Walker Color Graphics

WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS Hasty Print, Inc. d/b/a Walker Color Graphics and Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-13880 December 20, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On April 27, 1976, Administrative Law Judge James T. Barker issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed a brief in reply to exceptions. 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 ana briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order2 except as modified below. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 5 in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision: "5. By refusing, since June 20, 1975, and all times thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit set forth below, Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act." 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 as modified below and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Hasty Print, Inc. d/b/a Walker Color Graphics, Irvine, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order as herein modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(f) and reletter the subsequent paragraph accordingly: "(f) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the following unit: 227 NLRB No. 67 455 "All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its facility located at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, California; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, sales people, professional employees, typesetters, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. 1 In adopting the finding of the Administrative Law Judge that Respon- dent violated Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to consider the presence or absence of good-faith doubt on the part of Respondent as to the Union's majority status N LR.B v. Gissel Packing Co, Inc., 395 U.S 575 (1969), As fully set forth by the Administrative Law Judge, by discharging Robert Abbott on June 20, 1975, Respondent embarked on a course of unlawful conduct which dissipated the Union's majority status Accordingly, we find that Respondent's bargaining obligation commenced as of that date. Trading Port, Inc, 219 NLRB 298 (1975). Member Fanning would find that Respondent's obligation to bargain commenced as of the date the Union attained a majority and demanded recognition-June 12, 1975. By its unlawful course of conduct, Respondent demonstrated its unwillingness to bargain. Accordingly, Member Fanning would not date the obligations to bargain as of July 7-the date Respondent formally declined recognition- but finds Respondent's obligation to bargain commenced June 12 2 Although the Administrative Law Judge found Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain, he inadvertently neglected to order Respondent to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union Accordingly, we shall modify the Order to correct this inadvertent error APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT terminate the employment of Robert Abbott, or any other employee, because he engaged in union or other protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any unlawful manner interro- gate or threaten our employees. WE WILL NOT promise them improved wages, benefits, or other terms or conditions of employ- ment if they abandon their support of a union. WE WILL NOT in any unlawful manner grant improved hourly wages, additional holiday and vacation pay, increased sick leave and lunch facilities for the purpose of inducing our employ- ees to abandon Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of their choosing, as their designated and chosen exclusive bargaining repre- sentative. WE WILL, upon request, dating from June 20, 1975, recognize and bargain collectively with Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive in the following described unit: 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All production and maintenance employ- ees employed by Respondent at its facility located at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, Califor- nia; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, sales people, professional employees, typesetters, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT bypass the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees em- ployed in the above-described bargaining unit, or engage in direct negotiations concerning wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employ- ment with employees employed in the above- described bargaining unit. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of our employees, by terminating our employees because they engage in protected union or other concerted activity, or in any other manner discriminate against any of our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, except as permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees because they exercise their right to engage in union or other protected concerted activity, or because they select the union, or any other labor organization, as their exclusive bar- gaining representative. WE WILL offer Robert Abbott immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him with interest at 6 percent per annum. HASTY PRINT, INC., D/B/A WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. BARKER, Administrative Law Judege: This case was heard before me at Santa Ana, California, on January 12 and 13, 1976, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing issued on October 15, 1975, by the Regional Director for Region 21.1 The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. The initial charge giving rise to the complaint and notice of hearing was filed on August 8 by Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, and the first amended charge was filed by the Union on September 16. Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent availed themselves of the opportunity to make closing arguments and the Charging Party timely filed a brief with me. Upon the entire record in this case, and based upon my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all material times, a California corporation engaged in the lithography business at a facility at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, California. In the normal course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent, at times material herein, has annually sold and shipped goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located in the State of California, each of whom either annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Califor- nia, or annually sells and ships goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Califorma. Upon these facts, which are not in dispute, I find that Respondent is, and at all material times has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is conceded that the Union is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I so find. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issues in this case are: (1) whether in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act Respondent interrogated and threatened employees and, an inducement to employees to refrain from supporting the Union, offered and implemented a plan for improved wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment; (2) whether in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act Respondent unlaw- fully terminated Robert Abbott, a supporter of the Union; and (3) whether the Union's loss of majority status among Respondent's employees was attributable to the aforesaid unlawful conduct. The allegations of the complaint, which are denied by Respondent, raise the further issue of whether a bargaining order is warranted, assuming findings favorable to the Geneal Counsel. I Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to calendar year 1975 WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS 457 B. Pertinent Facts 1. Background facts a. Management and supervisory hierarchy Respondent is a family-operated corporate entity whose president is Darryl Walker. Steve Walker is Respondent's vice president and general manager. Alice Walker, the wife of Darryl Walker and the mother of Steve Walker, is secretary-treasurer of the corporation. Each of the Walkers is actively engaged in the operation and management of the business on a daily basis. Joe Robinson served as Respon- dent's plant superintendent from June 10 until July 25 and was in charge of production work with authority to hire, terminate, and promote employees. At relevant times, Everett Trammell served as foreman of the pressroom. Respondent concedes that Robinson and Trammell were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act at times material herein. b. The employees designate the Union During the summer months of 1975, Respondent em- ployed approximately 11 production and maintenance employees. The previously unrepresented complement of employees initiated efforts in early June to gain union representation, and Larry and Steven Moms, acting on behalf of other employees of Respondent, spoke with Robert Abbott, a fellow employee whom the Momses knew to be a member of the Union. Pursuant to his conversation with Larry and Steven Morris, Abbott contacted Manuel Pena, special representative for the Union, and informed him of employee interest in obtaining union representation. Pursuant to prior arrangements, a meeting was held on June 10 which was attended by nine employees. After the employees discussed with Pena their interest in obtaining union representation, Pena distributed literature informing the employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. He then explained to the employees the dual purpose of authorization cards in serving as a basis for a representation petition to be filed with the Board or as a supporting basis for a demand for recognition. During the course of the meeting, each of the rune employees signed an authorization card in Pena's presence.2 Everett Trammell, who was present at the meeting and who voluntarily informed Pena that he was serving in the capacity of foreman of the pressroom, did not sign an authorization card. The following evening, Pena again met with the nine employees. Additionally, Thomas Wasko attended this meeting and signed an authorization card. The employees also expressed a desire to become members of the Union, and each of the ten employees filled out a membership application form. The employees requested to be sworn into the Union, but Pena informed them that he would make arrangements for this to be done at a subsequent time. He informed the employees that an initiation or organizing fee of $25 would have to be paid by each individual. He further 2 The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Manuel Pena and the authorization cards which are in evidence Respondent does not challenge the authenticity of the cards The apparently inadvertent discrep- stated that he would file a representation petition with the Board on behalf of the employees and would send a letter to Respondent requesting recognition. Pena met with the emplyees again on June 13. This meeting was held on a workday during the employee lunch hour at a place proximate to the plant. As they met with Pena, the employees were sworn into the Union and given small pins bearing the name of the Union. The employees informed Pena that they would wear the pins when they returned to work. c. The demand for recognition and bargaining In the meantime, on June 12, Pena filed a representation petition on behalf of the Union seeking to represent all the production and maintenance employees of Respondent. Pena also dispatched a letter to Darryl Walker informing Walker that a petition had been filed with the Board, and claiming rights on behalf of the Union to represent the production and maintenance employees of the Company. In the letter, Pena asserted that a majority of the production and maintenance employees had designated the Union as their bargaining representative and stated further: The Union stands ready to meet with you or your representative whenever mutually convenient, to dis- cuss the matter of recognition. If the company agrees to recognize the Union as representative of its Production and Maintenance employees, and agrees to bargain collectively on the terms of a labor contract, the Union will be pleased to withdraw the NLRB petition. Pena requested Walker to contact him and specified a telephone number at which he could be reached. A few days later, Pena contacted Darryl Walker by telephone and requested a meeting at which time he would prove the Union's majority status and arrange a date for bargaining negotiations. Walker informed Pena that he had retained an attorney and that further communications would be camed out through counsel. Thereafter, on July 7, Respondent, through counsel, dispatched a letter to Pena. Reference was made to Pena's letter of June 12 and Pena was advised that the Company entertained "a very substantial good faith doubt as to your union's majority status, and respectfully declines to meet for the purpose expressed [therein]." The letter also contained the further observation, "[i ]nsofar as your petition has already been filed with the NLRB, this entire matter can best be resolved through NLRB channels." d. A Board election scheduled On July 25, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the following described unit found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargai ing: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the Employer at its facilities located at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, California; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, sales people, ancy in the date on the face of the card executed by Thomas Barron is not raised by Respondent as a basis for invalidating that card 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD professional employees, typesetters, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election an eligibility list dated July 29 was submitted. The list contained ten names, including the names of eight individu- als who had signed union authorization cards on June 10 or June 1 1.3 An election was scheduled in the aforesaid unit to be conducted on August 12. On August 8, the initial charge herein was filed and the complaint and notice of hearing issued on October 15. On November 6, the Regional Director issued an order vacating his July 25 Decision and Direction of Election, and dismissing the representation petition. e. Management reacts to organizing effort In the meantime, on the evening of Friday, June 13, Joe Robinson received a telephone call from Everett Trammell relating to business matters. During the course of the conversation, Trammell stated that the Company had "another problem to face." Trammell thereupon stated that "100% of the employees had pledged to the Union." Robinson inquired into the basis for Trammell's comment and Trammell explained that at lunchtime in front of the building the employees had "pledged to the Umon." Robinson sought Trammell's explanation as to why the employees would seek union representation. Trammell answered that he thought the employees believed they had lost communication with management and were not satisfied with their wages, benefits, and working environ- ment. The conversation terminated with Robinson observ- ing that he would contact a union official who was his friend for advice. The following day, Robinson met with Darryl and Alice Walker and related to them the contents or substance of his earlier conversation with Trammell. He also informed the Walkers that he had conversed with an official of a union and advised the Walkers to retain an attorney. Approximately 30 minutes later, Robinson spoke with Steve Walker and related to him the essence of his conversation with Trammell. Darryl and Alice Walker were present. In responding to Robinson, Steve Walker said, in the presence of Darryl and Alice Walker, "I will fire every man in the plant. I will never go union." Darryl Walker interjected and stated there was "no way" that they could continue to operate if they had to sign a union contract. Darryl Walker added that he would never "become" union. Still later in the day, Robinson participated in a conversa- tion with Darryl, Alice, and Steve Walker. One of the Walkers brought up the topic of "possible instigators" and the names of Bob Abbott, Tom Wasko, and Mike Dudich were mentioned. 3 Robert Abbott 's name did not appear on the list As hereinafter considered, he had been terminated on June 20 4 The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Joe Robinson which is not disputed 5 The foregoing is based upon a consideration of the testimony of Wendy Roberts, Robert Abbott, and Alice Walker I have also considered docu- ments of record The testimony of Alice Walker with respect to the occurrences on the initial day of Abbott's hire are unrefuted and I credit her testimony in this regard With respect to the incident involving Wendy On Monday, June 16, Alice Walker informed Robinson that the Company had retained an attorney and that he would be over that day to instruct management.4 2. The alleged unlawful conduct a. The termination of Robert Abbott Robert Abbott was employed by Respondent on or about May 21, and for a period of approximately 4 weeks, until his termination on June 20, he worked in photocomposing. At the time of his employment, and for a period of approximately 20 years prior thereto, Abbott had been a member of the Umon. On his initial day of hire, he was interviewed by Darryl Walker and following the interview he was instructed by Darryl Walker to complete some employment forms. Alice Walker was standing nearby when Darryl Walker issued those instructions to Abbott, and Darryl Walker directed Abbott to accompany Alice Walker in order to obtain the necessary papers. Upon hearing this directive, Alice Walker requested Abbott to follow her and Abbott made a remark to the effect, "That's what I like, nice, friendly little bookkeepers." To this Alice Walker responded, "This nice, friendly little bookkeeper happens to be named Walker." Subsequently, during the lunch hour on a day in early June, Wendy Roberts, a young woman employed as Respondent's receptionist, was approaching the front door of the building housing Respondent's operations. Roberts was about to leave the building by the front exit when she met Robert Abbott as he was about to enter the building through the same door. Abbott, somewhat older than Roberts, was accompanied by Larry Morris and Mike Dudich. Abbott was carrying some lunch which he had obtained from a lunch truck parked in front of the plant. As Abbott approached to within three to five feet of Roberts, he motioned as if to hand the lunch items to one of the men accompanying him. As he did so he said, "Hold this. I want to play with her tits." Roberts said nothing but proceeded through the door.5 A few days later, on or about Friday, June 6, Roberts told Starla Abbott - no relation to Robert Abbott - the details of the incident involving Robert Abbott. Starla Abbott was employed at the time as a bookkeeper and worked in the same office as that occupied by Alice Walker. Starla Abbott and Wendy Roberts had been acquainted a considerable period of time. Roberts mentioned the incident involving Robert Abbott after Starla Abbott had described the incident set forth above involving Alice Walker and Robert Abbott on the first day of Abbott's employment. Alice Walker, Wendy Roberts, and Starla Abbott were the only females employed at Respondent's plant at the time in questions Roberts, although Abbott's testimony varies in some respects from that of Roberts, his testimony supports that of Roberts as regards the essential nature of his comment to Roberts The findings with respect to this incident are based principally upon the testimony of Wendy Roberts and I credit Robert Abbott only to the extent his testimony supports that of Roberts 6 The foregoing is based primarily upon the credited testimony of Wendy Roberts. Although less definitive, the testimony of Starla Abbott supports the testimony of Roberts with respect to their conversation. I have also considered the testimony of Alice Walker. WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS Wendy Roberts did not, herself, report the incident involving Robert Abbott to any member of management or supervision. However, on June 19, Starla Abbott conveyed to Alice Walker the essence of the conversation which she had had with Roberts concerning the incident involving Robert Abbott. Starla Abbott informed Alice Walker that Wendy Roberts had been "upset" by the incident. During the day Alice Walker discussed the matter with Darryl Walker and during the evening they reached a tentative decision to terminate Robert Abbott. The next morning they spoke with Steve Walker and they agreed that Abbott should be discharged. Thereupon, Alice Walker went out into the plant and approached Joe Robinson and informed him that they had "grounds to fire" Abbott. Alice Walker stated that an incident had occurred involving Robert Abbott and Wendy Roberts and requested Robinson to come to the office and meet with Darryl and Steve Walker. Robinson did so. In the meantime, Alice Walker had approached Wendy Roberts and had requested her to come to the office and meet with her. Roberts honored the request and met with Darryl, Alice, and Steve Walker. Robinson was present. Upon entering the office, Alice Walker informed Roberts that she had learned from Starla Abbott the details of the incident involving Roberts and Robert Abbott. She re- quested Roberts to summarize the incident for their information. Roberts summarized the incident and Alice Walker informed Roberts that Abbott was going to be terminated. She added that they were going to place a telephone call to Attorney Nagel to seek advice.? Nagel was reached by telephone. Robinson spoke to him and detailed the salient aspects of the incident for Nagel's benefit. The conversation between Robinson and Nagel lasted approxi- mately five minutea. In the meantime, Starla Abbott had been called to the office and at the request of Alice Walker, she prepared a brief written statement which she dated and signed. At the same time, and also at the request of Alice Walker, Wendy Roberts prepared a written statement summarizing the incident involving Robert Abbott and her subsequent conversation with Starla Abbott. In her statement, Roberts expressed the shock which she experienced on the day of the incident, emphasizing in this regard disparity between her age and that of Abbott. She also described the distress she thereafter experienced in seeing Abbott in the plant and explained the fear that "Someday no one else will be working in his area and he might put his thoughts and r Alice Walker credibly testified, in substance, that the decision to terminate Abbott had been reached before the call to Anthony Nagel was placed In response to questions from Respondent 's attorney, she testified. "We wanted your counsel , asking you if this would hurt anything that was happending to us We didn't know what we could do Was it all right . " R The foregoing is based primarily upon the credited testimony of Joe Robinson, Wendy Roberts, Alice Walker, and Starla Abbott. I have also considered the testimony of Robert Abbott I have carefully considered documentary evidence of record, including the prehearing affidavits of Wendy Roberts and the statements given by Roberts and Starla Abbott to management Initially, despite certain discrepancies between the testimony of Wendy Roberts and the content of her initial affidavit given to a Board agent on August 15 relating to the day on which she first discussed with Alice Walker the Robert Abbott incident, I credit the testimony of Roberts that, contrary to her initial affidavit, the conversation with Walker transpired on June 20, as found This finding is predicated not only upon an evaluation of the undisputed testimony of Alice Walker, supportive of Wendy Roberts 459 words into action. " She signed and dated her statement. The written statements of Roberts and Starla Abbott were given to Robinson and he and Steve Walker took them to the office of Attorney Nagel. They met with Nagel approxi- mately an hour and returned to the plant. They arrived back at the plant at approximately 3:30 p.m. After arriving back at the plant, Robinson performed his usual Friday afternoon tasks of distributing paychecks to the employees. Checks were given to each employee except Robert Abbott. Robinson informed Robert Abbott that he desired to see him in private. Thereafter, Robinson re- turned to the office of Alice Walker and obtained a final paycheck which had been prepared covering compensation due Robert Abbott. Thereafter, Steve Walker and Robinson met with Robert Abbott in the production control room. Only Walker, Robinson, and Abbott were present. Robinson took the initiative in the conversation and informed Abbott that he was being terminated and that it was such a delicate matter that he, Robinson, had been advised not to discuss the matter with Abbott. Robinson informed Abbott that he would receive a registered letter at the beginning of the following week a full explanation as to why he had been terminated. Abbott inquired if something had been wrong with his work and Robinson assured him that there had been "no problem" in that regard. Abbott obtained his tools and left the plant. He has not since worked in the employ of Respondent.8 Management undertook no independent investigation of the reports which had been given it by Roberts and Starla Abbott. Robert Abbott was not questioned concerning the matter prior to his termination. Alice Walker credibly testified, in substance, that she and her husband took into consideration the attitude which Robert Abbott had displayed toward her on the initial day of Abbott's employment and had no interest in hearing Abbott's version of the incident. She testified, in this regard, that management had no reason for doubting the reports given to them by Roberts and Starla Abbott. Wendy Roberts credibly testified that the early June incident involving Robert Abbott had offended her "strongly" and Starla Abbott's credited testimony reveals that Roberts informed her that she had been upset by the incident. Roberts further credibly testified that she had not been acquainted with Robert Abbott prior to the time he was employed by Respondent and that during the 4-week period of his employment no other incident similar to the with respect to the day of the initial conversation between them , but is based also upon my careful observation of Wendy Roberts as she testified as a witness before me. Roberts impressed me as a thoroughly truthful and credible witness . I have considered her explanation regarding the circum- stances and state of mind which contributed to the discrepancy between her August 15 affidavit and her witness stand testimony, and I find it reasonable and convincing. Moreover, the entire chain of events , including the testimony of Alice Walker and Starla Abbott, as well as the written statement of Starla Abbott, suggests that Starla Abbott did not relate to Alice Walker Roberts' earlier account of the Robert Abbott incident until June 19 Thus, in all the circumstances, I find the chronology of events as related by Roberts to be accurate and the affidavit references , in this regard, to be erroneous I further find, upon the testimony of Roberts, Alice Walker, and Robinson, as well as the testimony of Starla Abbott herself, that the statement given by Starla Abbott to management was written during the course of the June 20 meeting, and the June 19 date on the statement was placed there by Starlit Abbott through inadvertence 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD early June incident transpired. She further credibly testified that prior to the incident her conversations with Abbott had been lirruted to normal greetings between individuals, both from the vantage point of her reception desk and while she was in the plant on normal duties. She further credibly testified that after the incident she was reluctant to enter the plant area and was disturbed by the manner in which Abbott would look at her. A letter dated June 23 and bearing the signature of Darryl Walker was dispatched to Robert Abbott wherein the alleged basis for Abbott's termination was set forth. In substance, in strong and graphic terms, it was asserted that Abbott's termination had resulted solely from Abbott's conduct with respect to Wendy Roberts. Alice Walker testified that Abbott's union activities played no role in his termination. Joe Robinson credibly testified that, following Abbott's termination, his duties were filled by an individual who theretofore had worked part time and that he, himself, had worked in the evening to assist in the workload. Robinson further credibly testified that at the time he left Respon- dent's employ on July 25 no permanent replacement had been obtained for Abbott although he had contacted several individuals whom he knew to possess the necessary qualifications to fill thejob. b. Interference, coercion, and restraint (1) The employment of union members discussed In early June, Steve Walker stated to Robert Abbott that he desired to employ some additional pressmen, and he inquired if Abbott knew of any available prospects. Abbott answered in the affirmative, adding that they were good journeyman pressmen and "union men." Walker replied that he did not want "too many union men around." Abbott responded that he was a member of the Union and showed Walker his card. Walker stated that he would not have a union pressman in the plant. They proceeded to the office where they spoke with Darryl Walker. Steve Walker stated during the course of this conversation that he was not interested in having a union in the shop. He added that he had friends in the management of another company, and the company was losing money because of the union. Steve Walker added that he would prefer to close down the shop rather than have it organized by the Union 9 (2) Robinson promises increased benefits On or about June 24, Robinson approached Larry Moms and requested Morris to come to the back of the plant to speak with him. Thereupon, Robinson stated that there was a problem in the plant, the nature of which he did not understand. The participants understood their discussion was in the nature of an off-the-record exchange of views and opinion. Robinson noted that he was new in the plant and wanted to know why the employees were seeking representation. Morris answered that the employees desired to have the benefits which were available in, the area to other craftsmen. He stated that the employees wanted a pay raise, a quarterly cost-of-living increase, an additional holiday, increased vacation, and premium pay after 8 hours of work. Morris also stated that the employees desired a lunch table. Robinson disagreed on the cost-of-living proposal but added that, in his opinion, in the other areas of discussion, much could be done to bring about greater comparability with printers in the rest of the country. He observed, also, that a lunch table was in order. During the course of the conversation, Morris informed Robinson that he had been designated by the rest of the employees as their spokesman. The conversation lasted approximately 10 or 15 rrunutes.10 A day or two later, Robinson met with the Walkers and discussed the organizational campaign. Robinson took the initiative in the meeting by informing the Walkers that he had established some communication with the employees in the plant. He noted that he felt he had "a handle on the program" and explained to the Walkers that he knew from talking with employees that animosity in the plant was growing and he requested permission from the Walkers to handle the "union problem on his own," and to deal with Attorney Nagel on a consultative basis. Agreement was reached granting Robinson authority to take necessary actions in dealing with the organizational effort and to be counseled and advised by Nagel. It was further specified that Robinson would effectuate no changes in personnel or plant conditions without getting specific clearance from the Walkers. 11 Approximately' a week later, Robinson approached Moms again and they spoke together. Robinson asked how Morris felt about the Union and inquired how the other employees felt. He inquired if Moms had detected any change in employee attitude with respect to desiring union representation. Morris answered in the negative. Morris did observe that the union representative had informed the employees that the Union would negotiate on their behalf and reach a separate agreement with the Company which was different from the standard union contract. Morris characterized this as a "sweetheart contract," and Robin- son responded that he did not think the Union could legally make such an agreement. He informed Moms that he would discuss this with counsel for the Company. The conversation ended on this note.12 Thereafter, on or about July 18, Robinson spoke again with Morris. This conversation transpired approximately a week after the Company had installed new production procedures.13 Robinson asked Morris how the new proce- dures were working out. After Morris had answered, Robinson asked if any of the employees had changed their minds and if conditions were getting better. Morris re- sponded that so far as he was aware all of the employees still wanted the Union. Thereupon, Robinson left. Moms continued to work for a time and then approached Robinson. Morris asked if there was any way that the employees could get the benefits without the Union. 9 The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Robert Abbott li The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Joe Robinson which is not disputed 12 The General Counsel does not allege unlawful interrogation arising 10 The credited testimony of Joe Robinson and Larry Moms establishes from this exchange the foregoing 13 The legality of that action is not challegned WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS 46-1 Robinson answered, "No," but added, "Larry, we both know that we are not allowed to discuss these things, but if we were allowed, or if in fact we didn't have this union problem, this is the way I would approach you on the proposal I am drawing up for the Walkers...." Robinson went on to say that if he were allowed to speak with Morris he would discuss wage increases, a benefit package, and improvements in the working environment. -However, Robinson. noted that, because they could not discuss the matter,legally, there was nothing that could be done at that time. He stated that this was so because the employees had asked for representation and now they had it. Nonetheless, Morris inquired further, asking Robinson what guarantee would be given employees that the Walkers would live up to an understanding with-the employees -after the employees had told the Union -that they no longer wanted to be represented by it. Robinson responded that-he could give no guarantees but that if the Walkers went back on their word to him he would personally come in and lead every man out of the plant. The conversation ended. Robinson credibly testified that he had not obtained specific permission from the Walkers to speak with Morris and that he did so on his own volition and within what he conceived to be the scope of his authority to act on behalf of the Company in dealing with the employee organization- al effort. (3) Employee lunch area established In the interim, Robinson obtained some tables that had been used as work tables, and placed them in a designated area. Re informed the employees that they could start using the area as a lunch area 14 (4) Steve Walker and Constantini converse On June 29, Steve Walker approached Constantini as he worked at his press and asked him how he was going to vote.15 Constantini answered that he did not know how he was going to vote and Walker stated, in substance, that Constantini should make certain "to vote right." Walker also observed that he had helped Constantmi when his wife was ill and that Constantin should remember that fact. Walker added that he would never have a union in the shop, and if the Union should successfully organize the shop he would rather close down. William Beyer, an 14 The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Larry, Morris and Joe Robinson, which, in essential terms, is mutually corroborative. However, with respect to the conversation which transpired in late'June, I base my findings solely upon the credited testimony of Robinson. Moms did not testify concerning this incident, although he remembered having two or three conversations with Robinson. On the other hand, the finding with respect to the implementation of the promise of lunch tables is based entirely upon the testimony of Moms for Robinson did not allude to this matter in his testimony. - 15 At this point in time, the representation petition had been filed but no Decision and Direction of Election had issued nor had the Board election been scheduled. 1s The credited testimony of Charles Constantine and William Beyer establishes the foregoing. Steve Walker was not called as a witness to testify and I find no basis for discrediting the testimony of Constantim and Beyer. Insofar as Walker's inquiry into Constantini's voting intentions, I conclude that, although no election had been scheduled at this point in time, the prospects of a Board election were well known and had become a topic of consideration on the part of management and employees alike. Moreover, employee who had signed a union authorization card, was standing a few feet away and overheard the latter referenc- es.16 - (5) The meeting of July 1 On or about July 1, a meeting was held in the pressroom area which was attended by allhourly rated employees. Joe Robinson was in attendance as - were the Walkers and Attorney Nagel. During the course of the meeting, a document addressed to all-shop employees and bearing the signature of Darryl Walker was distributed to the employ- ees present. The document was dated July 1. The employees were accorded time to read and review the document and then Darryl Walker -read the contents aloud to the employees, punctuating his presentation with comments on certain aspects of the subject matter. He then turned the meeting over to Steve Walker who made certain comments and observations. In the course of so- doing, Steve Walker stated that if the Company were under a union contract and had to abide by union scale the multiunit department could not support itself and would have to be shut down: He added that, if this became necessary, two of the employees would be terminated.17 (6) Robinson and Wasko converse On or about July 16, Robinson spoke- to Tom Wasko, a unit employee. Robinson informed Wasko that the Walkers Were of the opinion that Wasko's job performance had not been up to expectations. _ Robinson added that Wasko's work had not achieved the level of productivity and quality which he, Robinson, desired. However, Robinson informed Wasko that he disagreed with the Walkers' evaluation of Wasko's worth to the Company. Moreover, Robinson further told Wasko that because the Walkers were insisting that he terminate Wasko and because Wasko's work was not, in fact, -up to quality that Wasko would be better off if he would look about for another job. Robinson further informed Wasko that he felt that Wasko was under pressure and not able to perform at the required level, but that he did not wish to find grounds for terminating him. Wasko reponded that he could see that matters would not work out satisfactorily and that he would undertake a search for another job.ls upon careful consideration of Constantmi's testimony on cross-examination, I reach the conclusion that the comments of Walker were as explicit as Constantine testified they were and were not conditioned or premised upon the occurrence of other eventualities havin g to do with an erosion of the Company's financial position. Constantine testified that he had a subsequent conversation with Steve Walker wherein the Union and a collective-bargaining agreement, were discussed. Constantim's recollection of the details of this incident were revealed to be most hazy and I am unable to credit his testimony to the effect that Steve Walker stated, in substance, that "in no way did he have to sign a union contract and that he would not do so " Although this testimony was not refuted by Steve Walker, Constantini's testimony with respect to this alleged conversation was revealed to be so imprecise as not to warrant a finding favorable to the General Counsel on this testimonial fragment. 17 The credited and undisputed testimony of Joe Robinson supports these findings. 18, The foregoing is based upon a consideration of the testimony of Joe Robinson. Construing the allegation of the complaint to which the testimony of Robinson in this regard related, I adhere to my ruling excluding further (Continued) 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (7) Robinson threatens to terminate the Momses On July 24, Robinson observed that Larry and Steven Moms had punched out early and had departed without authorization. There was work to be accomplished, and Robinson endeavored to locate Larry Morris in the plant. Robinson then spoke with Everett Trammell the foreman of the pressroom, and related his discovery to Trammell. Robinson stated that in his opinion the conduct of the Momses accorded him grounds for effectuating their immediate termination. He discussed with Trammell the propriety of terminating the Morrises and asserted that, if it had not been for the union activity in the plant, he would not have considered the conduct of the Morrises sufficiently grave to have justified their termination. However, Robin- son stated to Trammell that he believed the Momses would vote in favor of the Union. Trammell was unresponsive to Robinson's inquiry. Thereafter, Robinson spoke with Constantini and Beyer concerning the matter. He summarized what had transpired and stated that he felt he had grounds for terminating the Morrises. He asked Constantine and Beyer if this would sway their vote one way or another. Neither of the employees responded. Robinson added that he did not wish to fire the Momses, but that he was afraid that the Walkers would insist that he do so. He added that he was convinced that if he did not terminate the Morasses he probably would not be at work in the morning. After speaking with Constantine and Beyer, Robinson endeavored to reach Attorney Nagel by telephone. He was informed the Nagel would not be available until the following morning. Thereafter, following a passage of time, Robinson met with the Walkers. He stated that he felt he had grounds for terminating the Morrises. He was asked to state his reasons and he told the Walkers that the Morrises had punched out early without obtaining permission. He informed the Walkers that he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Attorney Nagel. He stated that Nagel would be available for consultation the following morning. In speaking with the Walkers, Robinson observed that if the Morrises were terminated there would be two less votes for the Union, but that he, Robinson, did not think that the Morrises should be terminated. He stated that the basis for severance was borderline in nature and might in the long run redound to the disadvantage of the Company by alienating the employees generally. Darryl Walker stated that no decision should be made until the Walkers had had an opportunity to consult with counsel. Steve Walker concurred in this suggestion. However, before the meeting ended, Steve Walker and Robinson engaged in a further dialogue which terminated with Robinson observing that his philosophy differed so greatly in areas relating to the management of people that he felt he could no longer work for the Company. testimony by Robinson relating to his motives in speaking as he did with Wasko The record revealed that the alleged reasons, which were known to Robinson , were not, in words, articulated to Wasko Because no constructive discharge is alleged, and because the allegation of the complaint relates essentially to interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights - with 8(ax5) implications - I reject the General Counsel's offer of proof designed to establish that Robinson spoke The following morning, July 25, Robinson reported to the plant and Steve and Alice Walker were involved in a general meeting with employees in the plant. Darryl Walker called Robinson into the office and stated that management had reached a decision to permit Robinson to resign effective immediately.19 In the meantime, in mid-July, Steve Walker had informed Robinson that he desired to terminate Mike Dudich and had a very good reason for doing so. He stated that Dudich had performed some work which was not up to quality standards, and a specific job was mentioned. Walker observed that he had evidence to the effect that Dudich had deliberately sabotaged the job, and that Dudich and the employees with whom he had performed work on that specific job had taken steps to interfere with its normal and timely completion. Robinson interposed a challenge to Walker's contention and stated that, in point of fact, he felt that Dudich was doing a good job. He added that he did not feel that Dudich was sabotaging or slowing down on the job. Nonetheless, Steve Walker said that he wanted to "fire the S.O.B. " and stated that he did not want him in the plant. Walker added that he did not care about "labor laws" or "union laws." He stated he just wanted Dudich out of the plant. Dudich was not terminated.20 (8) Steve Walker and Steven Dudich discuss wages and benefits During the first week of August, Steve Walker ap- proached Dudich and stated that he wished to talk to him. They left the work area, and Walker thereupon stated to Dudich that he was the last employee that he was going to talk to about the Union. Walker went on to state that he desired to talk with Dudich about the union matter, although he found it very hard to do so. In effect, Walker explained that some of the employees had told him about Dudich's proumon feelings and noted that he considered Dudich to be his greatest adversary when it came to the Union. Dudich responded that he was, in fact, 100 percent for the Union. At this juncture in the conversation, Walker stated that he was upset with having hired Robert Abbott because of Abbott's influence on the employees' union activities. Walker also commented in an adverse manner concerning Mike Dudich. To this, Steve Dudich responded, in substance, that he had to go to great lengths to explain to his brother why he, Steve Dudich, was in favor of the Union. As the conversation continued, Dudich informed Walker that he thought Walker was being very reactionary and unrealistic in his attitude toward the organizing effort. In effect, Walker explained his attitude by alluding to the financial difficulties which the Company would encounter by the employees' obtaining union representation at that time. Walker asserted that the Company could not afford to operate under union conditions, and Walker and Dudich had an extended discussion concerning this point of view as he did to Wasko because he considered him a vote for the Union in the upcoming election, and, in substance, was aware that the Company's interest would be furthered by obtaining Wasko's resignation 19 The foregoing is based upon the credited and undisputed testimony of Joe Robinson 20 Joe Robinson credibly testified to these occurrences WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS and the effects of signing a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Dudich took the position that the Union never came into a plant initially and insisted upon full application of contractual provisions. In response, Walker stated that he expected the Union to seek to apply the collective-bargaining agreement which was in effect in the industry in southern California. He added, in effect, that the cost of applying the terms of that bargaining agreement would be prohibitive and the Company could not afford to do so. He reiterated that to sign such a bargaining agreement would have the effect of putting the Company out of business, and the employees' effort to organize had come at an inopportune time. Walker also made the point that many of the employees had started as trainees and had not reached the experience or skill level to become journeymen. He observed that in a union shop there could be only one apprentice out of every six employees. Walker made the point that if the Union came in and insisted on top journeyman rates for the employees the Company would be left with no option with respect to those employees in the present complement who were really not journeymen but to endeavor to recruit and obtain top journeymen. During the course of the conversation, Walker and Dudich debated whether or not the Union, in fact, would insist upon application of all of the terms of the standard agreement. During the discussion, Walker stated that if the Union came in and sought to apply all of the terms of the standard agreement in the face of company opposition on economic grounds the Union would have to resort to a strike. Walker added that if the strike evolved the Company would not close its operation and would hope that the employees would continue to work. He further observed that, if the employees went out on strike for higher wages and benefits, he would have to find permanent replacements. He added, in this general vein, that he was sorry that the whole thing had come up but that it was the employees' right to organize. At a point in the conversation, Walker asserted that he had talked to individuals in the plant and asserted that the Union could not win in an election. Dudich took issue with this and Walker responded, in substance, that even if the Union did win his father would not allow the Union in the plant but would lock out the employees. In this regard, Walker made references to certain arragements which the Company had made, in effect, to carry on its operations. Walker noted that the Union would be. detrimental to Constantmi and Beyer because their wives were ill and if the Union came in they would not have a job. He also observed, in effect, that if the employees decided the question of representation adverse to the Union the Company would go ahead and improve upon the present conditions.21 Walker went on to observe that he had become aware through the union activities that had transpired that the Company's wage scale and benefits were not in line with those being paid elsewhere in the jurisdic- tion. Walker made specific reference to the vacation benefits. As the discussion evolved, Dudich asked if Walker 21 The transcript reference in this respect is somewhat imprecise but the conclusion required from the total context is that, if the employees voted against the Union, steps would be taken to improve conditions. 22 Dudich had been recalled to the Company 's employ after having been terminated 463 had stated that the Company was going to give raises. Walker answered in the affirmative and Dudich asked the extent of the raise . Walker responded that the raise would be on the order of $1.25 to $1 .50 an hour. Walker added that Larry Morris, Charles Contantini , and William Beyer had been promised $2 an hour . Dudich reponded, in substance, that these three employees were not the only employees in the plant, and Walker reiterated that the other employees would be given raises on the order of $1.25 to $1.50 per hour. The discussion continued into the area of benefits and Dudtch suggested that the employees were interested in sick leave and medical benefits . Walker responded that there was no reason for not according employees sick pay and he could "easily see having included medical benefits." As the conversation reached its termination , Walker observed that Dudich had more right to be upset than anyone else.22 Dudich ended the conversation by saying, in substance, that if this matter were approached directly by the employees and the Company, and the Company did not keep its word, there would be strong repercussions from the employees . The conversation terminated and Dudich returned to his place of work. (9) Steve Walker converses with Larry Moms Over a period of approximately 2 months from mid-June to mid-August, Steve Walker and Larry Moms engaged in several brief conversations relating to the Union and employee benefits. During the course of one of these conversations, Walker stated that the Company could not afford to operate under a union contract and would not sign such an agreement . Walker also informed Moms during the course of one of these conversations that if the employees selected the Union the Company had applicants who were ready to come through a picket line and man the jobs. Further, on one occasion as Walker and Moms were conversmg, Walker made comparisons between wages that were being paid by competition and those which the employees of the Company were receiving. Walker stated that he realized that the Company was under scale but that he had not been aware of this before the union organizing effort. Walker added that when the union matter had been decided he would do everything he could to bring the employees up to area scale insofar as wages and benefits were concerned. In discussing comparable wages and benefits, Walker had in his possession a piece of paper which he handed to Morris. Additionally, during the course of these conversations, in a discussion transpiring in August, Walker informed Larry Moms that he, Constanti- ni, and Beyer were going to obtain a $2-an-hour raise and Walker also asserted that all of the other employees would receive increases in their hourly wages of approximately $1.25. In speaking with Morris concerning benefits and wages, Walker did not state, in terms, that the promise or actual grant of improved wages or benefits was related to the employees' acceptance or rejection of the Union.23 23 The foregoing is based upon the undisputed and credited testimony of Larry Moms. 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (10) Employees present demands C. Conclusions After completing his conversation with Walker, Dudich returned to the plant. He was upset and at breaktime he called the employees together and spoke to them as a group. He asserted that the employees had not been honest with him concerning their support for the Union. He alluded to his conversation with Steve Walker and proceeded to inform them that Walker had promised a minimum raise of $1.25 per hour, improved medical benefits, premium pay for work in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week and improved vacation benefits. Dudich suggested that the employees proceed to vote so that the extent of union support could be gauged. One of the employees present noted, in substance, that it was useless to go to a Board election if the Union would not win. The vote was held and the employees voted against the Union.24 Thereupon, as the employees spoke, Dudich recorded on a piece of paper the demands which the employees suggested be made upon management. In response to an inquiry, Dudich stated, in substance, that the signature of Steve Walker on the piece of paper would serve as a guarantee from management that the benefits would be forthcoming if the employees should drop their support of the Union. Thereafter, Steve Walker was contacted through the public address system and met with the assembled employees in the plant. The piece of paper was presented to Walker, who affixed his signature, noting that these were the benefits which management planned to implement in any regard. Walker added that he hoped that the paper would be kept confidential and that he felt that now they could move ahead and create a better working atmosphere. Walker made no mention of the Union and in no manner conditioned his signing of the paper upon the willingness of employees to withdraw support of the Union. Later in the day, Larry Moms endeavored to contact the Union. Pena was not in and Morris called him again the following morning. Dudich was present. Morris informed Pena that the employees in the shop had balloted and had voted seven to four against the Union. He stated that the shop was "a pretty tight" one and observed that the employees had voted because it was their desire that everyone be "of the same mind." In substance, Morris stated that the same result would be reached in a Board election and directed Pena to withdraw the representation petition. Pena stated that he would do s0.25 (11) Wage increases and benefits effectuated Effective the pay period commencing August 13, Respon- dent granted wage increases to unit employees ranging from $1.25 per hour to $2 per hour; an additional week of paid vacation; 5 days' sick leave paid per annum; and 8 hours' additional compensation for the day following Thanksgiving Day and 4 hours' extra compensation for the day preceding Christmas as well as 4 hours' extra for the day preceding New Year's Day.26 21 Steven Dudich testified that the vote was either seven to four, or eight to three, against the union 25 The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Steven Dudich and Larry Moms 20 The foregoing is based on the testimony of Steven Dudich and Larry Moms and a stipulation of record 1. The Union's majority The record establishes, and I find, that, as alleged by the General Counsel, on June 12 the Union commanded a card-based majority among Respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. On June 12, the Union filed a representative petition with the Board and made a valid demand for recognition and bargaining which the Company failed to honor. Some 3 weeks later, Respondent declined recognition and pro- fessed a good-faith doubt. In the interim, with full knowl- edge and insight into the comprehensive character of the support accorded the Union by the relatively small comple- ment of unit employees, Respondent embarked upon a course of conduct calculated to undermine the Union's following and to cause the employees to reject the Union. I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, the Respon- dent entertained no good-faith doubt and through interro- gation and threats undertaken by its agents, Joe Robinson and Steve Walker, and by virtue of a management decision to grant employee benefits at a time when a Board election had been scheduled and was pending, Respondent engaged in widespread and serious unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, which had the effect of eradicating the Union's majority and of rendering a fair election impossible. 2. Interference, restraint, and coercion Initially, I find that, acting on behalf of Respondent, Joe Robinson broached with unit employees the subject of improved benefits to be granted directly by the Company without the intermediation or participation of the employ- ees' chosen bargaining representative. The first soundings in this regard were taken by Robinson on June 24 when he spoke to Larry Morris and learned that Moms had been selected by his fellow employees as their spokesman. No threats were uttered and no promises made. The conversa- tion was undertaken by the participants as an informal exchange of views. No unlawful interrogation is alleged. Significantly, however, this interlude must be viewed as the foundational episode from which unlawful proposals of a coercive nature were spun. Thus, within a few days of his conversation with Morris, Robinson requested and was granted authority by manage- ment to conduct Respondent's efforts to counter the Union's organizing effort. He informed management that he had opened a dialogue with the employees, and management vested him with broad authority. He thereaf- ter undertook actions clearly within the scope of his authority, and chargeable to Respondent on that ground 27 The first manifestation of Robinson's efforts to counter the appeal of the Union transpired when a lunch table was provided and a specified area designated by Robinson as a lunch area which the employees were invited to use. The 27 In any event, Robinson was a statutory supervisor and his conduct was in no manner disavowed by Respondent. Rather , Respondent acted upon its foundations in fulfilling its objectives in countering the union effort WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS 465 granting of this benefit, in context of Robinson's earlier conversation with Larry Morris, exploring, at least inferen- tially, alternatives to collective representation as a means of achieving employee objectives, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Then, .some 3 weeks later, on or about July 18, during a further conversation with Larry Morris,- which Morris initiated, Robinson reinforced the notion that direct negotiations and commitments between the Company and the employees were attainable and viable alternatives to employee representation by the Union by defining the class or nature oFbenefits susceptible of direct discussion and agreement, conceding as he did so, that perhaps he was trespassing into an unlawful ' area. Robinson's `methods were oblique but the message conveyed was nonetheless clear. His conduct must be found to constitute an unlawful inducement to employees to abandon the Union in favor of direct dealings with their employer. Then, in a somewhat contemporary fashion to the undertakings of Robinson, Steve Walker opened a dialogue with Larry Morris wherein he held out to Morris the prospects that if the Union were not in the picture he would use his influence to bring the employees up to area scale and benefits. Walker effectively supplemented his discus- sions with Larry, Morris by carrying on a dialogue with Steven Dudich whereby he gave the same or similar assurances to Dudich, and proceeded to speak in more specific terms concerning wages and fringe benefits obtain- able by the employees through company action free from the participation of the Union. Although characterized by a degree of subtlety and indirection, Walker's separate discourses with Steven Dudich and Larry Morris carried the clear message of improved wages and benefits should the employees abandon the Union and decide to cast their lot with the Company. .Indeed, as matters evolved, this was precisely what the =employees chose to do when they drew up a list of benefits and Steve Walker affixed his signature signifying company commitment to the achievement of those benefits , In point of fact, the list had been drawn up through the initiative of Dudich and the participation of Larry Morris, who had each been given a promise by Steve Walker that wages would be, improved. On this evidence I find that, like Robinson beore him, Steve Walker inter- fered with employee rights under the Act to freely choose a bargaining representative and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The dissuasive efforts of Steve Walker and Robinson gained full fruition when the employees requested the Union to withdraw from efforts to gain Board certification, and the climax of the 2-month endeavor was reached when on August 13 a wage and benefit package was made effective to cover "unit employees . This latter action on the part of management resulted in a further independent violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Respondent's interference with employee rights to orga- nize and achieve collective representation were not limited to the proffer - and bestowal of economic inducements, however. As Respondent lured employees by the prospects of improved wages,and working conditions, Robinson and Steve Walker, on behalf of management, were telegraphing a separate facet of management power. Thus, on June 29, Steve Walker unlawfully interrogated Constantine concern- ing his voting preferences, and threatened and coerced him by admonishing him to vote right and cautioning him, as employee Beyer stood within earshot, to remember the help that had been extended to Constantini when his wife had been ill. The implications of this remark were made more compelling to Constantin and Beyer by Walker 's further statement to the effect that the shop -would never operate under union conditions, and his further assertion that he would rather close than do so. Later, in August, in speaking with Steven Dudich concerning the Union and the conse- quences of union representation, he again noted that Constantini's wife had been ill and that he would lose his job if the plant were unionized . The aforesaid conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The threat of termination was more directly communicat- ed when Robinson on July 16 spoke with Wasko. At the point in time of this conversation, a large majority of the small group of approximately 11 employees which com- prised the rank-and-file ' complement had signed authoriza- tion cards, joined the Union, and had had a representation petition filed on their behalf. As considered below, they had also witnessed the termination of Robert Abbott , who had been their initial contact with the Union . Additionally, at the time of the Wasko/Robinson conversation -here under consideration, Constantini and Beyer had been privy to threats emanating from a member of management, and Larry Morris had been subjected to the initial overtures from.Robinson, as found above, inferring that the search of unit employees for improved benefits and working condi- tions was perhaps attainable without the Union. While there is no direct evidence that Constantin, Beyer, and Larry Morris had discussed their conversations with Wasko or other rank-and-file employees, the inference that they did so is clearly present from the evidence-suggesting that the dialogue between employees at breaktime relating to the Union was an ongoing one , and it is reasonable to assume that Larry Morris, at least; in his role as spokesman for the employees, had reported to the employees his discussions with Steve Morris. In any event, when Robin- son communicated to Wasko the desire of the Walkers to terminate him, Wasko had witnessed the bestowal of a desired - albeit minor - benefit in the form of a lunch table and designated lunch area. In this setting, the question of union representation being a matter of moment uppermost in the minds of the employees , it is reasonable to conclude that Wasko comprehended the meaning and implication to be drawn from Robinson's remarks to him which contrasted Robinson's own evaluation of Wasko's value as an employee - to that of management. This is particularly so when this evidence is considered in light of Robinson's further comment to the effect that he personally did not desire to find grounds for terminating Wasko. I find that Robinson's remarks conveyed the meaning that Wasko's job was in jeopardy for reasons which Robinson did not believe valid, and they carried the suggestion, carefully cloaked, that union matters and not substantive job performance lay at the base of management's criticism of Wasko's job performance. I find that Robinson's remarks, however veiled, were coercive and calculated to be so; and that they interfered with Wasko's exercise of 466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 7 rights. Thus, a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act resulted. I fmd a similar violation deriving from Robinson's efforts to extract from Constantini and Beyer an opinion concern- ing the effect upon employee union attitudes of a personnel action under consideration, which would have the effect of terminating the employment of the Morrises on marginal grounds and in violation of Robinson's own objective judgment and wishes. As with Wasko, Robinson communi- cated to Constantin and Beyer the concept that manage- ment, and Robinson himself in his capacity as plant superintendent, was being guided in personnel matters by antiunion considerations. This being so, it is of no decision- al moment that the Morrises were not directly approached by Robinson or that their terminations were not-actually effectuated. The conclusion is required that Robinson had given currency to' a notion that was calculated tolinhibit and coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act and that his dialogue with Constantini and Beyer had precisely this effect, at least on the two employees to whom it was directly addressed. Moreover, in conversing with Constantini and Beyer, Robinson engaged in a type of inquiry which, by its very nature, was susceptible of notoriety and discussion, if not among a large segment of the small complement, at least on the part of the Morrises themselves. Further, in speaking with Constantine and Beyer, Robinson was acting in his official capacity and he had been endowed by management-with authority to act in matters pertaining to the Union. It is therefore no defense to.his conduct that Robinson had not consulted with the Walkers before communicating with Constantini and Beyer. Indeed, nowhere in the record is there any indication that management issued for employee benefit a disclaimer of responsibility for Robinson's conduct in this or any other regard.28 I further find, as alleged by the General Counsel, that Steve Walker threatened that Respondent would close down its operations if the employees selected the Union to represent them. This threat was uttered by Walker during the course of his conversation with Steve Dudich in early August, when he asserted that his father would not allow the Union to come into the plant but would resort to a lockout of the employees. I fmd this utterance to constitute a threat and not a mere prediction of the economic consequences which would result from unionization. Walk- er's comment to Dudich in this regard was not premised on cost considerations, although the economic impact of unionization had been an integral part of the conversation which featured the threat here found. As I view the record, Walker's utterance- emanated in a wholly separate fashion from the debate concerning the cost factors of unionization. Indeed,_ it came in close context with Walker's additional 28 Robinson's sudden resignation was, on- this record, more likely to convey the notion that he left Respondent's employ because he was unwilling to engage in actions hostile to the Union than it was with any suggestion that management forced his resignation in an effort to disassociate itself from antiunion conduct on Robinson's part of which it disapproved 29 The allegations of par. 10(a) and (b) to which this conduct relates specified occurrences "in or about June 1975 " These matters were fully litigated at the hearing and I find that the statements of Steve Walker to Steven Dudich, here found to constitute threats and interrogation, fall reasonably within the allegations of par 10 of the complaint and do not fail by reason of the variance in the alleged date and the actual time of the occurrence, as found. comment concerning the detrimental effect of unionization upon the economic interests of Constantini and Beyer, previously discussed, as well as his further assertion that if the employees should reject the Union the Company would proceed to- improve present conditions. in the plant. Considered in its record context, I fmd that Walker's reference to his father's adamant opposition to the,Union and his refusal to operate under -unionized conditions ,was calculated to threaten Dudich and had that effect,-,Futher- more, the same - conversation featured an element - of interrogation which similarly. infringed upon -Dudich's rights -under the Act. Thus, in asserting that he had information which suggested to him that. Dudich was, an avid proponent, of the Union, and a principal adversary to the Company, Steve Walker made utterances calculated to evoke a response. I conclude thatthe_element of interroga- tion was here present as surely as if Walker's interrogatory had been of a more direct character.29- 3. The' 8(aX5) violations The findings above made establish rather- conclusively the absence of a good-faith doubt on the part of Respon- dent as to the Union's majority status. Indeed, the record reveals a coordinated effort on Respondent's part designed to gain time in which to dissipate the Union's support. The conduct herein found to- constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act - including, of course, direct negotia- tions conducted with employees relating to wages, hours, and terms of employment, as well as the bestowal of benefits without -consultation with or bargaining through the Union - amounted, in legal effect, to a refusal on the part of Respondent to recognize the chosen bargaining representative of its employees, and constituted-4s well, a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle.- As alleged by the General Counsel, I fmd that Section 8(a)(5)- of the - - Act was thereby violated. 4, Other 8(a)(1) violations - I find that Steve Walker violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when he informed Robert Abbott in early June, before the organizing effort commenced, that he would not employ members of the Union. He similarly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when he rejected Abbott's proffer of information concerning the availability of union journeymen for em- ployment. Walker's statement to the effect that he would not have union pressmen in the shop, coupled with, his comment to the effect that rather than let the Union in he would close the shop, was inhibiting in nature, and they too violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 30 However, contrary to the General Counsel, I am unable to find that during the course of the July I meeting, 3° While, during the course of the early August conversation between Steve Walker and Steve Dudich, Walker noted the regret which the Company harbored in having, employed Robert Abbott because of his leadership in assisting the employees to organize, this is not tantamount to an averral of refusal to employ applicants who were union members or supporters Indeed, notwithstanding the contentions made in the brief of the Charging Party, I do not interpret the complaint allegation to rest for support upon this statement. While Walker's utterance relating to Abbott may be susceptible of being classified as an inferred threat, it was not alleged as such and I render no finding to that effect. WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS Respondent,. through Steve Walker, threatened to shut down its multiplant unit and terminate employees working in that unit if the employees selected the Union. Consider- ing the totality - of events relating to the July 1 meeting, including the contents of the written material distributed during the course of the meeting as well as the followup utterances of Steve Walker,,I, am compelled to conclude that, contrary ,to> the General Counsel, Steve Walker predicted the shutdown of the .multiplant unit entirely upon an evolution of events which would have the effect of imposing upon Respondent the terms of the standard union area agreement. I find nothing in the remarks of Steve Walker during the course of the July 1 meeting which would suggest that the- mere selection of the Union as the collective-bargaining agent of the employees, or the efforts of the Union to negotiate a contract containing provisions different- from, those prevailing -under the standard agree- ment, would lead to the elimination of the multiplant unit or the termination of, employees. Thus, I conclude that Steve Walker's - comments on July 1 to the assembled employees were statements falling within the protection of Section 8(c) for they Were merely permissible statements of the economic consequences of unionization and contained no threats or promises. 5. The termination of Robert Abbott I find that Respondent violated Section-8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating Robert Abbott. In so fording, I conclude-, that Respondent was motivated by a desire to exclude from its- employ a 'core supporter of the- Union. Stated otherwise, L find that, in the absence of a viable organizing effort on the part of the employees, Respondent would not have severed Abbott's employment but would have resorted to- warning ,and reprimand as a -means of disciplining Abbott, for his -improper conduct toward Wendy Roberts. -, The record as a.whole, and the findings. above made with respect to threats, - interrogation, and coercive action undertaken by Respondent to counter the organizational efforts of its employees, reveal Respondent's fundamental opposition to the unionization of its operation , as well as its willingness to resort to unlawful conduct in order to erode and - defeat . the -quest of its employees for collective representation. Additionally, the record catalogs the desire of management to reduce -potential union support in the election through the device of severance action on select occasions when the conduct of known or suspected union advocates had given rise to a colorable justification for such terminations. That, this desire on the part of management did not manifest itself in an open and avowed fashion until after Abbott's termination does not foreclose the adverse inference reasonably to-be drawn from the existence of such desire as is revealed in the separate dialogues between the Walkers, on the one hand, and Robinson, their plant superintendent, on the other, relating to the job tenure of Michael Dudich, Larry and Steve Morris, and Tom Wasko. Indeed, this adverse influence appears mandated when the circumstances surrounding Robinson's resignation are fully 31 The record shows that -upon learning of the employee effort'to organize, Steve Walker, in the presence of Darryl and Alice Walker, threatened to terminate the entire work crew. Later in the day, in 467 considered, including the revealed philosophical and strate- gic cleavage between the Walkers and Robinson relating to the task of countering the union organizing effort . It is clear from , the credited and undisputed testimony of Robinson that the Walkers, unlike Robinson, desired to expunge potential pr"ounion votes from the employment Tolls for pretextual and union-related reasons. Moreover, in evaluat- ing the motivation which accompanied Respondent's termination of Abbott, the statement of Steve Walker to Abbott himself that he did not desire to have union journeymen in his employ and Steve Walker 's further statement to Robinson, and later to Steven -Dudich, both made subsequent to Abbott's termination, to the effect that had the Walkers known that Abbott was a member of the Union at the time of Abbott's hire they would not have employed Abbott, must be given weight as an evidentiary fact bearing upon the question of Respondent's hostility to the Union. A realistic appraisalof the'record and, of human attitudes forecloses the likelihood that,Steve Walker was merely posturing and that his hostility had no existence prior -to Abbott's termination. I fmd that it did exist and it was operative as the motive in Abbott's termination.31 In reaching the conclusion that Respondent acted unlaw- fully in terminating Abbott's employment, I do not mini- mize the importance of the effect of Abbott's conduct upon the sensitivities of Wendy Roberts, nor do I question'the right of Respondent to have undertaken proper disciplinary action against ` Abbott in protection of Wendy Roberts' well-being, or in furtherance of in-plant discipline, general- ly. But in evaluating the record before me; it is requisite to find that Wendy Roberts voluntarily kept her own counsel concerning the incident involving Robert ' Abbott and reached the implicit judgment that Abbott 's conduct was not, to her, so egregious as to warrant -a protest to management. It seems clear, therefore, that Wendy Roberts chose to remain silent rather than visit possible adverse consequences upon Abbott 'arising from -- his conduct towards her. That the incident -distressed and discomforted Wendy Roberts in her movement throughout the plant in pursuit of her normal work duties is not open'to reasonable doubt. But the fact remains that she took no initiative in the matter and the impetus came from management. Once the Walkers learned of the incident involving Roberts and Abbott, they acted with dispatch. Significant- ly, they reached a decision to terminate Robert Abbott before hearing Wendy Roberts' accounting of the incident and before she expressed her feelings relating to the episode and to Abbott, personally. While it is true that legal advice was sought before the decision to terminate Abbott was implemented, this was for the purpose of assessing the legal proprieties of the action decided upon in light of the organizing campaign then under way. The mere willingness to have their decision so assessed reveals a cautious attitude on the part of the Walkers , but it does nothing to alter the indications of predisposition in the matter. While it is true that when she was consulted, the offended employee, Wendy Roberts, described feelings and apprehensions which perhaps would have given greater validity to the conversations between the Walkers and Robinson; Abbott; Wasko, and Michael Dudich were specified as possible "rmgleaders" of the organizing effort. 468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD decision previously reached by management, but, here again, the key decision to terminate had already been made. Motive is being assessed, and in this respect the scales tip strongly against management for the operative decision was reached on relatively scant investigation. Nor is it essential to in any manner condone the conduct of Abbott towards Roberts to note that the incident involved adults employed in a factory/office work environment; that, the effrontery was verbal in nature, occurred in the public areas of the plant premises, and in the general presence of other employees; and that the remarks were uttered in a "light" vein and had only feigned physical overtones. In short, although the conduct of Abbott was offensive, it was not undertaken in a covert fashion such as to infer, despite Roberts' later expressed apprehensions and fears, a likely or actual threat to the physical well-being of Roberts or any other female employee in the plant. A fair assessment of the record suggests that when the Walkers reached the decision to terminate Abbott, they acted upon information supplied to them by Starla Abbott, and they had not fully explored through consultation with Wendy Roberts all of the details and ramifications of the incident itself and her reactions to it. Measured against these considerations, as well as the substantive nature of the incident itself, the quick purgative action of management assumes a retributive character more consistent with the search for pretextual justification than for even-handed protection of employee interests. Upon the foregoing considerations, I find that Respon- dent acted upon a pretext and unlawfully terminated the employment , of Robert Abbott . because of his union membership and his, known or suspected role in influencing the organizing effort of the employees, as well as for the effect that. his termination would have in eroding the support which the Union commanded among the work complement. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed-to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that on June 20, Respondent discriminato- rily terminated the employment of Robert Abbott, I shall recommend that it offer Abbott immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or if that position is no longer available; to a substantially equivalent position of employment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F._ W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), together with interest in accordance with the policy of the Board, as,set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). - I have further found --that on June 12 the Union represented a card-based majority or employees in a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, and on June 12 made a valid demand for recognition and bargain- ing, which the Company failed to honor; and I have also found that, thereafter, Respondent unlawfully interrogated and threatened unit employees; and engaged in direct negotiations with unit employees, culminating in the effectuation of wage increases, additional holiday and vacation pay, increased sick leave,.and lunch facilities; all of which Respondent granted to unit employees without consulting or bargaining with the employees' chosen bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. As the record establishes that the unilateral and' unlawful grant of lunch facilities was effectuated in the last week of June, and as the record further establishes- that at that point in time Respondent had unlawfully terminated the employment of Robert Abbott and had established the groundwork for direct negotiations with unit employees which led to the unilateral and unlawful grant of the other benefits, as found above, I conclude that as of the last week in June Respondent had embarked on a clear course of unlawful conduct and had engaged in sufficient unfair labor practices to undermine the Union's majority status and render the holding of a fair election impossible. Accordingly, I shall order Respondent, upon request, from June 30, 1975, to recognize and bargain with the Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in a unit hereinafter described, and if an 'understanding is reached, embody said understanding in a signed agreement. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hasty Print, Inc., d/b/a Walker Color Graphics, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)-of the Act. - 3. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, California; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, sales people, professional employ- ees, typesetters, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. On June 10, 1975, a majority of employees of Respondent in the unit above described selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and at all times material thereafter the Union has represented a majority of Respondent's employees in the above-described appropriate collective-bargaining unit. WALKER COLOR GRAPHICS 469 5. On June 12, 1975, Respondent made a valid request for recognition and bargaining which Respondent failed to honor, and at all times material -thereafter Respondent has refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative. 6. By interrogating and threatening its employees, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. By promising employees improved wages, benefits, and conditions of employment for the purpose of inducing said employees to abandon and withdraw their designation of the Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 8. By unilaterally granting lunch facilities, wage in- creases, additional holiday and vacation pay, and increased sick leave to unit employees, and by effectuating said improvements without meeting with and bargaining collec- tively through the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 9. By terminating the employment of Robert Abbott, because he had engaged in union or other protected concerted activities, and to discourage unit employees from engaging in union or other protected concerted activities, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. Except to the extent set forth above, Respondent engaged in no other conduct in violation of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER32 Respondent, Hasty Print, Inc., d/b/a Walker Color Graphics, Irvine, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by unlawfully terminating the employment of its employees or discriminating in any other manner with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Unlawfully interrogating its employees regarding their union activities. 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 fmdmgs, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (c) Unlawfully threatening employees in order to discour- age them from engaging in union or other protected activities. (d) In any unlawful manner, promising employees improved wages, benefits, or other terms or conditions of employment, including lunch facilities, improved hourly wages, additional holiday and vacation pay, and increased sick leave. (e) Unlawfully bypassing the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, by engaging in direct negotiations with unit employees, by unilaterally granting improved benefits to unit employees, including improved wages, additional holiday and vacation pay, increased sick leave and luncheon facilities, or in any other manner bypassing the Union or engaging in unlawful and direct negotiations with unit employees. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of their right to engage in self-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Robert Abbott immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former position or, if that position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of wages which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, from June 30, 1975, recognize and bargain collectively with Local No. 262, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees in a unit of all production and maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its facility located at 1851 Kaiser Street, Irvine, California; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, sales people, professional employees, typesetters, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its Irvine, California, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."33 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive 33 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be other material. dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those specifically found in this Decision.