Connecticut Color, Inc., Image Techniques, Inc., And Graphic Sales, Incorporated

CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC 699 Connecticut Color, Inc., Image Techniques, Inc., and Graphic Sales, Incorporated and Local 264-M, Graphic Communications International Union. Cases 39-CA-3030, 39-CA-3031, and 39-CA- 3101 April 28, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On April 27, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Walter H. Maloney Jr. issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- niember panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recom- mended Order as modified.2 The Respondents except, inter alia, to the judge's finding that the Respondents were unwilling to present statistical data to show the production flow of Providence Gravure work in the Connecticut Color, Inc. (CCI) and Image Techniques, Inc. (ITI) plants, even though that data was subpoenaed by the General Counsel. Based on that finding as well as credited evidence in the record, the judge con- cluded that gravure work was shifted from the CCI plant to the ITI plant, or assigned to the ITI plant in violation of CCI's contractual obligations. The record before us is unclear regarding the Re- spondents' noncompliance of the subpoena duces ' The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are Incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings We correct the judge's finding in sec I,C,4, par 4 of his decision that there is record evidence that Providence Gravure was somewhat appre- hensive that its new supplier, CCI, could actually handle all the work it was going to provide We find no record evidence to support such a finding 2 The judge included a visitatorial clause in his recommended Order authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Respondents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the circumstances of this case, we find It unnecessary to Include such a clause Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) Accordingly, we will modify the recommended Order to delete the clause In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), interest on and after January 1, 1987, shall be com- puted at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amend- ment to 26 U S C § 6621), shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Carp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) tecum. In particular, we note that no complaint of noncompliance by the General Counsel remained on the record at the close of the evidence. Thus, we decline to rely on the judge's finding regarding the Respondents' failure to present statistical evi- dence. In affirming the judge's finding, however, that the Respondents transferred bargaining unit work in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, we rely on credited testimony that during the spring and summer of 1986, Providence Gravure was CCI's principal customer. The record establishes that after the layoff of nine CCI employees in July 1986, ITI hired seven part-time employees in early August and that Providence Gravure became the mainstay of ITI's work. Thus, we find that the record supports the judge's conclusion that there was a transfer of gravure work from CCI to ITI. In this regard we note that, through credited em- ployee testimony, the General Counsel established that such a transfer took place and the Respondents failed to rebut this evidence. We also agree with the judge's finding that the collective-bargaining agreement, particularly article 5, a jurisdictional clause, prohibited the transfer of unit work. See Boeing Co. v. NLRB, 581 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1978) (cited with approval in Milwaukee Spring Division, 268 NLRB 601, 602 (1984) (Mil- waukee Spring II), affd. sub nom. Auto Workers v. NLRB, 765 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1985). As the judge noted, even after the contract expired, if the Respondents wished to change the practice of pre- serving gravure work for bargaining unit members, the Respondents were under an obligation to bar- gain collectively over the subject. The judge fur- ther found that the transfer of gravure work from the CCI bargaining unit to ITI was a mandatory subject of bargaining because the motivation for the shift was to cut labor costs. Agreeing with this finding as well, we conclude that the Respondents' unilateral transfer of work violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.2 3 In view of our agreement with the judge's finding that the Respond- ents' motivation for the work-transfer decision was to reduce labor costs, we find It unnecessary to rely on the judge's statement in sec I,C,4, par 1 of his decision that such decisions generally are mandatory subjects of bargaining if "motivated by economic considerations" We also find it un- necessary to rely on Los Angeles Marine Hardware Co. v NLRB, 602 F 2d 1302 (9th Or 1979), cited by the judge Chairman Stephens and Member Babson agree with the judge's conclu- sion that the Respondent's decision to transfer the gravure work was a mandatory subject of bargaining In so doing, they find that the judge's conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in First Nation- al Maintenance Corp. v NLRB, 452 U S 666 (1981), and with any of the views expressed in the Board's decision in Otis Elevator, 269 NLRB 891 (1984) 288 NLRB No. 81 700 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The National ,Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondents, Connecticut Color, Inc., Image Tech- niques, Inc., and Graphic Sales, Incorporated, Day- ville and Danielson, Connecticut, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(g). "(g) Notify the officer in charge of Subregion 39 in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply." 2. Add the following as paragraph 2(h). "(h) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- ing, 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 Order." Thomas W Meiklejohn, Esq., for the General Counsel. Charles P. Mullaney, Esq., of Redding, Connecticut, for the Respondents. Greg D. Adler, Esq., of Hartford, Connecticut, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALTER H. MALONEY JR., Administrative Law Judge. This case came on for hearing before me at Hartford, Connecticut, on a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint,' issued by the officer in charge for Subregion 39, which alleges that the Respondents Connecticut Color, Inc. (CCI), Image Techniques, Inc. (ITI),- and Graphic Sales, Incorporated (GSI) are a single employ- which violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 1 The principal docket entries in these consolidated cases are as fol- lows. Charge filed by Local 264-M, Graphic Communications International Union (the Union) against Respondent Connecticut Color, Inc., in Case 39-CA-3030 on May 6, 1986, first amended charge filed on May 27, 1986, and a second amended charge filed on June 20, 1986; complaint Issued by officer in charge, Subregion 39, against the Respondent Con- necticut Color, on June 20, 1986, Respondent Connecticut Color's answer filed on July 1, 1986, charge filed by Union against Respondent Image Techniques, Inc , on May 6, 1986, in Case 39-CA-3031, amended charge filed on June 20, 1986, complaint issued against Respondent Image Tech- niques, Inc., by officer in charge, Subregion 39, on June 20, 1986; Re- spondent Image Techniques, Inc. filed answer on July 1, 1986; charge filed by Union against Respondent Graphic Sales, Incorporated, in Case 39-CA-3101 on July 11, 1986, amended charge filed on July 24, 1986; order consolidating cases and consolidated complaint Issued by officer in charge, Subregion 39, agamst all three Respondents on September 30, 1986, Respondents' answer filed on October 22, 1986; hearing held in Hartford, Connecticut, by me on February 2-4, 1987 2 The Respondents admit, and I conclude, that Respondent CCI is a Connecticut corporation that mamtains an office and place of business in Dayville, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the production of gravure Specifically, the consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondents are a single employer, which forbade its ITI employees from posting union literature on an em- ployee bulletin board along with other personal an- nouncements at the ITI plant, unilaterally implemented changes in wages and benefits before bargaining to im- passe with the Union, and transferred bargaining unit work from the CCI plant to the ITI plant without bar- gaining collectively with the Union concerning the trans- fer. The General Counsel further alleges that, as a result of the transfer, the CCI bargaining unit was deprived of work to the extent that the Respondent laid off nine em- ployees although simultaneously hiring additional em- ployees to do the same work in its nonunion ITI plant. The Respondents deny that they are a joint employer and further deny any of the unfair labor practices al- leged. On these contentions the issues were joined.3 FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED Both CCI and GSI were formed in 1980 by William J Pitts and other former employees of the National Bick- ford Graphics Company when National Bickford .Graph- ics decided to discontinue producing gravure work. GSI was, and still is, a sales organization that acts as a broker for film used in offset and gravure printing, which it places with CCI, ITI, or with other firms in various parts of the country that have no internal connection with GSI.4 GSI's office is in Norwalk, a city in south- eastern Connecticut near New York City. GSI does no production or manufacturing work, and none of the Re- spondents do any actual printing. CCI was founded for the purpose of producing contin- uous tone color separation work that GSI solicited on its behalf. Between 1980 and 1985, the CCI plant was locat- ed on Franklin Street in Dayville, a town in northeastern Connecticut near the Rhode Island line. In the fall of 1985, CCI moved to new facilities, owned personally by film. Dunng the course and conduct of this business, Respondent CCI during 1985 sold and shipped from its Dayville, Connecticut facility di- rectly to points and places located outside the State of Connecticut goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent ITI is a Connecti- cut corporation that maintains an office and place of business at Daniel- son, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the production of half-tone offset and gravure film. In the Course and conduct of this business, Re- spondent ITI during 1985 sold and shipped from its Danielson, Connecti- cut place of business goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly to points and places located outside the State of Connecticut. Re- spondent GSI is a Connecticut corporation that maintains offices and places of business in Norwalk, Dayville, and Danielson, Connecticut, and in New York, New York, where it is engaged in the sale of offset and gravure film During the course and conduct of this business, Respondent GSI in 1985 sold and shipped from the Dayville and Danielson, Con- necticut facilities directly to points and places located outside the State of Connecticut goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 According- ly, the Respondents, and each of them, are employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. 3 Errors in transcript have been noted and corrected. 4 In the past 2 or 3 years, GSI has, with scant exception, placed all of its incoming work with either CCI or ITI Historically it has used outside suppliers simply to take overflow work that CCI and ITI, could not handle In recent years there has been very little overflow work. CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC. 701 Pitts and located at the Killingsly Industrial Park in Dan- ielson, a Connecticut town not far from Dayville. In 1983, ITI was formed principally to do offset work. Many of the original employees of ITI were former CCI employees. The ITI plant was located on Main Street in Dayville, not far from the original CCI plant. At this writing, in the spring of 1987, CCI and ITI are in the process of swapping facilities, ITI moving to the Kil- lingsly Industrial Park and CCI moving to the Main Street plant in Dayville. The production and maintenance employees of CCI have been represented by the Union since the inception of the Company. The most recent contract between the parties expired March 31, 1986, and negotiations, which have taken place both before and since that date, have failed to produce a new agreement. ITI is an unrepre- sented facility and is now much the larger of the two plants. Union President Richard Trachy testified credibly and without contradiction that, when he learned that ITI was being formed in 1983, he protested its formation to Pitts and was told by the latter that ITI was operating exclusively to provide film separations for the offset in- dustry and would not be doing any gravure work, which CCI was handling. Pitts assured Trachy that CCI would continue to abide by its contract with the Union, but also told him that ITI would be operated as a nonunion plant, and he would vigorously oppose any effort to organize It. Pitts is president of all three of the Respondent compa- nies. He owns all the stock in GSI and 66 percent of the stock in ITI. Pitts and his wife own all the stock in CCI. Pitts' wife is office manager of the GSI operation in Nor- walk, a director and corporate secretary of that organiza- tion, and a director and secretary of ITI. Pitts is compen- sated for his services by GSI. In previous years it was he \ who signed collective-bargaining agreements with the Union on behalf of Ca He appointed Err Robinson, GSI's vice president for quality control and a GSI-com- pensated employee, as company representative in con- tract negotiations between CCI and the Union. Robinson was the principal spokesman, and usually the sole spokes- man, for CCI during these discussions. There have never been any similar labor relations functions performed at ITL However, Lawrence Eleoff, ITI's plant manager and the senior ITI official regularly on duty at the ITI plant, testified that he would not feel free to recognize or bargain with any union without first seeking clearance and approval from Pitts. GSI maintains an office and personnel at both production plants and, in effect, super- vises quality control over the products of both plants. All orders produced at either plant are handled through GSI salesmen or account executives. In a recent sales brochure aimed at prospective customers who desired printing services, GSI referred to itself as a "full service color separation company providing a complete range of pre-press color services to corporations, advertising agencies, printing companies and publishers" and stated that its production facilities were located in Danielson, Connecticut. This same brochure characterized ITI as "Graphic Sales' offset operation" and CCI as "Graphic Sales' gravure operation." Since its inception CCI has possessed a scanner that could perform half-tone work and occasionally CCI used it for this purpose. The production of half-tone work with this machine, however, was slow and essentially un- profitable, so, after its formation, half-tone work was given to IT!. ITI was, and is, equipped to handle this work expeditiously. So long as gravure printers could not utilize half-tone film separations and had to rely on the more expensive continuous tone separations for gra- vure printing, CCI felt no competition from either its ITI sibling or from other half-tone color separation produc- ers. Beginning in 1983, however, gravure printing com- panies, which constitute only a small portion of the printing industry in the Connecticut Valley, learned how to utilize half-tone film separations as input for their helio clishergraphs and began to replace continuous tone separations with half-tone separations. This meant that IT!, as well as other offset shops, could produce film separations for the gravure market. It also meant that CCI had to get into the business of producing half-tone separations, so it started to do so. In 1985, CCI pur- chased a DS helium neon laser system that would permit it to compete in the half-tone market. It was installed at the new Killingsly, facility, to which CCI moved in No- vember, and was operational before the move was com- pleted.5 Collective bargaining took place in the spring of 1986 between CCI and the Union for the purpose of achieving a new contract to replace the one set to expire on March 31. Eight meetings occurred. 6 Robinson represented CCI and was its sole representative until the latter stages of negotiations, when Company Counsel Charles P. Mul- laney, who is also a director of ITI and a corporate offi- cer of GSI, began to take an active role. Trachy repre- sented the Union, assisted by an inplant committee com- posed of representatives selected from the unit which, at that time, numbered about 18 employees. A consistent theme sounded by Robinson throughout negotiations was that CCI, a gravure shop, was in serious economic trou- ble because of technological changes in an industry that was adapting to half-tone film separation technology for gravure printing and was no longer in need of the con- tinuous tone separations, which CCI had been producing since 1980. Robinson argued to union representatives that, because of these changes, CCI was being forced to compete against half-tone separation producers who, until recently, had confined their efforts to serving the offset industry. For this reason, Robinson constantly pressed the Union for a large number of concessions "to meet our needs." On the other hand, the Union was re- luctant to give up wages and benefits which, in their view, were the hard-won products of 40 years of negoti- ations in the printing industry. During negotiations, Rob- inson also told Trachy that Providence Gravure, CCI's principal customer at that time, no longer required the union label on the film separations that it purchased so, 5 CCI moved from Franklin Street to Killingsly by increments over a period of 3 months The new machine was actually operational at Kul- lmgsly before the move was completed. 6 The dates of these meetings were February. 12 and 18, March 4, 11, 18, and 27, April 7 and 21. 702 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in Robinson's view, CCI no longer needed the Union in its shop. At the outset of negotiations, bargaining unit employ- ees enjoyed a 35-hour, 5-day workweek, overtime on a daily basis after 7 hours, double time for all Saturday and Sunday work, a 4-year apprenticeship, during which ap- prentices made from 60 to 95 percent of the journeyman scale with percentage increases each 6 months, and a minimum weekly wage of $582 for journeymen, comput- ed on the basis of a 35-hour workweek. It provided 4 weeks of vacation and 19 days of paid personal time off. The contract further provided that the Company would not physically transfer or install any equipment to or in any other plant of the Company "or any other compa- ny" that might result in the removal of jobs or work under the contract, and it further prohibited subcontract- ing of work while there was any unemployment in the bargaining unit or when any reduction in force was con- templated. During the negotiations in the spring of 1986, CCI focused its demands for concessions on the econom- ic provisions of the contract recited above. At the second session on February 18, CCI proposed no in- crease in scale, overtime only after 40 hours of work a week, more flexible starting times, and fewer paid days off. It wanted a two-tier wage rate, fewer holidays and shorter paid vacations, and it wanted Saturday as a regu- lar paid day unless an employee had already worked 40 hours during the week. It also asked for changes in sick leave eligibility. As negotiations wore on, the Union made counterpro- posals. At first, the Union would agree to a 4-day work- week, but wanted a 3-day weekend. It wanted a uniform work schedule, which the contract presently called for, but would agree to a wage increase or a two-tier con- tract only with a wage reopener at the end of the first year. It agreed to a flexible starting time in the morning, but wanted no change relating to Saturday overtime. It offered concessions for a 3-year contract, but asked that all terms and benefits presently enjoyed revert into place during the 36th month of the contract. The Respondents rejected this idea. Although various other changes in the contract had been bandied back and forth between the parties, it was not until their sixth meeting, on March 27, that the Company furnished the Union with a compre- hensive written list of all the changes that it sought. At the eighth bargaining session on April 21, the Com- pany made some new proposals. ? Some of them were at a variance with written proposals that it had offered at the March 27 negotiations. It proposed that an appren- ticeship take 5 years rather than 4, and proposed a 6-day operation, with some employees working Monday through Thursday and others working Tuesday through Saturday. For the first time it spelled out a proposed $14.50 an hour hiring-in rate for new employees. The Union made certain counterproposals on that date as well. As of the conclusion of bargaining on April 21, the positions of the parties were as follows: 1. A contract of one-year duration with no in- crease in the wage scale was agreed to. 7 This meeting was held under the auspices of a Federal mediator. 2.A two-tier scale, with lower wages for persons hired after March 31, was not agreed to. 3. The Company proposal on overtime, Saturday and Sunday work, and various other related matters was accepted. 4. The number and selection of paid holidays was agreed to. 5. There was some disagreement over language but none over substance with respect to the number of sick leave days. The Union objected to a defini- tion of sick pay which tied eligibility for sick pay to eligibility for benefits under the accident and sick- ness insurance policy. 6. There was agreement over changes in the ap- prenticeship definition and in wages for general workers. 7. There was disagreement as to whether the Company or the individual employee should bear any increase in the cost of health and welfare bene- fits. 8. The Union complained that it could not re- spond to the Company proposal that hours per week should be assigned on an "equitable basis." Mullaney's reply to this objection was that the Company would not negotiate contract language at the bargaining table. When the April 21 negotiating session ended, the Com- pany acknowledged that considerable progress had been made and wanted additional time to study union propos- als on which there was still some disagreement. The Company indicated that it would submit its reply to union proposals and would arrange another meeting through the mediator. On Thursday, May 1, the Respondents mailed to the mediator and to the Union a document it styled "Compa- ny Final Position." That proposal did not, by its terms, offer the Union any stated time for a reply. On the same evening Trachy received a call from Ca's assistant plant manager, John Dunlevy, who informed Trachy that the Company was going to implement its last offer. On Friday, May 2, the Company posted a notice at the CCI plant in which it stated that the Company's offer, out- lined in summary form, would be put in place on Monday, May 5. Also posted was a work schedule, as- signing certain employees to a Monday through Friday shift and other employees to a Tuesday through Satur- day shift. On May 2, Trachy received a phone call at the union office from the CCI shop steward that the notice had been posted. About 2:30 p.m. Trachy called Robinson, told Robin- son that he had received a copy of the Company's final proposal in the mail, and complained to Robinson that he had also learned that the Company had already imple- mented the offer. T'rachy insisted that the parties were not at impasse. Robinson disagreed and quoted Mullaney to support his contention. Trachy told Robinson that he had heard that a negotiating session had been set for May 8, informed Robinson that the Union had been pressing to get another meeting, and further stated that he would be agreeable to a meeting the following Monday or Tuesday. Robinson replied that the whole CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC. 703 matter was in the hands of his attorney. Trachy phoned Robinson an hour later, at which time Robinson told Trachy that he was trying to get in touch with Mul- laney, but had been unsuccessful. Thereafter, he made no reply to Trachy's request for a meeting. The changes re- cited in the posted notice took effect on Monday as scheduled. - In 1985 and during the first few weeks of 1986, CCI employees averaged about 10 hours of overtime per week. Beginning in February 1986, most employees began to work only the standard 35-hour workweek. In late May or early June 1986, the standard workweek was further reduced to a 4-day week and 25 hours per week. At this time, CCI distributed a notice to all employees, dated May 20 and signed by Plant Manager William La- casse, which read as follows: We are sure you have noticed, since the early part of April, the sinking levels of work available to us. Our best forecast at present is that this should not sink much lower, but also probably not increase for several weeks. During this most difficult economic period for our company, it will be necessary to reduce the hours of work. It would be imprudent management to do otherwise at this time. We know that you will cooperate as you have in the past, and we appreciate that cooperation. During this same period of time, the Union began an abortive organizing campaign at ITI. On April 28, Robert D. Palmer, the Union's area coordinator for the New England region, sent a letter to Pitts in which he stated: This is to advise you that a number of your em- ployees are actively engaged in organizing their fellow employees to seek collective bargaining rep- resentation. These employees have selected from among themselves the following persons to function as an In-Plant Organizing Committee: Neal R. DeConte Charles R. Grenier Jennifer Hopkins They have asked GCIU Local 264-M to advise you that they are and will be exercising their rights, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, all for the purpose of seeking collective bargaining representation by GCIU Local 264-M. Following up on this letter, a number of union adher- ents at the ITI plant posted on the employee bulletin board a number of organizing leaflets prepared by the Union. This board is nomially used for posting personal employee notices, such as advertising the sale of employ- ee automobiles and appliances. Until then, employees were at liberty to post personal notices without seeking prior approval from anyone. Plant Manager Eleoff instructed supervisors to remove the union literature and told them that employees would not be permitted to post union literature on that bulletin board. He also read a statement to employees to the effect that union literature would not be permitted on the employee bulletin board and that henceforth no items could be posted on the employee bulletin board without the prior approval of a supervisor. The leaflets were re- moved, although there is no question that employees continue to use the board for personal messages and ad- vertisements as they did in the past. On July 8, CCI posted a notice to the effect that, on July., 15, 9 of its 18 production and maintenance employ- ees would be laid off. This number included four jour- neymen, two apprentices, and three general workers.8 The notice also said that all other employees would return to a 35-hour weekly schedule. None of the laid-off employees has been recalled. On the day of the layoff, Lacasse told night-shift employees that CCI was going to concentrate on four-color work and would do as little continuous monotone work as possible because it felt that color work was more profitable. About a week later, GSI placed a want ad in a local paper seeking part-time employees for afternoon or evening work at the ITI plant. The ad stated that the Employer would train any applicants who were hired. The only requirement stated in the ad was "good organi- zational skills" ITI hired seven part-time employees in early August. One applicant, Denise DeConte, was told at the time of her interview by GSI Office Manager Constance Sears that Providence Gravure was the main- stay of ITI's work and that the Company needed help getting its work out the door. After she was hired, De- _ Conte worked about 80 percent of the time on Provi- dence Gravure orders. During the spring and summer of 1986, Providence Gravure was the principal customer of CCI after CCI lost accounts from Montgomery Ward, Alco Gravure, Brown Printing, and other gravure print- ers. By October 1986, ITI had nine part-time employees, although it had only one in July. Between July and Oc- tober, its complement of full-time employees increased by four. II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The Three Respondents as a Single Employer Both the Board and various courts have repeatedly set forth the criteria to be applied in determining whether two or more enterprises constitute a single employer. The factors in question are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor rela- tions, and common ownership. Not all of these factors need be present in order for the Board to find single em- ployer status. Radio Union Local 1264 v. Broadcast Serv- ice, 380 U.S. 255 (1965); Samuel Kosoff & Sons, 269 NLRB 424 (1984). The issue of single employer status is a separate and distinct question from whether two or more plants, owned and operated by a single employer, 8 Those laid off were William Grimes, Stephen Krol, Charles Richard- son, Charles Rogers, Kim Hinds, Anthony DeConte, Russell Beaupre, Glenn Hayes, and Tod Gautreau, 704 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also constitute a single unit appropriate for collective bargaining. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 231 NLRB 76 (1977). All three of the Respondents in this case are owned by Pitts, although there are variations on who and how much participation exists in each of the corporate entities by minority stockholders. Pitts is also the president, treasurer, and a director of each corporate entity. Al- though Pitts may spend more of his time with the flag- ship company, GSI,9 than' in the day-to-day production activities of CCI and ITI, it is clear that he has potential control over the activities of all the corporations. What- ever powers are exercised by Lacasse and Eleoff as man- agers of the respective plants depend solely on the au- thority Pitts is disposed to delegate to them. Both were hired and can be fired by Pitts, even though Lacasse is a minority shareholder in CCI. It was Pitts who gave final approval to a plan, now being implemented, according to which ITI and CCI are swapping plants and most plant facilities, ITI moving to Danielson and CCI moving back to the ITI plant in Dayville. GSI has a strong and abid- ing presence in each production facility, placing all orders and checking quality on every item that is shipped out. GSI employees have, on occasion, inter- viewed applicants for jobs at ITI. It is plain that all three corporations have both common ownership and common management. It is equally clear that all three corporations operate with common control of labor relations and that such control also reposes in Pitts. Pitts signed previous con- tracts concluded by CCI with the Union and appointed Robinson, who is not employed on the CCI payroll, to conduct negotiations on behalf of CCI in the 1986 nego- tiations, which are the subject of this consolidated com- plaint. Pitts told Trachy back in 1983 that he would fight any attempt by the Union to organize ITT, and it was Pitts who directed that union literature be removed from the employee bulletin board at the ITT plant in May 1986, after the Union announced that it was going to sign up ITI employees. Eleoff, the ITI plant manager, acknowledged that, even though he is the highest rank- ing ITI manager on the premises during the working day, he would neither recognize nor bargain with any union without Pitts' prior approval. Last, all the three Respondents operate with a high degree of integration of their daily operations. GSI holds out to customers that CCI and ITI are merely the pro- duction facets of its overall activity. It acts out that rep- resentation in practice. Customer orders are solicited and prepared exclusively by GSI salesmen or account execu- tives in great detail and are given to CCI and ITI super- visors or employees for completion. The orders in ques- tion are quite detailed and any experienced journeyman employed by CCI or ITI could produce a finished prod- uct based on the information contained in a GSI job order. Because CCI is an organized plant, operating under a union contract until March 31, 1986, and ITI is not, there is a variation in wages and working conditions between the two plants so there is no interchange of em- 9 Pitts described GSI in his testimony as a "sales and management" or- ganization. The "management" facet of its activities could refer to noth- ing other than managing CCI and ITI ployees. There is an interchange in orders, however, and this is especially true now that CCI has large scale half- tone production capacity and the gravure industry has the capacity to use half-tone separations. The same indi- vidual provides plant maintenance services for both plants. ITI provides shipping and delivery service for CCI. GSI provides quality control, personnel, payroll, and accounting service for both production facilities, as well as for its own employees, and maintains most of the CCI and ITI records at its own office in Norwalk. In light of these factors, it is clear that there is a high degree of interrelation between the operations of all three of these companies. Because their activities fall well within the ambit of the four criteria established to determine the existence of a single employer, I conclude that, at all times material, GSI, CCI, and ITI are, and have been, a single employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) of the Act. B. Removal of Union Literature from Employee Bulletin Board An employer has no obligation to make space available on one of its bulletin boards for the posting of union lit- erature. If an employer, however, provides employees with a bulletin board for the posting of personal notices and solicitations, it may not prohibit the posting of union literature thereon nor may it remove union literature that has been posted. Green Giant Co., 223 NLRB 377 (1976); George Washington University, 227 NLRB 1362 (1977); Liberty Nursing Homes, 236 NLRB 456 (1978); Stanley Furniture Co., 244 NLRB 589 (1979); Continental Kitchen Corp., 246 NLRB 611 (1979); Webb Furniture Enterprises, 275 NLRB 1305 (1985). In this case, as soon as the Re- spondents learned that the Union was interested in orga- nizing its ITI employees, it removed union literature that had been posted on the employee bulletin board at the ITI plant and directed that no such literature be posted in the future. It has continued, however, to allow em- ployees to use this facility for personal solicitations. By removing union literature from the bulletin board and prohibiting other literature from being posted, the Re- spondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Implementing Respondents' Last Offer on May 5 It is settled law that Section 8(d) of the Act imposes on an employer the duty to bargain collectively with the bargaining agent of its employees concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining and, on reaching an agreement, to incorporate the fruits of that agreement in a signed, writ- ten document. An employer may not change wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment unilater- ally without the consent of the bargaining agent, unless and until it has bargained in good faith to impasse. Then, and only then, may it implement its last offer in the ab- sence of union agreement. NLRB v. Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736 (1962). In, this case, the Respondents argue that they were at liberty on May 5 to implement the offer made to the Union in a letter dated May 1 because, on that date, the parties were at impasse and the Respondents had fulfilled their duty to bargain. The Board set forth its definition CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC. 705 1 of bargaining impasse long ago in Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), and that definition has been followed ever since." In Taft Broadcasting, the Board stated: Whether a bargaining impasse exists is a matter of judgment. The bargaining history, the good faith of the parties in negotiations, the length of the ne- gotiations, the importance of the issue or issues as to which there is disagreement, the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of nego- tiations are all relevant factors to be considered in deciding whether an impasse in bargaining existed. The Board further stated in Patrick & Co., 248 NLRB 390 (1980, that an impasse exists when the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be futile. In this case the parties had bargained for only 3 months. They had reached agreement on many of the major items that were originally at issue between them. When the last negotiating session broke up, it was with the understanding that the parties would meet again, and soon, to discuss any outstanding issues that were then un- resolved. Within 2 weeks of this meeting the Respond- ents had decided to implement a final offer, some of whose provisions had only been brought to the Union's attention for the first time on April 21. The Union had demonstrated remarkable flexibility throughout negotia- tions and had granted the Employer a great many con- cessions it insisted were essential in order to stay afloat. Moreover, the Employer had receded from some of its bargaining positions. The eight sessions that had taken place up to and including April 21 were marked with a number of proposals and counterproposals on both sides and by changes in position that had the effect, at least in some instances, of meeting the other side's objections. Robinson admitted that many of the positions taken by the Company at this meeting were not hard and fast po- sitions. The offer that was eventually implemented was not identical to company positions advanced at the April 21 meeting. The implemented offer was actually a docu- ment, styled "Company Final Position," that was not mailed to the mediator and the Union until the day before the Company gave notice that this proposal would be put into effect. Since the "final position" was, in some respects, different from the position taken by the Company at the last bargaining session, the Union had no opportunity t, disagree, or make counterpro- posals before being confronted with a fait accompli. Robinson admitted that at least one of the items under discussion, a 4 and 5-day workweek as opposed to a 5- day workweek on a staggered basis, he was not sure what the Union's position might be, since the Union's original response to the Company's request for flexibility in scheduling was a 4-day workweek and a 3-day week- end for all employees. Such a posture as to a significant item is the antithesis of impasse. All in all, this factual setting does not define an impasse in bargaining. To the 10 E. I. duPont & Co., 268 NLRB 1075, 1076 (1984), Saunders House, 265 NLRB 1632, 1634 (1982), Brzarclzff Pavilion, 260 NLRB 1374, 1376 (1982) contrary, it suggests that the parties were at the brink of agreement and needed only one or two more meetings to resolve all outstanding matters between them. When, on May 5, the Respondents implemented its May 1 offer, they were not at impasse with the Union. They were engaging in a ploy designed to avoid further collective bargaining and, if possible, to avoid a union whom they deemed to be an unnecessary intrusion in the shop, in light of the fact that their major gravure cus- tomer no longer required a union label on color separa- tions and would accept nonunion products for use in its printing operation. Accordingly, when Respondents uni- laterally implemented their May 1 offer at the CCI shop on May 5, they violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. D. Transfer of Bargaining Unit Work from CCI to ITI The same considerations respecting the obligation to bargain to impasse before unilaterally implementing an offer apply generally to the transfer of bargaining unit work to nonunit employees, if the transfer is motivated by economic considerations. Griffith-Hope Co., 275 NLRB 487 (1985); Oak Rubber Co., 277 NLRB 1322 (1985); Los Angeles Marine Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 1302 (9th Cir. 1979). The contract between the par- ties covering the CCI unit, which expired on March 31, 1986, contained the following relevant clauses: Article 5: Jurisdiction All production and maintenance employees (in- cluding superintendents and foremen) shall be cov- ered by the terms of this contract. Only members of the bargaining unit shall perform work under the ju- risdiction of the Union. Article 2: Recognition Sec. 2.1. The Company recognizes (the Union) as the exclusive representative for the purpose of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of em- ployment for all employees performing work de- scribed in the jurisdiction article of this contract. Sec. 2.5. The Company agrees that, in addition to its plant presently located in Danielson, Connecti- cut, this contract will automatically apply to all em- ployees performing bargaining unit work, as de- scribed in the Jurisdiction Article of this contract, in any of its plant or plants established, expanded, extended, or relocated regardless of geographic lo- cation including any accretion to the bargaining unit as described as is defined in the Jurisdiction Ar- ticle of this contract. The Company further agrees that, with regard to plant removal, this contract will automatically apply to all employees perform- ing bargaining unit work, regardless of whether covered employees accept or reject any offer of em- ployment at another plant as provided for in Article 25. 706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Article 23: New Machines or Processes Sec. 23.1. The Company agrees that in the event of the installation of new or improved machines or processes for work covered in the Junsdiction Clause of this contract, such machines or processes must be operated by employees covered under this contract and under a scale of wages and conditions of work agreed upon by a Joint Committee of four members, each party hereto choosing and appoint- ing two members hereof. The Company further agrees to give the Union ninety (90) days notice in writing prior to the installation of any such equip- ment or adoption of new processes and during such ninety (90) days to meet with the Union at any time upon request for consideration of the manning of such machines or handling such processes, the con- ditions of work, and any other matters relating thereto. In the event that agreement cannot be reached within the ninety (90) day period set forth, such equipment shall not be operated except upon mutual consent of the parties. The wages, whenever finally adopted, shall be retroactive to the date of begin- ning of operation of such equipment or processes. Sec. 23.2. The Company agrees that it will not substantially change its present methods of produc- tion before giving ninety (90) days notice of such proposed change to the Union in order that the par- ties may meet to consider whatever other related changes are required. Article 24: No Transfer of Equipment Sec. 24.1. The Company agrees that it will not physically transfer or install any equipment to or in any other plant of this Company which results or may result in the removal of jobs or Work from this contract. Article 25: Plant Removal Sec. 25.1. In the event that the Company shall desire to discontinue or relocate all or any part of its operations covered by this contract, including, without any limitation, any work, any equipment or any employees, the Company will make every rea- sonable effort to give not less than 120 days notice in writing to the Union of any such contemplated action, and will arrange with the Union to meet as soon as possible and as often as necessary to permit the parties to discuss and implement this article. Sec. 25.2. In the event of a transfer of all or any part of the Company's operations to another plant, each employee covered under the terms of this con- tract shall be offered an opportunity to transfer to such new location for a job in the same category or classification he last held prior to plant removal, with full retention and recognition of all seniority and other rights and benefits provided under this contract . . . . The Respondents advertised to their customers that CCI was the GSI gravure shop. By virtue of the above- recited provisions, the Union had a contract right to have gravure work performed at the CCI plant inasmuch as gravure work was within the jurisdiction of the Union and that jurisdiction had been recognized by the Em- ployer. 11 If gravure work was to be transferred out of the unit, CCI employees had the right to follow that work to the other plant and to perform it at contract rates. Like any other provision of the contract, if the Re- spondents wished to change this practice, even after the expiration of the contract, it was under an obligation to bargain collectively with the Union over the change and to refrain from making any change unless the Union con- sented or the parties had bargained to impasse over the subject. There was no discussion whatsoever concerning the transfer of work from CCI to ITI during negotiations that took place in the spring of 1986. There was nothing in the Respondents' last offer, dated May 1, concerning this subject. In fact, if any such transfer has taken place, it was accomplished surreptitiously. Because any transfer of work was accomplished, if at all, in the face of a duty to bargain, it is immaterial that there might have been a business justification for it. There is a business justifica- tion, at least in the minds of some of the parties, for every position taken in the course of negotiations and for any act that might be accomplished in derogation of a duty to bargain. Nevertheless, the duty remains, and it is an essential prerequisite to further action. In the fall of 1985, the Respondents were upbeat in their assessment of CCI's future, notwithstanding the fact that it had already suffered the loss of several gravure customers, such as J. C. Penney, Montgomery Ward, and Alco Gravure. These customers had either terminat- ed their relationship with CCI already or were beginning to wind down the amounts of their purchases. CCI, how- ever, had acquired a new gravure customer, Providence Gravure, that produces the Sunday supplements for four major metropolitan daily newspapers in the northeastern United States. In late 1985, to meet the needs of its actual and potential customers, CCI had bought a new scanner, had moved to new and improved quarters, and had sent one or more of its employees to school to learn the details of half-tone scanner operations. It had recent- ly gone as far as Milwaukee to obtain qualified craftsmen because the Union was unable to supply it with experi- enced applicants from the other labor pool. In the fall of 1985, Lacasse told CCI retoucher Stephen Crow that he had a full 1986 schedule already and the plant would be working 7 days a week. There is evidence in the record that Providence Gravure was somewhat apprehensive that its new supplier, CCI, could actually handle all the work it was going to provide. In February 1986, CCI cut out overtime and began to employ bargaining unit members just 35 hours a week, which, at that time, was the standard contract work- week. It operated, and continues to operate, two shifts. " Offset work was also within the jurisdiction of the Union in this case Happily, we do not have to decade whether the transfer to ITI of any offset work was also an unfair labor practice CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC. 707 In May, the standard workweek was reduced to 30 hours, and, in June, it was further reduced to 25 hours. During this period of time, Lacasse posted a notice, dated May 20, that read as follows: We are sure that you have noticed, since the early part of April, the sinking levels of work avail- able to us. Our best forecast at present is that this should not sink much lower, but also not increase for several weeks. During this most difficult economic period for our company, it will be necessary to reduce the hours of work. It would be imprudent management to do otherwise at this time. On July 1, Pitts sent an interoffice memo to CCI plant management that read as follows: Due to P. G. projects for the fall, you should not now grant any vacations during the period 10/13- 12/19/1986. Vacations that fall on the Christmas and New Years Holiday should also be avoided. As we actually enter that period and if in your opinions we would not experience production diffi- culties or significant overtime some vacations could be granted at that time. Be sure to keep me up to date. Eight days later, CCI announced that it was laying off nine employees as of July 15. At this time, CCI also an- nounced to its remaining employees that it was discon- tinuing the production of monotone work on a large scale and would limit its efforts to the production of color transparencies. 1 2 Meanwhile, at ITI, work was increasing. Seven part- time employees were hired in August and other full-time employees were hired thereafter. One ITI job applicant was told by Connie Sears, the GSI-ITI interviewer, that Providence Gravure was the customer who was keeping ITT afloat and that they had an overabundance of Provi- dence Gravure work, so they needed help in getting it out the door. In the latter part of 1985 and thereafter, the bulk of CCI's work was for Providence Gravure, not for the customers whose departure was blamed by the Respond- ents as the reason for the July 1986, layoffs. Respondents were unwilling to present specific statistical data to show the production flow of Providence Gravure work in the CC/ and ITI plants, even though that data was subpoe- naed by the General Counsel. In light of this reluctance to back up generalities with specifics, as well as other evidence in the record that I credit, I conclude that gra- vure work, including but not limited to monotone work, was shifted from the CCI plant to the ITI plant or as- signed to the ITI plant in violation of CCI's contractual obligation to the Union. It is uncontested that this shift was never the subject of any collective bargaining be- tween the parties. I further conclude that it was the shift- ing or assignment of this bargaining unit work, not a loss 52 In 1985, CCI devoted 1 or 2 days a week exclusively to monotone work, setting aside all other activity in order to reduce the turnaround time on the production of monotone positives for Providence Gravure of other customers, that took place at points remote in time from the July layoffs, which not only occasioned, but accommodated the action of the Respondents in eliminating half of the CCI bargaining unit in the summer of 1986. I also conclude that the transfer of work from the CCI to the IT! bargaining unit was a mandatory subject of bargaining, since the motivation for the shift was obviously to cut labor costs. The union rate at CCI was in excess of $14 an hour, while the nonunion rate at ITT was less than $10. The cost of fringe benefits at CCI far outstripped similar costs at ITI. It was labor cost that dominated the Respondents' presentation at col- lective-bargaining sessions extending from February to April, and it was large-scale concessions relating to labor costs that generated all the proposals and counterpropos- als at these meetings. Accordingly, I conclude that the layoffs that took place on July 10 were the product of the Respondents' unlawful refusal to bargain, and as such, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record considered as a whole, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Connecticut Color, Inc., Image Tech- niques, Inc., and Graphic Sales, Inc. are a joint employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Local 264-M, Graphic Communications Internation- al Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the Respondents at the CCI plant located at Danielson, Connecticut, or any relocation thereof, exclu- sive of office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of all the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in Conclusion of Law 3 for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) o the Act. 5. By unilaterally changing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of its bargaining unit em- ployees without either obtaining the consent of the Union or bargaining in good faith to impasse; by unilat- erally transferring bargaining unit work without notify- ing the Union and offering it an opportunity to bargain collectively concerning such transfer; and by laying off William Grimes, Stephen Krol, Charles Richardson, Charles Rogers, Kim Hinds, Anthony DeConte, Russell Beaupre, Glenn Hayes, and Tod Gautreau as a result of such unlawful transfer of work, the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu- sion of Law 5; and by removing union literature from an employee bulletin board maintained for personal employ- ee use and directing that no additional union literature be posted thereon, the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 708 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have committed various unfair labor practices, I will recommend to the Board that they be required to cease and desist there- from and to take other affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I will recommend that the Respondents be required to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union, to transfer back to the Ca bargaining unit any and all gravure work that has been assigned to, or transferred to, the ITI unit or to any other plant." I will further recommend that the nine CCI unit employees who were laid off about July 15, 1986, be reinstated to their former or substantially equiv- alent positions, and that they be made whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the illegal actions found here, in accordance with the Woolworth rule," with interest computed at the adjusted prime rate used by the Internal Revenue Service for the computation of tax payments. Olympic Medical Coq., 250 NLRB 146 , (1980); Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I will further recommend that the Respondents be required to restore the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment that were changed by its uni- lateral action on May 5, 1986, and maintain them in full force and effect until such time as the parties have reached a new agreement or a valid impasse, and that Respondents be required to reimburse all employees for any loss of pay and benefits occasioned by the aforesaid unilateral action, with interest thereon as in the case of the other backpay requirement." I will also recommend that the Respondents be required to post the usual notice advising its employees of their rights and of the results in this case, and that the posting be conducted at both the CCI and ITI plants. The General Counsel also seeks a visitatorial clause permitting discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event that the Board's order must be enforced by a contempt proceeding in a court of appeals. I will recommend such an order. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondents, Connecticut Color, Inc., Image Techniques, Inc., and Graphic Sales, Inc., Dayville and Danielson, Connecticut, and each of them, jointly and severally, and their officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from 13 Henry Miller Spring Co., 273 NLRB 472 (1984). 14 F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). 15 Henry Miller Spring, supra. 16 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. (a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with Local 264- M, Graphic Communications International Union, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our pro- duction and maintenance employees employed in the Connecticut Color, Inc., bargaining unit. (b) Unilaterally changing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees withOut obtaining the consent of the Union or bargaining in good faith with the Union to impasse concerning such changes. (c) Unilaterally transferring or assigning Connecticut Color, Inc., bargaining unit work to Image Techniques, Inc., or to any other plant. (d) Laying off or discharging employees as a result of unlawful transfers or assignments of bargaining unit work. (e) Refusing to permit employees to post union litera- ture on bulletin boards maintained for the personal use of employees, or directing the removal of union literature from such bulletin boards. (f) 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) Offer to William Grimes, Stephen Krol, Charles Richardson, Charles Rogers, Kim Hinds, Anthony De- Conte, Russell Beaupre, Glenn Hayes, and Tod Gautreau full and immediate reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights that they may have previ- ously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the illegal actions found here the manner described above in the remedy section. (b) On request, bargain collectively in good faith with Local 264-M, Graphic Communications International Union, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of the production and maintenance employees em- ployed in the Connecticut Color, Inc. bargaining unit, and, if agreement is reached, embody the same in a signed written agreement. (c) Maintain the terms described in the collective-bar- gaining agreement with the above-named Union, which expired on March 31, 1986, until such time as the parties have bargained in good faith and have reached a new agreement or a valid impasse. (d) Make whole all Connecticut Color, Inc. bargaining unit employees, with interest, for any losses they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' implementa- tion on May 5, 1986, of unilateral changes in their wages and working conditions. (e) Restore to the Connecticut Color, Inc. bargaining unit any and all bargaining unit work that has been as- signed or transferred to Image Techniques, Inc., or to any other plant or location. (f) Post at the Respondents' Image Techniques, Inc., and Connecticut Color, Inc., plants at Danielson and Dayville, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice , .44,m ".•' CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC. 709 marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the officer in charge of Subregion 39, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, 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. (g) Notify the officer in charge of Subregion 39 in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents has taken to comply. For the pur- pose of determining or securing compliance with this Order, the Board, or any of its authorized representa- tives, may obtain discovery from the Respondents, their 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 Procedure. Such discovery shall be conducted under the supervision of the 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. 17 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 Enforcmg an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with Local 264-M, Graphic Communications Inter- national Union, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Connecticut Color, Inc., production and maintenance employees. WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from posting union literature on employee bulletin boards and WE WILL NOT direct that any such literature be removed from employ- ee bulletin boards. WE WILL NOT unilaterally change wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of our bargaining unit employees without the consent of the Union or bar- gaining in good faith with the Union to impasse concern- ing such changes. , WE WILL NOT unilaterally transfer or assign Connecti- cut Color, Inc. bargaining unit work to Image Tech- niques, Inc_ or to any other plant. WE WILL NOT lay off or discharge any employees as the result of unlawful transfers or assignments of bargain- ing unit work. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL restore to the Connecticut Color, Inc. bar- gaining unit any and all bargaining unit work that has been assigned or transferred to Image Techniques, Inc. or to any other plant or location. WE WILL offer to William Grimes, Stephen Krol, Charles Richardson, Charles Rogers, Kim Hinds, Antho- ny DeConte, Russell Beaupre, Glenn Hayes, and Tod Gautreau full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights that they may have previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered, with interest. WE WILL make whole all Connecticut Color, Inc. bar- gaining unit employees for any losses they may have suf- fered by reason of the implementation on May 5, 1986, of unilateral changes in wages and working conditions, with interest. WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with Local 264-M, Graphic Communications Inter- national Union, and if agreement is reached, embody that agreement in a written, signed contract. CONNECTICUT COLOR, INC., IMAGE TECH- NIQUES, INC., AND GRAPHIC SALES, INC.