Port Printing Ad and Specialties

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 354 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344 NLRB No. 34
354
Seaport Printing & Ad Specialties Inc. d/b/a Port
Printing Ad and Specialties and Lake Charles
Printing and Graphics Union, Local 260, Affili-
ated with Graphic Communications Interna-
tional Union, AFL–CIO–CLC. Case 15–CA–
17300
March 7, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On August 26, 2004, Administrative Law Judge John
H. West issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent
filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Seaport Printing & Ad Spe-
cialties, Inc. d/b/a Port Printing Ad and Specialties, Lake
Charles, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Kevin McClue, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Edward Fonti, Esq. (Jones, Tete, Nolen, Fonti, & Belfour,
L.L.P.), of Lake Charles, Louisiana, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN H WEST, Administrative Law Judge. The charge was
filed by Lake Charles Printing and Graphics Union, Local 260

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.
2 Chairman Battista and Member Schaumber note that, although the
judge correctly applied the “actual loss of majority” standard estab-
lished in Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001), to
find that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from the
Union, they did not participate in Levitz and express no view as to
whether it was correctly decided.
Chairman Battista further finds that the same result would obtain in
this case under the pre-Levitz standard of whether the Respondent har-
bored “good faith uncertainty” as to the Union’s majority status. See
Rodgers & McDonald Graphics, 336 NLRB 836 (2001), enf. denied
sub nom. McDonald Partners, Inc. v. NLRB, 331 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir.
2003).
affiliated with Graphic Communications International Union,
AFL–CIO–CLC (the Union) against Seaport Printing & Ad
Specialties, Inc. d/b/a Port Printing Ad and Specialties (Re-
spondent), on March 8, 2004. It was amended on April 27,
2004. A complaint issued on April 30, 2004, alleging that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act), by notifying the Union on De-
cember 19, 2003, that it wished to terminate the collective-
bargaining agreement and that it was not interested in negotiat-
ing a new agreement,1 by refusing as requested by the Union
verbally on December 24, 2003, and by letter on January 13,
2004, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit, by notifying the
Union by letter on January 23, 2004, that it was not interested
in bargaining with the Union, and by failing and refusing since
December 19, 2003, to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the unit. In its answer, the Re-
spondent denies violating the Act as alleged and it alleges that
(1) by December 19, 2003, a majority of the bargaining unit
employees had resigned from membership in Local 260, (2) a
majority of employees had withdrawn their authorizations re-
quiring the employer to deduct monthly union dues from their
paycheck, (3) the Union’s treasurer and secretary had with-
drawn her membership in the Union, (4) employees had ver-
bally notified Respondent that they did not support the Union
and/or did not desire union representation, (5) the Union re-
mained dormant and did not engage in contract negotiations
from February 1998 until January 13, 2004, and (6) the Union
did not offer evidence to the Respondent to contradict Respon-
dent’s position that the Union was not supported by a majority
of employees.
A trial was held in this matter on July 12, 2004, in Lake
Charles, Louisiana. On the entire record, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by
counsel for General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following

1 The complaint alleges that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the
meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other employees
of the Publisher operating or assisting in the operation of the Em-
ployer’s printing presses, including gravure, offset and letterpress
printing presses and all other printing presses of whatsoever type
of process of printing operated by such Publisher. The Publisher
further recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged in the
making of offset plates; stripping, etching, opaquing and any and
all functions prepatory to the making and/or manufacture of offset
printing plates.
And the complaint alleges that since at least February 1997 the Union
has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the above-described unit, the Union has been recognized as the Rep-
resentative by the Respondent, and this recognition has been embodied
in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which was effective from February 28, 2003, to February 28, 2004.
PORT PRINTING AD & SPECIALTIES 355
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of
business in Lake Charles, Louisiana, has been engaged in fur-
nishing printing and typesetting services. The Respondent ad-
mits that annually in conducting its operations it purchases and
receives at its Lake Charles facility goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Louisiana. The Respondent admits, and I find that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Also, the Respondent admits and I
find that the Union at all material times has been a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Vince Mott, who has worked for the Respondent for 23
years, has been a member of the Union for 22.5 years, and is
the president of the Union, testified that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 2 is the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and the Union, which by its terms was scheduled to
expire February 28, 1999; that the agreement has been renewed
each year since February 1999;2 that by signed agreement dated
April 21, 2003, Respondent and the Union renewed the agree-
ment through February 24, 2004, General Counsel’s Exhibit 3;
and that on December 24, 2003, he was called into a meeting
with Gloria Robinson, who is the part owner and president of
Respondent, and Joseph Soileau, who is part owner and vice
president of Respondent, and he was given a letter, General
Counsel’s Exhibit 4, signed by Robinson and Soileau and dated
December 19, 2003, which reads as follows
This letter is provided as written notice of termination of the
contract between Seaport Printing & Ad Specialties, Inc. dba
Port Printing & Ad Specialties and LCP and Graphic Com-
munications Union No. 260. The contract will be considered
terminated as of February 28, 2004 in accordance with Sec-
tion 1 of the contract. Port Printing is not interested in negoti-
ating a new contract.
Mott testified further that at this meeting Robinson told him
that only one of six or seven employees belonged to the Union,
the company could not print the union book as a union shop
and, therefore, the contract did not benefit Respondent, and
Respondent no longer wanted the contract; that he told Robin-
son and Joseph Soileau that he understood the problem of not
being able to print the union book but to his knowledge a ma-
jority of the employees still wanted union representation; and
that Joseph Soileau then said that there was nothing to talk
about. Also Mott testified that when he received the December
19, 2003 letter he thought that there were seven or eight em-

2 Sec. 1A of the agreement reads as follows:
This Agreement shall become effective immediately after
midnight of February 28, 1997, and shall continue in full force
and effect through February 28, 1999. Thereafter, it shall auto-
matically renew itself and continue in full force and effect from
year to year unless written notice of election to terminate or mod-
ify this agreement is given by one party, at least 60 days in ad-
vance of the contract ending date.
ployees in the bargaining unit. According to Mott, there was a
question of whether one typesetter, Sherry LaBove, was a con-
tract worker or a temporary worker. The other employees who
Mott believed were in the unit were Jane Meche, Rene Ellis,
Jutta Zienow, Gail Courtney, Joel Williams, and Randy
Soileau.
On cross-examination, Mott testified that as of December 19,
2003, Meche, Ellis, Zienow, Courtney, Randy Soileau, and
LaBove were not members of Local 260; that Williams is an
honorary life member of Local 260; that Meche, Courtney, and
Randy Soileau withdrew their union membership, and Zienow,
Ellis, and LaBove were never members; that after the with-
drawal of membership the Union no longer received dues from
the Company on behalf of the employees who withdrew from
membership; that by December 19, 2003, of the people in the
unit only he and Williams were members of the Union; that
with respect to the employees who ended their membership, he
did not know whether they withdrew or resigned but rather he
only knew that they quit paying their dues; that when Courtney
resigned from membership she was secretary/treasurer of Local
260; and that Local 260 has not since elected a secre-
tary/treasurer, and at the time of the trial herein he was the only
official of Local 260.
On redirect, Mott testified that Meche was the only em-
ployee who told him that she did not want the Union to repre-
sent her, and this occurred in the beginning of 2001.
Joseph Soileau testified that when he, Robinson, and Tommy
Joyce purchased Respondent, which is a commercial printing
and advertising specialty company, in 1992 there was a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 260; that in 2003 he and
Robinson bought out Joyce; that at one time Respondent had
about 25 total employees but it has declined to about 16 em-
ployees; that in December 2003, eight employees, including
three part-time employees, were in the bargaining unit covered
by the collective-bargaining agreement; that he and Robinson
did not give the above-described December 19, 2003 letter to
Mott on December 24, 2003, but rather they gave it to him on
December 19, 2003; that on December 24, 2003, Respondent
had its Christmas party, the employees worked one half a day,
and the employees went home about 11:30 a.m.; that he did not
recall Mott on December 19, 2003, contesting the statement
that the majority of the employees had withdrawn membership
in the Union; that there have not been any contract negotiations
since 2000; that there have not been any change in terms and
conditions of employment in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment since 1999; and that the Respondent notified the Union
that the contract was being terminated and the Respondent did
not want to negotiate a new agreement
[b]ecause I knew the majority of the employees no longer
supported the Union and also received notices of cancella-
tion of membership in the Union. Therefore, based on those, I
came to a conclusion that we didn’t have majority representa-
tion. [Tr. p. 68.]
Joseph Soileau further testified that before the above-described
letter of December 19, 2003, he was aware that Meche was no
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD356
longer in the Union and she did not want her dues deducted;3
that before the letter of December 19, 2003, he was aware that
Randy Soileau, who is his nephew, had requested that Union
dues not be withheld from his paycheck;4 that upon their in-
quiry, he told Meche and Randy Soileau that he could not ad-
vise them, and it was their choice whether to be in the Union or
not; that he was aware that Zienow never became a member of
the Union in that she told him that she was approached by the
Union and offered a membership which she turned down; that
Ellis told him that she was not interested in the Union and he
knew that she was not a member of the Union; that the book-
keeper told him that she had received a notice from Courtney to
discontinue the deduction of dues and that was the only notifi-
cation he received regarding Courtney; that when the above-
described December 19, 2003 letter was written, he was aware
that only Mott remained an active member in the Union and he
knew that Williams was considered a lifetime member; that the
Union from mid July 2000 until the withdrawal of recognition
did not ask for any negotiations or any change in the terms and
conditions of employment of the employees in the unit; that
Mott withdrew his checkoff authorization;5 that since
“12/28/03” Respondent had not deducted any Union dues from
any paycheck; and that Mott was the last person to have deduc-
tions made. Respondent stipulated that the terms and conditions
of the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent
and the Union have been followed since 1999. On cross-
examination, Joseph Soileau testified that the employees did
not tell him that they did not want the Union to represent them;
that he did not know whether LaBove, Ellis, Meche, Randy
Soileau, Zienow, or any other employee, pay union dues with
personal checks or money orders;6 that the conversation he had
with Ellis about the Union was in 2002; that the conversation
he had with Meche about the Union was in 2000 or 2001; that
he knew that the contract renewed itself every year and if the
Respondent wanted to it could have requested to open negotia-
tions on a new collective-bargaining agreement; that he did not
read GCIU Constitution and Laws, Respondent’s Exhibit 1,
prior to Respondent making its decision to withdraw recogni-
tion from the Union and the document did not play any part in
the decision; and that on December 19, 2003, when the Re-
spondent withdrew recognition from the Union the following
employees were in the bargaining unit: Meche, Ellis, Zienow,
Randy Soileau, Mott, Courtney, Williams, and LaBove.7

3 R. Exh. 9 is a letter from Meche to Respondent which indicates as
follows: “As of Jan-19-2001 I am no longer in the union–please do not
deduct any more dues from my payroll.”
4 R. Exh. 10 is a note which indicates “Effective 2/15/01. Please do
not withhold union dues on 2-15-01 check Randy Soileau.”
5 R. Exh. 11 reads, “Do not take Union dues from my check. Vince.”
There is a date on the note which appears to be “12/28/03.”
6 Subsequently Mott testified while he discontinued having his dues
deducted, he pays the union dues on his own; and that to his knowledge
none of the other employees in the unit take this approach.
7 On redirect, Joseph Soileau testified that R. Exh. 12 is Michelle
Lager’s resignation from the Union. The note is dated January 18,
2001, and reads, as here pertinent, “I . . . an resigning from the Printers
Union, asking . . . [that] union dues . . . not be taken out of paycheck.”
Leger left Respondent in December 2002.
Courtney testified that she was not currently a member of the
Union; that at some point she was a member of the Union; that
in October 2003 she requested Respondent to stop taking union
dues out of her paycheck; and that she still wanted the Union to
represent her even though she no longer had union dues de-
ducted from her paycheck. On cross-examination, Courtney
testified that Respondent’s Exhibit 3 is the letter she gave to
Respondent, specifically Betty the bookkeeper, on or about
October 18, 2003, which reads as follows: “For your records I
will no longer be a member of G.C.I.U. I have already notified
the International;” that she had her dues deduction stopped and
since that time she has not paid dues; that it is her understand-
ing that although she dropped out of the Union she is still rep-
resented by the Union; that she dropped out of the Union
“[b]ecause there was never any negotiations going on between
us and the Employer, and our contract was going to expire in
February I think. And what was the point” (Tr. 39); and that the
Union was not doing anything for her. On redirect, Courtney
testified that Mott told her that the contract was going to expire
in February and if they could not talk to anybody, they proba-
bly would not have a contract anymore; and that she always
thought that the agreement renewed itself each year. Subse-
quently Courtney testified that she did not speak with anyone in
management with respect to resigning from the Union.
Williams testified that in 1997 he retired from working for
the Respondent; that 3 month later he returned to work for the
Respondent on a part-time basis; that he left and then again
returned to work for the Respondent; that at the time of the trial
herein he had worked for the Respondent for a year and a half;
that he had served as President of Local 260; that when he re-
tired he was classified as an honorary member of Local 260;
that presently he works as a pressman, which is a bargaining
unit position, in the morning and he makes the deliveries,
which is nonunit work, in the afternoon; that General Counsel’s
Exhibit 7 shows that he worked 1268.5 hours in 2003 for the
Respondent; that he worked as a pressman at least 50 percent of
the time and it was probably more; that he has always wanted
the union to represent him; and that he did not tell anyone in
Respondent’s management that the did not want the Union to
represent him. On cross-examination, Williams testified that his
wage rate with Respondent is covered by the collective-
bargaining agreement.
By letter dated January 13, 2004, General Counsel’s Exhibit
5, Mott advised Robinson and Joseph Soileau that “Local 260
hereby requests dates you are available for contract negotia-
tions.”
By letter dated January 23, 2004, General Counsel’s Exhibit
6, Soileau advised Mott as follows:
We have received your letter requesting a meeting for contract
negotiations. Your letter is untimely and as previously stated
the Company is not interested in renewing the contract. Con-
sequently the Company is not interested in meeting.
ANALYSIS
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) in Levitz
Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, 725 (2001), indi-
cated:
PORT PRINTING AD & SPECIALTIES 357
After careful consideration, we have concluded that
there are compelling legal and policy reasons why em-
ployers should not be allowed to withdraw recognition
merely because they harbor uncertainty or even disbelief
concerning unions’ majority status. We therefore hold that
an employer may unilaterally withdraw recognition from
an incumbent union only where the union has actually lost
the support of the majority of the bargaining unit employ-
ees, and we overrule [Celanese Corp., 95 NLRB 664
(1951)] and its progeny insofar as they permit withdrawal
on the basis of good faith doubt. Under our new standard,
an employer can defeat a post-withdrawal refusal to bar-
gain allegation if it shows, as a defense, the union’s actual
loss of majority status.
. . . .
We emphasize that an employer with objective evi-
dence that the union has lost majority support—for exam-
ple, a petition signed by a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit—withdraws recognition at its peril. If the
union contests the withdrawal of recognition in an unfair
labor practice proceeding, the employer will have to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the union had, in
fact, lost majority support at the time the employer with-
drew recognition. If it fails to do so, it will not have rebut-
ted the presumption of majority status, and the with-
drawal of recognition will violate Section 8(a)(5).49 [Em-
phasis added.]
__________________
49 An employer who presents evidence that, at the time it
withdrew recognition, the union had lost majority support should
ordinarily prevail in an 8(a)(5) case if the General Counsel does
not come forward with evidence rebutting the employer’s evi-
dence. If the General Counsel does present such evidence, then
the burden remains on the employer to establish loss of majority
support by a preponderance of all the evidence.
As can be seen, the Respondent has the burden of showing
that the Union had, in fact, lost majority support at the time the
employer withdrew recognition. I do not believe that the Re-
spondent has made this showing. As noted above, an employer
may unilaterally withdraw recognition from an incumbent un-
ion only where the union has actually lost the support of the
majority of the bargaining unit employees, and when the em-
ployer unilaterally withdraws recognition based on objective
evidence it acts at its peril. Here I do not credit the testimony of
Joseph Soileau that he did not “recall” Mott contesting the
statement that the majority of the employees had withdrawn
membership in the Union. Mott testified that he told Robinson
and Joseph Soileau, when they gave him the withdrawal letter,
that to his knowledge the employees still wanted union repre-
sentation, and Joseph Soileau then said that there was nothing
to talk about. Mott’s testimony is credited. Joseph Soileau’s
testimony is not an unequivocal, specific denial of Mott’s tes-
timony. Joseph Soileau’s testimony the he did not “recall” is
not entitled to any weight. The Respondent did not want to
listen to what Mott had to say about how many employees
wanted to be represented by the Union. The Respondent did not
have a petition signed by a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit indicating that they no longer supported the
Union. Even then it would be acting at its peril if the Union
challenged the withdrawal. At the time the Respondent with-
drew recognition it knew that only one of the employees in the
bargaining unit was having the Respondent deduct union dues
from his paycheck. But as Joseph Soileau conceded, he did not
know at the time the Employer withdrew recognition that a
majority of the employees were not paying union dues with a
personal check or a money order. Therefore, the fact that the
dues-checkoff authorizations had declined to just Mott is not
determinative.8 The discussions that Joseph Soileau allegedly
had with a few of the employees in the bargaining unit in 2002,
2001, and 2000 do not conclusively demonstrate that a majority
of the employees no longer supported the Union at the time the
employer withdrew recognition.9 The fact that there were no
negotiations for 4 years does not indicate the dormancy of the
Union, especially when one considers that by its terms the con-
tract could and did renew itself annually, the Respondent went
along with this approach, and the Respondent did not itself
request negotiations. The fact that the Union did not fill the
position vacated by Courtney would not support a good-faith
doubt defense, which is no longer applicable with respect to a
withdrawal, let alone meet Respondent’s burden of showing
that that the union had, in fact, lost majority support. None of
that which was raised by the Respondent establishes, at the time
the employer withdrew recognition, a loss of majority support

8 Certainly what the Respondent learned for the first time at the trial
herein with respect to how many of the employees, to Mott’s knowl-
edge, were personally paying dues was not known by the Respondent at
the time the employer withdrew recognition.
9 Joseph Soileau’s testimony in this regard is hearsay. Respondent
did not call the involved employees to corroborate Joseph Soileau’s
testimony. While such hearsay was considered by the Board when it for
allowed employers to withdraw recognition by a showing of good-faith
doubt, now an employer must show that the union has actually lost the
support of the majority. On brief counsel for the General Counsel
requests that an adverse inference be drawn against Respondent failing
to call Ellis, Zienow, Meche, and Randy Soileau to testify in Respon-
dent’s case-in chief about their alleged conversations with Joseph
Soileau. While counsel for the General Counsel unsuccessfully ob-
jected to Joseph Soileau testifying about what Randy Soileau allegedly
told him, counsel for the General Counsel did not subsequently object
to Joseph Soileau testifying about what Meche, Zienow, and Ellis al-
legedly told him. Counsel for the General Counsel did not call any of
these four employees. While an adverse inference may not be drawn
regarding bystander employees, who are not presumed to be favorably
disposed toward any party, a judge, in making a credibility determina-
tion may weigh the party’s failure to call potentially corroborating
neutral employee bystanders to corroborate the party’s witness. C&S
Distributors, 321 NLRB 404 fn. 2 (1996). In a situation where the
Respondent has to show the actual loss of majority support, it should
have called these four employees and not tried to rely on the challenged
and unchallenged hearsay testimony of one of the owners of the Re-
spondent. As allowed employers to withdraw recognition by a showing
of good-faith doubt, now an employer must show that the union has
actually lost the support of the majority.
On brief the Respondent argues that the Board should return to the
“good faith doubt” standard and “[t]he Board’s abolishment of the good
faith doubt test is an irrational reaction to justified Supreme Court
critism [in Allentown Mack Sales & Services v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359
(1998)],” R. Br. p. 14. I am required to decide a case based on the
existing law.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD358
by a preponderance of all the evidence. The Respondent vio-
lated the Act as alleged in the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct Respondent com-
mitted unfair labor practices contrary to the provisions of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
(a) Notifying the Union on December 19, 2003, that it
wished to terminate the collective-bargaining agreement and
that it was not interested in negotiating a new agreement.
(b) Refusing as requested by the Union verbally on or about
December 24, 2003, and by letter on January 13, 2004, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
(c) Notifying the Union by letter on January 23, 2004, that it
was not interested in bargaining with the Union.
(d) Failing and refusing since December 19, 2003, and con-
tinuing thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the unit.
4. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other em-
ployees of the Publisher operating or assisting in the op-
eration of the Employer’s printing presses, including gra-
vure, offset and letterpress printing presses and all other
printing presses of whatsoever type of process of printing
operated by such Publisher. The Publisher further recog-
nizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged
in the making of offset plates; stripping, etching, opaquing
and any and all functions preparatory to the making and/or
manufacture of offset printing plates.
5. Since at least February 1997 the Union has been the des-
ignated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
above-described unit, the Union has been recognized as the
Representative by the Respondent, and this recognition has
been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which was effective from February 28, 2003,
to February 28, 2004.
6. The above-described labor practices affect commerce
within the contemplation of 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.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
ORDER
The Respondent, Seaport Printing and Ad Specialties, Inc.
d/b/a Port Printing Ad and Specialties, of Lake Charles, Louisi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Notifying the Union on December 19, 2003, that it
wished to terminate the collective-bargaining agreement and
that it was not interested in negotiating a new agreement.
(b) Refusing as requested by the Union verbally on or about
December 24, 2003, and by letter on January 13, 2004, to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
(c) Notifying the Union by letter on January 23, 2004, that it
was not interested in bargaining with the Union.
(d) Failing and refusing since December 19, 2003, and con-
tinuing thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the unit.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the following appropriate unit
concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other em-
ployees of the Publisher operating or assisting in the op-
eration of the Employer’s printing presses, including gra-
vure, offset and letterpress printing presses and all other
printing presses of whatsoever type of process of printing
operated by such Publisher. The Publisher further recog-
nizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged
in the making of offset plates; stripping, etching, opaquing
and any and all functions preparatory to the making and/or
manufacture of offset printing plates.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the Notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,

mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
11 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.”
PORT PRINTING AD & SPECIALTIES 359
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since December
19, 2003.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully notify Lake Charles Printing and
Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Communi-
cations International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC that we wish to
terminate the collective-bargaining agreement and we are not
interested in negotiating a new agreement.
WE WILL NOT refuse as requested by Lake Charles Printing
and Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Com-
munications International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC verbally and
in writing to bargain collectively with Lake Charles Printing
and Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Com-
munications International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT notify Lake Charles Printing and Graphics Un-
ion, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Communications Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO–CLC by letter that we was not inter-
ested in bargaining with Lake Charles Printing and Graphics
Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Communications
International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain with
Lake Charles Printing and Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated
with Graphic Communications International Union, AFL–CIO–
CLC as the exclusive representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL on request, bargain with Lake Charles Printing and
Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Communi-
cations International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC and put in writing
and sign any agreement reached on the terms and conditions of
employment for our employees in the bargaining unit:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other em-
ployees of the Publisher operating or assisting in the op-
eration of the Employer’s printing presses, including gra-
vure, offset and letterpress printing presses and all other
printing presses of whatsoever type of process of printing
operated by such Publisher. The Publisher further recog-
nizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged
in the making of offset plates; stripping, etching, opaquing
and any and all functions prepatory to the making and/or
manufacture of offset printing plates.
SEAPORT PRINTING AND AD SPECIALTIES, INC. D/B/A
PORT PRINTING AD AND SPECIALTIES