Advanced Business Forms Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 341 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 341
Advanced Business Forms Corp . and George Najdek
and Barbara Marie Fasano and Joseph Kirklewski
and New York Printing Pressmen & Offset
Workers Union No. 51, International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO
Respondent's postelection campaign of reprisals and itself violated Section
8(a)(1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Advanced Business Forms Corp. and New York
Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No.
51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America , AFL-CIO and Eugene
Sannuto . Cases 29-CA-2192-1, 29-CA-2192-2,
29-CA-2192-3, 29-CA-2192-4, 29-CA-2259,
and 29-CA-2288
November 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 17, 1971, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Advanced Business Forms Corpora-
tion, Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner
to find an 8(a)(1) violation ansmg out of the Respondent's action in
requiring the strippers in the prep department to keep tunesheets for every
job performed. We find merit in this exception This new requirement
imposed on the strippers coincided with Respondent's imposition of
onerous conditions , found violative of Section 8(a)(l) herein, and
Respondent has offered no explanation for the change. Accordingly, we
find that the record-keeping requirement was part and parcel of
OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner: This consolidated case
was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on May 17 and 18, 1971,
pursuant to charges filed on November 23 and 24 and
December 1, 1970, and February 2 and 22, 1971,
respectively, and a complaint and amended complaint
issued on February 12 and March 25, 1971. The
consolidated amended complaint, as further amended at
the hearing, alleges that the Respondent discharged and
thereafter refused to reinstate three employees, laid off two
other employees for a 2-month period, reduced the wages of
two other employees, and made certain detrimental
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of its
employees, all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. The consolidated amended complaint further alleges
that commencing in January 1971 the Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively in good faith with New York
Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and engaged
in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, from my observation
of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, operates a
small printing plant at Ronkonkoma, New York, where it is
engaged in the printing, sale, and distribution of business
forms and related products. During the year preceding the
issuance of the consolidated complaint the Respondent
shipped more than $50,000 worth of printed materials to
out-of-state purchasers. Upon the foregoing facts, which
are based on the undenied allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint, I find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union
No. 51, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
194 NLRB No. 52
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discriminatory Discharges and Layoffs;
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Background
The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Retrieval Control Systems , a publicly owned corporation,
the president of which is John Montague . Prior to early
February 1971 the day-to-day management of the Respon-
dent was left to James Orrach, the Respondent's president.
Late in August 1970 Orrach hired Arthur Kunzweiler to
take charge of the Respondent's pressroom and preparato-
ry department , which is more familiarly known as the prep
department. The prep department is where the art work, the
photography, and the making of the plates which are run on
the presses is done . The bindery department , which is not
part of the unit here involved , was under the supervision of
Michael Orrach , James Orrach's brother.
Elsworth Bruckner , who had worked for the Respondent
since 1966 , had previously served as a supervisor over the
pressroom and the prep department for some time.
However , in February 1970 the Respondent , in an effort to
achieve greater production , relieved Bruckner of his
responsibilities over the pressroom, making Ernest Harders,
one of the pressmen , foreman of the pressroom , and leaving
Bruckner in charge of the prep department . This was the
situation when Kunzweiler assumed his duties as supervisor
over the pressroom and prep department on August 31,
1970.
Shortly before Kunzweller 's arrival President Orrach
explained the planned change in supervision to Harders
and Bruckner and offered them the opportunity to return to
their former jobs as pressmen . He indicated that a
reduction in pay would be involved . When Kunzweiler
assumed his new duties he informed both Bruckner and
Harders that the most he could pay them was $215 a week,
the Respondent's top rate for pressmen . This meant a
reduction in pay of $25 a week for Bruckner and $10 a week
for Harders . Both men decided to go back on the presses.
However, for some reason or other the pay of the two men
was not immediately reduced.
2. The layoffs of September 18
On Saturday, September 12, about nine of the Respon-
dent's press and prep department employees met with
Julius Seide, the business representative of the Union, at the
Blue Dawn Diner. This meeting was apparently arranged
by Bruckner and Harders. Some of the employees signed
union bargaining authorization cards at this meeting. On
September 16 Seide filed a petition with the Board's
1 The termination of Piscam is not involved in this case.
2 Kunzweiler testified that Yarosz was not recalled because he could not
operate the presses which the Respondent had at this time. According to
Kunzweiler, Yarosz had previously operated two presses which the
Respondent had itself converted to offset presses and that these presses
had been sold before Kunzweiler went to work for the Respondent.
Kunzweiler further stated that evidently Yarosz had been "doing a good
job" on these presses, but that in his opinion Yarosz could not be trained
to run the remaining presses "production wise." Kunzweiler claimed to
have known Yarosz for about 3 years and that he knew his "capabilities " I
have difficulty accepting Kunzweiler's appraisal of Yarosz in view of the
Regional Office for certification as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the Respondent's press and prep department
employees, a unit consisting of about 12 employees. A copy
of the petition was served on the Respondent,on Friday,
September 18, 1970.
At the end of the first shift that same day the Respondent
suddenly laid off four of the pressmen who had attended
the union meeting on September 12, Walter Yarosz, Eugene
Sannuto, Joseph Kirklewski, and Carl Piscani .1 Kirklewski
and Sannuto, who were then working on the third shift
commencing at midnight, were notified late that day at
their homes not to come in to work that night, which was
the last night in that workweek. This was the first layoff of
any employees at the plant in the experience of Bruckner
who had been employed by the Respondent since 1966. The
explanation given for the layoffs was that work was slow.
Walter Yarosz had worked for the Respondent since
April 1967 and, with the exception of the last 6 weeks of his
employment, had operated a press. Yarosz had previously
worked under Orrach as a pressman for 4 years when both
had been employed by Logan' s Business Forms, another
printing establishment. When early in August the Respon-
dent acquired a new piece of equipment in the prep
department, an automatic plating machine, Yarosz was
transferred to the prep department, trained on the
operation of the plater, and given other prep room duties
such as helping with the negatives. He also continued work
part-time on a press.
Pressmen Kirklewski and Sannuto who were laid off on
this occasion had been hired by the Respondent more
recently, Kirklewski on April 13, 1970, and Sannuto in July
1970. Sannuto had also worked for some months in 1968
and again in 1969. However, Michael Auriccio was hired as
a pressman after both Kirklewski and Sannuto in 1970. The
Respondent retained Auriccio in its employ after laying off
Kirklewski and Sannuto. Supervisor Kunzweiler explained,
when Kirklewski questioned him about his layoff, that the
Respondent did not follow "union seniority."
Yarosz, Kirklewski, and Sannuto had all signed union
cards at the meeting on September 12. Supervisor
Kunzweiler, who participated in the decision to layoff the
men, admitted being aware at that time that they were
union sympathizers.
On September 29, less than 2 weeks after the Respondent
laid off Yarosz, the Respondent hired Barbara Fasano to
work full-time in the prep department. Recently Yarosz had
been working most of the time in the prep department.
The Respondent reinstated Kirklewski on November 16
on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift. The Respondent recalled
Sannuto on November 30 and placed him on the midnight
shift. Yarosz has not been recalled to work.2
fact that Yarosz had worked for the Respondent as a pressman for 4 years,
and that he had worked under Orrach as a pressman at Logan Business
Forms for 4 years before that. Orrach certainly would not have hired
Yarosz to work for the Respondent in the first place had not he been
satisfied with his capabilities . In any event Yarosz had been spending most
of his time in the prep department in the last 6 weeks of his employment
and no contention is made that his work there was anything but
satisfactory. I conclude that Kunzweiler 's derogatory comments about
Yarosz' capabilities were exaggerated. I found Kunzweiler prone to make
sweeping statements supporting the Respondent's case, without regard to
their accuracy. For reasons more fully stated below in the section entitled
(Continued)
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 343
3. The Respondent's conduct in the preelection
period; the election; subsequent events
On October 13 President Orrach and Business Represent-
ative Seide entered into an agreement for consent election
at the Board's Regional Office providing that the Regional
Director should conduct an election among the Respon-
dent's pressmen and prep department employees on
November 4. Upon returning from the Regional Office,
Orrach called a meeting of the pressmen and the prep
department employees. At this meeting Orrach stated as
follows, according to George Najdek's credited and
undenied testimony:
He had said that they had just come back from the
Labor Board and that they . . . really didn't want the
union, but they wanted to set up the election so that
they would get it over with and get down to normal
business again.
*
He had said that there would be no raises given because
everything was frozen at that time until after the
election.
He had said that he thought they had a pretty good
company, they had pretty good benefits, and if anybody
had any gripes they should have come to him and
discussed them.
Thereafter the Respondent sent out a letter to the
employees citing the benefits which they enjoyed-6 days
of sick leave, 10 holidays, a medical plan, a dental plan, and
vacations. About a week before the election Orrach called
Anita Risener into the office and asked her to bring her
copy of the letter with her. (Until about the time of the
election Risener had been a leadwoman in the prep
department.) In the office Orrach questioned Risener as to
how she felt about the Union and told her, as her undenied
testimony establishes, that he "hoped that [she] would be
with the company and vote for the company."
On Friday, October 30, 5 days before the election, Orrach
held another meeting of the employees in the pressroom
and the prep department on both shifts. (The third shift in
the pressroom had been discontinued with the layoff of
Kirklewski and Sannuto.) At this meeting Orrach, after
again citing the various benefits which the Respondent gave
them, stated, in Barbara Fasano's words, that "they were
very much against the union coming in."
"The Respondent's Contentions Concerning the Layoffs and Discharges" I
am convinced that the quality of Yarosz' work was not a factor of any
significance in Yarosz' selection for layoff.
3 Najdek's testimony above quoted is corroborated by Barbara Fasano
who overheard Orrach's statement to Najdek. Orrach was not called as a
witness. While Kunzweiler denied hearing Orrach make any such
statement, for the reasons indicated above I credit the mutually
corroborative testimony of Najdek and Fasano in preference to
Kunzweiler's denial.
4 I find, in accordance with the General Counsel's contention, that
Orrach's threat to Fasano and his earlier threat to layoff Najdek, violated
Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act The General Counsel further contends that Orrach's
presence in the bar on the occasion of the November 2 meeting amounted
to illegal surveillance of union activities. While ordinarily the presence of a
management official in a public place while a union meeting is in progress,
On Monday, November 2, as George Najdek was
running the Schreiber press, Orrach and Kunzweiler, came
over to the press. It was not functioning as it should. While
they were there at the press Orrach warned Najdek, as he
testified, "If the Union gets in, I will have to lay you off." 3
A union meeting was planned for Monday evening,
November 2. As Orrach was leaving Naj dek's press on this
occasion he remarked to Najdek, "Don't forget the meeting
tonight."
The union meeting that night was held in a bar across
from the Ronkonkoma Railroad station. While it was in
progress Orrach came in and sat at the bar. After a while
Business Representative Seide went over and spoke a few
words to Orrach. Shortly thereafter Orrach left.
The next day, November 3, Orrach had a conversation
with Kunzweiler in the prep department within the hearing
of George Najdek and Barbara' Fasano. In the course of
this conversation, as Fasano credibly testified, Orrach
stated that "Anyone seen at the meeting last night won't be
here for long." After making this remark Orrach turned
around and grinned at Fasano, thereby indicating that this
remark was intended for Fasano's ears.4
At the election which was held on November 4, 7 of the
11 eligible voters cast their ballots in favor of the Union.
The Regional Director thereafter, on November 18, 1970,
certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the Respondent's pressmen and prep department
employees.
Commencing immediately after the election the Respon-
dent made various changes in working conditions which
worked to the detriment of the employees. These changes
were made without consulting the Union. Kunzweiler told
Najdek to turn off the radio in the darkroom. Previously he
had not objected to the radio being played softly. The half-
hour lunch period was advanced from 12:30 to 12 which
was before the lunch wagon arrived. This meant that
employees either had to bring their lunches from home or
hurry out and attempt to get lunch in the restaurant and get
back in a half-hour. The dial was taken out of the inside
telephone so that the employees had to use the public
telephone by the presses to make outgoing calls, and at the
same time their incoming calls were restricted. For the first
time, the strippers in the prep department were required to
keep timesheets for every job they did. A change was made
in the manner of computing the bonus which the employees
normally received at Christmas, which resulted in some
employees receiving less bonus than before or none at alls
without more, is insufficient to establish such surveillance, I find , in view of
Orrach's knowledge of the meeting beforehand and his later threat to
discharge those employees attending, that Orrach's presence in the bar on
this occasion was not a mere coincidence, but was a deliberate effort to
ascertain the identity of the employees attending . Such conduct clearly
cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Act.
5 I find that the above changes in working conditions, excepting the
timesheet requirement for strippers and the Christmas bonus change, were
put into effect in order to retaliate against the employees for voting for the
Union in the election and to discourage their continued adherence to the
Union. Such retaliatory conduct which adversely affected the working
conditions of the employees not only constituted interference, restraint,
and coercion in violation of Sec. 8(a)(I) of the Act but also antiunion
discrimination in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3). The record fails adequately to
establish that the new recordkeeping requirement for strippers was
(Continued)
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The discharge of George Najdek
on.November 6
George Najdek, who already had a full-time daytime job
elsewhere, was hired by the Respondent in April 1970 to
work as a paper handler from 5 to 10 p.m. In June Najdek
decided that the two jobs were too much for him and quit
the Respondent's employ. Orrach told Najdek when he left
that he was a good worker and would consider employing
him on a full-time basis. In July, Orrach called Najdek and
told him that he was willing to start him as a trainee on the
presses at $160 per week. Najdek accepted this offer.
Najdek was one of the employees who signed union cards
at the meeting on September 12.
Najdek was working on the presses when Kunzweiler
arrived on the scene, replacing Harders and Bruckner as
supervisors over the pressroom and prep department. After
Harders and Bruckner started working as pressmen Najdek
spent most of his time in the prep department. Anita
Risener, a long service employee and a former leadwoman
in the prep department, testified that the only comments
which she heard about Najdek's work in the prep
department were favorable ones.
On Friday, November 6, Najdek worked in the darkroom
shooting negatives all morning. At lunchtime, Kunzweiler
put him to work opaquing negatives and brought in a
bindery employee, Casty Rodriquez, to complete Najdek's
camera work. After lunch, Najdek saw Orrach discussing
machinery with Kunzweiler in the preparatory department
and heard Orrach say that the machinery Respondent was
thinking of purchasing would enable it to get rid of "some
of these monkeys around here." After work that day, upon
instructions from Kunzweiler, Najdek went to Orrach's
office where Orrach told him he was laying him off. He
gave him no reason, but did state that he was the fifth man
laid off, he would be the fifth man called back, and that he
hoped he never had to call him back. Najdek has not been
recalled to work.
5. The discharge of Barbara Fasano on
November 20
As found above, Fasano was hired on September 29 after
she made an application in response to an ad placed by the
Respondent in a local newspaper for a trainee as camera
operator and platemaker. She was trained in her work in the
prep department by Anita Risener, who formerly had been
a leadwoman in the prep department, and by Kunzweiler.
Risener testified at the trial that Fasano's work was very
good and that Kunzweiler had said that "he was surprised
that she caught on very quickly to the new platemaker."
Kunzweiler's testimony concerning Fasano's work is
discussed below.
After work on November 4, the day of the election, a
group of employees, including Fasano, gathered at
Mahoney's bar to celebrate the Union's victory. As they
instituted for antiunion reasons, in my opinion. With respect to the
Christmas bonus change, the Respondent explained that this was done to
make the Respondent's policy in this regard uniform with that of its parent
company, Retrieval Control Systems. (Retrieval purchased the Respondent
in October 1969). The General Counsel, in my opinion, has failed to
establish that the Respondent had an illegal motive in making this change.
were standing at the front of the bar, Orrach walked in with
his nephew and stood at the middle of the bar. Orrach, in a
loud voice, said to the bartender, "Don't serve those
queers." Later, after using considerable profane language,
Orrach went up to Fasano and asked her why she voted for
the Union. When Fasano replied that she felt it was right,
Orrach started arguing with her and ended up by asking her
why she had not come to him if she wanted more moneys
As indicated above, Fasano's duties in the prep
department involved work in the darkroom "shooting"
copy with a camera on to a negative and then, after the
negative had been stripped or otherwise processed by
another employee, "burning" the negative onto an
aluminum plate on the automatic platemaker. Fasano
preferred platemaking to camera work and did considera-
bly more platemaking than camera work, although she
never failed to do any assigned camera work, as Kunzweiler
admitted.
In burning the negatives on to the plates it is possible to
spoil them so that they cannot be used on the presses. It was
the practice before the election for the operators of the
platemaker to place their spoiled plates in a box behind
Tony Trapanotto's- desk. Trapanotto would give the
proceeds from the sale of the spoiled plates to the Cub
Scouts.
One day during the week after the election Fasano
spoiled a plate and went to place it in the box behind
Trapanotto's desk. Trapanotto instructed her to place it on
Kunzweiler's desk. Later on that day Fasano questioned
Trapanotto as to why her plates were the only plates to be
placed on Kunzweiler's desk., Trapanotto told her to ask
Kunzweiler this question.
On Wednesday, November 11, all six pressmen and two
prep department employees, Fasano and Risener , did not
report for work in protest against Najdek's discharge on the
previous Friday. All these employees apparently called in
sick. The next day Kunzweiler made a sarcastic reference to
Fasano's having been sick the day before. When Fasano
objected, Kunzweiler stated as follows, as she credibly
testified: "If you don't like what I say to you, you can leave
right now." Kunzweiler went on to say, according to
•Fasano, "You just better watch it because I have 50 plates
of yours that are spoiled, and one more spoiled plate you
won't have your job."
Fasano was discharged on November 20 under the
circumstances discussed below. An incident involving
Kirklewski and Orrach a day or so before Fasano's
discharge casts light on the Respondent's motives in
discharging Fasano. It will be recalled that the Respondent
reinstated Kirklewski on November 16 on the 4 p.m. to
midnight shift. During the first week after Kirklewski's
return to work he and Bruckner went to a local bar after
work. A few minutes later Orrach and another man walked
in and Orrach sat down beside Bruckner. Orrach immedi-
ately started making abusive and profane remarks about
the Union, Business Representative Seide, and the
The 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations of the amended consolidated complaint
based on the change in the recordkeeping requirement for strippers and the
change in the manner of computing the Christmas bonus are hereby
dismissed.
6 The foregoing findings are based on Fasano 's credited and undemed
testimony.
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 345
employees who voted for the Union. In particular, Orrach
made comments, according to Kirklewski's credited and
undenied testimony, "about . . . how he's going to get rid
of the people one by one, all the people that try to hurt him
and all the people who voted for the Union."
No more than 2 or 3 days after this incident Orrach and
Kunzweiler stopped Fasano as she was leaving the prep
department after work. Kunzweiler informed her that she
was to be "let go." Fasano continued on to the timeclock
and then went into the ladies' room.' There was no further
conversation at this time.
On Monday, November 23, Fasano and Najdek went to
the Board's Regional Office where they filed charges
alleging that they had been discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. On the following day
Kirklewski filed a charge with the Regional Office alleging
a discriminatory layoff on September 18 and that the
Respondent had illegally threatened him since his return to
work on November 16.
6. The reduction in the pay of Bruckner and
Harders
As found above, prior to the coming of Kunzweiler,
Bruckner had been the foreman over the prep department
at a salary of $240 a week and Harders had been in charge
of the pressroom at $225 a week. Upon the arrival of
Kunzweiler on August 31, they were demoted to pressmen
and were informed that their pay would be reduced. This
was before there were any union activities at the plant.
Apparently, at the second bargaining meeting between
the Respondent and the Union on December 2 records as
to the employees' wages furnished by the Respondent to the
Union revealed to the Respondent that the wages of
Bruckner and Harders had never been cut. In any event,
after a discussion of this matter at the meeting, the
Respondent put through instructions that the pay of
Bruckner and Harders be reduced to $215 a week, the
Respondent's top rate for pressmen. The reduction was
effective at the beginning of the payroll week ending
December 9 and the employees received their first reduced
paycheck on December 11.
The General Counsel takes the position that this action
was taken after the Respondent was informed by Kirklew-
ski that Bruckner and Harders were the original organizers
of the union movement and that such action violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. However, I find that the
occasion on which Kirklewski related to Orrach that
Bruckner and Harders were the union instigators occurred
around Christmas, after the action was taken against
Bruckner and Harders. In any event, Bruckner and Harders
accepted jobs as pressmen with the understanding that their
wages would be cut, before there was any union on the
scene. I conclude that Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act was
9 The General Counsel also contends that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) of the Act in connection with the reduction in pay of Bruckner and
Hardets. However, Union Business Representative Seide testified that the
reduction in Bruckner's and Harders ' pay was discussed at a bargaining
meeting before the pay cut was put into effect. In view of this fact and the
further fact that Bruckner and Harders had been informed that their pay
would be cut when they returned to the presses-before the arrival of the
Union on the scene-this contention is rejected . The 8(aX5) allegations of
the complaint based on the reduction in pay of Bruckner and Harders are
not violated by the Respondent's conduct in connection
with the reduction in pay of Bruckner and Harders. The
allegations of the consolidated amended complaint to this
effect are hereby dismissed.?
7. The Respondent's contentions ; conclusions
concerning the layoffs and discharges
a. The layoffs of September 18
In its answer to the consolidated amended complaint the
Respondent took the position that these personnel actions
were taken because of economic conditions. The Respon-
dent did not itself offer any records to substantiate its claim
of poor economic conditions. However, it did furnish to the
General Counsel a monthly income statement comparison
for the months of March 1970 through February, 1971,
which the General Counsel offered in evidence, which
indicates, assuming that the management allocation figure
of $1,800 per month is a reasonable one, that the
Respondent had suffered financial losses in recent months
under the Respondent's system of calculating its profits and
losses.
However, the testimony of the Respondent's witness who
was most knowledgeable about the nature of the Respon-
dent's problem at this time, John Montague, the president
of the Respondent's parent company, strongly suggests that
the solution to this problem did not lay in a reduction in
force at this time.8 Thus, Montague testified that the
Respondent was losing sales because it could not make the
prompt deliveries which its customers desired and that the
delays in deliveries were caused by the Respondent's failure
to keep sufficient presses in operation to reduce the timelag
between the receipt of the order to delivery from 6 weeks to
the desired 2 or 3 weeks .9
The only other witness called by the Respondent to
discuss the reasons for the layoffs of the pressmen was
Supervisor Kunzweiler, who had been in the Respondent's
employ only 3 weeks at the time of the layoffs. Kunzweiler
testified that with the three shifts in operation "production
obviously had picked up quite a bit and we had the lack of
sales. The volume fell down to nothing.. . . We just didn't
have the backlog." Kunzweiler's testimony appears to be
refuted by the records as to the Respondent's monthly net
sales appearing on the monthly income statement compari-
son furnished by the Respondent. These records show that
the Respondent's net sales were up in August 1970 over
July and up again in September 1970 over August to a level
well above the average net sales for the 7-month period
ending in September 1970. Kunzweiler further testified that
the return of Bruckner and Harders to the pressroom
resulted in there being two extra pressmen and that with the
decision to discontinue the night shift, the Respondent had
an excess of four pressmen. However, in view of
hereby dismissed.
8 The Respondent did not call as a witness President Orrach, who was
in charge of the Respondent's operations during this period. Orrach
severed his connection with the Respondent in early February 1971, at the
instance of Montague , and received a financial settlement at this tune.
9 Montague further testified that the Respondent, without his
knowledge, had gotten rid of two presses, which further compounded the
problem of obtaining sufficient production on the remaining presses to
make the prompt deliveries which customers expected.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Montague's testimony in effect that the Respondent's
problem was due to insufficient operating time on the
presses, an excess number of pressmen would appear to be
a boon rather than a bane, assuming that the Respondent's
net sales remained fairly level, which the Respondent's
monthly income statement comparison shows they did.
Furthermore, the Respondent had considerable turnover
of employees, including pressmen, at its plant. The record
shows that the Respondent hired Najdek as a part-time
paper handler in April, hired Kirklewski, Gibbons and
Auriccio as pressmen in April or May, and hired Sannuto
as a pressman and rehired Najdek as a pressman-trainee in
July. In addition, the Respondent hired Fasano to work in
the prep department in September. Thus there were seven
hirings of unit employees in the 6-month period from April
through September. In view of the fact that the number of
employees in the unit fluctuated from about 11 to about 14
employees, the seven hirings represented half or more of the
unit workforce . Since the Respondent 's net sales do not
fluctuate too widely, these seven hirings indicate that the
Respondent had considerable turnover, and it was mainly
among the pressmen. Experiencing such turnover among
,pressmen, the Respondent might have been expected to
exercise greater restraint-in laying off experienced press-
men. It should also be borne in mind that the September 18
layoff was the first layoff at the plant within the memory of
Elsworth Bruckner who had been with the Respondent
since 1966 . This circumstance also militates against
acceptance of the Respondent's explanation for the layoff
of the four men on September 18.
As found above, all four men laid off on September 18
had, attended the union meeting on September 12. The
record shows with respect to'the employees here involved,
Yarosz, Kirklewski, and Sannuto, that they had all signed
union cards at this meeting . Kunzweiler , who participated
in the discussions leading up to the layoffs, was admittedly
aware at the time of the layoffs that Yarosz, Kirklewski,
and Sannuto were union sympathizers. Orrach's opposition
to having a union in the plant is revealed in his talks to the
employees before the November 4 election, his threat of
layoff to Najdek on November 2, his remark on November
3, which I have found were intended for Barbara Fasano's
ears, to the effect that anyone at the union meeting on
November 2 "won't be here for long," and his abusive
conduct and threat of discharge made in the bar in the
presence of several employees during the week of Novem-
ber 16. The Respondent's hostility to the Union is further
seen in the restrictive measures put into effect immediately
after the election, such as the stopping of the use of radios
in the darkroom, the advancement of the lunch hour to a
time which was inconvenient for the employees, and the
restrictions placed upon the use of telephones in the plant.
These measures , in my opinion, were instituted by the
Respondent in retaliation against employees for having
voted for union representation and were intended to
demonstrate to the employees its displeasure at their action
in this regard.
Taking into consideration the implausibility of the
Respondent's explanation for the layoffs, the timing of the
layoffs, less than a week after the organizing meeting which
all four employees attended, the Respondent's knowledge
of the union sympathies of the four laid-off employees, and
the abundant evidence of the Respondent's hostility to the
Union, I conclude that the Respondent effected the
September 18 layoffs in a show of force which was intended
to intimidate the remaining employees into abandoning
their union adherence. These layoffs, therefore, were
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. The discharge of Najdek on November 6
The Respondent's answer states that Najdek was
discharged for "incompetency ." However, the Respondent
introduced no evidence whatever concerning Najdek's
competence or ability as an employee . The fact that Orrach
sought Najdek out and rehired him after Najdek quit
working part-time for the Respondent indicates that Orrach
regarded him as a good worker . Najdek's undenied
testimony is that Harders , under whom Najdek worked as a
press trainee , told him that he "was doing very well, and
... would make a good pressman ." And, as stated above,
Risener , the former leadwoman in the prep department,
had heard only favorable comments about Najdek's work
in the prep department.
As found above , on November 2 Orrach threatened
Najdek with a layoff if the Union won the election. On
November 6, 2 days after the Union's victory in the
election, Orrach carried out his threat and laid Najdek off.
Under all the circumstances , including the Respondent's
failure to adduce any evidence of incompetency on
Najdek's part and the Respondent 's demonstrated hostility
to the Union, I conclude that Najdek's layoff was a further
measure of retaliation against the employees for choosing
union representation.
c. The discharge of Barbara Fasano on
November 20
As found above, Fasano was hired on September 29,
apparently as a replacement for Walter Yarosz who was
one of those laid off on September 18. She was discharged
on November 20, assertedly "for incompetency and refusal
to carry out orders of her superiors ." The only testimony
even remotely supporting the Respondent's claim that
Fasano refused to follow orders was Kunzweiler 's testimo-
ny that Fasano was uncooperative with respect to working
on the camera in the darkroom. According to Kunzweiler,
he hired Fasano intending that she spend the major portion
of her time on the camera and yet she managed somehow to
spend almost all of her time on the platemaker . When asked
to explain how this came about Kunzweiler testified that all
of Fasano's negatives had to be shot over. Victoria Severin,
another prep department employee, testified that Fasano
had a considerably higher percentage of rejected negatives
than anyone else working on the camera , including Tony
Trapanotto , Casty Rodriquez, George Najdek and herself.
However, as Kunzweiler testified , Fasano spent only about
one percent of her time in the camera room, and as the
testimony above related indicates , the Respondent had
other ' employees in the prep department who were
proficient on the camera operation . Kunzweiler himself
testified that Fasano had never refused to obey any order
regarding working on the camera . In my opinion the
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 347
Respondent's complaint against Fasano because of her
work on the camera is considerably overstated.
Regarding Fasano's work on the platemaker, which
consumed almost all of Fasano's time, Kunzweiler testified
that while Fasano did a fairly good job in the beginning
"the longer she was there the worse she was getting."
Kunzweiler testified that Fasano spoiled about 2 of the 60
plates she made in a normal workday and that an
experienced platemaker should not spoil any plates. Fasano
did not deny that she spoiled plates. But Fasano did testify,
without any contradiction from Kunzweiler, that she did
not spoil any plates for some days after the conversation
with Kunzweiler in which he asserted that he had 50 plates
which she had spoiled. The next time Fasano spoiled a
plate, which must have been very close to the day of her
discharge, nothing was said to Fasano about it. The
Respondent did not call Trapanotto, the foreman in the
prep department at the time of Fasano's discharge and who
was therefore most familiar with the quality of Fasano's
work, to testify concerning Fasano's ability in operating the
platemaker.
Upon consideration of all the facts I conclude that
Kunzweiler was again exaggerating when he testified
concerning Fasano's alleged shortcomings as a worker. As
found above, on November 3, after a union meeting held
the night before, Orrach, in words intended for Fasano's
ears, warned that "Anyone seen at the meeting last night
won't be here for long." After the Union won the election
Fasano openly defended her vote for the Union when
Orrach questioned her about the matter in the bar shortly
after the votes were counted.10 Fasano and Risener were
the only prep department employees who walked out on
November 11 with the pressmen in protest against Najdek's
discharge. I have found that Najdek was discharged as a
retaliatory measure because of the employees' selection of
the Union as their bargaining agent. Under all the
circumstances of the case, including particularly Fasano's
prominent support of the Union's cause by walking out on
November 11, I conclude that the Respondent's discharge
of Fasano on November 20 was primarily motivated by its
desire to get rid of this prominent union supporter among
the prep department employees. Fasano's discharge,
therefore, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. The Refusal To Bargain Collectively; the Strike
1. The negotiations before the strike
After the Regional Director certified the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
Respondent's pressroom and prep department,1' the parties
met for collective-bargaining purposes on approximately
10 The General Counsel contends that Orrach's questioning of Fasano
about why she voted for the Union, and his earlier questioning of Risener
about her union sympathies constituted interference, restraint, and
coercion in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the context of threats of
reprisals and actual layoffs in which these instances of questioning
occurred, I agree that Orrach's questioning of Fasano and Risener was
coercive.
u The agreed upon appropriate collective -bargaining unit is stated as
follows:
All pressroom and preparatory employees, pressmen, assistant
pressmen , cameramen , platemakers, and strippers . excluding office
eight occasions before the strike and once during the strike.
The principal negotiators at the five meetings in November
and December 1970 and January 1971 were Julius Seide,
the Union's business representative, for the Union, and
President Orrach and Ralph Bartell, for the Respondent.
Bartell is secretary of an association of employers in the
printing industry, herein called the Printer's League, which
bargains collectively with the Union and has an associa-
tionwide contract with the Union covering the employees
of a number of employers in the area which have
authorized the Printer's League to bargain collectively for
them on an associationwide basis. The Respondent has not
given the Printer's League such authority and Bartell's role
in the negotiations with the Union in this case is only that
of one of the Respondent's negotiators. However, because
of Bartell's position in the Printer's League he is familiar
with the terms of the associationwide Printer's League
contract, which contains a union-security clause.
The first meeting of the parties on November 19 was
devoted mainly to the parties exchanging information with
each other, the Respondent furnishing information con-
cerning the present wages and working conditions and the
kinds of presses and equipment in the shop, and the Union
indicating generally its goal in the negotiations which was
gradually to raise the wages and other terms and conditions
of employment to the levels contained in the Printer's
League contract. It was mutually agreed at the outset that
any contract arrived at by the Union would be discussed
with the employees before any contract would be signed,
and that in the case of the Respondent, the approval of
Montague, the president of the Respondent's parent
company was necessary.
The record shows that Montague was kept informed by
Orrach of the progress of the negotiations in the meetings
which were held on November 19, December 2, 22, and 28,
and on January 28, 1971. At these meetings the parties
tentatively arrived at a schedule for gradually raising wages
and other terms and conditions of employment up to the
level set in the Printer's League contract. The Respondent
sought 3 years in which to accomplish this and the Union
contended for a 2-year period. The parties compromised on
a 2-1/2 -year period.
At the December 28 meeting the parties reached tentative
agreement on all the economic provisions proposed,
excepting the account of the Respondent's contribution to
the Union's pension and education funds, and payment for
unused sick leave. At this meeting the Respondent
proposed a maintenance-of-membership clause in lieu of
the union-security clause which was standard in the
Printer's League contract.12 Orrach indicated that the
Respondent would insist upon this provision. Seide flatly
rejected this proposal. A few other minor non-economic
clerical employees , professional employees, bindery employees , guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
12 Under a standard maintenance-of-membership clause all of the
employees who are members of a union at the tune of signing the contract
and all other employees who thereafter become members , are required, as a
condition of employment, to maintain their union membership for the
duration of the contract. CCH Union Contract Clauses, 1954 Ed., sec
51079.02 Since employees who do not voluntarily join the Union are not
required to join as a condition of retaining their employment , compulsory
unionism is not a feature of maintenance-of-membership clauses.
348 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provisions remained to be settled after this meeting due to
the fact that they had not yet been discussed.
The next meeting was held on January 28. Seide offered
compromises with respect to the pension contribution and
sick pay provisions. The Respondent still insisted on a
maintenance-of-membership clause, which Seide again
rejected. The next day in a telephone call Seide sought to
have Bartell ascertain from Montague how firmly the
Respondent was committed to the maintenance-of-mem-
bership clause. Bartell informed Seide that Montague was
in Mexico and could not be reached.13
This was the situation with respect to the negotiations
when Orrach was relieved of his position as president of the
Respondent. At the next meeting on March 12 Bartell
confirmed that Orrach had left the Respondent. Montague
participated in the negotiations along with Bartell.
Montague indicated displeasure with some of the terms
which had been tentatively agreed upon at the earlier
meetings. No change occurred with respect to the union-
security impasse.14
At the next meeting on April 16 Seide proposed a
compromise union-security plan under which the Union
would waive its right to request for discharge for
nonpayment of dues after the payment of the initiation fee
and the first month's dues. Montague at first would not
consider the proposal at all, but Bartell stated, as Seide
credibly testified, that this was a "big compromise" which
could not be "dismissed out of hand," and that they would
have to discuss the matter before they could take a position
regarding this proposal. The meeting terminated on this
note.
On April 21 Bartell called Seide and told him "We have a
contract. We got to get together and work out all the
details." Seide and Bartell met on April 23 and drew up a
handwritten document setting forth all of the tentative
agreements reached from the beginning of the negotiations.
This document provided for the Union's proposed
compromise regarding union security. The only matter left
open at the end of this meeting was a provision concerning
an investment fund, which the Union had only recently
proposed for the Printer's League standard contract, and
about which Montague had not yet been informed. Bartell
agreed with Seide to arrange a meeting with Montague on
April 27 to resolve the one remaining open issue, to review
the remainder of the contract, and to sign it. When Seide
arrived at Bartell's office at the time of the scheduled
meeting, Bartell informed him that he had just received a
call from Montague stating that he would not sign any
contract. 15
2. The strike
On Friday , April 27 Seide communicated with various
employees at the plant, informed them that the parties had
reached a tentative agreement but that Montague had
refused to sign the contract , and that he had concluded that
there was no alternative but for the employees to go out on
13 The foregoing findings are based on the credited and uncontradicted
testimony of Julius Seide, the Union's representative in the negotiations.
Neither Orrach not Bartell were called as witnesses by the Respondent.
14 Montague's testimony concerning this meeting indicates that he was
unaware of the requirements of a maintenance-of-membership provision
strike, explaining, as he testified, that "we have gone along
with it long enough." The employees expressed agreement
with this conclusion and suggested that Seide appear at the
plant before work on the following Monday and explain the
situation to the rest of the employees.
On May 3 an undisclosed number of the employees went
out on strike. Several striking employees testified that upon
being informed by Seide of Montague's refusal to sign the
contract which had been tentatively reached, they decided
to go out on strike.
As of the close of the trial on May 18, the strike was still
in progress.
3. The negotiations during the strike
The parties, Seide for the Union and Bartell and
Montague for the Respondent, met in the office of George
Meyer, the Suffolk County Labor Commissioner, on May
14, at the latter's request. The parties reviewed their
respective positions for tl#g Commissioner. At the outset
Seide announced that his previous offer of a compromise
regarding union security was withdrawn. Later, after the
Commissioner talked to the parties separately, the Commis-
sioner inquired if the Union would renew its compromise
offer with respect to union security. Seide stated that in
order to settle the strike he would do so. However, when
this proposal was placed before the Respondent, Montague
asserted that he would have to consult the employees at the
shop and would advise the parties later in the day. After
consulting the employees, Montague decided against
accepting the Union's compromise union-security proposal,
and the parties were so advised. No further negotiations
have been held, so far as the record shows.
4. Conclusions concerning the Respondent's
refusal to bargain collectively with the Union
As found above, Montague, who had the ultimate
responsibility for approving any contract reached by the
Respondent's negotiators, was kept informed by Orrach as
to the progress of the negotiations, "what they had agreed
to and what they hadn't agreed to and things of that
nature." This is Montague's own testimony. Thus, Mo-
ntague was presumably kept informed of the maintenance-
of-membership provision which Bartell proposed on behalf
of the Respondent as a counteroffer to the Union's demand
for a full union-security provision at the December 28
meeting. The parties' expressed positions regarding this
part of the contract remained the same in the subsequent
meetings in the January through April period, including the
two meetings in March and April in which Montague
himself participated. The Union was insisting on a full
union-security provision and the Respondent was pressing
for a maintenance-of-membership clause. This was the
situation when the Respondent's negotiator, Bartell, after
notifying Seide that "We have a contract," met with Seide
on April 23 and worked out the terms of a complete
and erroneously assumed that such a clause provided for compulsory union
membership.
15 The above findings concerning the events of April 21, 23, and 27 are
based on the credited and undenied testimony of Julius Seide.
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 349
agreement, including the compromise union-security clause
which the Union had been proposing all along. It is to be
noted that Bartell was not an officer or employee of the
Respondent. He was merely its agent for collective-
bargaining purposes. Bartell could not independently make
any decision as to the content of the collective-bargaining
contract. He had to look to his principal, Montague, for
instructions.
Bartell's agreement to the inclusion of the Union's
compromise union-security clause in the proposed draft
was a significant concession by the Respondent and it was a
complete departure from the position which Bartell himself
had taken throughout the negotiations that the Respondent
would agree to nothing more than a maintenance-of-
membership clause. Under all the circumstances I cannot
believe that Bartell would have arranged the meeting to
work out the details of the contract and would have agreed
to the Union's compromise union-security provision
without the knowledge and acquiescence of Montague.
Montague's action 4 days later in announcing through his
representative, Bartell, that he would not sign any contract
with the Union constituted a repudiation of all of the
representations made by the Respondent's negotiators
during the entire course of the negotiations. Montague's
conduct at the,Labor Commissioner's office on May 14 did
nothing to weaken the force of this repudiation.
In my opinion, Montague's conduct above summarized
cannot be reconciled with the fulfillment of the Respon-
dent's obligation to bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union. Such conduct had the effect of a rendering
wholly fruitless all of the discussions between the
negotiators for the parties at the eight meetings in the
November to April period. It is difficult to imagine a
procedure more destructive of the collective-bargaining
process than the course followed by Montague in this case
of allowing his negotiators to bargain virtually up to the
point of final agreement, with scarcely a word of
disapproval of the tentative agreements reached, and then
to repudiate the results of the entire course of the
bargaining. Such conduct, I conclude, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or
other reprisals because of their umon activities, by
coercively questioning employees concerning their umon
sympathies, by engaging in surveillance over the union
activities of the employees, and by making adverse changes
in the employees' working conditions in retaliation for their
having chosen union representation, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging or laying off Walter Yarosz, Joseph
Kirklewski, and Eugene Sannuto on September 18, 1970, by
discharging George Najdek on November 6, 1970, and
Barbara Fasano on November 20, 1970, the Respondent
has discouraged membership in the Union by discrimina-
16 The Respondent further violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by
unilaterally changing various working conditions in order to retaliate
against the employees for voting for the Union in the election. I am
tion in regard to tenure, terms, and conditions of
employment and has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of an appro-
priate unit of the Respondent's employees consisting of the
following:
All pressroom and preparatory employees, pressmen,
assistant pressmen, cameramen, platemakers, and
strippers, excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, bindery employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By its conduct in the negotiations commencing in
January 1971 and by making adverse changes in the
employees' working conditions without consulting the
Union about them, the Respondent has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union in good faith in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The strike in which the Respondent's employees
engaged commencing on May 3, 1971, was caused by the
Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively in good faith
with the Union and its other unfair labor practices and was
an unfair labor practice strike.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, my Recommended Order will direct that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to the discriminatory discharges and layoffs,
my Recommended Order will require that the Respondent
offer to Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara
Fasano immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges. My recommended Order will
further direct that the Respondent make Walter Yarosz,
George Najdek, Barbara Fasano, and also Joseph Kirklew-
ski and Eugene Sannuto, whole for their losses resulting
from the Respondent's discrimination against them, by
payment to each of them the sum of money which each
would have earned from the date of the discrimination until
the date upon which the Respondent offers or has offered
each of them reinstatement, less net interim earnings.
Regarding the employees who went out on strike on May 3,
1971, or thereafter, my recommended Order will provide
that the Respondent upon application, offer them immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these
jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent jobs,
dismissing replacements if necessary, and that the Respon-
dent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to
reinstate them. Backpay for discriminatees and strikers
shall be computed on a quarterly basis and shall include
referring to the change in the lunch period, and the restrictions placed
upon the employees' telephone and radio playing privileges which were put
into effect immediately after the election.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
To remedy the Respondent's refusal to bargain collec-
tively in good faith with the Union and its taking of
unilateral action with respect to terms and conditions of
employment, my Recommended Order will provide that the
Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union in good faith and, upon request, restore the lunch
period for the morning shift to the schedule existing before
the election on November 4, 1970, and restore any
telephone and radio-playing privileges which were taken
away after the election.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
there is hereby issued the following recommended: 17
ORDER
The Respondent, Advanced Business Forms Corp.,
Ronkonkoma, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in New York Printing
Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging, laying off or in any other manner discriminat-
ing against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the
aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit stated in
paragraph 3 of the above Conclusions of Law.
(c) Changing the terms or conditions of employment of
its employees without notifying the aforesaid labor
organization and giving it an opportunity to bargain
collectively about such changes.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or
other reprisals because of their union activities, coercively
questioning employees concerning union matters, engaging
in surveillance over the union activities of its employees,
making adverse changes in the employees' working
conditions because of their union activities, and in any
other manner interfering with, restraining and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Walter Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara
Fasano immediate reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make each of them and Joseph Kirklewski
and Eugene Sannuto whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of their discharge or layoff, in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon application, offer its employees who went out
on strike on May 3, 1971, or thereafter, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, and make each of
them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, all in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, as well as all other records
necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive representa-
tive of the, employees in the appropriate unit set forth in
paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Law, above.
(f) Upon request of the aforesaid labor organization,
restore the lunch period for the morning shift to the
schedule existing before the election on November 4, 1970,
and, upon request, restore any telephone and radio-playing
privileges which were taken away after the election.
(g) Post at its plant at Ronkonkoma, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29 in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.i9
17 In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order as
provided in Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 10(c) of the Act and
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
18 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS CORP. 351
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in New York
Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging, laying off, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or
conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT change the scheduling of lunch periods
or other terms and-conditions of employment without
notifying the above Union and giving it an opportunity
to bargain collectively about such changes.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge,
layoff, or other reprisals because of their union
activities, coercively question employees about union
matters, spy on the union activities of our employees, or
make adverse changes in working conditions in order to
retaliate against our employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to form and join unions, to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection, and to
engage in collective bargaining through their represent-
ative chosen in accordance with the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to Walter
Yarosz, George Najdek, and Barbara Fasano to their
former jobs, and will pay them backpay, as provided in
the Board's Decision and Order.
WE WILL pay backpay to Joseph Kirklewski and
Eugene Sannuto, as provided in the Board's Decision
and Order.
WE WILL, upon application , offer immediate reins-
tatement to our employees who went out on strike
commencing on May 3, 1971, dismissing replacements
if necessary , and will pay the strikers backpay from the
date of any refusal of their application for reinstate-
ment , as provided in the Board 's Decision and Order.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good
faith with New York Printing Pressmen & Offset
Workers Union No. 51, International Printing Press-
men and Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO , as the exclusive bargaining representative of
our employees in the following appropriate unit:
All pressroom and preparatory employees,
pressmen , assistant pressmen , platemakers, and
strippers, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees , bindery employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union , restore the
lunch period for the morning shift to the schedule
existing before the election on November 4, 1970, and
will also restore any telephone and radio-playing
privileges which were taken away after the election.
Dated By
ADVANCED BusiNEss FOR1vis
CORP.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to
the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street, Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.