D. M. Rotary Press, Inc.

366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. M. Rotary Press, Inc. and Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union, Local 508, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-7635 January 14, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On August 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ramey Donovan issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, D. M. Rotary Press, Inc., Sharonville, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i While Chairman Miller agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate herein, he would , for the reasons stated in his separate concurrence in United Packing Company of Iowa, Inc, 187 NLRB 878, predicate this remedy solely on the 8(a)(1) and (3) violations found herein DECISION RAMEY DONOVAN, Administrative Law Judge: The charge was filed on March 7, 1973, by Graphic Arts International Union, Local 508, AFL-CIO, herein the Union. The complaint issued on April 25, 1973, against D. M. Rotary Press, Inc., herein Respondent or Rotary. It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act by interrogation, threats, indication of benefits for information regarding union activity, the granting of wage increases to discourage union activity, discharging employees because of union activity, refusing to recognize and bargain in the appropriate unit, and rendering impossible by its conduct the holding of a free and fair election. Respondent, in its answer, denies the majority status of the Union and the allegations of unfair labor practices. i Juanita Anderson is employed by Market She is the mother of Joseph Anderson, mentioned hereinafter The case was tried in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 19 and 20, 1973. Briefs were received on July 30, 1973. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in various types of printing at its plant in Sharonville, Ohio. During the past 12-month period, a representative time, Respon- dent had an indirect outflow of goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, that it sold to a firm or firms that each had a direct outflow of its products, in interstate commerce, which the firm or firms sold and caused to be shipped to locations outside Ohio directly from points within Ohio. At all times material, Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Market Development Corporation, herein Market, is described by its president, Raymond Anderson, as a mass mail merchandiser. The Company had in the past sold sewing machines, using salesmen paid on commission. These machines were sold in the home to potential customers. In 1971 Raymond Anderson conceived and used the idea of selling a "treasure chest" through the mail and the sewing machines were also promoted through the mail. The treasure chest program entailed the mailing out of a particular letter that Raymond Anderson had evidently developed. The letter in the treasure chest promotion suggested or stated that the recipient of the letter had won a prize in the nature of 3 days in Florida and some food and that, if the recipient wished to claim the prize, he or she was asked to send $15 to the Company, Market. Printing of material, advertising, and postage were major items in the mass merchandising of tens or hundreds of thousand of treasure chest promotional materials. Market found that its use of outside printing firms for its printing needs was not satisfactory, principally because of delays in production and delivery in securing printed materials from these firms. In June or July, 1972, Rotary was incorporated and began operations in October 1972. Rotary performs printing work required by Market and the latter is Rotary's sole customer. The building in Sharon- ville, Ohio, in which Rotary is located is approximately 10 or 12 miles from Market's premises in Cincinnati, Ohio. Raymond Anderson is president of Market and Rotary and owns a controlling stock interest in Rotary. Juanita Anderson, former wife of Raymond, owns a small amount of the Rotary stock, as does Case, the comptroller of Rotary and Market.' Alberta Saul, mother of Raymond Anderson, owns the stock of Market. 208 NLRB No. 56 D. M. ROTARY PRESS, INC. From October 1972 to January 19, 1973, George Schauer had been hired and retained by Raymond Anderson as the manager of Rotary. Marilyn Schauer, wife of George, was also employed by Rotary. Such payroll records as appear in the record indicate that George Schauer was earning over $600 per week in January 1973 and his wife was earning approximately $75. Testimony in the record regarding Marilyn Schauer had reference to her as "office manager." Schauer was terminated on January 19, 1973, for inefficiency. His wife was also terminated at that time. The indication is that neither of the Schauers was in the plant after the terminations. Joseph Anderson, son of Raymond, testified that prior to January 1, 1973, he had "always been of the premises" where Rotary had its operations and that he had run "the sales force from out of that office."2 From January 1, 1973, until Schauer's termination on January 19, Joseph Ander- son testified that he was "what you might call an overseer of Mr. Schauer." Anderson states that beginning from the period of his "overseership" in early January and from January 19 on, when he became manager of Rotary in place of Schauer, he found that no one in Rotary seemed to be in charge, that Schauer had been absent a great deal, that a great deal of paper was being wasted, and that there were no production records. Anderson states that he made a rough estimate that about 29 employees distributed on three shifts were turning out 20,000 to 40,000 completed documents a day for mailing. Before considering what, if any, steps, the Andersons took to cope with the alleged bad situation above-de- scribed from January 1 to February 19, 1973, there are some other factors to be considered. Market's merchandising is carried on by mail throughout the United States.3 According to Raymond Anderson, whom the evidence shows to be the kingpin in the entire Market and Rotary situation, the best markets for Market's particular merchandising are, in order of rank, 1) New York, 2) New Jersey, and 3) Ohio, with other states following. In September 1972, Market was suspended from or agreed to suspend mailing its treasure chest solicitation or promotion letter in New York.4 Though the New York facet is not explicated fully by Raymond Anderson, the record as a whole and the general context warrants the conclusion that the New York suspension involved the appropriate state office, probably the attorney general. The same situation existed as to New Jersey, where the letter was suspended on January 25, 1973. Early in December 1972, the attorney general of Ohio, the state in which E The reference is apparently to the prior sales force of salesmen who had sold sewing machines at the homes of individual customers This sales force had been terminated effective January 1, 1973, when home solicitation was discontinued 3 The evidence warrants the premise that because Market is the sole customer of Rotary and because the latter is overwhelmingly intertwined with Market, the economic health or lack of health of Market is, for all practical purposes, the determining factor in Rotary's operation What is good for Market is good for Rotary and what is bad for Market is bad for Rotary 4 Anderson testified that "the problems with the States" began with some mention of the operation in Jack Anderson's syndicated newspaper column in June, 1972 5 "Long before the first of the year," according to Anderson, the treasure chest letter to Michigan residents was suspended 367 Market and Rotary had their place of business, advised Market that there was a "problem" about the treasure chest letter of solicitation.5 The net result was that Market suspended sending out its original treasure chest letter nationally. Anderson then, under guidance or supervision of the Ohio attorney general's office, evolved a revised treasure chest letter. The revised or "sanitized" letter, however, did not bring in the business on the scale of the original letter. A series of revised letters was equally unsuccessful at least in comparison to the original letter. Because Market concluded that the decline in the number of customers who were sending in $15 for the treasure chest was due to the lack of selling appeal in the revised treasure chest letters, Anderson resumed sending out the original treasure chest letter on about February 15 or 16, 1973. However, this original letter was not resumed in Ohio. B. January and February Events On January 8, 1973, a Federal District Court in Cincinnati, at the instance of the United States postal authorities, issued a temporary restraining order against Market. In effect, the restraining order embargoed all Market's incoming mail for I week, January 8-15. This meant that Market was receiving no treasure chest checks from the public and its principal and main source of money inflow was cut off. Respondent, therefore, on Friday, January 12, 1973, laid off the Rotary employees until Monday or Tuesday, January 15 or 16, when the employees were all returned to work.6 Market's problems with Federal postal authorities and with the attorneys general of various states regarding its business operations can be described as serious from a legal and a business standpoint. As early as September 1972, as we have seen, the use of the treasure chest solicitation letter was suspended in New York, which state was described by Anderson as the Company's number one market. In early December 1972, legal problems began with the State of Ohio, the Company's home base and situs and a major market for the Company's merchandising. There were problems in other states. As mentioned, the postal restraining order issued on January 8, 1973. Respondent has also introduced into evidence various financial statements showing the financial situation of Market and Rotary in January and February 1973.7 These statements were prepared by Case, the comptroller and accountant for Market and Rotary. The picture conveyed by the financial statements is one of financial distress. 6 Since the payroll records indicate that most of the employees did not customarily work on Saturday and Sunday (in fact it is not clear that any employee did), the layoff in January was not a particularly drastic step, considering the fact that Anderson, in the instant hearing, portrays the January 8 restraining order as a major disaster to its business The layoff did not occur until January 12 and encompassed 2 working days, Friday, January 12, and Monday, January 15 In January, at least, Respondent did not perceive a drastic termination of the Rotary printing plant employees as the way to deal with a cutting off of money inflow 7 Information regarding prior years is of a limited nature For instance, Case testified that in 1971 gross receipts of Market were $450,000, and $2,500,000 in 1972 In 1972 Raymond Anderson received nearly $400,000 in commissions from the Company, part in cash and part in notes Anderson loaned his company various amounts in 1972 totalling $392,000, part in cash 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Raymond Anderson contends, and I believe that he is correct, that Market's financial distress arose primarily from a falling off of the inflow of cash from people who sent in $15 checks in response to the treasure chest letter. This falling off was attributed to the legal problems with the states and the postal authorities. The original treasure chest letter when revised to the satisfaction of the authorities aforementioned did not pull in the money in sufficient amounts. This basic problem was known to Anderson in December 1972, after Market, as a result of its encounter with the attorney general of Ohio, suspended the mailing of its original treasure chest letters. Market then put out a number of variously revised treasure chest letters but they did not produce satisfactory financial responses from the thousands of recipients. Anderson testified that "at the end of this period, at the end of December I said I've got to do something . . . I went and put out what we call our original letter, the one that put us in business." In January 1973, a controlled test by Market had confirmed that the revised letters simply lacked the appeal or pulling power necessary for the business. Market, then, by February 15 or 16, 1973, began sending out the original treasure chest letter, the proven money maker, to all states except Ohio. It is difficult to perceive, therefore, that on and after February 16 and in succeeding days Market's picture was worse or as bad as in December and January when it was in the midst of legal difficulties with states and postal authorities and had suspended its original letter and had known in December and January that various revised letters were bereft of the necessary pulling power. In December 1972, and January, and the first half of February 1973, there is no indication that the Andersons regarded a drastic cut in the production personnel of Rotary as a necessary solution for the basic financial problem of Market. On January 8-15, 1973, a Federal court restraining order had stopped all mail to Market. This, of course, eliminated all cash inflow from the treasure chest letters and this inflow was the jugular vein of the entire enterprise. The Andersons, as is evidenced by the evidence introduced by Respondent herein to show its parlous financial state, were aware of their critical financial situation. But evidently it was not believed that the salvation of the enterprise depended upon a sustained deep cut in the Rotary production complement. As previously stated, it was not until Friday, January 12, that the employees were laid off and they were all back at work on Tuesday, January 16. Joseph Anderson had, in his words, been "overseeing" the Rotary operation since January 1, 1973. He became manager on January 19. He testified that in January he became convinced that the Rotary payroll was padded, i.e., that there were five or six employees that were not needed . He also states that his father, Raymond, had spoken to him at various times about operating on an economical basis. On the average, Raymond and Joseph conversed with each other five or six times a day in the 8 A rough approximation is that the 28 employees had an average hourly wage of $2 25 per hour or $90 per week or approximately $2,500 total These employees printed , folded, and inserted the treasure chest letters and other literature that were the vital source of any money that was received by Market in its merchandising by mail enterprise 9 According to Wehmeir, one of the principal causes for the financial troubles of the Company was the January 8 restraining order on incoming course of running the Market-Rotary enterprise. However, Joseph testified that even after he took over the Rotary operation in January 1973, the full complement of 28 Rotary employees was retained until February 19. At the latter date virtually the entire complement was terminated. Our interest is, of course, in what motivated the terminations on the particular date of February 19. Up to this point the trigger for this particular date or any date has not been discernible as a forewarner of such drastic personnel action. The business had been beset by troubles since last December but the nature of the business and the nature of its virtual owner and dominant force, Raymond Anderson, required and evidently had, a resiliency and persistence that were not easily daunted. However obsta- cles were to be overcome and however the business was to be maintained, in the period from December to February 18 it is not discernible that the Andersons believed that saving a few hundreds or thousands of dollars in personnel funds was the solutions In the first part of February, up to February 20, most of the Rotary supervisors received pay increases, e.g. Betz, Hayden, and Ryan; employees Braun, DeBorde, Doyle, Gregory, Hall, Pease, Reno, and Karen Schauer also received pay increases during this period. Joseph Anderson testified that in January , after he had taken over the Rotary operation, employee Lovins told him that the prior manager, Schauer, had hired her at $1.65 per hour. However, when she was assigned the additional task of transporting Schauer's child to school, she had her wage raised to $2.10. She asked Anderson if she would continue to receive $2.10 now that Schauer was terminated and no longer in the plant. Anderson continued to pay Lovins $2 10 per hour. While we do not wish to disparage this considerate treatment of an employee, the action is scarcely consistent with that of an employer who viewed personnel costs as an area in which retrenchment in such costs was vital to its survival . In fact, at one point in his testimony Joseph Anderson, when asked, denied that "salaries paid to employees were a consideration in [our] moves to economize." Wehmeir, who testified that he is in the business of securing money for various kinds of companies, and who had known Raymond Anderson for 15 or 20 years, testified that Raymond Anderson contacted him in early February 1973 After checking into the financial affairs of Market, Wehmeir agreed with Anderson that Market was in need of cash. For a finder's fee of $4,500, Wehmeir introduced Anderson to two sources of capital , Renaldi Investment and Save Incorporated, and they loaned Anderson $60,000 for a short term at high interest rates.9 Kramer was a foreman and supervisor who attended a management meeting at Martinelli's Restaraunt on Wed- nesday, February 14, 1973. Others present were Joseph Anderson, the plant manager of Rotary; Case, the comptroller for Market and Rotary, and the various other mail to Market Wehmeir testified that it was his understanding that Market's mail had been withheld for about 30 days, "and consequently his money, which normally came in the mail, was withheld from him, which helped put him in this financial bind " The restraining order was actually in effect from January 8- 15 and as soon as it was lifted, accumulated and current mail was received by Market D. M ROTARY PRESS, INC supervisors in the plant. There were only 2 working days after February 14 and before February 19, when Respon- dent terminated approximately 20-24 of its 28 employ- ees.10 There was nothing said at the February 14 management meeting about the possibility of a large-scale layoff. Kramer testified that on February 14 the topics were various means of increasing production and the possibility of terminating five employees who were not producing as they should. The purchase of another folder machine was also discussed. Foreman Hayden who, unlike Kramer, was not terminated on February 19, was called as a witness by Respondent. Hayden stated that on February 14 the discussion was about trying to increase production and about the possible purchase of new or other machinery. He did not recall any discussion of possible terminations of employees. Joseph Anderson testified that around the first of February, he had concluded that the Rotary payroll had about five or six employees more than were needed. However, Anderson states, regarding the February 14 meeting with the supervisors, that the purpose of the meeting was to keep open the lines of communication between top management and the supervisors and there was also discussion about ways of increasing production. He states that he did not discuss the layoff of a large number of employees with supervisors on February 14. In fact, the evidence is rather clear that no such termination was contemplated. Anderson also states that on February 14, "actually at that particular meeting . .. we talked about discharging a few employees for economic rea- sons. . . ... It was in this connection that Anderson testified, as previously described, that salaries paid to employees were not a consideration in the Company's desire to economize. This assertion is apparently borne out by the Company's attitude toward the pay of employee Lovins, previously described, and the granting of pay increases to various employees in February shortly before the terminations on February 19. It is also a fact that Anderson agrees, as testified to by Kramer, that on February 14, Kramer asked Anderson what he planned to do about the union matter and Anderson said he would worry about it "when it came up." 11 Four days after the February 14 management meeting, a Substantial number of employees attended a meeting in the Union's office on Sunday, February 18, 1973. The Union had been contacted by Marilyn Schauer, a former employee of Rotary. She arranged the meeting with the Union after informing the union representative that a group of Rotary employees was interested in the Union. At the February 18 meeting or after the meeting on the same date, 20 production and maintenance employees in a unit, excluding supervisors, guards and watchman, and office clerical employees, that I find to be appropriate, signed an authorization sheet under the following heading: 10 Kramer was also terminated on February 19 11 I interpret the quoted phrase to mean that when the union situation came to a head or became serious, the Company would give it full attention Up to February 14 there had been rather vague talk about an unidentified union or union activity for a considerable period of time and Anderson states that he was aware of the fact In Anderson's words, he told Kramer on February 14 that regarding a union "we would cross it when we came to it" 12 Schauer was terminated January 19 Staley last appears on the payroll on January 10 1 note that on a union card that Staley also signed on Authorization 369 We, the undersigned, employees of the D. M. Rotary Press, Inc, do hereby appoint the Graphic Arts International Union, Local No. 508 Cincinnati, AFL-CIO, our true and lawful agent for us in our place and stead, to bargain collectively with D M . Rotary Press, Inc. Although there are 23 signatures on the above authoriza- tion, I do not count those of Marilyn Schauer and Hutson Staley, who were former and not current employees.12 I also exclude Kramer since the evidence shows him to be a supervisor. This leaves 20 authorizations from unit employ- ees out of a payroll of 28 unit employees and constitutes a majority. Many employees also signed union cards on February 18 in addition to signing the above authorization. A few employees had signed union cards but not the authorization sheet. A few other signed the authorization sheet but not cards. I consider the authorization sheet alone to be a valid designation of the union although the cards are also valid.13 In addition to Joseph Anderson's testimony that he had heard of union activity for many months and the testimony that on February 14 he had told foreman Kramer that he would meet the union situation when he had to or when it came to a head, there is other evidence of employer interest in the February 1973 union situation. Employee Pease had a conversation about the Union with Marilyn Schauer about February I1 or 12. About 2 days later, Pease's foreman, Betz, a supervisor, approached Pease three or four times at Pease's work station in the plant. In these conversations, Betz asked Pease what was being said about joining the union and when the meeting would be held at which the employees would vote whether or not to join the Union. Pease professed ignorance, although he apparently was aware of the scheduled February 18 meeting. Betz said that there might be a pay raise for some employees; he said there was talk of raises for a few "of you" and asked Pease "if it would work." Betz also asked what other employees were in the union movement. Pease had started working for Rotary in September 1972. He received a raise in pay in December 1972. From that time until and including the day of February 14, 1973, his pay was $3 per hour. On the next payday, Friday, February 16, his pay was $3.25. Pease testified credibly that he had not asked for a pay increase. Since Betz did not testify, there can be little doubt that the increase can be explained in the context of Betz' conversation with Pease about February 13 or 14 concerning union activity and February 18, he does not list the name of Rotary as his present employer although there is a space for such information and Staley filled out other spaces on the card 13 It is unnecessary to discuss the validity of the signing of the authorization sheet by Doyle and Schuler and the contention that these signatures were secured when Marilyn Schauer told them that they would lose their jobs unless they signed If Doyle and Schuler's signatures were not counted there would be 18 valid signatures on the authorization sheet and this would be a majority of the unit 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Betz' hint that some of the employees might receive an increase.14 I find that Respondent through supervisor Betz engaged in illegal interrogation; a thinly veiled promise of a wage increase ; and the granting of a wage increase; all of which conduct interfered with and restrained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; such conduct is found to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Employee Karen Schauer testified credibly that around February 15, 1973, her supervisor, Betz, spoke to her at work. He asked if she knew anything about a union being organized. She said she did not.'5 Schauer states that 3 or 4 weeks before her termination on February 19, she had asked Joseph Anderson for a wage increase. He gave her no definite answer to indicate whether she would or would not receive a raise. Thereafter, Schauer had spoken to Betz about a raise and asked him, did he know whether or not she would receive a raise. Betz said he did not know. In the paycheck that Schauer received on February 19, after her discharge on that day, she received a wage increase. Employee Hall testified credibly that around the week of February 12 he asked his supervisor, Betz, with whom Hall had a friendly relationship, what he thought about a union being in the plant. Betz said that he did not know what would happen but the Company might fold up if a union came in. Later the same day, Betz initiated a conversation with Hall. Betz said that the front office "was offering some money or some sort of price about information on the union" and he, Betz, "blew it" and "missed out on the money." In the first part of January 1973, Hall had asked for a wage increase.is He asked Betz about this increase on three or four occasions. Nothing happened until one working day before Hall's termination on February 19. On that date, evidently Friday, February 16, the regular payday, Hall received a wage increase to $2.25 per hour. Employee Schmidt testified credibly that on February 19 his supervisor, Hayden, came to his work station in the plant on three occasions.17 The first conversation was about 5 p.m. Hayden asked about the identity of the union, who was in charge of it, and what Schmidt knew about it. About 10-20 minutes later Hayden again returned to Schmidt and questioned him further about the Union along the same general lines as in the first conversation. Hayden told Schmidt that the front office would value greatly any information that Schmidt had about the Union. Schmidt told Hayden everything he knew about the Union. There was another conversation between Hayden and Schmidt on that same evening, of February 19, apparently at some time after or around 8 p.m. Two employees, DeBorde and Gregory, were looking at a copy of a booklet that was captioned Joint Contract between Graphic Arts International and D. M. Rotary Press, Inc.18 Hayden came 14 Pease was terminated with others on Monday, February 19 15 Karen was the daughter of Marilyn Schauer 16 Prior to January Hall had received raises that had lifted his wage from $165 to $2 11 Schmidt was on the second shift, 4 p.m to 12. 18 As we shall see, such an instrument was executed between the Union and George Schauer, former manager of Rotary, on the evening of over to Schmidt and asked him if DeBorde and Gregory were looking at the union booklet. Schmidt said he did not know. Hayden told Schmidt he was a liar. Shortly thereafter Hayden again came to Schmidt and once more asked if the booklet was a union booklet. Schmidt said, yes, it was a union contract booklet. Schmidt testified that he believes that Hayden had a copy of the contract booklet but is not sure. In any- event, Hayden either had a copy of the contract or was familiar with its contents because he told Schmidt that Schmidt was worth $2 to $2.50 per hour but not $5.81.19 Doyle, an employee witness called by Respondent, testified that she worked the first shift on Tuesday, February 20, and completed her shift at 4 p.m. She was placed on layoff for Wednesday and was recalled and returned to work on Thursday, February 22, and had worked since that time. Doyle had been hired in September 1972. She received three pay increases, two of them being prior to January 3, 1973. She received another pay increase on the payroll of February 14, 1973. One other employee, Reno, who was terminated on February 19, also received a raise on February 14. Various other employees, terminated on February 19, in addition to those previously mentioned, had received raises on February 19. Joseph Anderson undertakes to explain the wage increases that occurred in February 1973, a period that the Company describes as one of great financial crisis and lack of operating funds, as attributable to the fact that former manager Schauer had promised increases to various employees and the Andersons granted the increases because they did not wish to "rock the boat." I do not find this a convincing explanation. Schauer was discharged on January 19 for inefficiency or, as the Anderson's saw it, incompetence and neglect of duty. I do not believe that the Anderson's conceived that they owed anything to Schauer or his policies or that they had any obligation to give raises in a period of financial crisis simply because Schauer had allegedly made some promises. Moreover, there is no testimony in this record from any employee who received a February raise that he or she had been promised a raise by Schauer or that this had been reported to Anderson by the employee. Some of the employees testified they had asked Anderson or a foreman for a raise and had received no commitment from these management people. One employ- ee testified that he had never raised the question of a wage increase. Employee Pease, above, a few days after being interrogated about the Union by Supervisor Betz, received a raise although he had not asked anyone for such action. Anderson's further contention is that the wage increases, received by employees around February 14 and 19, in the period when Respondent was aware of union activity and had been interrogating employees on the matter, had been approved several weeks before and that the Company's procedural machinery was slow. I find this contention equally unconvincing. Pease, for instance, was interrogated February 18, 1973 19 Schmidt's wage was Si 75 Although the record does not contain a complete copy, including wage scale , of the February 18 "contract," the scale of wages was admitted substantially higher than the existing Rotary wages. Apparently $5.81, referred to by Hayden, was what he understood the union wage scale to be. D. M. ROTARY PRESS, INC. about the Union on February 13 or 14 and was told on that occasion that there might be some raises forthcoming and was asked. "would it [the granting of raises] work." On February 19, Pease received a raise. While Anderson's explanation of many weeks delay in processing the necessary paper work for raises might carry conviction if Rotary and Market had a vast bureaucracy of departments and people, this is not evident in a relatively small operation such as we have before us. There were three or four foreman, only one of whom would be involved in his employee's raise, plus Manager Joseph Anderson who was in frequent contact with his father, Raymond. The comptroller, Case, was the financial officer and he was also available. Although there was some preliminary paper work prior to a raise becoming effective, the payroll clerk, as far as appears, wrote, for instance, "2.25" on the payroll as an employee's hourly rate instead of "2.00" when a raise was given, and the number of hours worked would then be computed at the new rate. There is no indication tiat the payroll department or anyone else notified an employee in writing of a raise and the employee generally became aware of a raise when he received his paycheck. The matter of effecting a raise was, in my opinion, relatively simple in this small operation dominat- ed by Raymond Anderson and his son. Joseph. In my opinion, the evidence heretofore described amply warrants the conclusion, and I find, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees about union activity, and by indicating or foretelling and granting wage increases to discourage and interfere with union activity. We have now seen Respondent's awareness of at least talk of union activity among employees for a week or more prior to February 19. We have also seen that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, abovedescribed, during that period in an effort to thwart the union. But on Sunday, February 18, the Union attained designations from a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit. The evening of February 18, Nichols, vice president of the Local Union, met with George Schauer. Nichols states at the time he understood that Schauer was still president of the Company. Nichols asked for recognition and presented proof of majority. The end result of the meeting was that Schauer signed that evening a contract between Rotary and the Union that Nichols had presented at the meeting. Neither in the complaint, nor at the hearing, nor in his brief does the General Counsel contend that the contract executed by Schauer is binding on the Respon- dent and the violations alleged in the complaint are not based or premised on the contract. I, too, attach no weight to the contract aspect insofar as the issues before me are concerned. The Nichols-Schauer meeting is simply a chronological introduction to ensuing events. 20 Evidently the contract contained a checkoff clause 21 Morelli was not aware of many aspects of the matter at this initial stage and he so informed Boyd. There is no question that Morelli checked with the Andersons after talking to Boyd and mformed them of what Boyd had said After receiving information from the Andersons about Schauer and so forth, Morelli then called Boyd 22 Morelli went a long way toward quickly substantiating his contentions regarding Schauer. H-: wrote to Schauer on February 19, after the Morelli- Boyd conversation , with a copy to Boyd. The letter, inter ala, reminded Schauer that "your services were terminated January 19, 1973, by a written 371 On the following day, Monday. February 19, Nichols telephoned the union attorney, Boyd, and informed him that he had signed a contract with Rotary. He asked Boyd to contact Rotary's attorney, Morelli, and work out the details of check off of dues and so forth.20 Boyd testified without contravention that he spoke to Nichols about 2 p.m. on February 19. Boyd called Morelli at about 3 p.m. He relayed the information from the Union that the Union had signed a contract with Rotary, with the latter acting through Schauer. Morelli, in effect, said that he would check into the matter and would call back 2t Morelli called Boyd at approximately 4 p.m. He told Boyd that Schauer had been discharged previously and had no authority to sign a contract for Rotary. Morelli, in effect, told Boyd that the contract was worthless. Boyd said that the Union understood that Schauer was president of Rotary. In any event, Boyd said, the Union had a clear majority in the unit, and if Morelli could show him that Schauer was not the president and had no authority to execute the contract, the Union was willing td discard the contract if the Company would recognize the Union and start contract negotiations from scratch. Morelli replied that he did not wish to recognize the Union and that the only way he would recognize the Union was through an election. Morelli was of course speaking as the attorney for his client Rotary and Market. When Morelli in his second conversation with Boyd disclaimed Schauer and his authority, as well as the contract executed by Schauer, Boyd, in effect, presented him with an alternative, subject to Morelli substantiating the assertion that Schauer was not the president and had been discharged well before he executed the contract. Since these contentions had been strongly stated by Morelli, the means of substantiating the contentions were presumably (and actually, according to the evidence in this case) readily available and within the control of Morelli. Boyd as an alternative, therefore, asked that Respondent recognize the Union as majority representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and commences bargaining negotia- tions for a contract from scratch. Morelli replied that recognition would be forthcoming only as the result of an election.22 As regards the Rotary plant and its employees, the following is the surrounding context in which the events of February 19, such as the Boyd-Morelli conversations in the later afternoon of February 19, are to be understood. The employees had been paid on Friday, February 16, the regular payday Nothing was said to employees or supervisors about a layoff or terminations. During this period there were two shifts in operation, the first shift and the second shift 23 The first shift completed its work and the shift went off as usual at 4 p.m, on February 19. There was no indication of any terminations or layoff or anything letter. You have not been near the company premises for over four weeks " Having written such a letter, with a copy to Boyd. Morelli could reasonably believe that Boyd's alternative request was operative i e recognition of the Union and commencement of contract negotiations. Morelli , however, had already rejected this alternative by his statement that recognition would be forthcoming only as the result of an election. 2J Foreman Kramer, who impressed me as a credible witness, testified that 2 or 3 weeks before February 19, the third shift had been eliminated and consolidated into the other shifts and he was moved from the third to the second shift Kramer stated that no employee was laid off at the time of (Continued) 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD else out of the ordinary. The second shift began as usual at 4 p.m. and would have completed its shift at 12 midnight. A few minutes before 12, February 19, the employees on the second shift were told that they were terminated. The first shift began its work on the morning of February 20 and went off as usual at 4 p.m. It is not clear which, if any, employees on the first shift were laid off or terminated before beginning work on February 20 or after work on that date. First shift employees such as Doyle, Schuler and Cooper worked a full shift on February 20. Doyle was notified of her layoff on the evening of the 20th. She was returned to work on February 22. Cooper and Schuler were never laid off. Don Albers worked on the first shift. He testified that he was terminated in February with everyone else. The last payroll entry for Albers was February 20. We now consider the evidence as to how and why Respondent made the decision to terminate all the second shift employees on February 19. We have previously described the telephone conversation between attorneys Boyd and Morelli in the late' afternoon of February 19. Boyd referred to the contract executed by Schauer with the union on February 18 and also claimed that the Union represented a majority. As an alternative position Boyd demanded recognition and the negotiation of a contract from scratch. Morelli said that recognition would only be forthcoming after an election, thus rejecting the alternative and, of course, he had already repudiated the Schauer executed contract. Because of the claim by Boyd about the contract and the alternative claim of majority and the demand for recogni- tion, it requires little imagination to conclude that, after talking to Boyd, attorney Morelli would have acquainted his client, Market and Rotary, with the situation. Market was Raymond Anderson, the dominant and pervading head of the Market and Rotary enterprise In questioning at the hearing his witness, Joseph Anderson, son of Raymond, Morelli asked: Q. Now, directing your attention to February 19, 1973 . . . You received a phone call from Ray [Raymond Anderson] as regards this conversation I had with Boyd, is that correct? A. Yes. Raymond therefore on February 19, probably around 5 or the consolidation As a member of the third shift and a foreman thereon Kramer was in an excellent position to know the facts Joseph Anderson's testimony regarding the shifts is a maze of contradictions He testified at various points as follows At one point Anderson testified, "Q And you continued to work from January 19 to February 19 with the full complement of employees that were there when you took over'1 A Yes, sir", at another point, he was asked about the number of shifts "around February 20, 1973 " His answer was, "A. February 209 We had three shifts, Q Beg your pardon? A. Three shifts" and added that the three shifts were then cut back to "one shift " About four pages later, Anderson testified that the third shift was eliminated at 12 midnight, Sunday, February 18 At a later point in his testimony Anderson stated that the third shift was eliminated "around the middle of February, early part of February Q Early part of February's A Yeah " Anderson stated that he believes Kramer and others on the third shift were transferred to the first and second shifts but that some employees were eliminated at the time Although there is a wide choice of assertions presented by Anderson 's testimony, I will limit my comment to his statement (inconsistent though it is with his other statements) that the third shift was eliminated at midnight Sunday , February 18 1 am not persuaded that this is the fact This action, if it occurred, would have followed the 6 p.m. knew what Boyd had said to Morelli about the Union demands. Although Joseph Anderson, as manager of Rotary was in that plant office every day, Raymond, after his talk with Morelli, above, called Joseph at the latter's home that evening. Joseph so testified. Joseph said that prior to the call that evening, he and his father had talked five or six times during that day, which was, he said, average. I am satisfied that during the day, when the first shift was working 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. and the second shift started at 4 p.m., nothing was said about taking an inventory or that the second shift would be terminated on February 19. Since the alleged reason for the termination of the second shift was to save money, the maximum saving would have been realized by terminating the second shift at 4 p.m. before it started work. However, it was only later that evening, after Morelli reported to Raymond on Boyd's union demands, that Raymond called Joseph at the latter's home at 6:30 or 7 p.m. According to Joseph, his father referred to the financial situation and told him to take an inventory of materials on hand.24 Joseph could recall no mention of the Union in this conversation although by that time the Andersons were aware of Morelli's report which was, in effect, that the Union was figuratively at the gates of, or inside, the plant. I find this hard to believe. Joseph then called Foreman Hayden at the plant and told him to take an inventory of the treasure chest letters on hand. Hayden states that this was at about 8 p.m. Foremen Hayden, Betz, and Kramer then began taking an inventory. Hayden testified that about I I p.m. the inventory was completed and he called Joseph and reported the count. About 11:45 p.m., according to Hayden, Joseph called him and told him to terminate all the employees on the second shift. Hayden did so, a few minutes before 12, the end of the shift. Hayden was not terminated and came to work the next day on the first shift. Joseph testified that in addition to the instruction from his father at about 6:30 p.m. on February 19 to take an inventory, his father called him again at about 9 p.m. According to Joseph, Raymond said that "he didn't think the financial picture would warrant a second shift. The expenses, they were out of line. . . . I think that we can just hop along with an experienced first, strong, solid first shift." Joseph then states, "And he asked me my opinion. I said, `I haven't been on the scene long enough to know but union meeting on the afternoon of February 18, attended by a substantial number of employees, and would have followed by about 4 hours the signing of the contract on the evening of the 18th In my opinion some employees would have notified Nichols, the union representative , who had presided at the union meeting the afternoon of February 18, that the third shift had been terminated, including employees thereon, shortly after the meeting This notification would have been made to Nicholson February 19 or 20 1 find this conclusion to be borne out by the fact that on the morning of February 20 Nichols received a number of calls from employees advising him that at the end of the second shift at 12 midnight , February 19, the entire second shift of employees had been terminated There is no reason to believe that if the third shift had been eliminated at midnight, February 18, Nichols would not have been informed of this fact on February 19 and certainly by February 20 24 Joseph states that he and his father "had discussed the financial situation that entire weekend " If this is so, they quite evidently had made no decision about taking an inventory or terminations and had still had made no decision about taking an inventory or terminations during the entire day of Monday, February 19 D. M. ROTARY PRESS, INC. from what I have observed I think that is probably true.' "25 The foregoing indicates, and I believe on this aspect correctly, that Raymond Anderson made the decision to terminate the second shift sometime in the evening of February 19 after Morelli had reported that the union claimed to represent a majority of employees and had demanded recognition, as well as having claimed an executed contract. Quite clearly Joseph simply went along with the decision that the plant could operate with only the first shift and he told his father in that conversation that "I haven't been on the scene long enough to know" but your conclusion "is probably true." This certainly does not indicate that Joseph at an earlier time or at that time had made a definite and independent decision to terminate the second shift and to operate the plant with only the first shift. Joseph also refers to a conversation that he had with attorney Morelli on February 19. The exact time of this conversation is not entirely clear. In my view of the evidence, Morelli did telephone not only Raymond but also Joseph on February 19 after Morelli had his conversation with Boyd. It was probably around 5 p.m. or shortly after. Morelli reported Boyd's union demands. For some reason, either as precautionary advice or because Joseph's reaction to Morelli's report was that he would discharge the whole second shift, Morelli advised Joseph not to discharge anybody, indicating possible National Labor Relations Board intervention. In short, I am disposed to view Joseph's state of mind or his intent as expressed to Morelli as a reaction to the news conveyed by Morelli rather than the revelation of an existing plan to terminate the second shift. If Joseph, at 5 p.m. on February 19, in talking to Morelli, had already decided on terminat- ing the second shift and getting along with only the first shift, Joseph's conversation with Raymond Anderson 4 hours later that night would have been quite different than it actually was. Thus, as we have seen, at 9 p.m. Raymond told Joseph that he thought that they could get rid of the second shift and get along with dust the first shift. Raymond asked Joseph for his opinion and the latter said, "I haven't been on the scene long enough to know . . . adding that what Raymond had said was "probably true." It is Respondent's contention that the terminations that were decided upon and effectuated on the evening of February 19 were due solely to the financial stresses under which Rotary and Market were operating. As stated in Respondent's brief, the financial stress was due to "distress in profits from its mail order operation because of bad publicity and numerous legal problems with the Post Office Department and the Attorney General offices of several states, the ineffectiveness of new copy letters, and the high interest rates necessary to borrow money in order to pay creditors." Respondent also introduced evidence that it owed substantial sums to various creditors. 25 The majority of the employees worked on the second shift on February 19 As far as I can determine, there were either three to five or six nonsupervisors on the first shift 26 The Andersons talked with each other five or six times during the day but it is not claimed that anything was said about terminating the second shift on February 19. Raymond states that mail receipts were very low on Monday, February 19 Assuming this to be true, the fact would have been 373 While I believe that the evidence does show grave problems, financial and legal, in the intermeshed Rotary and Market mail order merchandising business, these problems existed in December, January, and February, prior to the evening of February 19 when Respondent decided to and did terminate its second shift, where approximately 80 percent of its employees worked. The debts and the creditors were not of February or February 19 origin; the legal problems with the states and the postal authorities were critical in December and January; on January 8-15 there was in effect a restraining order stopping all incoming money to the business; in January, Respondent was aware that a series of revised treasure chest solicitation letters were not bringing in the money in the same quantity as had the original letter which had given rise to legal problems with law enforcement authorities. Raymond Anderson admitted that on Friday, January 12, when Respondent laid off all its employees and recalled them all on Tuesday, January 16, the financial situation was not any different than it was on February 19 and "was dust about the same." The financial situation by the end of the prior week and on payday, Friday, February 16, was surely no different than it was on Monday, February 19. If, as Joseph Anderson asserts, he and his father spent the entire weekend before Monday, February 19, discussing finances and economy, they did not decide to terminate the second shift. There was ample time on Monday, February 19, from 7:30 a.m. on, for Raymond Anderson or both Andersons to decide to terminate the second shift before its commencement at 4 p.m.26 This would have saved the expense of allowing the entire second shift to work 8 hours until midnight. Inventory could have been taken on the first shift on February 19 as well as on the second since it was an inventory of material in the plant. As a matter of fact, the inventory, that was ordered and that was taken on the evening of February 19 after Morelli had reported to the Andersons regarding the Union claims and demands, appears to have been undeter minative of the termination decision. Hayden, who was in charge of the inventory, did not complete it and report the results to Joseph Anderson until I1 p.m. but Raymond Anderson, with the concur- rance of Joseph, had, at 9 p.m., reached the decision to terminate the second shift. Whatever the stress of bills and creditors in Respon- dent's business, one fact is apparent. Unless Respondent produced and disseminated to the public its treasure chest letters and other advertising material, no money would be coming in to the Company and there would be little hope of paying either existing or future financial obligations. That was the nature of the business. Notwithstanding the vital necessity for the production by Rotary of most of the aforedescribed advertising material, Respondent made a drastic cut in the Rotary production personnel on February 19-20, 1973. known during the day and in ample time to make a decision regarding terminations A low amount of incoming mail on a particular Monday did not mean that the roof had fallen in The postal system being what it is, mail dispatched the previous week does not always arrive on Monday even though in the past the receipt of mail by a particular addressee may have been heavy on Monday 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joseph Anderson testified that there were no production records maintained by Rotary when he took over as manager on January 19, 1973. Anderson did not start keeping production records at Rotary until March 1, 1973. There also had been no "time studies made or any job evaluations or anything like that," pnor to February 19-20, 1973. It is reasonably clear; therefore, that Respondent, on February 19, had neither definitive information on existing production with a complement of 28 employees nor of the production that could be expected from a greatly decimat- ed staff after February 19-20. We do not know exactly what happened to production immediately after the February 19-20 cut, but we do know that between some indefinite time, after February 19-20 and up to and including the date of hearing in June 1973, production has improved. Three of Respondent's witness- es, Hayden, Doyle, and Joseph Anderson, testified on this aspect but they gave no precise time other than "after or since February 19-20" that Respondent acquired new machines for Rotary and thereby improved production. Doyle, for instance, testified that from February 22 "up to today [June 20, 1973 ]," the Company acquired two new machines, "one inserter and one folder " In short, sometime after February 19-22, Respondent acquired a new inserter and a new folder to supplement or to supplant existing machines. These machines are large and are not in the cost range of simply a few hundreds or a few thousands of dollars. Although Respondent points out that the "new" machines were bought second hand and were used machines, they were new in the sense of being newly acquired by Respondent. These machines obviously required an expenditure of funds, either in the form of cash or the incurring of a debt. The expenditure was clearly a new expenditure. The new machines improved production. Concerning the new folder, for instance, foreman Hayden testified, "It works almost perfect. It increased my production up to at least a hundred thousand a day .. . where, in comparison [with the old folder] . . . I think the most we would ever get out a day would be approximately around thirty, forty thousand." But there is no indication that Respondent was aware beforehand that the new machines would be vastly superior to the old machines or that the new machines had been purchased or acquired pnor to the February 19-20 terminations. The new machines may have been purchased at some recent time after the February terminations to compensate for a depleted personnel complement. Thus Joseph Anderson testified in terms of production at the time of hearing and not of production on February 26 or March or other months after the terminations.27 27 He testified, "at the present time we average between fifty and sixty thousand completed mailings a day," as compared with Anderson 's estimate of predischarge production of 30,000-40,000 28 On January 8, although a restraining order had cut off completely all mail income to Respondent, Respondent did not layoff any employees until the end of the week, January 12 29 Case, the comptroller, testified that Market's operations depend directly on the mailing of advertising material punted by Rotary I assume that this means that the treasure chest letters and other advertising and soliciting materials that are printed and mailed by Rotary bring mailed responses from the public in the form of checks and so forth to Market Market presumably opens and sorts the incoming responses and handles correspondence. Case states that at the time of the Rotary terminations While the evidence of financial stress persuades me that Respondent would have taken steps to save money, including reducing personnel , by sometime possibly in the latter part of February or early March,28 the evidence does not persuade me that it would have acted when and how it did and that it would have terminated the entire second shift on the particular night of Monday , February 19, absent the report of the union claim of majority and union demands which Respondent received in the late afternoon of February 19. 1 do not believe that the timing of Respondent's action is explainable as a simple coincidence. It is my opinion that the Union demands on February 19 triggered, precipitated , and caused Respondent to termi- nate its second shift on February 19 as a means of avoiding the Union problem. I view the action as a hasty and illegal response and I find that the terminations on February 19-20, 1973, were in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.29 In my opinion , Respondent would have been within its rights in refusing to accept the executed contract as binding and Respondent was not obliged to recognize the Union upon demand, albeit the Union claimed and did have a majority in an appropriate unit , providing that Respondent did not otherwise engage in unfair labor practices to frustrate the union activities of its employees. Respondent, however, has engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act as found in this Decision and has also violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the February 19-20, 1973, terminations . It is difficult to perceive how a fair election would be possible when , within a few hours after the Respondent learned of the union claims and demands, Respondent discriminatorily terminated approx- imately 80 percent of the plant employees . N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 613-614 ( 1969). THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that the discharges on February 19-20, 1973, were discriminatory, the customary remedy is to require Respondent to offer reinstatement to the discharged employees and to pay them wages lost because of their discharges from the date of discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement 30 Joseph Anderson testified, without contradiction, that, in the latter part of March 1973, he , and a secretary telephoned the terminated employees individually. Al- though Anderson testified that there were only three job Market laid off five of " the girls in the office" at Market. The layoff at Market is not in issue in the instant case and only the foregoing limited facts appear or were offered in the record I assume that when Raymond Anderson decided on the Rotary terminations on February 19, he decided that it was an appropriate time to save money at Market He was undertaking to save money at both Rotary and Market albeit I have found that the selection of the particular time of February 19 for the Rotary action was caused and triggered by the union demands a few hours earlier on February 19 30 The matter of possible terminations for legitimate economic reasons at some date subsequent to the February 19-20, 1973 . discharges is appropriately reserved for the compliance stage of the case. D. M. ROTARY PRESS, INC. 375 openings that he was trying to fill in March, only one of the discharged employees, Janice Baker, accepted the offer of reinstatement.31 All other employees declined for various reasons, such as returning to school and so forth. Accordingly, the period of backpay is from the date of discharge on February 19-20, 1973, to the date of the offer of reinstatement in late March 1973 or whatever the exact date or dates are shown to be. The amount of backpay that may be due to individual employees will be less any intermediate earnings of the employee during the above period. The computation of backpay due is to be made on a quarterly basis and with interest at 6 percent. Having found that the Union, since February 18, 1973, represented a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, there was a refusal to bargain when Respondent rejected the Union's alternative demand for recognition on February 19, 1973, and discriminatonly discharged employees on February 19-20, 1973. Respon- dent's conduct made the holding of a fair election impossible and Respondent had informed the Union that it would not recognize the Union except through an election. In my opinion, Respondent's discriminatory discharge of all but a handful( of its employees just a few hours after the Union had claimed a majority status and demanded recognition was conduct that decimated the Union and made the holding of a fair election impossible. It was the type of conduct justifying a remedial bargaining order. Gissel Packing Co., supra. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. On and since February 18, 1973, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit consisting of all pro- duction and maintenance employees, excluding supervisory employees as defined in the Act, professional employees, guards and watchmen. 4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as more fully found hereinabove in the Decision by interroga- tion of employees concerning union activities, hints or indications of pay increases, and pay increases as means of interference with union activities. 5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging employees on February 19-20, 1973, because of union activities. 6. On and since February 19, 1973, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union. ORDER32 D. M. Rotary Press, Inc., its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Illegally interrogating employees regarding union activities. (b) Indicating to employees that pay raises might be forthcoming and granting pay raises, in order to interfere with and to discourage union activities. (c) Discouraging union activities by discriminatorily terminating employees because of union activities. (d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Graphic Arts International Union , Local 508, AFL-CIO, and making a fair election impossible by engaging in serious unfair labor practices. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole for any loss of pay all employees discharged on February 19-20, 1973, from that date until the date of the offer of reinstatement, less intermediate earnings and with the computation being made on a quarterly basis and at 6 percent interest , all as more fully described in that portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Graphic Arts International Union , Local 508 , as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate unit , described in this Decision, and, if agreement is reached , embody the said agreement in a signed written contract. (c) Post at its Sharonville, Ohio, plant, the notice attached hereto as "Appendix." 33 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9 shall, after being signed by Respondent, be posted immediately in conspicuous places and in places where notices to employees are posted, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 31 After her February 19 discharge . Baker next appears on the April 11, 1973, payroll 32 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 .46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided 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. 3J 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government As a result of a trial in which all parties were represented by their attorneys, the Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, who heard the evidence, has found that we have committed certain unfair labor practices and we have been ordered to remedy these unfair labor practices. Accordingly, we advise you that: 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT illegally interrogate employees regard- ing union activities. WE WILL NOT, for the purpose of interfering with or discouraging union activities, grant wage increases or other benefits. WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they engage in union activities, including the selection of a Union as their collective-bargaining agent. WE WILL pay the employees whom we discharged on February 19-20, 1973, the wages they have lost from the date of their discharge, as more fully explained in the Decision of the Admimstrative Law Judge. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Graphic Arts International Union, Local 508, as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate unit, described in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and, if agreement is reached, embody the said agreement in a signed written contract. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Dated By D. M. ROTARY PRESS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building Suite 3003, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.