Goren Printing Co., Inc.

1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Goren Printing Co., Inc . and Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Communications International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CA-22446 and 1-CA- 22805 26 June 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS On 10 February 1986 Administrative Law Judge Martin J. Linsky issued the attached decision in this proceeding.I Thereafter, the Respondent, Goren Printing Co., Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting letter. The General Counsel filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, letter, and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, find- ings, 2 and conclusions and to adopt the recom- mended Order as modified. The General Counsel filed an exception to the judge's conclusion that the Respondent did not vio- late Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by requiring its em- ployees to give Joseph Estella a note if they were leaving work early. Although we agree with the judge's conclusion, we do not rely on his rationale. Previously, the Respondent required its employees orally to inform Ralph Goren or Estella if they were leaving work early. Thus, the note require- ment is merely a more dependable method of en- forcing Respondent's rule that its employees must give notice if they leave work early. The rule itself remains intact and the procedural change has an in- consequential impact on those employees who complied with the earlier notice requirement.3 Similarly, we agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by requiring all finished work to be signed by Joseph Estella, but we rely on manage- ment's power to control the quality of its work product, which is derived from the management i An Errata was issued on 26 February 1986. z The j udge inadvertently stated that the parties reached agreement on the terms of a contract on 15 August 1985. The date should read 15 August 1984 The judge erroneously stated that the Respondent signed the contract with retroactive effect back to 9 August 1985 The date should read 9 August 1984 The judge also inadvertently stated that "[oln 15 October 1984-some two months later-Respondent filed a charge al- leging that Respondent violated the Act by failing to sign the contract when requested to do so by the Union " The word "Union" should be substituted for "Respondent" as the filer of the charge in question s Rust Craft Broadcasting of New York, 225 NLRB 327 (1976), see American Ambulance, 255 NLRB 417, 422 (1981), enfd 692 F 2d 762 (9th Cir 1982) prerogatives clause of the collective-bargaining agreement.4 The General Counsel also excepted to the judge's reinstatement of the settlement agreement in Case 1-CA-22446, arguing that the Respondent breached the terms of the agreement and, there- fore, it should be set aside. We find merit to this exception. As the judge found, the Respondent did not post the notices required under the settlement agreement and did not pay the required perform- ance bonuses. The Board has a longstanding rule of setting aside a settlement agreement when there has been a clear breach of its terms.5 Here, the judge's failure to set aside the settle- ment agreement is based on his view that it would be counterproductive to do so because it would also require setting aside the collective-bargaining agreement that the parties signed in January 1985 as a condition of the settlement. However, as the General Counsel points out, the judge found that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement on 15 August 1984. Additionally, the collective-bargaining agree- ment signed by the parties as part of the settlement agreement contains the same terms that the parties agreed to on 15 August 1984. As the Respondent did not comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and setting aside the settlement agree- ment does not change the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement, 6 we find no reason to depart from our normal remedy and we shall set aside the settlement agreement and order the parties to exe- cute the 15 August 1984 contract.? ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Goren Printing Co., Inc., Boston, Massa- 4 Art XXXV, sec G of the contract agreed to on 15 August 1984 states. Management Prerogatives The Management of the plant and the di- rection of the working forces, including the right to hire, the right to suspend or discharge for proper cause and the right to lay off em- ployees for lack of work or other legitimate reasons are the preroga- tives of the Employer except as otherwise provided in the agree- ment Any disputes as to discharge or lay-offs under this Article may be submitted as a grievance to be settled in accordance with the pro- cedure set forth in Article XXXIII, SECTION (4) of this contract See City Cab Co of Orlando, 273 NLRB 1344 (1985) s The only change that setting aside the settlement agreement requires is the amount due Joseph Estella Under the terms of the collective-bar- gaining agreement Estella is owed $720 This amount was reduced to $360 by the terms of the settlement agreement The $360 required by the settlement agreement was belatedly paid (after the unfair labor practice charge was filed) and, therefore, the Respondent must pay Estella an ad- ditional $360 to be in compliance with the $720 contractual amount. ' Because the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement are un- changed, the unfair labor practices based on unilateral changes in those terms still stand 280 NLRB No. 64 GOREN PRINTING CO chusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi- fied. 1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and re- letter the subsequent paragraphs. "(a) Execute the contract agreed to on 15 August 1984 and give it retroactive effect back to 9 August 1984." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT interfere with these rights given to you by law. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to execute a collec- tive-bargaining agreement agreed on between us and Boston Local No. 600, Graphic Communica- tions International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC. WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and unilaterally implement or threaten to implement changes in the terms and conditions of employment of our em- ployees, such as taking away 15 minutes ' extra pay on paydays, failing to pay performance bonuses, prohibiting all reading material at our facility, issu- ing warnings contrary to the provisions of our col- lective-bargaining agreement with the Union, taking away a gas credit card previously given to an employee, canceling medical coverage , reducing wages, changing the rule on overtime, changing hours of work, and changing a union-security clause. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL execute the contract agreed to be- tween us and the above-named Union on 15 August 1984. 1121 WE WILL give retroactive effect, to 9 August 1984, to the terms and conditions of employment of the contract and will make our employees whole for any losses they may have suffered by reason of our failure to execute the above contract. WE WILL make our employees whole for any loss of moneys, with interest, resulting from our failure to timely and regularly pay performance bo- nuses and resulting from our ceasing to pay em- ployees 15 minutes extra for lunch on payday. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the warnings issued to Daniel Smith, Ed Carter, John Carter, and Butch O'Malley and notify them in writing that this has been done and that their un- lawful warnings will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against them. GOREN PRINTING CO., INC. Ronald S. Cohen, Esq., for the General Counsel. Russell Goren, president, for the Respondent. George J. Carlsen, executive vice president, for the Charg- ing Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTIN J. LINSKY, Administrative Law Judge. On 15 October 1984 Boston Local 600, Graphic Communica- tions International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (Charging Party or Union) filed a charge against Goren Printing Co., Inc. with the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, on 28 November 1984, the Regional Director for Region 1 issued a complaint (Case 1-CA-22446) al- leging that Goren Printing Co., Inc. (Respondent) had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing and refusing to exe- cute a written contract embodying the full and complete collective-bargaining agreement reached earlier by Re- spondent and the Union. Respondent filed an answer in which it denied that it violated the Act. A hearing was held before me on this complaint, as amended on 21 and 22 January 1985, in Boston, Massachusetts. On 22 January 1985, the second day of the hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that ter- minated the hearing. The settlement agreement provided that Respondent would sign a collective-bargaining con- tract, give it retroactive effect, make certain payments to employees, including $360 to employee Joe Estella, and post a notice to employees. Thereafter, an additional charge was filed by the Union against Respondent on 27 March 1985, which was amended on 9 May 1985. On 17 May 1985 the Regional Director for Region 1 issued a second complaint (Case 1-CA-22805) alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by making a number of unilat- eral changes in the terms and conditions of employment of its employees in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement and without first giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. 1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On 11 July 1985 1 granted the General Counsel's un- opposed motion to reopen the record in Case 1-CA- 22446 and consolidate it for hearing with Case 1-CA- 22805. The Regional Director had previously set aside the settlement agreement in Case 1-CA-22446 based on Respondent's alleged failure to comply with the terms of the settlement, On 25 July 1985 a hearing was held before me in Boston, Massachusetts. On the entire record in this consolidated case, to in- clude a posthearing brief submitted by the General Counsel and a letter in the nature of a brief submitted by Respondent, and on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION At all times material, Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, has been engaged in the business of commercial printing. During the past 12 months, a representative period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business op- erations described above, purchased and received at its Boston facility paper, inks, and related materials valued in excess of $50,000. The materials were purchased from firms, which in turn purchased them directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, inter alia, Ris Paper Company and Carter Rice Paper Company. I find and Respondent admits that it is now, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits and I find that the Charging Party or Union herein is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent is a small print shop with approximately seven employees. The Union was certified as the agent of the employees for collective-bargaining purposes about 20 March 1984 following a Board-supervised elec- tion held on 7 March 1984, which the Union won. Respondent is run by Russell Goren, its president, who also represented Respondent at the hearings in this case. In a prehearing affidavit to a Board agent, Goren stated that Respondent has annual gross revenues of $850,000. Goren is not an attorney. If there was ever a case where an employer could benefit from the advice of good coun- sel it is this case. Goren is unusually excitable and quite unsophisticated regarding his rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act. If it were in my power-which it is not-to order a person to seek the advice of a lawyer he trusts, who is knowledgeable in the area of labor law, I would do so in this case. I be- lieve that if Russell Goren were competently advised about his rights and obligations under the law by an at- torney he trusted he would do the right thing and obey the law. The hearing on 21 and 22 January 1985 concerned the issue of whether Respondent and the Union had reached full and complete agreement on a collective-bargaining contract. If they had, then it was a violation of the Act for Respondent to refuse to execute or sign that agree- ment when requested to do so by the Union. Section 7 of the Act gives employees certain rights under Federal law. It provides that: Employees shall have the right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as au- thorized in section 8(a)(3). Section 8(a)(1) and (5) provides as follows: It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employ- er- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in sec- tion 7. (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the rep- resentatives of his employees, subject to the provi- sions of section 9(a). Section 8(d) provides, in part, as follows: (d) For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obli- gation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotia- tion of an agreement or any question arising there- under, and the execution of a written contract incor- porating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. [Emphasis added.] The evidence shows that between 8 April and 31 July 1984 Respondent and the Union had approximately 14 negotiating sessions. Goren represented Respondent, and George Carlsen, executive vice president of the Union, and Daniel Smith, one of Respondent's employees, repre- sented the Union. They worked from a standard areawide contract provided by the GCIU. Modifications were made to this document. It was agreed that the con- tract would run from 9 August 1984 to 8 August 1985. On 31 July 1984 the parties had reached full and com- plete agreement. The Union had the contract typed up and prepared for signature, but when the parties met on 15 August 1984 to execute the contract Respondent, through Goren, told the Union he could not sign the contract with its profit-sharing plan, which the parties GOREN PRINTING CO. had previously agreed to during negotiations. Goren de- manded that the profit-sharing plan be replaced with a performance bonus plan, the particulars of which he fur- nished the Union. Goren told the Union that he could not live with the profit-sharing plan because it would "reward" the employees for doing a bad thing when they chose to be represented by a union. The Union, in order to get a contract, went back to the bargaining unit employees that very day with Goren's proposal, and the bargaining unit employees reluctantly agreed to replace the profit-sharing plan in the contract with the perform- ance bonus plan demanded by Respondent. The Union so advised Respondent and, as of 15 August 1985, a new agreement had been reached. The Union changed the previously prepared written contract to substitute the performance bonus plan for the profit-sharing plan and beginning a few days after 15 August 1984 requested Goren to come by the union office and sign the contract. Goren did not do so. On 21 August 1984 the contract was sent to Respondent and Respondent was asked to sign it. He did not do so. Re- peated telephone calls from Carlsen to Goren were to no avail. On 15 October 1984-some 2 months later-the Union filed a charge alleging that Respondent violated the Act by failing to sign the contract when requested to do so. At the hearing on 21 January 1985, Goren testified that he delayed in signing the contract because he wanted to subjmit it to a lawyer for review. However, Goren admits that he did not submit it to a lawyer for review until October and he further admits that the lawyer had no legal objections to it although he had some observations that went not toward the legality of a particular clause, but whether a particular clause, albeit perfectly legal, was a good idea. Suffice it to say the General Counsel proved, not just by a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a rea- sonable doubt that the parties had reached full and com- plete agreement on 15 August 1984 on a 1-year contract to run from 9 August 1984 to 8 August 1985. I fully credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses on this matter, i.e., George Carlsen and Daniel Smith. Both Carlsen and Smith impressed me by their demeanor as being 100-percent truthful in their testimony. On 22 January 1985, on the second day of the hearing, the parties settled the case. Respondent signed the con- tract and agreed, among other things, to pay to employ- ee Joe Estella $360. Part of the settlement agreement also required Respondent to post a notice to employees at its facility. Thereafter, the Union filed another charge against Re- spondent, which charge was later amended. The Region- al Director for Region I issued a new complaint (Case 1-CA-22805). Thereafter, the Regional Director set aside the settlement agreement in Case 1-CA-22446 based on Respondent's alleged failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement. In due course, the General Counsel moved to reopen the record in Case 1- CA-22446 and consolidate it for hearing with Case 1- CA-22805. I granted the General Counsel's motion and a hearing was held on 25 July 1985. The complaint in Case I-CA-22805 was amended at the hearing. 1123 The evidence at the hearing on 25 July 1985 shows conclusively that Respondent failed to comply with some of the terms of the settlement agreement in Case 1- CA-22446. Respondent never posted the notice to em- ployees. In addition, Respondent did not honor its prom- ise to pay $360 to Joe Estella until early. May 1985. This was some 3-1/2 months after Respondent agreed to pay Estella the money and it was after the Union had filed the new charge in Case I-CA-22805. I am not going to set aside the settlement agreement in Case I-CA-22446 because I think it would be counter- productive because if I set aside the settlement it would involve setting aside the contract signed by the parties on 22 January 1985 and I do not want to do that. Al- though Respondent did not do it in a timely fashion it did eventually pay Joe Estella the moneys it agreed to pay him. I will order the posting of a notice in this case incorporating the language of the notice Respondent agreed to post back on 22 January 1985 but never did. The gravamen of the unfair labor practices alleged in Case I-CA-22805, as amended, is that Respondent threatened to unilaterally implement and did in fact uni- laterally implement changes in the terms and conditions of the employment of its employees in violation of the contract and without first giving notice and opportunity to bargain to the Union. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that this is illegal. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). A. Threat to Change Conditions of Employment The contract contains a "Maintenance of Standards" clause, which provides that "The Employer agrees that all conditions of employment which were not eliminated during the negotiations of this Agreement shall be main- tained during the term of this Agreement." Joe Estella, who has worked for Respondent for 30 years and whose employment began when Russell Goren's father ran the business, had for approximately 5 years been given use of a gas credit card. Following the settlement on 22 January 1985, Russell Goren, although he agreed to pay Joe Estella $360, told Joe Estella and employee Daniel Smith that Estella could either keep the gas credit card or get the $360, but not both. Estella elected to keep the gas credit card. The issue of Estella being furnished a gas credit card was never discussed during negotiations. Hence, under the "Maintenance of Standards" clause Estella could not have the gas credit taken from him by Respondent during the term of the contract without first getting the agreement of the Union to do so. During the term of the contract (9 August 1984 to 8 August 1985) the Union could insist that there be no change regarding the gas credit card and following the expiration of the contract this issue was a matter for ne- gotiation between Respondent and the Union. Respond- ent can act unilaterally only after it has first bargained in good faith to impasse with the Union. For many years Respondent had given its employees an extra 15 minutes for lunch on Fridays (which was payday) so the employees could go to the bank and cash their paychecks. If an employee elected not to go to the bank he could have left work 15 minutes early. In other 1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD words, the employees were paid for 15 minutes on Friday when they did not work. In June 1985 Respond- ent, without first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain, unilaterally changed this policy and took away this condition of employment. This issue was not ever discussed much less eliminated during the negotiations leading up to the contract. When Respondent, without informing the Union and giving the Union an opportunity to bargain over the issue, unilaterally threatened to take away Estella's gas credit card or waive his right to the $360 payment and when it ceased paying employees 15 minutes extra for lunch on payday it violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. B. Respondent 's Letter of 5 March 1985 to the Union Respondent also violated the Act when it sent a leter, dated 5 March 1985, to the Union. The letter went as follows: Dear Mr. Carlsen: We regret to inform you, but due to financial problems at Goren Printing Company, we have to institute the following measures as of August 1, 1985: 1. Cancel all Blue Cross/Blue Shield. 2. Lower salaries of strippers and pressmen by $2.00 per hour. 3. Institute an open shop policy. 4. Mandatory work hours of 8:00-5:00 pm with 1 hour for lunch. 5. Working unlimited overtime when required. Yours Truly, Russell Goren President At the hearing on 25 July 1985 Goren testified that by "open shop policy" he meant a nonunion shop. Needless to say, the letter is a flagrant violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act because Respondent is stating its in- tention to unilaterally implement massive changes in the terms and conditions of employment of its represented employees. In its letter Respondent makes no offer to meet with the Union and discuss these matters but states flat out that on a certain date (even before the contract was due to expire) these changes will be implemented. Russell Goren explained the tone and content of the letter as being only a negotiating technique and that he was fully aware that he could not unilaterally make these changes without first bargaining in good faith with the Union. The Union and Respondent spoke with each other fol- lowing the Union's receipt of this letter. Respondent said that they (Respondent and Union) should not negotiate until after the hearing in the case which took place on 25 July 1985 and the Union reluctantly went along with Re- spondent.' 1 At the hearing on 25 July 1985 both Respondent and the Union ac- knowledged their obligation to bargain in good faith with a view toward reaching an agreement to succeed the agreement due to expire on 8 August 1985. They further acknowledged their understanding that the C. Failure to Pay Performance Bonuses On 22 January 1985 Respondent signed the contract with retroactive effect back to 9 August 1985. The con- tract called for the payment of performance bonuses to bargaining unit employees in November, February, May, and August. Respondent did not make regular and timely payments of performance bonus moneys in November 1984, Febru- ary 1985, or May 1985. However, Respondent did pay a Christmas bonus in December 1984. Respondent attempt- ed to portray the Christmas bonus as either a late No- vember performance bonus payment or as an early Feb- ruary performance bonus payment, but I must conclude that the moneys paid at Christmas 1984 were a Christmas bonus (not unlike the regular Christmas bonus Respond- ent's employees received every Christmas except Christ- mas 1983) and were not either late November or early February performance bonus moneys. Respondent, in unilaterally not making payment of performance bonus moneys under the contract, without first negotiating the matter with the Union, violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent was obliged to pay the bonuses at the agreed on time or, if financially pressed, to negotiate with the Union about some alter- nate payment schedule. Respondent simply did not make the required payments and does not even claim financial difficulty as an excuse. D. The Prohibition of all Reading Materials at Respondent's Facility On 26 March 1985 Respondent called a meeting of all employees. At the meeting Russell Goren told the em- ployees that reading material would no longer be permit- ted in Respondent's facility. Respondent did not tell the employees why he was implementing this change but at the hearing on 25 July 1985 Goren explained that a Boston fire marshal had inspected Respondent's facility, had seen newspapers lying around the bathroom, and had told Goren that this constituted a fire hazard. In the past employees were permitted to bring reading material (e.g., books and newspapers) into Respondent's facility. Employees would read the paper or a book while on lunchbreak or during a "long run" on one of the presses. Respondent violated the Act when it unilaterally im- plemented this rule prohibiting all reading materials in the facility without first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain about the issue. Access to reading material while on their own time in the lunch area is clearly a condition of employment for Respondent's employees and a proper matter for negotia- tion between Respondent and the Union.2 terms and conditions of the agreement due to expire 8 August 1985 were to remain in effect until a new agreement was reached and if the parties could not reach agreement after negotiating in good faith to impasse, then Respondent may implement its last best offer, that is, the last offer best for its employees. 2 Respondent is alleged to have also violated the Act on 26 March 1985 by telling employees that they had to work 8 hours a day, had to leave a note with Joe Estella if they left early, and that Joe Estella was Continued GOREN PRINTING CO E. Verbal and Written Warnings Issued to Employees Article 28 of the contract between Respondent and the Union contains a detailed system for disciplining employ- ees for offenses that are classified as relatively minor up to and including those offenses deemed very serious. De- pending on the nature of the offense the punishment ranges from a verbal warning to immediate dismissal. It is alleged and I find that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by ignoring the agreed-on disciplinary system spelled out in the contract and imple- menting a system of issuing verbal and written warnings without first notifying the Union and giving it an oppor- tunity to bargain regarding any changes in the agreed-on system for disciplining employees. More specifically, Goren improperly insisted that Shop Delegate Daniel Smith sign a warning for taking 15 min- utes too long for lunch on a payday. Smith was not re- quired to sign this because Smith had not previously been issued two verbal warnings and the contract clearly states that an employee need not sign a warning for this type of offense without first receiving two verbal warn- ings. In addition, Smith received this warning for taking an extra 15 minutes for lunch on Friday, which he was allowed to do and which is discussed at greater length in section III,A of this decision. The contract provided for a lunchbreak of no less than 30 minutes and no more than 1 hour. Goren got in the habit of giving warnings to employees for taking less than 30 minutes for lunch. This is so stupid that it can only be attributed to Goren's anger at his employees for bringing in the Union and, therefore, is a violation of the Act because it is the taking of adverse action against em- ployees because they selected a union, which they have a legal right to do under Federal law. Goren's anger at the unionization of Respondent is demonstrated by, among other things, Goren's objection to the profit-sharing plan proposed by the Union and by a comment he made about his brother, who is both an attorney and a CPA. Goren stated he was opposed to the profit-sharing plan because it would reward Respondent's employees for choosing to be represented by a union. When asked if he showed his brother, who is also a part-owner of Re- spondent, the Union's proposals during negotiations, Goren replied, "No. I did not. If he knew I had a union in here, I'd get killed. No, he doesn't even know I have this problem. I didn't tell him." The record reflects a large number of warnings issued to employees. Some are signed by both the employee and Russell Goren. Some are signed by no one. Virtually all of them are either for taking too long for lunch on a Friday (payday), which is not even an offense, 3 or the to okay each finished job and sign off on it None of these alleged actions is violative of the Act The contract already provided for 8 hours of work per day The other two changes appear to be within the inherent powers of management unless the contract limits management 's rights in these areas which the contract in this case does not 8 Warnings to Daniel Smith on April 12 and May 3, warning to John Carter on May 24, warnings to Butch O'Malley on May 10, June 7, and 14, and warnings to Ed Carter on May 3, 17, and 24 and July 12 All dates refer to 1985 1125 procedure of preceding a written warning for a minor offense with two verbal warnings for minor offenses. The only appropriate remedy is to order that all warn- ings be removed from the employees' personnel files and not considered by Respondent against the employees in any way. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Goren Printing Co., Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised herein. 2. Boston Local 600, Graphic Communications Inter- national Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (5) of the Act when it: (a) Failed and refused to execute (that is, sign) a col- lective-bargaining agreement agreed on between it and the Union that represented its employees. (b) Bypassed the Union and unilaterally made a number of changes in the terms and conditions of em- ployment of its employees, to include no longer giving its employees an extra 15 minutes of paid time on pay- days, failing to pay performance bonus moneys to its em- ployees, prohibiting employees from having any reading material inside Respondent's facility, implementing a system of issuing oral and written warnings contrary to the provisions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it threatened to take away a gas credit card from its employee, Joe Estella, and by threatening in a letter to the Union that it would unilaterally implement changes in the terms and conditions of its employees on 1 August 1985, by canceling the employees' Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical coverage, reducing wages, changing the hours of work, the rule on overtime, and the union-security clause. 5. Respondent did not violate the Act in any other manner.4 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed5 ORDER The Respondent, Goren Printing Co., Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from 4 Respondent recognizes that it should not threaten to send an employ- ee home if an employee comes into work late but should look to art. 28 for the proper discipline to impose Respondent did on one occasion direct Joe Estella to send an employee home for coming to late but the violation was so isolated and demmimts that I will not find it to be a vio- lation of the Act 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Failing and refusing to sign or execute collective- bargaining agreements agreed to with the Union when requested by the Union to do so. (b) Bypassing the Union and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment of its employees by no longer giving an extra 15 minutes paid time on payday, failing to pay performance bonuses, prohibiting all reading material at Respondent's facility, issuing verbal and written warnings contrary to the provisions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. (c) Threatening to take away a gas credit card from an employee and threatening to unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment at or near the termination of a collective-bargaining agreement. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make its employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis- crimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which those employees normally would have earned as performance bonus money and for getting an extra 15 minutes pay on paydays, with back- pay to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977) (see generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)). (b) Remove from its files any reference to the verbal or written warnings issued to Daniel Smith, Ed Carter, John Carter, and Butch O'Malley and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful warnings will not be used against them. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. For the purpose of deter- mining or securing compliance with this Order, the Board, or any of its authorized representatives, may obtain discovery from the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors or assigns, or any other person having knowledge concerning any compliance matter, in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure. Such discovery shall be conducted under the su- pervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order and may be had on any matter reasonably re- lated to compliance with this order, as enforced by the court. 6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 "