Advanced Business Forms Corp.

ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 341 Advanced Business Forms Corp. and George Najdek and Barbara Marie Fasano and Joseph Kirklewski and New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO Respondent's postelection campaign of reprisals and itself violated Section 8(a)(1). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Advanced Business Forms Corp. and New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO and Eugene Sannuto. Cases 29-CA-2192-1, 29-CA-2192-2, 29-CA-2192-3, 29-CA-2192-4, 29-CA-2259, and 29-CA-2288 November 24, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 17, 1971, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Advanced Business Forms Corpora- tion, Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to find an 8(a)(1) violation ansmg out of the Respondent's action in requiring the strippers in the prep department to keep tunesheets for every job performed. We find merit in this exception This new requirement imposed on the strippers coincided with Respondent's imposition of onerous conditions, found violative of Section 8(a)(l) herein, and Respondent has offered no explanation for the change. Accordingly, we find that the record-keeping requirement was part and parcel of OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner: This consolidated case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on May 17 and 18, 1971, pursuant to charges filed on November 23 and 24 and December 1, 1970, and February 2 and 22, 1971, respectively, and a complaint and amended complaint issued on February 12 and March 25, 1971. The consolidated amended complaint, as further amended at the hearing, alleges that the Respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate three employees, laid off two other employees for a 2-month period, reduced the wages of two other employees, and made certain detrimental changes in the terms and conditions of employment of its employees, all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The consolidated amended complaint further alleges that commencing in January 1971 the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, from my observation of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a New York corporation, operates a small printing plant at Ronkonkoma, New York, where it is engaged in the printing, sale, and distribution of business forms and related products. During the year preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint the Respondent shipped more than $50,000 worth of printed materials to out-of-state purchasers. Upon the foregoing facts, which are based on the undenied allegations of the amended consolidated complaint, I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 194 NLRB No. 52 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discriminatory Discharges and Layoffs; Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Background The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Retrieval Control Systems, a publicly owned corporation, the president of which is John Montague . Prior to early February 1971 the day-to-day management of the Respon- dent was left to James Orrach, the Respondent's president. Late in August 1970 Orrach hired Arthur Kunzweiler to take charge of the Respondent's pressroom and preparato- ry department, which is more familiarly known as the prep department. The prep department is where the art work, the photography, and the making of the plates which are run on the presses is done. The bindery department, which is not part of the unit here involved, was under the supervision of Michael Orrach, James Orrach's brother. Elsworth Bruckner, who had worked for the Respondent since 1966, had previously served as a supervisor over the pressroom and the prep department for some time. However, in February 1970 the Respondent, in an effort to achieve greater production, relieved Bruckner of his responsibilities over the pressroom, making Ernest Harders, one of the pressmen, foreman of the pressroom, and leaving Bruckner in charge of the prep department . This was the situation when Kunzweiler assumed his duties as supervisor over the pressroom and prep department on August 31, 1970. Shortly before Kunzweller's arrival President Orrach explained the planned change in supervision to Harders and Bruckner and offered them the opportunity to return to their former jobs as pressmen . He indicated that a reduction in pay would be involved. When Kunzweiler assumed his new duties he informed both Bruckner and Harders that the most he could pay them was $215 a week, the Respondent's top rate for pressmen . This meant a reduction in pay of $25 a week for Bruckner and $10 a week for Harders. Both men decided to go back on the presses. However, for some reason or other the pay of the two men was not immediately reduced. 2. The layoffs of September 18 On Saturday, September 12, about nine of the Respon- dent's press and prep department employees met with Julius Seide, the business representative of the Union, at the Blue Dawn Diner. This meeting was apparently arranged by Bruckner and Harders. Some of the employees signed union bargaining authorization cards at this meeting. On September 16 Seide filed a petition with the Board's 1 The termination of Piscam is not involved in this case. 2 Kunzweiler testified that Yarosz was not recalled because he could not operate the presses which the Respondent had at this time. According to Kunzweiler, Yarosz had previously operated two presses which the Respondent had itself converted to offset presses and that these presses had been sold before Kunzweiler went to work for the Respondent. Kunzweiler further stated that evidently Yarosz had been "doing a good job" on these presses, but that in his opinion Yarosz could not be trained to run the remaining presses "production wise." Kunzweiler claimed to have known Yarosz for about 3 years and that he knew his "capabilities " I have difficulty accepting Kunzweiler's appraisal of Yarosz in view of the Regional Office for certification as the bargaining repre- sentative of the Respondent's press and prep department employees, a unit consisting of about 12 employees. A copy of the petition was served on the Respondent,on Friday, September 18, 1970. At the end of the first shift that same day the Respondent suddenly laid off four of the pressmen who had attended the union meeting on September 12, Walter Yarosz, Eugene Sannuto, Joseph Kirklewski, and Carl Piscani.1 Kirklewski and Sannuto, who were then working on the third shift commencing at midnight, were notified late that day at their homes not to come in to work that night, which was the last night in that workweek. This was the first layoff of any employees at the plant in the experience of Bruckner who had been employed by the Respondent since 1966. The explanation given for the layoffs was that work was slow. Walter Yarosz had worked for the Respondent since April 1967 and, with the exception of the last 6 weeks of his employment, had operated a press. Yarosz had previously worked under Orrach as a pressman for 4 years when both had been employed by Logan's Business Forms, another printing establishment. When early in August the Respon- dent acquired a new piece of equipment in the prep department, an automatic plating machine, Yarosz was transferred to the prep department, trained on the operation of the plater, and given other prep room duties such as helping with the negatives. He also continued work part-time on a press. Pressmen Kirklewski and Sannuto who were laid off on this occasion had been hired by the Respondent more recently, Kirklewski on April 13, 1970, and Sannuto in July 1970. Sannuto had also worked for some months in 1968 and again in 1969. However, Michael Auriccio was hired as a pressman after both Kirklewski and Sannuto in 1970. The Respondent retained Auriccio in its employ after laying off Kirklewski and Sannuto. Supervisor Kunzweiler explained, when Kirklewski questioned him about his layoff, that the Respondent did not follow "union seniority." Yarosz, Kirklewski, and Sannuto had all signed union cards at the meeting on September 12. Supervisor Kunzweiler, who participated in the decision to layoff the men, admitted being aware at that time that they were union sympathizers. On September 29, less than 2 weeks after the Respondent laid off Yarosz, the Respondent hired Barbara Fasano to work full-time in the prep department. Recently Yarosz had been working most of the time in the prep department. The Respondent reinstated Kirklewski on November 16 on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift. The Respondent recalled Sannuto on November 30 and placed him on the midnight shift. Yarosz has not been recalled to work.2 fact that Yarosz had worked for the Respondent as a pressman for 4 years, and that he had worked under Orrach as a pressman at Logan Business Forms for 4 years before that. Orrach certainly would not have hired Yarosz to work for the Respondent in the first place had not he been satisfied with his capabilities. In any event Yarosz had been spending most of his time in the prep department in the last 6 weeks of his employment and no contention is made that his work there was anything but satisfactory. I conclude that Kunzweiler's derogatory comments about Yarosz' capabilities were exaggerated. I found Kunzweiler prone to make sweeping statements supporting the Respondent's case, without regard to their accuracy. For reasons more fully stated below in the section entitled (Continued) ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 343 3. The Respondent's conduct in the preelection period; the election; subsequent events On October 13 President Orrach and Business Represent- ative Seide entered into an agreement for consent election at the Board's Regional Office providing that the Regional Director should conduct an election among the Respon- dent's pressmen and prep department employees on November 4. Upon returning from the Regional Office, Orrach called a meeting of the pressmen and the prep department employees. At this meeting Orrach stated as follows, according to George Najdek's credited and undenied testimony: He had said that they had just come back from the Labor Board and that they . . . really didn't want the union, but they wanted to set up the election so that they would get it over with and get down to normal business again. * He had said that there would be no raises given because everything was frozen at that time until after the election. He had said that he thought they had a pretty good company, they had pretty good benefits, and if anybody had any gripes they should have come to him and discussed them. Thereafter the Respondent sent out a letter to the employees citing the benefits which they enjoyed-6 days of sick leave, 10 holidays, a medical plan, a dental plan, and vacations. About a week before the election Orrach called Anita Risener into the office and asked her to bring her copy of the letter with her. (Until about the time of the election Risener had been a leadwoman in the prep department.) In the office Orrach questioned Risener as to how she felt about the Union and told her, as her undenied testimony establishes, that he "hoped that [she] would be with the company and vote for the company." On Friday, October 30, 5 days before the election, Orrach held another meeting of the employees in the pressroom and the prep department on both shifts. (The third shift in the pressroom had been discontinued with the layoff of Kirklewski and Sannuto.) At this meeting Orrach, after again citing the various benefits which the Respondent gave them, stated, in Barbara Fasano's words, that "they were very much against the union coming in." "The Respondent's Contentions Concerning the Layoffs and Discharges" I am convinced that the quality of Yarosz' work was not a factor of any significance in Yarosz' selection for layoff. 3 Najdek's testimony above quoted is corroborated by Barbara Fasano who overheard Orrach's statement to Najdek. Orrach was not called as a witness. While Kunzweiler denied hearing Orrach make any such statement, for the reasons indicated above I credit the mutually corroborative testimony of Najdek and Fasano in preference to Kunzweiler's denial. 4 I find, in accordance with the General Counsel's contention, that Orrach's threat to Fasano and his earlier threat to layoff Najdek, violated Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act The General Counsel further contends that Orrach's presence in the bar on the occasion of the November 2 meeting amounted to illegal surveillance of union activities. While ordinarily the presence of a management official in a public place while a union meeting is in progress, On Monday, November 2, as George Najdek was running the Schreiber press, Orrach and Kunzweiler, came over to the press. It was not functioning as it should. While they were there at the press Orrach warned Najdek, as he testified, "If the Union gets in, I will have to lay you off." 3 A union meeting was planned for Monday evening, November 2. As Orrach was leaving Naj dek's press on this occasion he remarked to Najdek, "Don't forget the meeting tonight." The union meeting that night was held in a bar across from the Ronkonkoma Railroad station. While it was in progress Orrach came in and sat at the bar. After a while Business Representative Seide went over and spoke a few words to Orrach. Shortly thereafter Orrach left. The next day, November 3, Orrach had a conversation with Kunzweiler in the prep department within the hearing of George Najdek and Barbara' Fasano. In the course of this conversation, as Fasano credibly testified, Orrach stated that "Anyone seen at the meeting last night won't be here for long." After making this remark Orrach turned around and grinned at Fasano, thereby indicating that this remark was intended for Fasano's ears.4 At the election which was held on November 4, 7 of the 11 eligible voters cast their ballots in favor of the Union. The Regional Director thereafter, on November 18, 1970, certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the Respondent's pressmen and prep department employees. Commencing immediately after the election the Respon- dent made various changes in working conditions which worked to the detriment of the employees. These changes were made without consulting the Union. Kunzweiler told Najdek to turn off the radio in the darkroom. Previously he had not objected to the radio being played softly. The half- hour lunch period was advanced from 12:30 to 12 which was before the lunch wagon arrived. This meant that employees either had to bring their lunches from home or hurry out and attempt to get lunch in the restaurant and get back in a half-hour. The dial was taken out of the inside telephone so that the employees had to use the public telephone by the presses to make outgoing calls, and at the same time their incoming calls were restricted. For the first time, the strippers in the prep department were required to keep timesheets for every job they did. A change was made in the manner of computing the bonus which the employees normally received at Christmas, which resulted in some employees receiving less bonus than before or none at alls without more, is insufficient to establish such surveillance, I find, in view of Orrach's knowledge of the meeting beforehand and his later threat to discharge those employees attending, that Orrach's presence in the bar on this occasion was not a mere coincidence, but was a deliberate effort to ascertain the identity of the employees attending. Such conduct clearly cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Act. 5 I find that the above changes in working conditions, excepting the timesheet requirement for strippers and the Christmas bonus change, were put into effect in order to retaliate against the employees for voting for the Union in the election and to discourage their continued adherence to the Union. Such retaliatory conduct which adversely affected the working conditions of the employees not only constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec. 8(a)(I) of the Act but also antiunion discrimination in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3). The record fails adequately to establish that the new recordkeeping requirement for strippers was (Continued) 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The discharge of George Najdek on.November 6 George Najdek, who already had a full-time daytime job elsewhere, was hired by the Respondent in April 1970 to work as a paper handler from 5 to 10 p.m. In June Najdek decided that the two jobs were too much for him and quit the Respondent's employ. Orrach told Najdek when he left that he was a good worker and would consider employing him on a full-time basis. In July, Orrach called Najdek and told him that he was willing to start him as a trainee on the presses at $160 per week. Najdek accepted this offer. Najdek was one of the employees who signed union cards at the meeting on September 12. Najdek was working on the presses when Kunzweiler arrived on the scene, replacing Harders and Bruckner as supervisors over the pressroom and prep department. After Harders and Bruckner started working as pressmen Najdek spent most of his time in the prep department. Anita Risener, a long service employee and a former leadwoman in the prep department, testified that the only comments which she heard about Najdek's work in the prep department were favorable ones. On Friday, November 6, Najdek worked in the darkroom shooting negatives all morning. At lunchtime, Kunzweiler put him to work opaquing negatives and brought in a bindery employee, Casty Rodriquez, to complete Najdek's camera work. After lunch, Najdek saw Orrach discussing machinery with Kunzweiler in the preparatory department and heard Orrach say that the machinery Respondent was thinking of purchasing would enable it to get rid of "some of these monkeys around here." After work that day, upon instructions from Kunzweiler, Najdek went to Orrach's office where Orrach told him he was laying him off. He gave him no reason, but did state that he was the fifth man laid off, he would be the fifth man called back, and that he hoped he never had to call him back. Najdek has not been recalled to work. 5. The discharge of Barbara Fasano on November 20 As found above, Fasano was hired on September 29 after she made an application in response to an ad placed by the Respondent in a local newspaper for a trainee as camera operator and platemaker. She was trained in her work in the prep department by Anita Risener, who formerly had been a leadwoman in the prep department, and by Kunzweiler. Risener testified at the trial that Fasano's work was very good and that Kunzweiler had said that "he was surprised that she caught on very quickly to the new platemaker." Kunzweiler's testimony concerning Fasano's work is discussed below. After work on November 4, the day of the election, a group of employees, including Fasano, gathered at Mahoney's bar to celebrate the Union's victory. As they instituted for antiunion reasons, in my opinion. With respect to the Christmas bonus change, the Respondent explained that this was done to make the Respondent's policy in this regard uniform with that of its parent company, Retrieval Control Systems. (Retrieval purchased the Respondent in October 1969). The General Counsel, in my opinion, has failed to establish that the Respondent had an illegal motive in making this change. were standing at the front of the bar, Orrach walked in with his nephew and stood at the middle of the bar. Orrach, in a loud voice, said to the bartender, "Don't serve those queers." Later, after using considerable profane language, Orrach went up to Fasano and asked her why she voted for the Union. When Fasano replied that she felt it was right, Orrach started arguing with her and ended up by asking her why she had not come to him if she wanted more moneys As indicated above, Fasano's duties in the prep department involved work in the darkroom "shooting" copy with a camera on to a negative and then, after the negative had been stripped or otherwise processed by another employee, "burning" the negative onto an aluminum plate on the automatic platemaker. Fasano preferred platemaking to camera work and did considera- bly more platemaking than camera work, although she never failed to do any assigned camera work, as Kunzweiler admitted. In burning the negatives on to the plates it is possible to spoil them so that they cannot be used on the presses. It was the practice before the election for the operators of the platemaker to place their spoiled plates in a box behind Tony Trapanotto's- desk. Trapanotto would give the proceeds from the sale of the spoiled plates to the Cub Scouts. One day during the week after the election Fasano spoiled a plate and went to place it in the box behind Trapanotto's desk. Trapanotto instructed her to place it on Kunzweiler's desk. Later on that day Fasano questioned Trapanotto as to why her plates were the only plates to be placed on Kunzweiler's desk., Trapanotto told her to ask Kunzweiler this question. On Wednesday, November 11, all six pressmen and two prep department employees, Fasano and Risener, did not report for work in protest against Najdek's discharge on the previous Friday. All these employees apparently called in sick. The next day Kunzweiler made a sarcastic reference to Fasano's having been sick the day before. When Fasano objected, Kunzweiler stated as follows, as she credibly testified: "If you don't like what I say to you, you can leave right now." Kunzweiler went on to say, according to •Fasano, "You just better watch it because I have 50 plates of yours that are spoiled, and one more spoiled plate you won't have your job." Fasano was discharged on November 20 under the circumstances discussed below. An incident involving Kirklewski and Orrach a day or so before Fasano's discharge casts light on the Respondent's motives in discharging Fasano. It will be recalled that the Respondent reinstated Kirklewski on November 16 on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift. During the first week after Kirklewski's return to work he and Bruckner went to a local bar after work. A few minutes later Orrach and another man walked in and Orrach sat down beside Bruckner. Orrach immedi- ately started making abusive and profane remarks about the Union, Business Representative Seide, and the The 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations of the amended consolidated complaint based on the change in the recordkeeping requirement for strippers and the change in the manner of computing the Christmas bonus are hereby dismissed. 6 The foregoing findings are based on Fasano's credited and undemed testimony. ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 345 employees who voted for the Union. In particular, Orrach made comments, according to Kirklewski's credited and undenied testimony, "about . . . how he's going to get rid of the people one by one, all the people that try to hurt him and all the people who voted for the Union." No more than 2 or 3 days after this incident Orrach and Kunzweiler stopped Fasano as she was leaving the prep department after work. Kunzweiler informed her that she was to be "let go." Fasano continued on to the timeclock and then went into the ladies' room.' There was no further conversation at this time. On Monday, November 23, Fasano and Najdek went to the Board's Regional Office where they filed charges alleging that they had been discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. On the following day Kirklewski filed a charge with the Regional Office alleging a discriminatory layoff on September 18 and that the Respondent had illegally threatened him since his return to work on November 16. 6. The reduction in the pay of Bruckner and Harders As found above, prior to the coming of Kunzweiler, Bruckner had been the foreman over the prep department at a salary of $240 a week and Harders had been in charge of the pressroom at $225 a week. Upon the arrival of Kunzweiler on August 31, they were demoted to pressmen and were informed that their pay would be reduced. This was before there were any union activities at the plant. Apparently, at the second bargaining meeting between the Respondent and the Union on December 2 records as to the employees' wages furnished by the Respondent to the Union revealed to the Respondent that the wages of Bruckner and Harders had never been cut. In any event, after a discussion of this matter at the meeting, the Respondent put through instructions that the pay of Bruckner and Harders be reduced to $215 a week, the Respondent's top rate for pressmen. The reduction was effective at the beginning of the payroll week ending December 9 and the employees received their first reduced paycheck on December 11. The General Counsel takes the position that this action was taken after the Respondent was informed by Kirklew- ski that Bruckner and Harders were the original organizers of the union movement and that such action violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. However, I find that the occasion on which Kirklewski related to Orrach that Bruckner and Harders were the union instigators occurred around Christmas, after the action was taken against Bruckner and Harders. In any event, Bruckner and Harders accepted jobs as pressmen with the understanding that their wages would be cut, before there was any union on the scene. I conclude that Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act was 9 The General Counsel also contends that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act in connection with the reduction in pay of Bruckner and Hardets. However, Union Business Representative Seide testified that the reduction in Bruckner's and Harders' pay was discussed at a bargaining meeting before the pay cut was put into effect. In view of this fact and the further fact that Bruckner and Harders had been informed that their pay would be cut when they returned to the presses-before the arrival of the Union on the scene-this contention is rejected . The 8(aX5) allegations of the complaint based on the reduction in pay of Bruckner and Harders are not violated by the Respondent's conduct in connection with the reduction in pay of Bruckner and Harders. The allegations of the consolidated amended complaint to this effect are hereby dismissed.? 7. The Respondent's contentions; conclusions concerning the layoffs and discharges a. The layoffs of September 18 In its answer to the consolidated amended complaint the Respondent took the position that these personnel actions were taken because of economic conditions. The Respon- dent did not itself offer any records to substantiate its claim of poor economic conditions. However, it did furnish to the General Counsel a monthly income statement comparison for the months of March 1970 through February, 1971, which the General Counsel offered in evidence, which indicates, assuming that the management allocation figure of $1,800 per month is a reasonable one, that the Respondent had suffered financial losses in recent months under the Respondent's system of calculating its profits and losses. However, the testimony of the Respondent's witness who was most knowledgeable about the nature of the Respon- dent's problem at this time, John Montague, the president of the Respondent's parent company, strongly suggests that the solution to this problem did not lay in a reduction in force at this time.8 Thus, Montague testified that the Respondent was losing sales because it could not make the prompt deliveries which its customers desired and that the delays in deliveries were caused by the Respondent's failure to keep sufficient presses in operation to reduce the timelag between the receipt of the order to delivery from 6 weeks to the desired 2 or 3 weeks .9 The only other witness called by the Respondent to discuss the reasons for the layoffs of the pressmen was Supervisor Kunzweiler, who had been in the Respondent's employ only 3 weeks at the time of the layoffs. Kunzweiler testified that with the three shifts in operation "production obviously had picked up quite a bit and we had the lack of sales. The volume fell down to nothing.. . . We just didn't have the backlog." Kunzweiler's testimony appears to be refuted by the records as to the Respondent's monthly net sales appearing on the monthly income statement compari- son furnished by the Respondent. These records show that the Respondent's net sales were up in August 1970 over July and up again in September 1970 over August to a level well above the average net sales for the 7-month period ending in September 1970. Kunzweiler further testified that the return of Bruckner and Harders to the pressroom resulted in there being two extra pressmen and that with the decision to discontinue the night shift, the Respondent had an excess of four pressmen. However, in view of hereby dismissed. 8 The Respondent did not call as a witness President Orrach, who was in charge of the Respondent's operations during this period. Orrach severed his connection with the Respondent in early February 1971, at the instance of Montague, and received a financial settlement at this tune. 9 Montague further testified that the Respondent, without his knowledge, had gotten rid of two presses, which further compounded the problem of obtaining sufficient production on the remaining presses to make the prompt deliveries which customers expected. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Montague's testimony in effect that the Respondent's problem was due to insufficient operating time on the presses, an excess number of pressmen would appear to be a boon rather than a bane, assuming that the Respondent's net sales remained fairly level, which the Respondent's monthly income statement comparison shows they did. Furthermore, the Respondent had considerable turnover of employees, including pressmen, at its plant. The record shows that the Respondent hired Najdek as a part-time paper handler in April, hired Kirklewski, Gibbons and Auriccio as pressmen in April or May, and hired Sannuto as a pressman and rehired Najdek as a pressman-trainee in July. In addition, the Respondent hired Fasano to work in the prep department in September. Thus there were seven hirings of unit employees in the 6-month period from April through September. In view of the fact that the number of employees in the unit fluctuated from about 11 to about 14 employees, the seven hirings represented half or more of the unit workforce. Since the Respondent's net sales do not fluctuate too widely, these seven hirings indicate that the Respondent had considerable turnover, and it was mainly among the pressmen. Experiencing such turnover among ,pressmen, the Respondent might have been expected to exercise greater restraint-in laying off experienced press- men. It should also be borne in mind that the September 18 layoff was the first layoff at the plant within the memory of Elsworth Bruckner who had been with the Respondent since 1966. This circumstance also militates against acceptance of the Respondent's explanation for the layoff of the four men on September 18. As found above, all four men laid off on September 18 had, attended the union meeting on September 12. The record shows with respect to'the employees here involved, Yarosz, Kirklewski, and Sannuto, that they had all signed union cards at this meeting . Kunzweiler, who participated in the discussions leading up to the layoffs, was admittedly aware at the time of the layoffs that Yarosz, Kirklewski, and Sannuto were union sympathizers. Orrach's opposition to having a union in the plant is revealed in his talks to the employees before the November 4 election, his threat of layoff to Najdek on November 2, his remark on November 3, which I have found were intended for Barbara Fasano's ears, to the effect that anyone at the union meeting on November 2 "won't be here for long," and his abusive conduct and threat of discharge made in the bar in the presence of several employees during the week of Novem- ber 16. The Respondent's hostility to the Union is further seen in the restrictive measures put into effect immediately after the election, such as the stopping of the use of radios in the darkroom, the advancement of the lunch hour to a time which was inconvenient for the employees, and the restrictions placed upon the use of telephones in the plant. These measures, in my opinion, were instituted by the Respondent in retaliation against employees for having voted for union representation and were intended to demonstrate to the employees its displeasure at their action in this regard. Taking into consideration the implausibility of the Respondent's explanation for the layoffs, the timing of the layoffs, less than a week after the organizing meeting which all four employees attended, the Respondent's knowledge of the union sympathies of the four laid-off employees, and the abundant evidence of the Respondent's hostility to the Union, I conclude that the Respondent effected the September 18 layoffs in a show of force which was intended to intimidate the remaining employees into abandoning their union adherence. These layoffs, therefore, were violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. b. The discharge of Najdek on November 6 The Respondent's answer states that Najdek was discharged for "incompetency." However, the Respondent introduced no evidence whatever concerning Najdek's competence or ability as an employee . The fact that Orrach sought Najdek out and rehired him after Najdek quit working part-time for the Respondent indicates that Orrach regarded him as a good worker . Najdek's undenied testimony is that Harders, under whom Najdek worked as a press trainee, told him that he "was doing very well, and ... would make a good pressman." And, as stated above, Risener, the former leadwoman in the prep department, had heard only favorable comments about Najdek's work in the prep department. As found above, on November 2 Orrach threatened Najdek with a layoff if the Union won the election. On November 6, 2 days after the Union's victory in the election, Orrach carried out his threat and laid Najdek off. Under all the circumstances, including the Respondent's failure to adduce any evidence of incompetency on Najdek's part and the Respondent's demonstrated hostility to the Union, I conclude that Najdek's layoff was a further measure of retaliation against the employees for choosing union representation. c. The discharge of Barbara Fasano on November 20 As found above, Fasano was hired on September 29, apparently as a replacement for Walter Yarosz who was one of those laid off on September 18. She was discharged on November 20, assertedly "for incompetency and refusal to carry out orders of her superiors." The only testimony even remotely supporting the Respondent's claim that Fasano refused to follow orders was Kunzweiler's testimo- ny that Fasano was uncooperative with respect to working on the camera in the darkroom. According to Kunzweiler, he hired Fasano intending that she spend the major portion of her time on the camera and yet she managed somehow to spend almost all of her time on the platemaker . When asked to explain how this came about Kunzweiler testified that all of Fasano's negatives had to be shot over. Victoria Severin, another prep department employee, testified that Fasano had a considerably higher percentage of rejected negatives than anyone else working on the camera, including Tony Trapanotto, Casty Rodriquez, George Najdek and herself. However, as Kunzweiler testified, Fasano spent only about one percent of her time in the camera room, and as the testimony above related indicates , the Respondent had other ' employees in the prep department who were proficient on the camera operation . Kunzweiler himself testified that Fasano had never refused to obey any order regarding working on the camera . In my opinion the ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 347 Respondent's complaint against Fasano because of her work on the camera is considerably overstated. Regarding Fasano's work on the platemaker, which consumed almost all of Fasano's time, Kunzweiler testified that while Fasano did a fairly good job in the beginning "the longer she was there the worse she was getting." Kunzweiler testified that Fasano spoiled about 2 of the 60 plates she made in a normal workday and that an experienced platemaker should not spoil any plates. Fasano did not deny that she spoiled plates. But Fasano did testify, without any contradiction from Kunzweiler, that she did not spoil any plates for some days after the conversation with Kunzweiler in which he asserted that he had 50 plates which she had spoiled. The next time Fasano spoiled a plate, which must have been very close to the day of her discharge, nothing was said to Fasano about it. The Respondent did not call Trapanotto, the foreman in the prep department at the time of Fasano's discharge and who was therefore most familiar with the quality of Fasano's work, to testify concerning Fasano's ability in operating the platemaker. Upon consideration of all the facts I conclude that Kunzweiler was again exaggerating when he testified concerning Fasano's alleged shortcomings as a worker. As found above, on November 3, after a union meeting held the night before, Orrach, in words intended for Fasano's ears, warned that "Anyone seen at the meeting last night won't be here for long." After the Union won the election Fasano openly defended her vote for the Union when Orrach questioned her about the matter in the bar shortly after the votes were counted.10 Fasano and Risener were the only prep department employees who walked out on November 11 with the pressmen in protest against Najdek's discharge. I have found that Najdek was discharged as a retaliatory measure because of the employees' selection of the Union as their bargaining agent. Under all the circumstances of the case, including particularly Fasano's prominent support of the Union's cause by walking out on November 11, I conclude that the Respondent's discharge of Fasano on November 20 was primarily motivated by its desire to get rid of this prominent union supporter among the prep department employees. Fasano's discharge, therefore, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. B. The Refusal To Bargain Collectively; the Strike 1. The negotiations before the strike After the Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the Respondent's pressroom and prep department,1' the parties met for collective-bargaining purposes on approximately 10 The General Counsel contends that Orrach's questioning of Fasano about why she voted for the Union, and his earlier questioning of Risener about her union sympathies constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the context of threats of reprisals and actual layoffs in which these instances of questioning occurred, I agree that Orrach's questioning of Fasano and Risener was coercive. u The agreed upon appropriate collective-bargaining unit is stated as follows: All pressroom and preparatory employees, pressmen, assistant pressmen, cameramen, platemakers, and strippers. excluding office eight occasions before the strike and once during the strike. The principal negotiators at the five meetings in November and December 1970 and January 1971 were Julius Seide, the Union's business representative, for the Union, and President Orrach and Ralph Bartell, for the Respondent. Bartell is secretary of an association of employers in the printing industry, herein called the Printer's League, which bargains collectively with the Union and has an associa- tionwide contract with the Union covering the employees of a number of employers in the area which have authorized the Printer's League to bargain collectively for them on an associationwide basis. The Respondent has not given the Printer's League such authority and Bartell's role in the negotiations with the Union in this case is only that of one of the Respondent's negotiators. However, because of Bartell's position in the Printer's League he is familiar with the terms of the associationwide Printer's League contract, which contains a union-security clause. The first meeting of the parties on November 19 was devoted mainly to the parties exchanging information with each other, the Respondent furnishing information con- cerning the present wages and working conditions and the kinds of presses and equipment in the shop, and the Union indicating generally its goal in the negotiations which was gradually to raise the wages and other terms and conditions of employment to the levels contained in the Printer's League contract. It was mutually agreed at the outset that any contract arrived at by the Union would be discussed with the employees before any contract would be signed, and that in the case of the Respondent, the approval of Montague, the president of the Respondent's parent company was necessary. The record shows that Montague was kept informed by Orrach of the progress of the negotiations in the meetings which were held on November 19, December 2, 22, and 28, and on January 28, 1971. At these meetings the parties tentatively arrived at a schedule for gradually raising wages and other terms and conditions of employment up to the level set in the Printer's League contract. The Respondent sought 3 years in which to accomplish this and the Union contended for a 2-year period. The parties compromised on a 2-1/2 -year period. At the December 28 meeting the parties reached tentative agreement on all the economic provisions proposed, excepting the account of the Respondent's contribution to the Union's pension and education funds, and payment for unused sick leave. At this meeting the Respondent proposed a maintenance-of-membership clause in lieu of the union-security clause which was standard in the Printer's League contract.12 Orrach indicated that the Respondent would insist upon this provision. Seide flatly rejected this proposal. A few other minor non-economic clerical employees, professional employees, bindery employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 12 Under a standard maintenance-of-membership clause all of the employees who are members of a union at the tune of signing the contract and all other employees who thereafter become members, are required, as a condition of employment, to maintain their union membership for the duration of the contract. CCH Union Contract Clauses, 1954 Ed., sec 51079.02 Since employees who do not voluntarily join the Union are not required to join as a condition of retaining their employment, compulsory unionism is not a feature of maintenance-of-membership clauses. 348 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD provisions remained to be settled after this meeting due to the fact that they had not yet been discussed. The next meeting was held on January 28. Seide offered compromises with respect to the pension contribution and sick pay provisions. The Respondent still insisted on a maintenance-of-membership clause, which Seide again rejected. The next day in a telephone call Seide sought to have Bartell ascertain from Montague how firmly the Respondent was committed to the maintenance-of-mem- bership clause. Bartell informed Seide that Montague was in Mexico and could not be reached.13 This was the situation with respect to the negotiations when Orrach was relieved of his position as president of the Respondent. At the next meeting on March 12 Bartell confirmed that Orrach had left the Respondent. Montague participated in the negotiations along with Bartell. Montague indicated displeasure with some of the terms which had been tentatively agreed upon at the earlier meetings. No change occurred with respect to the union- security impasse.14 At the next meeting on April 16 Seide proposed a compromise union-security plan under which the Union would waive its right to request for discharge for nonpayment of dues after the payment of the initiation fee and the first month's dues. Montague at first would not consider the proposal at all, but Bartell stated, as Seide credibly testified, that this was a "big compromise" which could not be "dismissed out of hand," and that they would have to discuss the matter before they could take a position regarding this proposal. The meeting terminated on this note. On April 21 Bartell called Seide and told him "We have a contract. We got to get together and work out all the details." Seide and Bartell met on April 23 and drew up a handwritten document setting forth all of the tentative agreements reached from the beginning of the negotiations. This document provided for the Union's proposed compromise regarding union security. The only matter left open at the end of this meeting was a provision concerning an investment fund, which the Union had only recently proposed for the Printer's League standard contract, and about which Montague had not yet been informed. Bartell agreed with Seide to arrange a meeting with Montague on April 27 to resolve the one remaining open issue, to review the remainder of the contract, and to sign it. When Seide arrived at Bartell's office at the time of the scheduled meeting, Bartell informed him that he had just received a call from Montague stating that he would not sign any contract. 15 2. The strike On Friday, April 27 Seide communicated with various employees at the plant, informed them that the parties had reached a tentative agreement but that Montague had refused to sign the contract, and that he had concluded that there was no alternative but for the employees to go out on 13 The foregoing findings are based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Julius Seide, the Union's representative in the negotiations. Neither Orrach not Bartell were called as witnesses by the Respondent. 14 Montague's testimony concerning this meeting indicates that he was unaware of the requirements of a maintenance-of-membership provision strike, explaining, as he testified, that "we have gone along with it long enough." The employees expressed agreement with this conclusion and suggested that Seide appear at the plant before work on the following Monday and explain the situation to the rest of the employees. On May 3 an undisclosed number of the employees went out on strike. Several striking employees testified that upon being informed by Seide of Montague's refusal to sign the contract which had been tentatively reached, they decided to go out on strike. As of the close of the trial on May 18, the strike was still in progress. 3. The negotiations during the strike The parties, Seide for the Union and Bartell and Montague for the Respondent, met in the office of George Meyer, the Suffolk County Labor Commissioner, on May 14, at the latter's request. The parties reviewed their respective positions for tl#g Commissioner. At the outset Seide announced that his previous offer of a compromise regarding union security was withdrawn. Later, after the Commissioner talked to the parties separately, the Commis- sioner inquired if the Union would renew its compromise offer with respect to union security. Seide stated that in order to settle the strike he would do so. However, when this proposal was placed before the Respondent, Montague asserted that he would have to consult the employees at the shop and would advise the parties later in the day. After consulting the employees, Montague decided against accepting the Union's compromise union-security proposal, and the parties were so advised. No further negotiations have been held, so far as the record shows. 4. Conclusions concerning the Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with the Union As found above, Montague, who had the ultimate responsibility for approving any contract reached by the Respondent's negotiators, was kept informed by Orrach as to the progress of the negotiations, "what they had agreed to and what they hadn't agreed to and things of that nature." This is Montague's own testimony. Thus, Mo- ntague was presumably kept informed of the maintenance- of-membership provision which Bartell proposed on behalf of the Respondent as a counteroffer to the Union's demand for a full union-security provision at the December 28 meeting. The parties' expressed positions regarding this part of the contract remained the same in the subsequent meetings in the January through April period, including the two meetings in March and April in which Montague himself participated. The Union was insisting on a full union-security provision and the Respondent was pressing for a maintenance-of-membership clause. This was the situation when the Respondent's negotiator, Bartell, after notifying Seide that "We have a contract," met with Seide on April 23 and worked out the terms of a complete and erroneously assumed that such a clause provided for compulsory union membership. 15 The above findings concerning the events of April 21, 23, and 27 are based on the credited and undenied testimony of Julius Seide. ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 349 agreement, including the compromise union-security clause which the Union had been proposing all along. It is to be noted that Bartell was not an officer or employee of the Respondent. He was merely its agent for collective- bargaining purposes. Bartell could not independently make any decision as to the content of the collective-bargaining contract. He had to look to his principal, Montague, for instructions. Bartell's agreement to the inclusion of the Union's compromise union-security clause in the proposed draft was a significant concession by the Respondent and it was a complete departure from the position which Bartell himself had taken throughout the negotiations that the Respondent would agree to nothing more than a maintenance-of- membership clause. Under all the circumstances I cannot believe that Bartell would have arranged the meeting to work out the details of the contract and would have agreed to the Union's compromise union-security provision without the knowledge and acquiescence of Montague. Montague's action 4 days later in announcing through his representative, Bartell, that he would not sign any contract with the Union constituted a repudiation of all of the representations made by the Respondent's negotiators during the entire course of the negotiations. Montague's conduct at the,Labor Commissioner's office on May 14 did nothing to weaken the force of this repudiation. In my opinion, Montague's conduct above summarized cannot be reconciled with the fulfillment of the Respon- dent's obligation to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union. Such conduct had the effect of a rendering wholly fruitless all of the discussions between the negotiators for the parties at the eight meetings in the November to April period. It is difficult to imagine a procedure more destructive of the collective-bargaining process than the course followed by Montague in this case of allowing his negotiators to bargain virtually up to the point of final agreement, with scarcely a word of disapproval of the tentative agreements reached, and then to repudiate the results of the entire course of the bargaining. Such conduct, I conclude, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or other reprisals because of their umon activities, by coercively questioning employees concerning their umon sympathies, by engaging in surveillance over the union activities of the employees, and by making adverse changes in the employees' working conditions in retaliation for their having chosen union representation, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By discharging or laying off Walter Yarosz, Joseph Kirklewski, and Eugene Sannuto on September 18, 1970, by discharging George Najdek on November 6, 1970, and Barbara Fasano on November 20, 1970, the Respondent has discouraged membership in the Union by discrimina- 16 The Respondent further violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally changing various working conditions in order to retaliate against the employees for voting for the Union in the election. I am tion in regard to tenure, terms, and conditions of employment and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. At all times material herein the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of an appro- priate unit of the Respondent's employees consisting of the following: All pressroom and preparatory employees, pressmen, assistant pressmen, cameramen, platemakers, and strippers, excluding office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, bindery employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. By its conduct in the negotiations commencing in January 1971 and by making adverse changes in the employees' working conditions without consulting the Union about them, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The strike in which the Respondent's employees engaged commencing on May 3, 1971, was caused by the Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union and its other unfair labor practices and was an unfair labor practice strike. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, my Recommended Order will direct that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. With respect to the discriminatory discharges and layoffs, my Recommended Order will require that the Respondent offer to Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara Fasano immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. My recommended Order will further direct that the Respondent make Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, Barbara Fasano, and also Joseph Kirklew- ski and Eugene Sannuto, whole for their losses resulting from the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them the sum of money which each would have earned from the date of the discrimination until the date upon which the Respondent offers or has offered each of them reinstatement, less net interim earnings. Regarding the employees who went out on strike on May 3, 1971, or thereafter, my recommended Order will provide that the Respondent upon application, offer them immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, dismissing replacements if necessary, and that the Respon- dent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them. Backpay for discriminatees and strikers shall be computed on a quarterly basis and shall include referring to the change in the lunch period, and the restrictions placed upon the employees' telephone and radio playing privileges which were put into effect immediately after the election. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. To remedy the Respondent's refusal to bargain collec- tively in good faith with the Union and its taking of unilateral action with respect to terms and conditions of employment, my Recommended Order will provide that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union in good faith and, upon request, restore the lunch period for the morning shift to the schedule existing before the election on November 4, 1970, and restore any telephone and radio-playing privileges which were taken away after the election. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended: 17 ORDER The Respondent, Advanced Business Forms Corp., Ronkonkoma, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off or in any other manner discriminat- ing against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit stated in paragraph 3 of the above Conclusions of Law. (c) Changing the terms or conditions of employment of its employees without notifying the aforesaid labor organization and giving it an opportunity to bargain collectively about such changes. (d) Threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or other reprisals because of their union activities, coercively questioning employees concerning union matters, engaging in surveillance over the union activities of its employees, making adverse changes in the employees' working conditions because of their union activities, and in any other manner interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara Fasano immediate reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them and Joseph Kirklewski and Eugene Sannuto whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of their discharge or layoff, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon application, offer its employees who went out on strike on May 3, 1971, or thereafter, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, all in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, as well as all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive representa- tive of the, employees in the appropriate unit set forth in paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Law, above. (f) Upon request of the aforesaid labor organization, restore the lunch period for the morning shift to the schedule existing before the election on November 4, 1970, and, upon request, restore any telephone and radio-playing privileges which were taken away after the election. (g) Post at its plant at Ronkonkoma, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29 in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.i9 17 In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order as provided in Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 10(c) of the Act and in Sec. 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. 18 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." 19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 351 the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT change the scheduling of lunch periods or other terms and-conditions of employment without notifying the above Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain collectively about such changes. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge, layoff, or other reprisals because of their union activities, coercively question employees about union matters, spy on the union activities of our employees, or make adverse changes in working conditions in order to retaliate against our employees because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to form and join unions, to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection, and to engage in collective bargaining through their represent- ative chosen in accordance with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara Fasano to their former jobs, and will pay them backpay, as provided in the Board's Decision and Order. WE WILL pay backpay to Joseph Kirklewski and Eugene Sannuto, as provided in the Board's Decision and Order. WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate reins- tatement to our employees who went out on strike commencing on May 3, 1971, dismissing replacements if necessary, and will pay the strikers backpay from the date of any refusal of their application for reinstate- ment, as provided in the Board's Decision and Order. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Press- men and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All pressroom and preparatory employees, pressmen, assistant pressmen, platemakers, and strippers, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, bindery employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL, upon request of the Union, restore the lunch period for the morning shift to the schedule existing before the election on November 4, 1970, and will also restore any telephone and radio-playing privileges which were taken away after the election. Dated By ADVANCED BusiNEss FOR1vis CORP. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.