly related to the termination or quitting of two skilled employees (Kelley and Kelt) rather than to any proven efforts by Moller in this regard 34 I find that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that Gallo, Roberts, Jr, or Roberts IV engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1), or that the latter was an agent of Respondent within the THE ROBERTS PRESS B. The June 19 Layoff Although Respondent argues that the permanent layoff of the other 11 card signers on June 19 was prompted solely by economic motives, I find and conclude , for the reasons hereinafter detailed, that the General Counsel sustained his burden of proof that such layoffs were motivated-at least in part 35-by the employees' union activities. The dis- charges were therefore violative of the Act. Respondent, of course, bottoms its contention of eco- nomic motivation upon the Videograhic proposals which Respondent finally determined would be beneficial to its operation. However, the timing of this decision is not help- ful to Respondent's cause. Thus, Roberts, Sr., had, only on May 31 , for the second time, rejected Videographic's pro- posals on the ground that "The difference in cost is not small . It is over $25,000 and can be traced to our tremen- dous 85% repeat standing matter, which appears to be too much for even your fine computer to overcome."36 It is true that Videographic was not to be rebuffed so easily and, on June 4, submitted a three page letter to Roberts pointing out the savings in cost to him over the long term by utilizing their equipment as well as pointing out other advantages of utilizing the Videographic method. Gibson, the Vide- ographic representative, followed this letter with a tel- e hone call on or about June 9 setting up a meeting for June 12. Between these dates, however, were the events of June 10 hereinabove described , which clearly reveal Roberts, Sr.'s extreme antipathy toward the Union coming into his plant. It is certainly a reasonable inference that Roberts viewed the advent of the Union not only as anathema to him personally but as an event which would probably result in the raising of his cost of production 37 He thus went into the June 12 meeting in a frame of mind much more readily amendable to reaching an accord with Videographic, and, as the evidence shows, an agreement in principle was reached. Based upon this understanding, Roberts made his speech on June 13 which, in itself, is revealing as to his motives. Thus after pointing out how he had initially rejected the proposition of the computer firm on two occasions based upon the close knit and family relationship which existed in his firm, he turned to the visit of the two union men which "disturbed" him principally because, as he stated, he learned from the union representatives that no other shops in Suffolk County were organized. Althoug i protesting his lack of antiunion animus, Roberts closed his speech by stating that he was "helpless to remedy in any way this unfortunate situation that has developed ," and announced the layoff. The juxtaposition of the material in the speech tends to confirm, in my view, the notion that it was the advent of the meaning of the Act. 33 N.L R.B v Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp, 309 F.2d 352, 355 (CA. 2), cert. denied 373 U.S. 950. 36 G.C. Exh. 17 37 The reasonableness of this inference is substantiated by the uncontrad- icted testimony of Union President Douglas who stated that in a telephone conversation with Company Attorney Siben on June 27 the latter said that his client was considering doing part of the composing room work by an outside computer firm at an additional cost of $20,000 a year, and before he advised his client to go ahead, he would like to discuss the matter with Douglas There were , in fact, no discussions (not due to any fault of Doug- las'), but it is to be recalled that the amount of money suggested by Siben is substantially similar to that stated by Roberts, Sr., in his May 31 letter to Videographic. This clearly indicates, in my view, Roberts' concern about costs, and, viewed in the overall context, there can be little doubt that he preferred "computerization" to "unionization." 463 Union which triggered Roberts' decision to "computerize" the composing om department. Moreover, ad ro ditional factors tend to support this conclu- sion: (1) The fact that even though, under the proposed agree- ment between Videographic and Respondent, the former was not to perform proofreading and art work, Respondent nevertheless proceeded to include employees in those classi- fications in the layoff.38 (2) Even after Roberts, Sr., was notified by Videographic on June 23 that the latter would not consummate the con- tract because of the labor dispute existing at Respondent, Roberts, Sr., did not recall any of the laid-off employees who were laid off assertedly because of such agreement. Rather Roberts set about to conclude an agreement with Gallo which would-he hoped-accomplish the same result of producing his directories on a profitable basis without becoming burdened with recognition of the Union. (3) The record shows that as recently as June 5, Roberts had purchased at an auction an expensive linotype machine and other materials (several cabinets and a linotable) total- ing approximately $4,000, which reflected an obvious in- tent, at that time, to carry on the business as it then existed. Under all circumstances , I find and conclude that Respondent's layoff of employees on June 19, as well as its subsequent agreement with Gallo, was discriminatorily mo- tivated in violation of Section 8(ax3)3 of the Act, and I will recommend an appropriate remedy. 9 C. The Alleged Refusal To Bargain 1. The appropriate unit It is to be recalled that in the letter requesting recognition presented to Roberts, Sr., by the union representative on June 10, the unit comprised "all journeymen and appren- tices performing composing room operations such as, ma- chine composition, machinists' work, hand composition, lock-up, mark-up, proofreading, teletype setting keyboard and monitoring operations , paste-makeup, plate making, camera and stnpping."40 The evidence reflects that Roberts, Sr., did not on that occasion, or at any time subsequent, contend that the unit sought was inappropriate for bargain- ing; rather, his stated objections related to the lack of skill possessed by most of the workers sought to be represented and therefore seemingly contending that they were not eligi- ble for membership in a typographical union. Composing room department employees performing work on machines similar to those extant in the Respondent's plant, and possessing similar skills, have been found to constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargain- 38 Although not specifically pleaded in its answer, nor argued in Respondent's brief, there is an implication in the testimony of Roberts, Sr., that the layoff of Otto and his assistant, Vedder, was somehow caused by his dissatisfaction with and/or lack of work for these men Roberts testified that he took up the matter with his son since "I never discussed my dissatisfaction with any of the employees directly (but compare his testimony as respects his asserted dissatisfaction with Moller). However, Roberts, Jr., characterized Otto's work as "adequate" and did not indicate in his testimony that Otto and Vedder were laid off for such reasons. In short, I find that this evidence is not sufficient to rebut the General Counsel'sprima facie case on this issue. 39 N.LR B v R C Mahon Company, 269 F.2d 44 (C.A. 6), cited by Respondent is distinguishable on its fact since both the Trial Examiner and the court in that case found a "complete lack of hostility toward the Union" by the Respondent. 40 The complaint herein alleges as an appropriate unit "all composing room employees of Respondent, exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(l1) of the Act." 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act41 Contra- ry to Respondent's contentions, I find nothing so unique or peculiar about the Respondent's operation as to distinguish it from the prevailing norm . In its brief, however, Respon- dent argues strenuously that the two proofreaders (Mrs. Harris and Mrs. Fawcett), the TTS operator (Mrs. Bonan- no), and the artist and camera man (Mr. Otto) and his assistant (James Vedder) should be excluded . I disagree for the following reasons: Mrs. Fawcett testified that she and Mrs. Harris proofread pnted from the first process right "everything that was ri through to the end until we read the final offset press proofs. .. It included everything to do with the ads and everything to do with the straight material ." The record shows that the two women performed their functions in a room labeled "proof room' which connects directly to "Repro and make- up room," a conceded part of the composing room depart- ment (Resp. Exh. 1). Their immediate supervisor was Gallo, the composing room foreman. Respondent contends that Fawcett and Harris should not be included in the unit because they were classified on the Respondent's payroll as "office" personnel and that, in any event, there were other female employees who worked in the office area who likewise performed checking and preparing functions not dissimilar from those performed by Fawcett and Hams . It is true that the record reflects that other office employees, including Roberts, Sr.'s personal secretary, oc- casionally perform a certain amount of checking and comparing copy with other material along with their other clerical duties. However, as noted, Mrs. Fawcett and Mrs. Harris were the only two employees who spent the great majority of their time performing proofreading functions and were the only two such employees who were under Composing Room Foreman Gallo 's supervision. The Board has consistently held that proofreaders whose work is substantially integrated with composing room em- ployees to be properly includable in a composing room department unit,42 even when the proofreaders work in a separate room from the composing room employees 43 I therefore find that Mrs. Fawcet and Mrs. Hams are proper- ly includable in the unit. As previously noted , the only teletype setter (TTS) opera- tor employed by Respondent on June 10 was a female em- ployee, Rose Mary Bonanno44 She performs this work in an area denominated "proofroom" which is located in the area shown as "office" on Respondent's Exhibit 1. She likewise is classified as office personnel on the Respondent 's ppayroll. However, ft record reflects that as TTS operator , she is in frequent contact with the linotype machine operator in the composing room, and is also under Gallo's supervision. The Board, in Florence Printing, included such operators in a composing room unit even though they worked in a separate room from the composing room employees. Ac- cordingly, I find the TTS operator to be properly includable in the unit sought herein. The artist-cameraman (Douglas Otto) and his assistant (James Vedder) worked in a five-room area consisting of an art office, a darkroom a camera room, Dycnl room and plate room. The artistry work consisted primarily of draw- ing and sketching figures and characters to be used in the display portion of the directory. Photography , however, had 41 See Florence Printing Company, 145 NLRB 141, enfd. 333 F.2d 289 (C.A. 4, 1964): Indiantown Printing, Inc. 169 NLRB No. 20 4Z Indiantown Printing, Inc, supra. 43 Florence Printing Company, 145 NLRB 141, at fn 1. 44 The TTS operation consists of a machine , which is essentially a typewrit- er, that punches tape, which tape is automatically fitted on a Linotype ma- chine which makes the lead slugs to do with every page in the book . He would receive copy from the composing room and "shoot it" from which a negative would be made up and burned into the Dycril plate. James Vedder testified that the work he performed consisted of "camera work, opaqueing, stripping negatives and plate making." It is undenied that Otto worked closely with Foreman Gallo and Moller in the composing room in connection with the performance of his duties. The Board has, in the past, included in lithographic units copy artists who perform functions similar to that per- formed by Otto and Vedder in this case .45 Inasmuch as the work of the artist-cameraman and his assistant in this case appear intimately associated with and related to the work o the employees in the composing room, I find that they are properly includable in the unit. I find, based upon all of the foregoing , that the unit sought by the Charging Union and as alleged in the com- plaint by the General Counsel , is appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining under Section 9(b) of the Act 47 2. The alleged refusal to bargain There is no question that, at the time of demand for recognition, the Union represented the overwhelming ma- j ority of employees in the aforesaid appropraite unit. Rob- erts, Sr., testified that he "had no occasion to doubt the signatures [on the cards]." The question remains, however, as to whether Respondent was under a legal obligation to bargain with the Union on demand. As heretofore found, the Respondent's president, upon learning of the Union's request for recognition and bargam- ing, reacted violently and immediately commenced the commission of serious unfair labor practices which included threats and interrogation concerning union activities, the discharge of the leading union adherent in the plant, and ultimately the permanent layoff of all employees who had signed union cards. Such conduct obviously made the reso- lution of the question concerning representation impossible to resolve through the election process and clearly warrants the issuance of a bargaining order as a remedy in the cir- cumstances48 V ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (CASE 29-CA-1818) This aspect of the consolidated proceedings relates to the alleged discriminatory layoff and/or discharge of two of Respondent's employees engaged in the delivery and dis- tribution of the Handy Guides. The facts and circumstances surrounding these issues may be briefly described for each alleged discriminatee as follows: 45 See Burroughs Corporation, 139 NLRB 347, 350; Allen, Lane & Scott, 137 NLRB 223, 228. 46 In its brief, Respondent, for the first time, mentions that "under the circumstances of his employment [Mr Otto] might even be considered a supervisory employee I find there is insufficient evidence on this record as to Otto's authority to hire, fire, discipline, etc, to reach a conclusion on this issue 47I have, however, in my Recommended Order, altered the language slightly to comport with the foregoing findings. 8 N L KB v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969); M. H. Brown Co, Inc, 179 NLRB No. 155, at In. 1, see also Diamond Standard Fuel Corp., 179 NLRB No. 117. In its brief, Respondent relies heavily on the Fourth Circuit's decision in NLRB. v S S Logan Packing Co., 386 F.2d 562. However, the underpinnings in that case were substantially removed by the Supreme Court in Gissel Packing, supra at 584-586 THE ROBERTS PRESS A. Andrew Fawcett, Jr. This young man is the son of Mrs. Evelyn Fawcett, a proofreader for the Respondent, who was among those found to have been discriminatorily discharged by Respon- dent on June 19. Andrew Fawcett commenced working for the Company during the summer of 1966, but, since he was at all times material a student, he only worked during peri- ods of vacation from school. His primary job was that of delivering the Handy Guides, which he ordinarily per- formed in his own car and for which he was paid on the basis of 5 cents per book and 10 cents per mile.49 When he was not engaged in delivering books, he sometimes worked about the plant sweeping the floor, in the bindery, etc. His foreman at all times material was Louis Pirozzi. Dunn& the period immediately prior to the alleged dis- crimination on June 19, the customary procedure utilized by the Respondent to em loy Fawcett was that the latter would normally notify the Company through his mother as to when he would become available for work during the vaca- tion periods, and Pirozzi would, in turn, notify him through his mother that he was to return to work on a certain day whether it was to bind books or actually commence deliv- ery. The record shows that for the summer vacation of 1969, Fawcett commenced work for Respondent during the first week of June. According to his testimony, which I generally credit, he was, on June 19, delivering Handy Guides in Syosset, New York, and had at that time completed approx- imate)y two-thirds of his distribution in that area. He re- turnedy to the plant on the afternoon of the 19th, and his mother informed him that Pirozzi wanted to see him. Pirozzi was not there at the time and, consequently, Fawcett tel- ephoned him later in the afternoon. In the telephone con- versation, Pirozzi advised that due to a lack of books they were going to temporarily stop delivery and that he (Pirozzi) would utilize the salaried drivers to finish up what books they had, and that when more books were available Fawcett could commence delivering again.50 Pirozzi advised that he would call Fawcett or notify him through his mother when it was time to start delivering books again. When Fawcett asked about his paycheck, Pirozzi advised that he would have to come in the next day to receive it. The following morning, Fawcett went to the plant but did not go inside because of the picket line which had been established by the employees who had been terminated on June 19.51 After some discussion with the picketers, Fawcett returned to his home and telephoned Pirozzi and, according to Fawcett's testimony, "asked him since I did not want to go across, I asked him if he would bring it out to me." Pirozzi replied that it was already in the mail and Fawcett, in fact, received the check the following Monday. After about 2 weeks, Fawcett obtained another job and worked elsewhere the remainder of the summer.52 Tliere was no further contact between Respondent and Andrew Faw- cett, i.e., the Company did not contact him when books 49 When he first commenced employment at Respondent, he was paid on a salary basis, but this was later changed to the piece rate described above 30 The record shows that at this time the Company employed at least two regular salaried drivers. They were Fred Dobson and John Havel, along with one George Gomez who was apparently a helper These drivers utilized trucks owned by the Company for the purpose of delivering the Handy Guides whereas the other deliveries utilized their own cars and were paid, as noted, on a piece rate basis. 51 As previously noted, the laid off employees established a picket line early in the morning of Friday, February 20 The picket signs claimed that the employees had been locked out of the plant 52 He testified that his earnings at the new job were approximately half as much as he had been making at Respondent. 465 became available for delivery, and he did not make any further contact with the Company to indicate that he was available for work.53 B. Carol Tusso Tusso commenced employment with the Company in July 1968 in the delivery department on a part-time basis. That is to say, according to her testimony, when she first started she worked 3 or 4 days a week or as many days as she chose to do so, being paid on a piece rate basis in the same manner as Andrew Fawcett. She further testified that in the spring of 1969, she worked on a more regular basis-5 or 6 days a week-but was still paid on a per book basis plus mileage.54 As in the case of Fawcett, Tusso loaded her books in the morning around 7:30 or 8 a.m. and left the premises to deliver them in the trading area to which they were direct- ed. She would normally return to the plant that afternoon or the following day to turn in a sheet on which was record- ed the number of books delivered and the mileage. On June 16, Tusso injured her foot while delivering books. The next day she went to the hospital and discovered that because of her injury she would be unable to work for a couple of weeks, anshe so informed Pirozzi the following day, June 18. He told her that that was all right, and sent her the necessary workmen's compensation forms, which she completed.55 There was no further contact between Tusso and the Respondent until July when she telephoned Pirozzi to an- nounce that she had recovered sufficiently to return to work 56 There is substantial variance as to the content of the conversation. Thus, Tusso testified that when she told Piroz- zi that she would be able to return to work the following Monday, he replied that there was no work because of the strike and that he would call her when the Bay Shore book was ready to be delivered. On the other hand, Pirozzi testi- fied that when Tusso asked if there would be work for her in the future, he said "Yes, we are binding a book a week from now on Monday. We will have work for you on a Tuesday," and that she indicated that she would be in touch with him. However, the record is clear that neither individ- ual attempted to-or did-contact the other subsequent to that telephone conversation. However, according to Tusso's testimony, she called the plant about July 10 to re uest assistance from the Company respecting the securing of a mortgage on a house which she was about to purchase.57 Tusso went to the plant on July 21 to pick up the letter,58 which stated as follows: To Whom It May Concern: 53 The evidence shows that he did not join the picket line until the first of Sejtember when he picketed for about 2 weeks before returning to school However, company records indicate that she never worked a 6 -day week and worked 5 days only approximately half of the time during the several months immediately preceeding the alleged discrimination on or about July 3 55 There is no issue here that her injury was covered under the Company's workmen's compensation policy, and that she received those monies to which she was entitled because of her accident 56 Tusso placed this conversation on or about July 3; Pirozzi placed it around July 14. 57 The record also shows that on or about July 7 Tusso applied for unem- ployment compensation, and received her first check from that source on July 28 The record is also unrefuted that the Respondent did not distribute Handy Guides from on or about July I until the end of July, due, no doubt, to the lack of production at that time. 58 This was the first time Tusso had been inside the plant since her injury. However, she had frequently visited the picketers outside the plant for the purpose of conversing with her friend, Rose Mary Bonanno, and others, although she herself did not picket. 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This is to advise that Mrs. Carol Tusso has been in our employ for the past year. She has been a part time worker for some of that period and worked full time as of late. Her work has been satisfactory in every respect. Carol's salary is based on amount of books delivered and the time and effort spent [sic] on her job. In the summer and fall months her capacity for earning is greatly increased. The possibility for continued employment is very good and we feel she can remain in our employ as long as she cares to. Yours truly THE ROBERTS PRESS George Roberts, Jr.59 There was no discussion on that occasion as to when Tusso expected-or was expected-to return to work, or when books would be available for distribution. However, on July 31, Tusso had a conversation with Roberts, Sr., in the latter's office respecting her future availability for em- ployment with the Respondent 60 As might be expected, the contents of the conversation varied between the testimony of the two participants. How- ever, since the critical issue on this aspect of the case is the motivation which prompted the Respondent to take the action it did respecting Tusso (and Roberts, Sr., is, as here- tofore found, Respondent's president who actively directs the policies and practices of Respondent), I believe it desira- ble to set forth somewhat at length Roberts' testimony con- cerning this conversation, on direct examination: A. I asked Mrs. Tusso if she could in view of the fact of her gerat friendliness for Mrs. Bonanno, if she could in justice to herself continue to deliver the Handy Guide with all the attention she had done in the past, because I said I realize that you and Mrs. Bonanno are bosom friends, and Mrs. Bonanno is for one thing, she is circulating a circular which I felt was libelous, but nevertheless this circular said that they urge you not to accept the Handy Guide when it is delivered. Now, it is just a little bit something I couldn't recon- cile how these two very real friends, one of them I asked- Q. What was said? A. I asked Mrs. Tusso if she could in all justice to herself give the same attention that she had done in the past. Q. What did Mrs. Tusso say? A. She replied that Rosemary is her very dear friend and she replied that Rosemary thinks the world of you, Mr. Roberts. "Well," I said, "I think, Mrs. Tusso, that-do you know that Rosemary is circulating a circular? And she said, "Well, yes," and I said, Mrs.-"Rose- mary is very active in trying to obstruct the delivery of the books and all I want to know from you is if you could in all justice to yourself be able to give us the 59 G. C. Exh. 30. Tusso received the letter from George Roberts, Jr., who testified that she, in fact, indicated to him the information desired, and he edited the letter in final form. 60 The matter of how this conversation was arranged is in dispute . Accord- mg to Tusso, she received a call from Roberts, Jr.'s secretary who asked her to come in to the plant . According to the direct testimony of Roberts, Sr., Tusso was there at her request ; however, on cross-examination, he stated that the only reason for the interview was to "clear up this sort of ambiguity between Rose Mary and Mrs. Tusso ," thereby implying . that he, in fact, arranged it Accordingly, I credit Tusso. same job as you always have." And she was rather vague in her answer. Q. What was her answer? A. Well, she said "Of course, I admit that Rosemary and myself are very dear friends and I will consider it,'. and I couldn't get nothing definite from her. Q. (By Mr. Wach) What was the last thing that you recall? A. Well, I think Miss Tusso said that there weren't any books available, and Mrs. Tusso I think said that she would be in touch with me. Q. Did she ever get in touch with you? A. I think she called me the next day or two days after. Q. What was that conversation? A. She said that she wanted to assure me that her great friendliness for Rosemary would not interfere with her work. I thanked her and I was a little bit surprised. Q. What was said? A. I thanked her and I said "As soon as the books are available get in touch with Louie and he will see that you have work." [Emphasis supplied] Q. What did she say? A. That was all; she said she would. That is all. Q. Was that the last time you spoke to her? A. Yes 61 There is no question that Handy Guides were delivered by the Respondent in August and that additional personnel was hired by Respondent to deliver them. Thus, the record reflects that on August 4, and thereafter, a new employee, Mildred Fuoco, delivered books (G.C. Exh. 37).62 Analysis and Concluding Findings as to Fawcett and Tusso As previously noted, the complaint on this aspect of the case alleges that the Respondent, on or about June 19, discharged Andrew Fawcett and has since failed and re- fused to reinstate him as a reprisal for his mother's engage- 61 The essence of Tusso's version of the conversation is that , after Roberts showed her the circular (G.C. Exh. 36) which urged customers not to accept the Handy Guide and not to advertise in it, he questioned whether Tusso could perform the work in view of her friendship with Rose Mary Bonanno When Tusso responded that she thought she could , Roberts indicated his concern that information respecting the number and whereabouts of the books to be distributed should not be leaked to the picketers, and suggested to Tusso that she would have to load the books at times when the picketers were not present at the plant She testified that she would think the matter over and let him know the following day as to whether she would come to work on his terms When she called the following morning, she stated that, "I told him that I was available for work, I would come in to work, but that I had one thing that I wanted to say to him, that if he didn 't trust me for doing my job or whatever, that he was wasting my time and I was wasting his. So he said "I trust you, Carol, you do a good job. I'm sorry, we have to wait I will call you when I am ready for you ." He never called. 62 Although there was no personal contact between Tusso and any man- agement representative following the July 31 conversation, there was a sec- ond letter written by the Company to the mortgage company respecting her contemplated house. Apparently the mortgage company was not satisfied with the completeness of the first letter and they requested a second letter which was written on August 15 by Roberts, Jr, as follows- Mrs. Carol Tusso who works in our delivery department has a good employment record with our Company. Her prospects for continued future employment are good. Under these circumstances we feel she is capable of earning more than $6,000 per year. THE ROBERTS PRESS ment in union activities and because "Respondent believed Andrew Fawcett had joined and assisted the Union." I have previously found that the Respondent harbored an animus against the Union and engaged in serious unfair labor prac- tices. However, it does not necessarily follow that every subsequent action by Respondent that may have an adverse effect on the working conditions of its employees constitutes an unfair labor practice. Based upon my consideration of the record as a whole, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof on this allegation of the complaint. The fact is, of course, that Andrew Fawcett never did join the Union or otherwise engaged in any union activities until he joined the picket line in September. It is also reasonable to infer that as of June 19, Respondent was aware that there would be a slackening in the production of books in the near future, due to the layoff, and that the completion of the delivery of the existing books could be accomplished with existing, salaried drivers. In these circumstances, cou led with the absence of any direct evidence , by word or deed, that Respondent intended to invoke a reprisal against Faw- cett for the union activities of his mother , I find, as noted, that evidence does not preponderate in General Counsel's favor that Respondent laid off or discharged Andrew Faw- cett for discriminatory reasons. Moreover, by Fawcett's own admission, he took the posi- tion, following the establishment of the picket line, that he did not desire to cross it even for the purpose of securing his check for the week's work. I believe that, under these circumstances, the Respondent was entitled to conclude, without further investigation , that Fawcett would not have crossed the line for the purpose of performing his Job. Ac- cordingly, and in the absence of any evidence that Fawcett subsequently notified Respondent of his availability for work, I find that Respondent did not fail and refuse to employ him after June 20 pursuant to discriminatory mo- tives.6 However, I view the circumstances somewhat differently as respects Carol Tusso. She, too, indicated her allegiance with the cause of the picketers through her frequent visits on the picket line (although she never picketed) with her friend Rose Mary Bonanno . However, her status in that regard was sufficiently ambiguous to prompt Roberts, Sr., to explore her thoughts and position a little further. Accord- ingly, on July 31 , after she had indicated her recovery from illness and availability for work, and when books were about to be distributed, he had a conversation with her in order to test her loyalty to him. His own testimony amply expresses his concern that Tusso , because of her friendship with Bonanno and the other picketers, might not be able to deliver the Handy Guide "with all the attention she had done in the past." When he placed this concern in the form 63 In its brief, Respondent raises for the first time the question of whether Fawcett or Tusso were employees of Respondent or independent contractors since they were (1) paid on a piece rate basis , (2) used their own vehicles, (3) enlisted the aid of others in the distribution (the evidence shows that some- times the drivers utilized other members of the family or outsiders to help in the distribution and presumably paid them for such services) and (4) "if they so desired, ma[de] their own hours of work and [were] generally . outside the control or supervision of the respondent " (Resp Br pp. 56-57) This is an apparent afterthought since there was no mention of this conten- tion either in the pleadings or the evidence . The established facts are that both Fawcett and Tusso had been hired as employees by the Company, had been carried for several years on the Company 's payroll like other employees and had social security and unemployment compensation taxes deducted from their pay, and were clearly under the control and direction of Foreman Pirozzi although they had a certain flexibility in their hours of work I find no merit to this contention of Respondent Air Control Products, Inc., of Tampa, 132 NLRB 114 467 of a question to Tusso, he testified that "she was rather vague in her answer," and promised to get in touch with him the next day. When she in fact called him the following day and assured him that her friendliness for Bonanno would not interfere with her work, he thanked her and was conced- edly "a little surprised." He then made the statement "as soon as the books are available pet in touch with Louie and he will see that you have work.' However, as counsel for the General Counsel succintly puts it in her brief: But this makes no sense. For how is Mrs. Tusso to know when the books were going to be available? Clearly she was in no position to know this, and if Roberts, Sr., was as willing to employ Tusso as both he and Pirozzi testified at the hearing (both conceded that she was a good and dependable deliverer of Handy Guides, and would have put her to work if she had only applied) I am convinced that he would have had Pirozzi contact her. In short, I do not credit the Respondent's explanation that Tusso was not hired because she did not further indicate her availability. Rather I am convinced and therefore find that Roberts, Sr., following his interview with her on July 31, concluded that it was too risky for him to utilize in his employ one who was so friendly with persons who were trying to `put him out of business: It is to be recalled that it was only a matter of 3 or 4 days later that the Respondent employed a new em- ployee, Mrs. Fuoco, to deliver the Handy Guide. I thus conclude and find that Respondent failed and refused to employ Tusso on and after July 31 because of her associa- tion with, and allegiance to, employees who had previously been discharged because of their union activities, and in order to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. VI THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sections III and V, above occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. VII THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent committed certain unfair labor practices, it must be ordered to cease and desist from further such conduct and to take remedial action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union on demand; accordingly, it must be ordered to bargain with that Union, in the unit found appropriate, upon demand, and in the event an agreement is reached to embody such understanding in a signed agreement. It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against its employees by discharging and/or failing and refusing to reinstate them, it must be ordered to make them whole for any loss of earnings they have suffered in consequence of the unlawful discrimination in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716, and to offer them reinstate- ment64 The unfair labor practices committed were so exten- sive in scope that the remedial injunction must be against 64 If necessary , this would entail the rescinding of the July I agreement between Respondent and Gallo, and any modification, renewal or extension thereof 468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD further commission of any unfair labor practices 65 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: Conclusions of Law 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All composing room employees of Respondent at its Patchogue, New York, plant including employees who per- form machine composition, hand composition, roofread- ing, teletype setting, plate making, camera andpstripping, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union was on June 10, 1969, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the Respondent's employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain with the Union as the collective- bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engagin in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By discriminating against George Scott, Angelo Stekar- dis, Rose Mary Bonanno, Evelyn Fawcett, James Vedder, Richard Vedder, Morton Sinert, Douglas Otto, William G. Rostocki, Arthur Leffert, Amelia Hams, Herbert Moller, and Carol Tusso in their employment, the Respondent has engaged in conduct to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. By the foregoing conduct, by coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, and by threat- ening reprisals for joining the Union and engaging in union activities, the Respondent and its agents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER66 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is ordered that George J. Roberts & Sons, Inc., doing business as the Rob- erts Press, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Long Island Typographical Union No. 915, affiliated with the International Typographical Union, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 65 This remedy should not be construed to forever preclude Respondent from "computerizing" its composing room department if such decision is reached in good faith and for nondiscriminatory reasons, and subject to Respondent's bargaining concerning this decision with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees. See The Red Cross Drug Company, 174 NLRB No 17, enfd 419 F 2d 1284 (C A 7, 1969) 66 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its employees because of their union membership and activi- ties. (c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening reprisals for joining the union or engaging in union activities, or in any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appro- priate unit described above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other terms and condi- tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, anmake them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in that portion of this decision entitled "The Remedy": George Scott, Angelo Stekardis, Rose Mary Bonanno, Evelyn Fawcett, James Vedder, Rich- ard Vedder, Morton Sinert, Douglas Otto , William G. Ros- tocki, Arthur Leffert, Amelia Harris, Herbert Moller, and Carol Tusso. (c) Notify the above-named employees, if presently serv- ing in the Armed Forced of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board of its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its plant in Patchogue , New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ."67 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, 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 . Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 67 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted By Order Of The National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant To A Judgment Of The United States Court Of Appeals Enforcing An Order Of The National Labor Relations Board." THE ROBERTS PRESS 469 (f) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 IT Is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been consolidated complaint be dismissed in all respects other taken to comply herewith.68 than those found to have been sustained in the above find- ings and conclusions. 68 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent provision shall be modified to read - "Notify said Regional Director, in has taken to comply herewith."