Northwest Graphics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 2004

342 N.L.R.B. 1288 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
342 NLRB No. 127
1288
Northwest Graphics, Inc. and Local 505–M, Graphic
Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO. Cases 14–CA–25998, 14–CA–26121, 14–
CA–26156, and 14–CA–26564
September 28, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On June 4, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Robert A.
Pulcini issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an
answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.2
1. In its exceptions and supporting brief, the Respon-
dent specifically refers to the 8(a)(5) violations found by
the judge, but does not specifically refer to any of the
8(a)(1) violations. The Respondent does, however, gen-
erally except to the judge’s conclusions of law, which
include both the 8(a)(5) and the 8(a)(1) findings. Thus, it
is not clear from the Respondent’s exceptions and brief
whether it intended to except to any of the 8(a)(1) viola-
tions found by the judge. However, assuming arguendo
that the Respondent did intend to except to the 8(a)(1)
violations found, the Respondent’s exceptions to these

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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 reversing the findings.
In sec. II,E, par. 3 of his decision, the judge incorrectly attributed the
following statement to Production Manager Jim Recker: “That’s right,
Jim. Look around you. There is nine out of 11 people in this room, in
this building here today that are wearing shirts and buttons. And no
one is shoving this shit down your throat.” The record shows that the
statement was actually made to Recker by employee Joseph Napoli.
The judge’s attribution of this statement to Recker is not material to the
findings of violations.
2 We shall amend the judge’s remedy and modify the judge’s rec-
ommended Order to reflect both the violations found by the judge and
our additional findings of violations. In addition, we shall provide an
appropriate remedy for the unlawful layoff of employee Sandra Lesh,
including requiring her reinstatement and that she be made whole for
any loss of wages and benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s
unlawful layoff. We shall also substitute a new notice to employees to
conform to the language set forth in the Order.
findings fail to comply with the requirements of Sec.
102.46 of the Board’s Rules. For this reason, we adopt
the judge’s 8(a)(1) findings.
2. The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure
to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by Production Manager Jim Recker’s April 20,
2000 outburst at employee Paul Brannan, who was wear-
ing a union button. The outburst, fully discussed in the
judge’s decision, consisted of Recker hitting Brannan’s
union button while shouting, “[w]ith mistakes like this,
how dare you shove this shit down my throat?” Further,
when Brannan replied by asking whether it is “the mis-
take or is it because I am wearing a button” Recker
stated, “[i]t’s the mistake. How dare you ask for more
money?” We agree with the General Counsel that
Recker’s conduct conveyed a threat of reprisal for engag-
ing in union activity. The conduct, which involved both
a verbal outburst at an employee while simultaneously
hitting his union button, reasonably conveyed a threat of
lower wages or unspecified reprisals in retaliation for
employees’ support for the Union. See generally Alexian
Bros. Medical Center, 307 NLRB 389 (1992) (supervi-
sory comment linking poor evaluation with union activ-
ity reasonably suggested employee could suffer penalties
for union activity).3
3. The General Counsel also excepts to the judge’s
failure to find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) by unilaterally increasing employees’ wages in
March, May, and July 2000, by unilaterally eliminating
the evening shift and establishing a new 5 a.m.–1:30 p.m.
shift in March 2000, and by laying off employee Sandra
Lesh in March 2000 when the evening shift was elimi-
nated. The judge fully set forth the facts underlying
these allegations,4 noting that these changes were made
in the absence of an agreement or impasse with the Un-
ion, and that they occurred while the Respondent and
Union were engaged in negotiations for an initial con-
tract. The judge did not address, however, whether this
conduct violated the Act. We agree with the General
Counsel that these unilateral changes—like the other
unilateral changes found by the judge—violated Section
8(a)(5) as alleged. See generally, RBE Electronics of
S.D., Inc., 320 NLRB 80 (1995). 5

3 We note that this conduct was alleged in the complaint, was part of
a vacated settlement, and was fully litigated during the hearing.
4 This conduct was alleged in the complaint and fully litigated before
the judge.
5 Chairman Battista further notes that the Respondent did not file an
answering brief addressing the issues raised by the General Counsel’s
exceptions.
NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC. 1289
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order the Respondent
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent to offer employee San-
dra Lesh full reinstatement to her former job or, if such
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and to make her whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits she may have
suffered as a result of her unlawful layoff, from the date
of her layoff, on March 20, 2000, less any net interim
earnings, to be computed in the manner as prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest
as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
The Board has held that “absent unusual circum-
stances, an employer will be required to honor a certifi-
cation for a period of 1 year.” Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136
NLRB 785,786 (1962). The Board has found that when
an employer has refused to bargain with the elected bar-
gaining representative during part or all of the year im-
mediately following the certification, that it has “taken
from the Union” the opportunity to bargain during “the
period when Unions are generally at their greatest
strength.” Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 300 NLRB
278 (1990), enfd. 939 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1991). The
measures taken by the Board to assure at least a year of
good-faith bargaining include an extension of the certifi-
cation year.
The length of such an extension is not necessarily a
simple arithmetic calculation. The factors which the
Board considers in determining the length that the certi-
fication year should be extended include the nature of the
violations, the number, extent, and dates of the collec-
tive-bargaining sessions, the impact of the unfair labor
practices on the bargaining process, and the conduct of
the union during negotiations. Metta Electric, 338
NLRB 1059, 1065 (2003) (granting 12-month extension),
enfd. in relevant part 360 F.3d 904, 912–913 (8th Cir.
2004). See also Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp.,
322 NLRB 616, 617 (1996).
The Union was certified on June 28, 1999. A month
later, the Respondent implemented a general wage in-
crease without notice to the Union or bargaining. At the
parties’ first bargaining meeting, 2 weeks later, the Re-
spondent refused to bargain over the Union’s list of ten-
tative proposals, replying that it would only bargain over
“entire proposals.” The parties met subsequently on Sep-
tember 29, October 27, and December 2, 1999. The Re-
spondent did not reply to the Union’s October 27 wage
proposal. Thus, from the date of certification in June
1999 until the end of the year, little real bargaining oc-
curred.
In January 2000, the Respondent’s unfair labor prac-
tices began. The judge found that the Respondent told
employees not to discuss their wage increase; questioned
the motives for the employees’ union activity and re-
quests for more money; unilaterally altered shift sched-
ules, wages, and bonuses; delayed responding to infor-
mation requests; dealt directly with employees; and
posted notices in an effort to stimulate decertification
attempts.
Based on the bargaining behavior of the Respondent in
the 6 months immediately after certification and its un-
fair labor practices in the 6 months after that, we affirm
the judge’s 12-month extension of the certification year.
Applying Mar-Jac Poultry Co., the judge granted an
additional 12-month extension based, in part, on the fact
that the Union was never given an honest opportunity to
reach an accord with the Respondent. The judge rejected
“totally” the Respondent’s defense that the Union was at
fault, finding that the Respondent acted in derogation of
its bargaining obligations and was dismissive of the Un-
ion. In addition, the judge found that the Respondent’s
unfair labor practices further “muddled” the collective-
bargaining process.
Ignoring the Respondent’s bargaining behavior in the
first 6 months after certification, the Chairman would
only grant a 6-month extension on the grounds that “the
first 6 months of the certification year were free from
violation.” This argument rests on the mistaken premise
that an extension should only be granted for periods in
which unfair labor practices impact bargaining and over-
looks that the Board examines a number of factors (in-
cluding bargaining behavior) in determining the length of
an extension.
The Chairman also argues that a 12-month extension is
inappropriate because during the first 6 months of the
certification year, “the Union had a full opportunity for
bargaining.” However, contrary to the view of the
Chairman, the Respondent’s behavior during the initial 6
months did not enable the Union to have a “full” oppor-
tunity to bargain. And, even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that the Union did have some opportunity to
bargain during the first 6 months of the certification year,
a 12-month extension is not precluded. In Glomac Plas-
tics, 234 NLRB 1309 fn. 4 (1978), enfd. in relevant part
592 F.2d 94, 101 (1979), the Board affirmed the judge’s
recommendation that the certification year begin anew
upon the Respondent’s recommencement of good-faith
bargaining, where the Respondent’s bad-faith bargaining
commenced 9-1/2 months after certification. The Board
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1290
held that, under proper circumstances, a complete re-
newal of a certification year may be granted even where
the Respondent engaged in some good-faith bargaining
in the prior certification year. Thus, the fact that the Re-
spondent may have engaged in some good-faith bargain-
ing in the last 6 months of 1999 does not, by itself, pre-
clude a 12-month extension.
Given the Respondent’s bargaining behavior in the
first 6 months and its unfair labor practices in the next 6
months, a 12-month extension of the certification year is
necessary to allow the Union and the Respondent a rea-
sonable period of time for good-faith bargaining. For
these reasons, we affirm the judge’s 12-month extension.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Northwest Graphics, Inc., St. Charles, Mis-
souri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees not to discuss their wages with
other employees.
(b) Questioning employees concerning their motives
for their union activity and requests for more money.
(c) Telling employees that profit-sharing funds will be
used to pay for attorney fees as a result of the employees’
union activity.
(d) Posting notices encouraging employees to engage
in antiunion activity.
(e) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals
for their union activity.
(f) Unilaterally changing shift schedules and wage dif-
ferentials without first giving the Union notice and an
opportunity to bargain.
(g) Unilaterally implementing bonuses without first
giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.
(h) Engaging in direct dealing with the unit employees
over terms and conditions of employment.
(i) Failing to produce and failing to timely produce in-
formation requested by the Union that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s functioning as the collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(j) Unilaterally laying off employees.
(k) 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
employee Sandra Lesh full reinstatement to the position
from which she was laid off in March 2000 or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority and any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole employee Sandra Lesh for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of her
unlawful layoff.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from its files any and all references to the unlawful
layoff and, within 3 days thereafter, notify employee
Sandra Lesh in writing that this has been done and that
the layoff will not be used against her in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner any re-
quested information that is reasonably necessary for it to
perform its duties as the employees’ collective- bargain-
ing representatives.
(f) On request, bargain collectively concerning wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
with Local 505-M, Graphic Communications Interna-
tional Union, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the bargaining unit described below.
If an understanding is reached, embody that understand-
ing in a written, signed agreement. The appropriate bar-
gaining unit is:

All production and maintenance employees employed
by Respondent at Respondent’s St. Charles, Missouri
facility, excluding office clerical and professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

(g) Extend the period of certification and recognition
of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees for 12 months from the
date that the Respondent commences bargaining pursuant
to this Order, as if the initial year of certification had not
expired.
(h) On request by the Union, rescind the unilateral
changes it made in shift schedules, wage differentials,
and bonuses.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in St. Charles, Missouri, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14,

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC. 1291
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since January 1, 2000.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

CHAIRMAN BATTISTA, dissenting in part.
I do not agree with the extension of the certification
year for a full 12 months. The Respondent’s unlawful
conduct was confined to the last 6 months of the certifi-
cation year. Thus, the bargaining in the first 6 months of
that year was untainted by any unlawful conduct. By
extending the certification year for 12 full months, my
colleagues give the union 18 months of certification pro-
tection. There is no basis for doing so.
I am particularly concerned about this matter because
of the impact on Section 7 rights. During the certification
year (as extended), employees are shorn of the funda-
mental Section 7 right to reject or change their represen-
tative. Accordingly, the certification year should be ex-
tended only when the record facts demonstrate the need
to infringe on this fundamental Section 7 right. As
noted, the record does not support an extension beyond a
6-month period.
The judge, who extended the certification year for 12
months, gave the following justification for doing so:
“The Union was never given an honest opportunity to
reach an accord with the Respondent.” (Emphasis
added.) There is no basis for this assertion. As noted
above, the first 6 months of the certification year were
free from violation. During this period, the Union had a
full opportunity for bargaining. Although there were only
four bargaining sessions during this period, there is not
even an allegation that this was due to any “foot-
dragging” by the Respondent. My colleagues rely upon
“bargaining behavior” and a general wage increase dur-
ing the first 6 months. However, neither was attacked as
unlawful in this or any other proceeding.
My approach accords with precedent. In Lamar Hotel,
137 NLRB 1271, 1273 (1962), there was no bargaining
for 6 months of the certification year, because of a pend-
ing 8(a)(5) charge. There was no comparable conduct
for the other 6 months. The Board extended the certifica-
tion year by only 6 months.
My colleagues rely on Glomac Plastics for their view
that the certification year should be extended for 12 full
months. That case is inapposite. As the Board made
clear in its footnote 4, the 12-month extension of the cer-
tification year in that case was premised on the fact that
there was bad-faith bargaining within the year. As the
Board emphasized, it is difficult to ascertain the precise
time at which that kind of violation can be said to begin.
The instant case involves no such violation.
I recognize that the issue involved herein is not neces-
sarily to be decided by arithmetic reasoning. However,
because of the impact on Section 7 rights, the record
must justify a result that gives more than the 12-month
certification protection. As set forth above, the record
fails to support a 12-month extension.1

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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.

WE WILL NOT tell you not to discuss your wages with
other employees.
WE WILL NOT question you concerning your motives
for your union activity and requests for more money.
WE WILL NOT tell you that profit-sharing funds will be
used to pay for attorney fees as a result of your union
activity.

1 I join my colleagues’ finding of additional violations not found by
the judge, except I find it unnecessary to pass on my colleagues’ addi-
tional finding that Production Manager Jim Recker’s conduct towards
employee Paul Brannan violated Sec. 8(a)(1). My colleagues’ finding,
that Recker unlawfully threatened Brannan with reprisals in retaliation
for employees’ support for the Union, is cumulative of another 8(a)(1)
violation found (the Respondent’s threat to take away profit sharing
funds in response to union activity) and would not materially affect the
remedy.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1292
WE WILL NOT post notices encouraging you to engage
in antiunion activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals
for your union activity.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change shift schedules and
wage differentials without first giving the Union notice
and an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement bonuses without
first giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bar-
gain over those changes.
WE WILL NOT engage in direct dealing with unit em-
ployees over terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT fail to produce or fail to timely produce
information requested by the Union that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s functioning as the collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally lay off employees.
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, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer employee Sandra Lesh full reinstatement to
the position from which she was laid off in March 2000
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to her seniority and any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make employee Sandra Lesh whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
her unlawful layoff, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any and all references to the
unlawful layoff and, WE WILL within 3 days thereafter,
notify employee Sandra Lesh in writing that this has
been done and that the layoff will not be used against her
in any way.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner any
requested information that is reasonably necessary for it
to perform its duties as the employees’ collective-bar-
gaining representative.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with Local 505-M Graphic Communications
International Union, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below, and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a written, signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:

All production and maintenance employees employed
by us at our St. Charles, Missouri facility, excluding of-
fice clerical and professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL, on request, resume bargaining with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees for no less than 12 months thereaf-
ter as if the initial year of certification had not expired.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, rescind the unilat-
eral changes we made in shift schedules, wage differen-
tials, and bonuses.

NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC.

Sharon L. Steckler, Esq. and Patrick Myers, Esq., for the Gen-
eral Counsel.
Lawrence P. Kaplan, Esq. (Kaplan & Associates, L.L.C.), of St.
Louis, Missouri, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. PULCINI, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in St. Louis, Missouri, on December 10 and 11, 2001.
The charges were filed respectively on April 10, July 24, and
August 22, 2000, and August 3, 2001. A complaint issued in
Case 14–CA–25998 on May 31, 2000, and reissued on June 21,
2000, as amended. The parties entered in an approved settle-
ment of this case on July 17, 2000. Related charges to this case
resulted in an Order consolidating them (Cases 14–CA–26121
and 14–CA–26156) for hearing issued by the Regional Director
for Region 14 on September 29, 2000. However, these cases
also resulted in an approved settlement agreement on December
5, 2000. On October 10, 2001, the Regional Director issued an
Order Vacating and Setting Aside all of the settlement agree-
ments and consolidating them for hearing. These cases allege
that Northwest Graphics, Inc. (the Respondent) coerced and
threatened its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). They also allege that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by engaging
in certain unilateral changes. Finally, they allege undue delay
in providing Local Union 505-M Graphic Communications
International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union) with information
needed by it to collectively bargain; and then bypassing it to
deal directly with bargaining unit employees.1
Issues
(1) Whether the Respondent threatened and coerced em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(2) Whether the Respondent acted unilaterally in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
(3) Whether the Respondent unduly delayed providing the
Union with requested information necessary to its bargaining
obligation.
(4) Whether the remedy of an ordered extension of the bar-
gaining year is appropriate.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the parties, I make the following

1 The complaint includes a request for an extension of the bargaining
year under the provisions of Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785
(1962).
NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC. 1293
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in commercial
printing at its facility in St. Charles, Missouri, where it annually
ships to and receives from points directly outside of the State of
Missouri goods valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent’s commercial printing operation does work
for the American Medical Association. It has 15 employees, 10
of whom are in the bargaining unit. This unit was created
through a representation election held on June 18, 1999, and
Regional Director certification of its results on June 28, 1999.
There were no objections filed after the election. The parties
met 18 times since then through the date of the hearing in these
matters. They did not reach agreement.
The Respondent is a family-owned enterprise in the persons
of President Don Roberts, Vice President Timothy Roberts, his
son and wife/mother, and corporate officer, Joan Roberts.
Timothy Roberts was the principal actor and spokesperson for
the Respondent in the events of this case. However, Don Rob-
erts is deeply involved in the policies of the Respondent and
was, as well, involved in the labor relations’ positions taken
during bargaining. The Respondent also has Production Man-
ager Jim Recker to supervise the various departments. This
includes scheduling of work and the appraisal of employees’
performance relative to wage increases.2
On July 21, 1999, the Respondent advised the Union that
Tim Roberts and Attorney Lawrence Kaplan would negotiate
for it. On July 28, 1999, the Respondent gave a general wage
increase to its bargaining unit employees without notice to the
Union. The Respondent had not given such an increase before
in its history. The parties met for the first time on August 11,
1999, in the offices of attorney Kaplan. The Union’s bargain-
ing team included Ralph Bruns, its local vice president and
principal spokesperson, President Ken Truemper, Financial
Vice President Chico Humes, and two bargaining unit employ-
ees, Joseph Napoli a. k. a. Pepe Napoli and Paul Brannan.3
The Union gave the Respondent a list of proposed economic
and noneconomic issues for negotiation. This proposal stated
in its penultimate paragraph that all agreements reached in ne-
gotiations were “tentative,” subject to addition, modification, or
deletion at any time during negotiations. The Respondent’s
reply to this was that it would bargain with “entire proposals”
to which Bruns reiterated the Union’s position that agreements
were tentative. Attorney Kaplan periodically prepared what the
Respondent calls “redline” copies of the contract proposals

2 The Respondent’s shift schedules are 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., and 3:30 to 12 a.m.
3 Union Attorney Art Martin only attended 3 sessions of the 18 in-
volved and not until September 28, 2000.
purportedly indicating what the parties had agreed to up to that
point. Kaplan also prepared and distributed drafts of the pro-
posals showing what had been agreed to and not up until that
point. The Union never retreated from its position that any-
thing agreed to in negotiation was tentative. The parties met on
September 29, October 27, and December 2, 1999, January 6
and 30, 2000. The Union presented its wage proposal at the
October 27, 1999 meeting but the Respondent did not respond.
Similarly, they did not discuss shift scheduling.
B. Second-Shift Changes January–March 2000
In January 2000, Tim Roberts called employee Shayne Shel-
bourne to his office and gave him a performance review that
resulted in Roberts saying, “Well, we’re going to give you a $2
an hour raise. I would appreciate it if you would not discuss it
with anyone.” Shelbourne agreed. The Respondent unilater-
ally initiated the evening shift of 3:30 p.m. to midnight on
January 31, 2000. The Respondent assigned employees Jim
Coffey, John Borgmeyer, and Ray Hartling to this shift and, as
well, gave them a 50-cent-an-hour shift differential. The Union
got no notice of any of this.
The Respondent called a former employee named Sandra
Lesh in January 2000 concerning its new shift schedule. Don
Roberts called Lesh and asked her if she would be interested in
this second shift which, he told her, the Respondent needed to
use new equipment. Lesh called back the next day and in-
formed Roberts that she could only work part time. He agreed
to employ her this way and they negotiated a salary of $16.50
per hour without any shift differential. Lesh began work in
February 2000. The establishment of this part-time position
with its different wage scale was a unilateral act. The Respon-
dent did not notify the Union.
Sometime in early March 2000, employee Jim Coffey ap-
proached and spoke to Production Manager Recker with a rec-
ommendation to eliminate the evening shift. Similarly, in and
around the same time, employees Mark Boudreaux and Bill
Cole recommended to Recker that he establish a 5 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. shift. Recker conferred with the Roberts, resulting in the
unilateral implementation of the new shift schedule on March
20, 2000, again without notice to the Union. Simultaneously,
the Respondent unilaterally stopped the shift differential im-
plemented 2 months before. Again, this act was without notice
to the Union. When it discontinued the shift differential, the
Respondent gave one employee named John Borgmeyer a $1-
per-hour raise despite his having received a merit increase in
January 2000 of $2 per hour. This increase was unilateral. The
Respondent did not notify the Union. The Respondent then
called part-time employee Lesh after eliminating the evening
shift, telling her to see Tim Roberts, which she did. Roberts
told her, in meeting, he was letting her go due to the evening-
shift elimination. This act like the others discussed was unilat-
eral, without notice to the Union.4

4 The Respondent called Lesh in May and offered her a full-time po-
sition which she declined, which the Respondent had reason to believe
would be declined from its earlier contact with Lesh. President Roberts
made this contact and told Lesh that he needed her to sign a piece of
paper declining the position because of some “circumstances” with the
Union. Lesh did sign such a statement when sent to her.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1294
C. Information Requests
Union Vice President Bruns telephonically requested more
wage information from Tim Roberts on February 14, 2000.
Roberts told Bruns that employee Mark Boudreaux did not
wish his information given to the Union. Later that day, attor-
ney Kaplan spoke with Bruns and told him the Respondent
refused to give the information. On March 15, 2000, the Re-
spondent sent the Union a list of employees’ current wages,
with no information on wage progression. Information regard-
ing Boudreaux and probationary employee Bill Cole remained
absent. At hearing, Tim Roberts testified that he left out infor-
mation on Boudreaux to honor his request, but had no recollec-
tion of why Cole’s information was missing. At a bargaining
session held on March 23, 2000, attorney Kaplan provided the
Boudreaux wage information when asked to by Bruns. Bruns
did not ask about Cole. The Respondent gave the information
finally on April 26, 2000, explaining the reason for delay was
Cole’s probationary status.
D. Final Proposal
Attorney Kaplan sent the Union a letter on February 29,
2000 that included “Joint Draft Number 6” and a “final pro-
posal” that failed to mention wages. On March 23, 2000, the
parties exchanged proposals. The Respondent reviewed the
proposals in caucus and then through attorney Kaplan told the
Union, “With respect to wages, the Company has already given
out wages. And that is as good as it is going to get.”
E. Events of April 2000
The Union began an informational picket at the Respon-
dent’s facility on April 20, 2000. At the same time, some of the
employees began wearing yellow buttons that said, “We want a
contract.” One of the nine employees wearing such a button
was employee Paul Brannan also a member of the negotiating
committee. Brannan came to work at 5 a.m. to his job running
a machine in the bindery department. At around 7 a.m., Pro-
duction Manager Recker called Brannan to the loading dock
and engaged him in conversation.5 Recker approached Brannan
and threw a job jacket onto a nearby skid. He yelled, “What
does it say? What does it say?” Brannan testified to his confu-
sion by Reckers’ question until he said, “This job had a weight
limit on it.” Brannan, it appears, had overfilled a box by 2
pounds, a mistake corrected by another employee. Recker then
said, as he hit Brannan’s union button, “With mistakes like
these, how dare you shove this shit down my throat?” Brannan
replied, “Was it the mistake or is it because I am wearing a
button?” Recker replied, “It’s the mistake. How dare you ask
for more money?”
Brannan told other employees including Joe Napoli about the
incident with Recker. Napoli approached Recker some hours
later at mid-morning. He told Recker that anytime he made a
threat involving union activity against one employee, he made
it against all employees. Recker told him he did not under-
stand. Napoli said that he did not want to identify anyone in
particular and he repeated his admonishment to Recker. Naploi

5 The Respondent stipulated to Brannan’s account of this encounter
as accurate.
broke off the conversation and went to the nearby men’s room.
Recker followed. Recker asked Napoli how he dared to com-
plain like this to him and he ordered Napoli to come with him
to see President Roberts. Napoli refused to go, saying he felt
threatened and wanted someone with him. Recker agreed but
then said, “Are you talking about the Paul Brannan incident?”
Napoli replied, “Yes,” and Brannan told him to see him after he
was finished in the men’s room to discuss the matter.
Some 30 minutes later, Recker approached Brannan and
asked him to come to the dock with him. Napoli was there.
Recker discussed the mistakes made by Brannan and asked
Napoli if he could correct an employee for such mistakes. Na-
poli told Recker he had the right to correct an employee but not
as he had Brannan. Naploi told Recker that he was speaking of
the negative comment Recker had made about the Union.
Recker at first denied the comment then admitted it and said
while pointing around the room, “that’s right Jim. Look around
you, there are nine out of eleven people in this room, in this
building today that are wearing shirts and buttons, and no one is
shoving this shit down our throats?” Napoli replied that the
employees were exercising their rights and Recker then said
that Napoli did not have a right to complain to him and that he
should instead complain to his “Union watchamacallit.”
Employee Thomas Watkins went to see President Roberts
some few days after the picketing started. They were alone as
Watkins told Roberts that there was nothing personal about
employees including him wearing union buttons. Roberts re-
plied, according to Watkins, that he would use profit sharing
funds to pay attorney fees.6
F. Events of May 2000
The parties negotiated on May 9, 2000. The Respondent
again presented proposals which, this time, included wages and
a provision giving the Respondent complete discretion over
amounts within salary ranges. The Union rejected these provi-
sions and countered with language allowing incremental wage
increases over a period of months to bring the employees up to
scale. The parties could not reach an accord.
While the parties were at the bargaining table, the Respon-
dent approached employee Shayne Shelbourne to discuss a
wage increase for him. It did this in early May through Produc-
tion Manager Recker and Vice President Tim Roberts.7 Recker
approached Shelbourne and asked him if he was interested in a
raise. As Shelbourne demurred, Recker said, “You know, I
could easily have a meeting arranged with Don Roberts without
anyone knowing. I’ll see what I can do.” Tim Roberts did
approach Shelburne soon after the Recker conversation, asking
him to come to his office. In the ensuing conversation, the two
discussed Shelburne’s wages and Roberts told Shelburne he
was getting a $1-an-hour increase. Shelburne did not get a
work appraisal before receiving this raise. The Respondent did
not notify the Union of this raise.

6 It is undisputed that President Roberts made similar statements dur-
ing the campaign in captive audience meetings. The Respondent does
maintain a 401(k) plan that gave employees yearly settlement state-
ments. Employer contributions stopped in 1998.
7 There is no factual dispute with these accounts. The Respondent
essentially stipulated to all of the contact details set out here.
NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC. 1295
G. Events of July 2000
The parties entered in a settlement agreement on July 11,
2000, to resolve many of the issues raised in the above facts.8
Three days after this, Tim Roberts informed Bruns the Respon-
dent wanted to give employee John Borgmeyer a wage increase
as of July 19, 2000. There was a telephone conference on July
17, 2000, between attorney Kaplan, Tim Roberts, and Bruns
about this with no resolution. There also was an exchange of
faxes. Bruns wrote Roberts saying that it was inappropriate to
give one employee a raise without addressing the needs of all
the employees. Bruns went on to object to the one employee
getting a raise. Tim Roberts replied by fax declaring impasse
on the issue and informing Bruns that the raise would proceed.9
Attorney Kaplan also faxed Bruns setting out the rationale for
the Respondent’s actions.10 Borgmeyer got the raise as prom-
ised effective on July 17, 2000. As with Shelburne, there was
no appraisal.
H. Further Requests for Information
On July 12, 2000, Tim Roberts admonished employee Rena
Buford for clocking in too early. She then received a written
copy of the oral admonishment. Roberts faxed the Union, i.e.,
Bruns with a copy. Bruns replied by asking by fax for informa-
tion including timecards, pay stubs, and any disciplinary re-
cords relating to clocking in early. The Respondent did not
contest the right of the Union to have this information. Bruns
asked for the information by August 10, 2000, an arbitrary date
selected by him. This date coincided with a negotiation ses-
sion. Attorney Kaplan finally replied, saying that the Union
would not receive the information. He gave no reason. This
resulted in an additional unfair labor practice charge filed.11
On November 27, 2000, the Respondent produced the infor-
mation, some 5 months after the initial request. The Respon-
dent had the ability to produce the information at any time.
Tim Roberts testified that a reason he did not provide the in-
formation was his opinion that the request was in the nature of
“agitation.”12

8 As stated above, this was set aside due to the alleged continuing
misbehavior of the Respondent at the bargaining table and in the work-
place.
9 The fax said in its relevant part, “We cannot permit a delay in a
salary increase for an employee to be tied to the outstanding issues in
our contract negotiations. We are at impasse over this particular in-
crease; we will be increasing John’s hourly pay from $15.00 to $16.00
per hour effective 7/17/00.”
10 Kaplan wrote in relevant part. “The Company believes it inappro-
priate for you to tie Mr. Borgmeyer’s increase for other employees and,
in fact, tying of one issue to other issues is generally illegal under the
National Labor Relations Act. Once again, if you are interested in
further discussing the wage increase for John Borgmeyer, please don’t
hesitate to contact the undersigned.”
11 The new charge and complaint alleged the failure to timely pro-
duce the information along with the unilateral wage increase to em-
ployee Borgmeyer.
12 The events of July 2000, and the failure to timely provide informa-
tion resulted in yet another round of charges which also became the
subject of an approved settlement dated December 4, 2000. The Re-
spondent again committed itself to observance of its duty to bargain by
timely providing any information the Union is entitled to and to refrain
I. Events of May 2001, the Bonus Issue
Tim Roberts faxed Bruns a letter on May 23, 2001, stating
that employees would receive a bonus equal to 2 weeks’ pay to
be distributed on May 25, 2001. The fax invited Bruns to con-
tact Roberts on Thursday, May 24, the day before the scheduled
distribution.13 Bruns did not retrieve the fax until May 25,
2001. He replied at once demanding that the Respondent bar-
gain over the bonuses and requesting information about them.
The Respondent gave the bonuses out notwithstanding Bruns
objection and request to bargain.14 Tim Roberts responded to
Bruns finally on May 29, 2001. Roberts wrote Bruns telling
him that the Respondent had no policy with respect to bonuses
and gave the one in question to employees in appreciation for
their hard work. Roberts advised Bruns to contact attorney
Kaplan to bargain over the issue.15
J. Events of June 2001
In the first week of June 2001, Recker approached employee
and press operator James Coffey and asked him if he was will-
ing to change to an evening shift the following week for a shift
differential of 50-cents-per-hour. Coffey accepted the terms,
beginning June 4, 2001. Roberts faxed Bruns about this shift
change on June 4, 2001, nearly 2 hours into Coffey’s working
it.16 Bruns replied to this fax on June 5, 2001, requesting that
the changes not take place. Bruns said the Union “insists that
that the company bargain over these and any other changes in
wages, hours and working conditions before they occur.”
Bruns also asked for dates for bargaining. Attorney Kaplan
faxed a response to Bruns on June 6, 2001. In it, Kaplan told
the Union of the Respondent’s willingness to bargain about the
shift change but its unwillingness to delay it. Kaplan told the
Union that the changes were temporary.17
In mid-June, Production Manager Recker approached Pepe
Napoli and asked him to work the second shift. Similarly, he
approached other employees with this same question, offering a
50-cent per hour differential. The Respondent failed to tell the
Union as it failed before the previous January and March 2000.

from unilateral acts involving wages without notice and opportunity to
bargain being given the Union.
13 The Respondent calculated bonuses just before notification to the
Union by fax. The Respondent contended that there was urgency in the
matter dictated by the need to have its payroll agent act by close of
business May 24, 2001.
14 The paychecks noted the bonuses to employees, their first knowl-
edge of them. The Respondent included a letter to the employees ex-
plaining that the bonuses were in appreciation for the recent work ef-
forts. No mention was made of the Union.
15 Kaplan sent a letter on June 6, 2001, to the Union on this subject
which in relevant part said, “We don’t believe that the union’s position
in the equation of employer, employee and union grants to the union
the right to interfere with this cooperative relationship” In the same
letter, the Respondent offered to bargain about the issue.
16 Coffey began working the shift at 12 p.m. Roberts faxed Bruns at
1:45 p.m. This fax stated that Coffey and employees Borgmeyer had
agreed to work a shift ending at midnight and would be receiving 50-
cents-per-hour differential. Both employees worked the shift through
June 7, 2001.
17 Kaplan described this “accommodation” as “inherent in the day to
day relationship between the employees and the Company.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1296
Tim Roberts told Bruns two employees, Napoli and Coffey,
agreed to work this shift from June 25 to 30, 2001, with differ-
ential. Bruns faxed a response to this again demanding that the
Respondent negotiate before implementation. This time Bruns
accused the Respondent of direct dealing with the employees
and circumvention of its bargaining obligation. Attorney Kap-
lan responded, in part, saying:

Northwest Graphics does not believe that every communica-
tion with employees is required to go through the Union.
Everyday adjustments such as a temporary shift arrangement
are included in the type of communications that all employees
routinely have with their employees whether or not repre-
sented by a union. In a small shop such as Northwest Graph-
ics, it is necessary for the Company and the employees to fre-
quently make adjustments to accommodate work fluctuations.

The parties met on July 11, 2001. One of the topics dis-
cussed was the bonus system. The Respondent denied having
any formal system in place while maintaining that the Respon-
dent only wished to “share its good fortune” with employees.
Attorney Kaplan told Bruns that the matter was closed and that
the Union could run to the Labor Board about it. During dis-
cussion, Tim Roberts stated, “I will never sign a contract that
says the union will decide the amount of bonuses.”18
K. Events of September 2001 Through Date of Hearing
The Union filed another set of charges against the Respon-
dent on August 3, 2001, on the issues of bonuses and shift
changes with differentials. On September 4, 2001, Tim Roberts
posted a notice to employees along with a copy of the new
charge and its enclosed letter from the NLRB. His notice said
in its relevant part, “I encourage you to look closely at this
information, ask questions, get involved and decide if this is
how you want to be represented.” The parties had two addi-
tional bargaining sessions on September 18 and October 31,
2001, with no essential change in the positions of the parties on
any of the issues raised by the charges consolidated for hearing.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. The 8(a)(1) Violations
The Respondent admits the encounter between Tim Roberts
and employee Shelbourne in January 2000, when Roberts told
Shelbourne not to discuss his wages with other employees. The
General Counsel cites American Automatic Sprinkler Systems,
323 NLRB 920 (1997), enfd. in relevant part 163 F.3d 209 (4th
Cir. 1998), cert denied sub nom Road Sprinkler Fitters Local
Union 669 v. American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, 529 U.S.
821 (1999), as well as other cases19 for the proposition that
telling employees not to discuss his wages interferes with his
Section 7 rights and is coercive. I concur. The Respondent
failed to advance any defense to this allegation. I assessed this

18 The Respondent purportedly gave nonseasonal bonuses some three
or four times between 1994 and 1999. This allegation was undocu-
mented. It did give a seasonal bonus in 1998 but not in 1999 when the
Union arrived on the scene.
19 See also Automatic Screw Products Co., 306 NLRB 1072 (1992),
enfd. mem. 977 F.2d 582 (6th Cir. 1992).
conduct in the context of the entire scope of the allegations. I
find this incident conduct inherently interfering in the Section 7
rights of employees and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Brunswick Food & Drug, 284 NLRB 663 (1987).
The April 20, 2000 incident between Production Manager
Recker and various employees Brannan and Napoli are, the
General Counsel argues, 8(a)(1) violations, citing Paul Mueller
Co., 332 NLRB 312, 312 (2000), and Emergency One, Inc., 306
NLRB 800, 802, 806 (1992).20 I agree with the premise that
this conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, I
find the proper characterization of the events is one of unlawful
interrogation. Here, again, the Respondent offered no substan-
tive defense and failed to call any witnesses on these issues
conceding their reality. Thus, I find the witness accounts
credible. In so doing, it is clear the context of the meeting be-
tween the employees and Recker was one of conflict and emo-
tion. Recker intended his questions to cow employees Brannan
and Napoli. It is irrelevant whether he intended them as a rhe-
torical device or not, inasmuch as his questions’ content re-
strained and coerced the employees in their union conduct.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB, 1176, 1177 (1984), affd. sub
nom. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760
F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
A similar result is reached on the issue of President Don
Roberts’ purported statement to employee Tom Watkins that he
would use profit sharing funds to pay attorney fees. As the
General Counsel points out, the statement was one of fact and
not opinion. Profit sharing has not taken place since the advent
of the Union, giving the Roberts comment all the more import.
Don Roberts did not testify and the attributed statement is un-
contested by the Respondent. Therefore, I find it occurred, as
testified to, and that it was a threat in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. EBY-Brown Co. L.P., 328 NLRB 496
(1999).
On September 4, 2001, Vice President Tim Roberts posted
his admonishment to employees to ask questions and to get
involved along with a copy of materials the Respondent re-
ceived from the NLRB on new charges filed by the Union. The
majority of his posting is innocent enough. However, Roberts
closed his polemic with the question, “See if this is how you
want to be represented?” The Respondent did not explain what
the motivation for this posting was, leaving the matter suscepti-
ble to the interpretation offered by the General Counsel. The
General Counsel contends that the circumstances of this state-
ment, as against the totality of the factual allegations, makes
out an 8(a)(1) violation, citing Wire Products Mfg. Corp., 326
NLRB 625 (1998), enfd. 210 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2000). I find
this argument persuasive and I agree. The Respondent’s con-
duct leaves little room for any benefit of doubt. It conducted
itself in a manner openly hostile and resentful of the Union
before this “posting.” Thus, this was not a plea for employee
involvement in the state of collective bargaining. Rather, it was

20 Recker said, “With mistakes like these, how dare you shove this
shit down my throat?” (referring to the Union by slapping the em-
ployee’s shirt union button). He also said, “How dare you ask for more
money?”
NORTHWEST GRAPHICS, INC. 1297
a clumsy and transparent attempt to invite procompany anti-
union efforts with implied support.
B. The 8(a)(5) Allegations
There are a significant number of unilateral changes alleged
in this matter. The defenses to them are minimal at best. There
is little, if any, factual dispute between the parties. The Re-
spondent elected not to challenge the allegations as presented at
trial, opting to stipulate to the facts but not the conclusions as
presented in the complaint. The Respondent did not call wit-
nesses such as Production Manager Recker and President Don
Roberts.21 It relies on a few cases as legal support for its al-
leged unilateral actions.22 In doing so, the Respondent states
that its actions are nothing more than the maintenance of the
status quo, which it is entitled to do. On the issues of alleged
unilateral changes, the Respondent similarly cites cases finding
a failure to grant customary wage increases and other benefits
absent the Unions’ agreement is a violation of the Act.23 The
Respondent then argues the Union’s actions in negotiations
violate the Act.24 It does not even address the 8(a)(1) allega-
tions beyond stating, “Other than several 8(a)(1) statements
made in early 2000, the Respondent has been clean.”25
There is no question that the Respondent made a number of
unilateral changes in the figurative shadow of its entry into a
settlement agreement with the NLRB to cease such acts. It
embarked on this behavior as soon as the bargaining obligation
perfected itself with the certification of election results. The
Respondent’s obligation to refrain from or avoid unilateral
changes in wages, hours, and working conditions perfected
itself when the Union won the election. Mitchellace, Inc., 321
NLRB 191 (1996), and LoveJoy Industries, 309 NLRB 1085
(1992). It ignored this obligation consistently.

21 The General Counsel requested that I draw an adverse inference
from the Respondent’s failure to call these persons. In view of the fact
that the Respondent stipulated most of the salient facts, I see no need to
draw such inferences. The facts speak for themselves loudly and need
no further amplification.
22 For example, the Respondent cites EIS Brake Parts, 331 NLRB
1466 (2000), for the proposition that found certain job changes lawful
as a continuation of the status quo; see also Our City of Lourdes, 306
NLRB 337 (1992).
23 See Rural/Metro Medical Services, 327 NLRB 49 (1998), and
Kurdziel Iron of Wauscon, 327 NLRB 155 (1998).
24 It argues, “Here, the Union did not ask for different or greater
wages or bonuses than those granted. It continuously attempted to link
the payment of such wages and bonuses to the negotiation of a com-
pleted agreement. Requiring agreement on certain subjects of bargain-
ing as a prerequisite to further negotiation is evidence of bad faith,
Vanderbilt Prods, 129 NLRB 1323 (1961), as is refusing to negotiate
economic proposals without agreement on non-economic issues. East-
ern Maine Medical Center, 253 NLRB 224 (1980). By conditioning
wage increases, shift differentials, starting wages and bonuses on a
completed agreement, the Union has violated Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act.”
25 I construe this as a tacit admission of the alleged 8(a)(1) violations
weighed against the fact that critical witnesses were not called such as
Recker and Don Roberts. The stipulated nature of the factual record as
a whole is also a factor in my view of this.
C. Unilateral Shift Changes
It is well established that work schedule changes and issues
related to them are mandatory subjects of bargaining.26 Here,
the Respondent does not contest it engaged in such changes
beginning in January 2000 when it established an evening shift,
then disbanded it along with the pay differentials it unilaterally
decided were appropriate. It gave no substantive notice to the
Union or opportunity to discuss these issues. Thus, the Re-
spondent began a pattern of ignoring its bargaining obligation
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. This pattern contin-
ued when, in June 2001, it unilaterally altered the shift sched-
ules and pay differentials of employee Coffey. The exchange
of correspondence about this, detailed above, shows a cavalier
dismissal of the Union, as does the last minute notice of the
proposed changes, creating a fait accompli.27 The Respondent
offered business reasons as explanation for these actions but
produced no evidence to support an economic exigency argu-
ment.28 It also failed to establish waiver as a defense. As the
General Counsel points out, the Union requested bargaining
over the issues. The Respondent simply did not engage the
Union in any dialogue remotely resembling bargaining on this
or other issues, thus violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.29
I reach a similar result viewing the Respondent’s layoff of
employee Lesh. The Respondent unilaterally created the posi-
tion for Lesh and its wages and then unilaterally eliminated it.
The General Counsel argues that these actions are impermissi-
ble, absent impasse in negotiations violating Section 8(a)(5),
citing Flambeau Aimold Corp., 334 NLRB 165, 172 (2001);
and Monroe Mfg., 323 NLRB 24 (1997). I agree wholeheart-
edly. The Respondent’s manipulation of shifts, pay differen-
tials, and employee positions, without the slightest nod to the
Union, is a classic violation of the duty to bargain. Moreover,
the Respondent then compounded this by offering a full-time
position to Lesh some months later to cure its actions, knowing
that she could not accept such a position.30
D. Unilateral Grant of Bonuses
The grant of bonuses by the Respondent is yet another ex-
ample of conduct violating the Act. The evidence established a
pattern for bonuses in years before the advent of the Union.
These bonuses usually came at the end of the fiscal year. How-
ever, the Respondent gave no bonus in 1999 coinciding with
the arrival of the Union. Then, in 2000, the bonus given was
once more without recourse to the Union. As the General
Counsel argues, it is a violation of the Act to unilaterally alter
or abolish a bonus program.31 It is clear that the Respondent

26 See Raven Government Services, 331 NLRB 651 (2000), and
Keeler Die Cast, 337 NLRB 585, 589 (1999).
27 Attorney Kaplan’s letter is revealing in its exclusion of the Union
as a bridge between the Respondent and the employees. It undoubtedly
reflects the true attitude of the Respondent in its relations with the
Union.
28 RBE Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80 (1995).
29 Burrows Paper Corp., 332 NLRB 82, 83 (2000).
30 This is another instance of unrebutted evidence. President Roberts
was the principal actor for Respondent here and he did not testify.
31 Bonnell/Tredegar Industries, 313 NLRB 789, 794 (1994) enfd. 46
F.3d 339 (4th Cir.1995).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1298
again engaged in conduct designed to ignore or diminish the
role of the Union, making out a clear violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.32 This is further exemplified in the Respon-
dent’s actions surrounding the May 25, 2001 bonus where it
gave the Union less than 48 hours to respond to its notice of
intent to give a bonus.33 The General Counsel stresses this as
more evidence of the Respondent’s “intent to disregard it’s
bargaining obligations and undermine the Union.” I concur.34
E. Direct Dealing with Employees
There are a number of instances in which the Respondent
bypassed the Union and dealt with employees directly. The
formula for this finding is a three part one.35 Each of the in-
stances alleged in the consolidated complaint discussed above
satisfies the formula beginning with the January 2000 negotia-
tions between employee Lesh and President Roberts. The Un-
ion existed, Lesh was part of the bargaining unit, and the Re-
spondent set her wages and schedules after bargaining directly
with her. It is difficult to imagine a clearer violation of Section
8(a)(5). The Respondent swiftly followed this with soliciting
and then discussing shift changes with employees, once more,
without consideration of the Union’s existence and in deroga-
tion of its collective-bargaining status. See Morgan Services,
336 NLRB 290, 293 (2001).
It is also relevant and noteworthy that this predilection to en-
gage in unilateral action existed at levels below the Roberts. In
May 2000, Production Manager Recker negotiated the raise of
employee Shelbourne directly with him swearing him to se-
crecy. In June, Recker did the same thing with employees Cof-
fey and Napoli. The Respondent sees nothing wrong with this
sort of conduct. The Respondent continued to fail to notify the
Union, failed to discuss its proposals with it, sought out em-
ployees directly to negotiate terms, and then implemented them
over the Union’s objection. All of these facts make out the
violation of Section 8(a)(5) as alleged.
F. The Requests for Information
The Union through Bruns asked for wage information on
February 14, 2000, and did not receive all of it until April 26,
2000. At least as to two employees, Boudreaux and Cole, the
Respondent refused or failed to give over the information re-
quested. The General Counsel argues that this conduct falls
within the ambit of Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 736–737
(2000), and cases cited therein. Woodland and related cases
hold that responses to requests for information must be timely
answered, where a failure to do so constitutes as much of a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) as not giving the information at all.
This is particularly the case here. The Respondent chose a

32 There is no factual dispute about the history of these bonuses, as
there is no credible explanation as to why the one in 1999 was not
given or the one in 2001 was.
33 I find this another clear example of a fait accompli and bad faith.
34 See Nortech Waste, 336 NLRB 912 (2001), and cases cited
therein.
35 (1) The Respondent communicated directly with employees repre-
sented by a Union, for the purpose of (2) setting or changing wages,
hours, and conditions of employment or undercutting the Union and
finally (3), the communication excluded the Union. Southern Califor-
nia Gas Co., 316 NLRB 979 (1995).
course of delay as it made a half-hearted attempt to bargain out
a contract. As it did this, its other conduct detailed above, re-
vealed its true motive of undermining and obstructing the Un-
ion trying to represent the Respondent’s employees.36
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By telling employees not to discuss their wage increase;
questioning motives for their union activity, and requests for
more money; by engaging in unilateral acts, such as, altering
shift schedules, changing wage differentials, granting bonuses,
delaying responding to information requests; bypassing the
Union to deal directly with employees concerning mandatory
subjects of bargaining and posting notices intended to stimulate
decertification attempts, the Respondent engaged in unfair la-
bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel requests an
extension of the bargaining year as an additional remedy to the
unfair labor practices found.37 The facts that come into play
here include the nature and type of violations found, along with
the number, extent, and dates of bargaining sessions. Wells
Fargo Armored Car Services Corp., 322 NLRB 616, 617
(1996). The impact of the unfair labor practices on the bargain-
ing process and the conduct of the Union during negotiations is
germane as well.38 I weighed the facts of this case in their to-
tality and I believe that the standards enunciated in Mar-Jac
and its progeny apply, without question, to this case. The Un-
ion was never given an honest opportunity to reach an accord
with the Respondent. This, in significant part, was due to the
Respondent’s sporadic yet continuous commission of unfair
labor practices. It’s consequence muddled the collective-
bargaining effort of the parties. The Union thus became a reac-
tive entity engaged in defense of its status as this was steadily
eroded by the Respondent’s misconduct. It is clear the Re-
spondent was frustrated with the collective-bargaining process.
That, however, was not a license to embark on a course of ac-
tion impliedly designed to eliminate the Union as a factor in
business. Accordingly, I recommend that the bargaining year
be extended for an additional year along with the usual remedy.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

36 There is also the information issue surrounding the discipline of
Rena Buford, produced 5 months after the union request. This is an-
other example of unreasonable delay. It is simply one more violation
of Sec. 8(a)(5) in a long list of them.
37 Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962).
38 I noted previously that the Respondent asserted the Union at fault
in negotiations to the point of its committing unfair labor practices.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that this is a credible defense, and I
reject it totally. The primary actor in all that transpired was the Re-
spondent. It acted in derogation of its obligations, dismissive of the
Union and its attempts to fulfill its obligations to its employee mem-
bers.

342 NLRB No. 127
1