Pearl Bookbinding Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 31, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 834 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Bookbinders , Local 16, AFL-CIO.' Case 1-CA-8651 October 31, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On June 25, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ar- nold Ordman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pearl Bookbinding Com- pany, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 This labor organization is now known as Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B , AFL-CIO, CLC, pursuant to a merger of the Internation- al Brotherhood of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, and Lithographers and Photoen- gravers International Union , AFL-CIO, on September 4, 1972. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARNOLD ORDMAN , Administrative Law Judge : Pursuant to an unfair labor practice charge filed on October 27, 1972, by the Union named in the caption , complaint issued on December 1, 1972, alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in that Respondent at all times since on or about early September 1972 has refused to recognize, meet, or bargain collectively with the Union which had been certi- fied as the representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees less than a year earlier following a Board-conducted election. In its answer to the complaint, so far as relevant here, Respondent admitted that the Union had been properly designated as the representative of its production and main- tenance employees, essentially admitted its refusal to bar- gain , but justified that refusal on the ground that since on or about August 1972 the Union disclaimed and/or aban- doned its status as bargaining representative, and on the further ground that special and unusual circumstances arose which exonerated Respondent from the binding bar- gaining obligation customarily attaching during the first year of a Union's certification. Pursuant to a motion for clarification, Respondent amplified its answer to allege, in- ter alia, that the "special or unusual circumstances" justify- ing its refusal to bargain arose as a result of the merger of the Union on or about September 1, 1972, with a different union, that the employees of Respondent were not given the opportunity to authorize and had not authorized such merg- er and that the Union as of that date forfeited its status as representative of Respondent's employees. Hearing was conducted in this matter on March 19 and 20, 1973, in Boston, Massachusetts. At the opening of the hearing General Counsel pursuant to written notice previ- ously given Respondent, moved to amend the complaint by adding allegations that Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, was a successor to, and alter ego of, the Union herein, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, and succeeded to the exclusive bargaining status and certification rights of the latter organization. The motion to amend was granted over Respondent's objection.' Respon- dent entered its denial of the amended allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument. Late in April 1973 General Counsel and Respon- dent submitted briefs. Upon the entire record,' upon my observation of the witnesses, and upon due consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Massachusetts corporation, has its princi- pal office and place of business at 2 Alger Street in South Boston, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the business of binding pamphlets for the printing trade. During the last 12 months Respondent in the conduct of its operations shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in South Boston to states other than Massachusetts and 1 No prejudice was involved in the grant of the motion inasmuch as the amendments merely alleged matters relating to the merger already put in issue by Respondent's reply to the motion for clarification of its answer. 2 General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript of hearing, unop- posed, is hereby granted; to clarify the record, that motion is hereby identi- fied as ALJ Exh. I and is admitted into the record. 206 NLRB No. 129 PEARL BOOKBINDING CO., INC. received at its South Boston plant goods and materials va- lued in excess of $50,000 from points outside Massachusetts. Upon these undisputed facts I find that Respondent is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is further undisputed that the Union herein, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, are organizations in which employees participate and which deal with employers concerning grievances and terms and conditions of employ- ment. On this basis I find that these two organizations quali- fy as labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Jurisdiction is properly asserted herein. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Certain critical and undisputed facts can be succinctly stated. Pursuant to a Board-conducted election held on Jan- uary 21, 1972, the Board on January 31, 1972, certified the Union, International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargaining unit defined as follows: All production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer [Pearl Bookbinding Co., Inc.], including bindery employees, the die cutter, and shipping employees em- ployed at its 2 Alger Street, South Boston, Massachu- setts location, but excluding, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. Following the certification Respondent and the Union par- ticipated in several bargaining sessions . The bargaining ses- sions resulted in an impasse and on April 25, 1972, the Union initiated a strike at Respondent's premises. Two more bargaining sessions were held during the month imme- diately following the end of the strike but the impasse was not resolved. The strike continued. No more bargaining sessions were held or requested during the next few months. However, during this period there were a number of con- tacts between Respondent and the Union having to do with strike-related matters such as (1) the disposition of a crimi- nal charge against a union adherent (not an employee of Respondent); (2) the disposition of an unfair labor practice charge filed by Respondent against the Union; and (3) the reinstatement of certain employees who were still on strike. These matters were largely, but not wholly, resolved by the end of August 1972. In September 1972 the Union renewed its efforts to bar- gain with Respondent. In a letter to Respondent dated Sep- tember 10, 1972, but admittedly not mailed until October 10, 1972, the Union made a written request to resume bar- gaining negotiations. Respondent admittedly received the letter on October 11, 1972, but, also admittedly, made no response to the letter. As set forth in its pleadings and on the record, Respondent's position is that it is absolved of its duty to bargain. No further bargaining negotiations have taken place. Issue is joined on the question whether Respondent's dis- regard of the Union's October bargaining request and 835 Respondent's refusal to bargain thereafter constitute an un- fair labor practice. ' The controlling legal principles are clear. In Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., 348 U.S. 96, 98 (1954), the Supreme Court affirmed the proposition, which Respondent does not chal- lenge, that a Board certification of a labor organization as exclusive bargaining representative must be honored for a reasonable period, usually 1 year, in the absence of "unusu- al circumstances." The Union's October bargaining request and Respondent's disregard of that request occurred well within the certification year which began on January 31, 1972. Presumptively, therefore, Respondent's refusal to bar- gain with the Union was plainly an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act unless Respondent can establish that unusual circumstanc- es existed justifying its refusal to bargain. That is precisely Respondents position. As already indi- cated, Respondent presents a two-fold defense: first, that the Union no longer exists as an independent entity because of its merger with another labor organization; and, second, that the Union as of August 1972 and thereafter, during the course of the strike, disclaimed and/or abandoned its status as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. Respondent argues, therefore, that it was absolved of its bargaining obligation prior to the Union's October request for'renewed bargaining negotiations. General Counsel takes sharp issue with both proffered defenses . The evidence and the law relevant to each prof- fered defense is discussed hereunder. B. The Merger Defense The Board certification here under consideration issued, as noted on January 31, 1972, to Local 16 of the Internation- al Brotherhood of Bookbinders. During the pendency of the representation proceedings which culminated in the certifi- cation, negotiations were being conducted by the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Bookbinders and by the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union looking toward a merger of the two Internationals. These negotiations had their beginning in 1968. During the next few years the matter of the proposed merger was intensively discussed at conventions of the two Internationals and was also submitted to a referendum vote by the membership of each International. Pursuant to favorable action at the con- ventions and in the referendum votes, the merger was con- summated on September 4, 1972, some 7 months after the instant certification. The merged organization took on the name Graphic Arts International Union and retained the affiliation with the AFL-CIO which both participating In- ternationals had had before. The locals of the respective Internationals became locals of the Graphic Arts Interna- tional Union. Thus, International Brotherhood of Bookbin- ders, Local 16, became Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, the letter "B" indicating merely that the Local was originally a Bookbinders local rather than a Lithogra- phers local. Apart from the change of name and affiliation, the Union here certified, Local 16, underwent no change at all. It did not merge with any other local. There was no structural or administrative change within the Union. Its officers and 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their duties and functions remained the same, its assets were unaffected, the membership remained the same, th e Union's autonomy and bylaws remained the same, and the size and territorial jurisdiction of the Union remained the-same. As before, the Union continued to engage in organizational activity, continued to engage in collective-bargaining activi- ty in behalf of employees it represented, and continued to administer collective-bargaining agreements to which it was a party. In all respects Local 16B was a mere continuation of Local 16 with no change except a technical change in name and the change in affiliation. And, most important, at no time before or since the merger has any dissident group appeared or claimed to be the old Local 16. Respondent, however, challenges this continuity on the ground, asserted in its answer, that Respondent's employees were not given an opportunity to participate in the decision to merge and did,not authorize the merger. In its brief, Respondent argues that only members of the Union (Local 16) could vote in this regard and that Respondent's employ- ees did not qualify for membership under the union consti- tution. Apart from other infirmities in Respondent's thesis, the short answer rests in undisputed facts of record. The undisputed fact is that with respect to the merger of the Internationals, Local 16 voted by secret ballot at its regular meeting in February 1972 by a very substantial margin in favor of the merger. The membership of Local 16, like the membership of the other Locals, had been given ample and timely notice of this forthcoming vote. Even more significantly, so far as Local 16 was concerned and Local 16 was the certified union-the employees were informed during the pendency of the representation pro- ceeding that a merger might be consummated, the conse- quences of such a merger and the possibility of filing an amended joint petition if such action should prove neces- sary. Two interpreters, one designated by the Union and one elected by the members, translated the remarks of the speakers for the benefit of employees who were Spanish- speaking. To take care of the contingency of a merger ante- dating the certification, authorization cards reflecting spon- sorship by the Lithographers were passed out. Twenty-two cards were signed. Of the 22 card signers, 21 were employees eligible to vote at the Board election on January 21, 1972, which resulted in the certification 10 days later. The total unit complement was 27. The signed cards were submitted to Union, but not to the Board, presumably because Local - 16 itself did not merge at all and even the merger of the Internationals did not come to pass until several= months after the election. In this factual frame of reference Respondent's: claim that Respondent's employees were not given an opportunity to participate in the decision to merge and did not authorize the merger is wholly without foundation. To be sure, the Union did not notify Respondent of the change in its desig- nation and affiliation but the fact that the Union, apart from these changes, remained the same organization it did before the merger tends to deprecate the significance of this oversight. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note, as reluc- tantly admitted by Arthur Liebman,3 president of Respon- 3 The complaint identifies this individual as Lieberman and was amended by motion at the hearing to reflect the correct spelling. dent, that Respondent had read reports of the proposed merger before it actually took place, yet took no action and instituted no inquiries in that regard. The first mention by Respondent of the merger as an explanation of, or defense to, its refusal to bargain did not occur until the institution of the present proceeding and the filing by Respondent of its pleadings in the present proceeding. On all the facts of record it is plain that Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, AFL-CIO, is a continua- tion of, a successor to and/or an alter ego, of International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, AFL--CIO, succeed- ing to all certification rights of its predecessor. Insofar as Respondent owed a bargaining obligation to Bookbinders Local 16, that obligation is equally binding upon Respon- dent with respect to Graphic Arts Local 16B. Uniform au- thority supports this conclusion. Carpinteria Lemon Assn. v. N.L.R.B., 240 F.2d 554, 557 (C.A. 9, 1956), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 909; N.L.R.B. v. Harris-Woodson Co., 179 F.2d 720, 722-723 (C.A. 4, 1950); New England Foundry Corporation,',, 192 NLRB 785 (1971) ° C. The Disclaimer and/or Abandonment Defense As with the merger defense, the contention that the Union had, in advance of its October request for renewed bargaining, disclaimed and abandoned its status as bargain- ing representative of Respondent's employees was ad- vanced for the first time in the instant proceeding. Prior thereto, Respondent proffered no reason or justification for its admitted refusal to bargain. The evidentiary support for the disclaimer or abandon- ment defense derives principally from the testimony of Respondent's counsel, Julius Kirle, who took the stand as a witness in this proceeding. In sum, Kirle testified that in August of 1972 during the course of negotiations looking toward settlement of the strike and certain matters relating thereto, he was informed that the Union would walk away from the entire matter and give up its current effort to represent Respondent's employees. According to Kirle, he credited this information and, following settlement of the strike and the related matters late in August of 1972, con- cluded that Respondent's bargaining obligation was at an end. As noted, however, neither Kirle nor anyone else con- veyed this information to the Union or to the employees when Respondent received the Union's October bargaining, request. Kirle's testimony in this regard and certain supporting testimony by Arthur Liebman, Respondent's testimony, was, sharply disputed, principally by George Carlsen, presi- dent of the Union, who, according to Kirle, was the primary source of the alleged statements of disclaimer or abandon- ment. Tight problems of credibility are presented. Certain background facts, undisputed, are relevant in this ' The only case cited by Respondent in support of its contrary view is Yale Manufacturing Company, Inc., 157 NLRB 597 (1966). That case, is patently` distinguishable The Board there refused to amend a certification where, unlike the instant case, the employees involved were specifically denied the opportunity to vote on the transfer of bargaining rights to a different bargain- ing organization and on the election of officers to that organization. Only employees of other employers were allowed to vote. PEARL BOOKBINDING CO., INC. 837 regard. As already indicated, the strike began on April 25, 1972, and continued for several months thereafter- The strike officially ended on August 25, 1972.5 During the course of the strike an employee of Respondent, Durant, accompanied by Julius Kirie; filed criminal charges against Ed McCauley, a union functionary. McCauley was not an employee of Respondent . In addition , on July 17, 1972, Julius Kirle, acting in Respondent 's behalf, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board alleging that the Union engaged in certain strike misconduct in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Disposition of these-two matters and of a third subject matter, reinstatement of 'certain strikers was pivotal in the strike settlement efforts which went on during August. The criminal charge against McCauley was dropped on August 22, and 3 days later, on August 25, 1972, Respon- dent withdrew the unfair labor practice charge filed against the Union . The matter of the reinstatement of certain strik- ers was not resolved, however. Nevertheless , in view of the dropping of the criminal and unfair labor practice charges, the Union called off the strike on August 25 and its presi- dent, George Carlsen, informed the strikers concerned that the question of their reinstatement would be taken up with Respondent when bargaining negotiations were resumed. It is undisputed, also, that George Carlsen , the union presi- dent and also its business agent , thereafter drafted a letter to Respondent requesting a meeting for bargaining , that the letter was typed and dated on September 10, 1972 , but that it was mailed by the Union and received by Respondent on October 10 and 11 respectively. Other matters pertinent here are in sharp dispute. Thus, Carlsen testified that the month 's delay between typing and mailing the September 10 letter was the result of a conversa- tion he had with Kirle on September 8, 1972 , in which he told Kirle that he wanted to resume negotiations with Re- spondent and was drafting a letter to that effect. According to Carlsen, Kirle suggested that it would be better to hold off for a while because it was too soon after the dropping of the criminal charges against McCauley. Inasmuch as the disposition of the criminal charges had been a matter of hot controversy, Carlsen agreed with Kirle and delayed the mailing of the September 10 letter. Kirle, for his part, denied talking with Carlsen on Septem- ber S. According to Kirle, his last meeting with Carlsen, except for the instant hearing, was on August 11. Kirle also' denied that a letter to Respondent had even been mentioned in a conversation between himself and Carlsen. Thete'were also other points ' of contradiction in the testi- mony of these two individuals. It is undisputed that on August 1, 1972, Flynn, a Board agent , was at Respondent's premises conducting an investigation of the unfair labor practice charges filed by Respondent against the Union. According to Carlsen, Flynn during the course of his inves- tigation came over to Carlsen who was on the picket line, informed Carlsen that Respondent was very concerned about the picket line and wanted to know if there was any way the matter could be resolved. Carlsen testified, that he told Flynn the matter could be resolved if Respondent would reinstate all the pickets and dispose of the criminal and unfair labor practice charges, and that Flynn undertook to relay this message to Kirle who was also at Respondent's premises' on this occasion. Carlsen testified further that Flynn came back to him a little later that afternoon, sat with Carlsen in the latter's car and told Carlsen that the matter might be resolved. Kirle shortly thereafter emerged from the plant and drove by the car in which Carlsen and Flynn were sitting. Flynn hailed Kirle to stop and went over and talked to Kirle. Carlsen could not hear the conversation. Flynn then returned and told Carlsen Kirle-would be communicat- ing with Carlsen. Carlsen denied that in the course of his conversation with Flynn, who was concededly investigating the charge of union strike misconduct, Carlsen made any mention concerning bargaining negotiations or stated that - the Union no longer desired to represent Respondent's em- ployees. Kirle's version of the August 1 events was quite different. According to Kirle, Board Agent Flynn told Kirle he had spoken to Carlsen and that Carlsen told Flynn that "if the Company would drop the charges in the complaint, Mr.' Carlsen would walk away from the whole thing, call the whole thing off. There wouldn't be any further need for negotiations and he would walk away from the whole mess."6 Respondent's president Arthur Liebman, testified that Flynn also spoke to him on August 1. According to Liebman, Flynn said he had talked to Carlsen about settling the dispute but that no mention was made of bargaining negotiations. The next event of significance here occurred on the morn- ing of August 3 outside the South Boston District Court where Kirle, Liebman, Carlsen, and Cappellano, an attor- ney representing McCauley, had appeared in connection with a probable cause hearing scheduled in the criminal charges against McCauley. There was agreement that a dis- cussion about dropping the charges against McCauley en- sued . Kirle testified that Carlsen and Cappellano separately volunteered to him in that connection that if the criminal matter could be resolved the Union would walk away from the whole thing and there would be no need of further negotiations or union representation of Respondent's em- ployees. Liebman testified that he also had a conversation with Carlsen on this occasion, that the whole conversation was about withdrawing the criminal charges and settling this whole thing. Again, Liebman made it clear that there was no reference in this conversation to the matter of dis- continuing bargaining or union representation. Carlsen and Cappellano confirmed that they had talked with Kirle on the courthouse steps on August 3. According to Carlsen and Cappellano, the only subject matter dis- 5 Arthur Liebman testified - that in - his view the strike was over early in' August inasm`uch"as a number of the strikers had returned to work by that time, other strikers had been replaced, and Respondent was operating with' a full work force ' As the record establishes, however from August 2 to August 25, strikers who, were not reinstated reported regularly to the ' front` of Respondent's plant but - did not engage in picketing. e General Counsel objected to the admissibility of this testimony on the dual ground that, it was hearsay and that it was also part of settlement discussion . Respondent urged that the testimony was .admissible as an admis- sion against interest. General Counsel did not call Flynn as a witness nor did Respondent seek to produce Flynn as a witness The testimony of Kirle in this regard was admitted . For reasons later appearing , the correctness of this evidehtiary ruling need'not be'resolved. 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cussed was the matter of dropping the criminal charges which was the reason for their presence at the courthouse that morning, the question whether Kirle was acting in good faith in that regard, and the question whether the active picketing which Carlsen had called off the previous day in hope of a strike settlement would'be held in abeyance or resumed. Carlsen and Cappellano each denied that the sub- ject of abandoning bargaining negotiations or disclaiming union representation was even mentioned. On August 7, 1972, Board Agent Flynn summoned the parties to a conference at the Board offices to seek a settle- ment of the strike and the related unfair labor practice charge. Present for the Union were Carlsen and Cappella- no; for the Respondent Liebman and Kirle. Employee Du- rant was also present. At the outset of the conference the Union submitted a written settlement proposal, the only piece of documentary evidence presented relating to this hotly controverted issue . The proposal provided for an agreement between the parties whereby the Union would withdraw all pickets and end the strike in return for Respondent's withdrawal of all criminal charges pending at the South Boston District Court, Respondent's withdrawal of the unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board against the Union, and Respondent's agreement to reem- ploy all pickets (former employees) as job opportunities became available. The proposal made no reference whatev- er to the abandonment of further bargaining negotiations or the disclaimer of the Union' s status as bargaining represen- tative which, according to the testimony of Kirle, the Union had already twice volunteered. Moreover, the terms of the proposal were precisely those which Carlsen had initially proposed to Board Agent Flynn on August 1 as the Union's conditions for terminating the strike and the picketing. Some of the discussion subsequent to the submissions of the Union's settlement proposal is not in conflict. As to the criminal charge, Kirle and Liebman stated that they had no control in this regard and that Durant was the moving party. As to the withdrawal of the unfair labor practice charge against the Union, Kirle indicated there would be no prob- lem. With respect to the reinstatement of certain strikers considerable discussion ensued. The meeting ended without resolving the dispute and Carlsen indicated that if Respon- dent was not interested in resolving the matter, active pick- eting would be resumed. The conflicting testimony as to this meeting arose from Kirle's testimony that Carlsen and Cappellano on this occa- sion again volunteered that they would walk away from the whole mess and that there would be no further bargaining. Kirle's testimony in this regard was without corroboration from anyone else at the meeting. Liebman's sole contribu- tion in this regard was his statement that in connection with the Union's proposed settlement, Carlsen and Cappellano indicated that if the criminal matter could be disposed of, they could wind up the whole thing. Liebman's further testi- mony indicated that "the whole thing" had to do with the Union's settlement proposal. Liebman also stated that there was no discussion at the meeting relating to whether bar- gaining would be continued or not continued. Cappellano and Carlsen denied making the statements attributed to them by Kirle. Moreover, the volunteering of such state- ments would seem out of place in view of the general tenor of the conference as to which otherwise the testimony was in substantial accord. Kirle contributed one other piece of evidence on this issue . According to Kirle, he had a chance encounter with Carlsen on a street in downtown Boston on August 11, Kirle stated that this was the last time he saw Carlsen until the hearing in the instant case . Kirle testified that Carlsen told him on this occasion that he was glad the whole thing was over, and that he was able to get away from the whole situation, but he said that in a year or two he was going to come back. And he was going to try to organize the people again down there. . . . [Emphasis supplied.] Carlsen denied meeting with Kirle on August 11 and denied making the statements in question or any like statements at any time to Kirle or anyone else. Moreover, Kirle's statement as to the conversation with Carlsen on August 11 does not square with known facts of record. The "whole thing" was not over on August 11 or on the earlier dates when, according to Kirle, Carlsen stated that the Union was abandoning its bargaining demands and disclaiming its status as bargaining representative for Respondent's employees. Two of the Union's critical de- mands throughout the period of the strike, consistently ad- vanced and documented in the written strike settlement proposal which the Union submitted at the August 7 meet- ing, were the dropping of the criminal charges against Mc- Cauley and the withdrawal of the unfair labor practice charges were not dropped until August 22 and the unfair labor practices were not withdrawn until August 25. In ad- dition, Carlsen had made plain at the August 7 conference that unless Respondent took steps to resolve the dispute, active picketing would be resumed. It strains credulity to believe that on August 11 or any time prior thereto, when none of the matters the Union considered critical was resolved, Carlsen and the Union of which he was president or business agent would have volun- teered to walk away from Respondent's plant and abandon the bargaining status attained several months earlier in a Board-conducted election. Similarly,, it defies explanation that Julius Kirle, a sophisticated labor attorney, not without prior experience in bargaining matters,7 would not have insisted that the Union's alleged disclaimer be put in writ- ing.' Nor did Kirle resort to the expedient of instituting appropriate proceedings before the Board to decertify the Union on the, ground that it had disclaimed or abandoned its representative status . Finally , assuming arguendo, that a disclaimer had taken place, it would appear almost incredi- ble that upon Respondent's admitted receipt of the Union's request for renewed bargaining negotiations on October 11, 1972, some mention would not be made of the Union's previous disclaimer. Instead, the Union's request went un- answered. 7 See, in this regard, Insulating Fabricators, Inc., i44 NLRB 1325 (1963). 8 Kirle testified in reply to questions by General Counsel that he had not asked Carlsen for such an written disclaimer. On redirect examination by his co-counsel Kirle sought to explain this significant omission by stating that he had been told by Board Agent Flynn that Carlsen told Flynn that Carlsen did not want to put such a matter in writing because the writing might be flaunted to other people or other companies. Kirle made no effort to have Carlsen confirm or deny this second-hand report. PEARL BOOKBINDING CO, INC. Kirle's testimony on this issue stands alone. Respondent's president, Arthur Liebman, was present on a few of the occasions to which Kirle referred, but although Liebman testified in great detail,'he steadfastly denied in response to questions from his own counsel and from counsel for Gen- eral Counsel that disclaimer or abandonment of bargaining status or continuance or discontinuance of bargaining nego- tiations was discussed. Such an omission would of course, not be surprising. Bargaining had reached an impasse when the strike and picketing began on April 25 and the principal concern of both parties so long as the strike lasted, was the termination of the strike, the status of the strikers, and the resolution of the charges arising from the strike. Carlsen and Cappellano credibly repudiated the statements, attributed to them by Kirle, that they had at any time volunteered to disclaim or abandon the Union's representative status or its bargaining rights. As noted, General Counsel objected to the admissibility of Kirle's testimony relating to abandonment or disclaimer on the ground that much of it was hearsay, and on the further ground that, even assuming arguendo that offers of disclaimer or abandonment were made, such offers made in the course of settlement negotiations are inadmissible in evidence and not of binding effect, the more particularly in the context of a certification in effect for less than a year. See Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., supra. This question need not be resolved because on the whole record, I conclude that the testimony of Kirle with respect to the Union's disclaimer or abandonment cannot be cred- ited. I find further that the delay in mailing the September 10 letter requesting further bargaining was occasioned by Kirle's suggestion to Carlsen on September 8 a suggestion to which Carlsen acceded, that the heat generated by the McCauley criminal matter made an immediate bargaining request inadvisable. In sum, I conclude and find a lack of evidentiary founda- tion that the Union disclaimed or abandoned its status as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. On the contrary, I conclude and find on the evidence of record that such a disclaimer or abandonment did not occur, that there was a binding obligation in law upon Respondent to bargain with the Union, and that Respondent on and after its receipt of the Union's bargaining request on October 11, 1972, defaulted in that obligation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, AFL-CIO, and Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, AFL-CIO, constitute labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all times since September 4, 1972, Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B, AFL-CIO, has been a suc- cessor to, and alter ego of International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 16, AFL-CIO, succeeding to all certifi- cation rights of its predecessor. 4. The foregoing labor organizations constitute a single continuing entity, herein identified as the Union. 5. All production and maintenance employees employed 839 by Respondent, including bindery employees, the die cutter, and shipping employees employed at its 2 Alger Street, South Boston, Massachusetts, location, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and su- pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an, appropriate bargaining unit. 6. The Union was and is, at all times relevant here, the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit above described. 7. The Union has never disclaimed or abandoned, or agreed to disclaim or abandon, its status as exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the unit above described. 8. Respondent, by refusing since on or about October 11, 1972, to recognize, or to meet and bargain, with the Union as the representative of its employees in the unit above described violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 9. The foregoing unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section,2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, an order will be entered requiring Respondent to cease and desist from en- gaging in the unfair labor practice found and from like or related unfair labor practices. N.L.R.B. v. Express Pub- lishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 436 (1941). Affirmatively, Respondent will be directed to recognize and, upon request, bargain with, the Union as the exclusive representative of the employee in the appropriate unit above described and to embody in a signed agreement any under- standing reached. Inasmuch as Respondent's default in its bargaining obligation occurred before the end of the initial certification year, General Counsel properly requests that the special benefits attaching to the initial year of certifica- tion as outlined in Ray Brooks v. N.L.R.B., supra, be extend- ed to include a time starting from the date Respondent resumes bargaining pursuant to this Order equivalent to that which would have elapsed from the date of Respondent's wrongful refusal to bargain to the time when the certification year would normally have expired. That request is granted and the order to bargain herein shall be so construed. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962). Finally, the remedy herein will include the customary provisions relating to notice posting and reporting require- ments. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend the following:9 ORDER Respondent Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc., its offi- 9In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived- for all purposes 840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize , or bargain collectively, upon request , with Graphic Arts International Union , Local 16B, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees of Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc., including bindery em- ployees, the die cutter , and shipping employees em- ployed at its 2 Alger Street , South Boston, Massachusetts location , but excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards and super- visors as defined in the Act. (b) Engaging in any like or related unfair labor practices proscribed by the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- ed. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Recognize and bargain collectively, upon request, with the above -named labor organization , as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy," and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant at 2 Alger Street , South Boston, Mas- sachusetts , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."10 Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicu- ous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, de- Dated By faced or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 10 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize , or bargain collec- tively, upon request with Graphic Arts International Union, Local 16B , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described below. All our production and maintenance employees, in- cluding bindery employees , the die cutter, and ship- ping employees employed at our 2 Alger Street, South Boston , Massachusetts location , but excluding office clerical employees , professional employees, guards and supervisors. WE WILL NOT engage in like or related unfair labor practices. WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively , upon re- quest, with the above -named Union as the exclusive representative of the above-described employees and if an agreement is reached we will sign such an agree- ment. PEARL BOOKBINDING COMPANY, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 7th Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Clardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Tele- phone 617-223-3330.