American Bank Note Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO.
American Bank Note Company and Graphic Com-
munications International Union, Local 51,
AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-21486
29 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
- JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 16 July 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Winifred D. Morio issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, American
Bank Note Company, New York, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
Gwynne A . Wilcox, Esq., for the General Cousel.
William A. Ziegler, Esq. (Sullivan & Cromwell), of New
York, New York, for Respondent.
Joshua E. Bienstock Esq. (Quinn & Lilly), of Garden
City, New York , for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WINIFRED D. MoRIo, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried on 14 May 1986 at New York, New York,
and was based on a complaint which was issued by the
Regional Director for Region 2 on 21 March 1986. The
complaint alleged, in substance, that American Bank
Note Company (Respondent) was a member of the Print-
ers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropolitan
New York, Inc. (League), that the League and Graphic
Communications International Union, Local 51, AFL-
CIO (Local 51) commenced negotiations on 20 Decem-
ber 1985 for a new collective-bargaining agreement and
completed negotiations on 28 January 1986, that on 30
January 1986 Respondent attempted to withdraw from
the League and that since 4 May 1986 Respondent has
failed and refused to abide by the agreement negotiated
by the League and Local 51. Respondent, in its answer,
admits certain allegations of the complaint but denies
that it is bound by the current collective-bargaining
agreement in existence between the League and Local
51. Both parties filed briefs.
617
On the entire record, n including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, I make°'the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a New York corporation, is and has
been engaged in the printing of bank notes and other
documents. Annually, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, sells and ships' printed
materials in excess of $50,000 directly to customers locat-
ed outside the State of New York. The parties admit,
and I find, that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. The parties admit, and I find, that Local
51 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The record reveals that for many years the League, an
association consisting of employers engaged in the print-
ing industry, engaged in collective bargaining and exe-
cuted contracts with Local 51 on behalf of its employer-
members. In the last three contracts, from 1979 to March
1986, the League recognized Local '51 as the collective-
bargaining representative for all employees engaged as
printing pressmen in the pressrooms of the employer-
members of the League.2 The complaint stated that Re-
spondent, "at all times material herein 'has been a
member of the League." The answer filed by Respond-
ent admitted that allegation in the complaint. However,
during the hearing and in its brief Respondent appeared
to contend that it has not been part of the multiemployer
group at least from 1980. Thus, George McConnin, di-
rector of industrial relations for Respondent, testified
that ' on 10 November 1980, by letter, he notified the
League and Local 51 that Respondent was withdrawing
from the multiemployer bargaining group and that,
thereafter, Respondent would negotiate with Local 51 on
an individual basis.3 Subsequently, on 5 June 1981 Re-
spondent, by letter, requested reinstatement in the
League, authorized the League to represent it in negotia-
tions and administration of the contract with Local 51,
and agreed to be bound by the 1981-1983 League con-
tract with Local 51. A similar procedure was followed
by Respondent in 1982. On 16 November 1982 Respond-
ent withdrew its authorization to the League to act for it
with respect to collective bargaining with Local 51 and
advised that it would bargain with Local 51 on an indi-
vidual basis. However, on 4 February 1983 Respondent
again requested reinstatement in the League and further
1 All dates are from December 1985 to March 1986 unless otherwise
indicated.
8 The contracts list the classifications and wage scales for the employ-
ees in the unit.
a Generally, negotiations between the League and the Union com-
menced in December prior to the March expiration date of an existing
contract.
281 NLRB No. 99
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed to be bound by the 1983- 1986 contract , with one
exception which related to the arbitration clause.4
The authorization form, which Respondent initially re-
fused to execute in 1980 and 1982, contained the follow-
ing language:
Our record shows that your firm, as a member of
Printers League Section , Printing Industries of Met-
ropolitan New York, Inc. and in conformity with
the League's Constitution and By-Laws, authorizes
the League to represent you in negotiations with
New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers'
Union No. 51.
It also states:
Check the line "Yes" if our records are correct and
if your firm continues to authorize the League to
represent you in the forthcoming negotiations with
Local 51.
This form appears to represent the type of form signed
by League members before 1983. On 19 September 1983,
however, League members were requested to sign a dif-
ferent type of form. This form, which was signed after
September 1983 by League members, including E. J.
Deadrich, Respondent's executive vice president , author-
ized the League to represent the Respondent in collec-
tive bargaining with Local 51 for as long as a company
was a member of the League. The pertinent language in
this form is as follows:
Our records show that your firm, as a member of
Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Met-
ropolitan New York, Inc. recognizes each union ini-
tialed below as the bargaining agent and representa-
tive of your employees in the applicable department
and authorizes the League to represent you in col-
lective-bargaining negotiations and in your labor re-
lations with
Printing and Graphic Communications Union Local
No. 51.
If your firm continues to authorize the League to
bargain collectively for and on your behalf with the
named union(s) and if you continue to agree to
accept and be bound by the terms of existing and
future contracts between Printers League Section
and such union(s) and any extensions , modifications
or renewals thereof, check the line "YES." This au-
thorization supersedes all earlier authorizations
signed by or on your firm's behalf and it shall con-
tinue to be binding upon your firm during its mem-
bership in the Printers League, without the need for
further authorization prior to, at the time of or after
the extensions , modifications or renewals of existing
or future contracts.
4 It is unclear whether Respondent , in fact , engaged in bargaining on
an individual basis with Local 51 between November 1980 and June 1981
and November 1982 and February 1983.
There is no evidence that Respondent revoked this au-
thorization, which it had signed in 1983 , prior to 20 De-
cember 1985.
In early December 1985 , Local 51 notified the League,
by letter, that it desired to commence negotiations for a
new collective-bargaining agreement to succeed the con-
tract which was to expire 4 March . McConnin, Respond-
ent's representative , testified that he was notified by the
League, in December, that negotiations were about to
commence and that members of the League 's bargaining
team had been selected . However, according to McCon-
nin, he did nothing with respect to this notification be-
cause, "I am not authorized-for this negotiation, any
specific document to have the League represent us." Al-
though, in September 1983, Respondent 's vice president
had signed the authorization form which gave the
League the authority to act for Respondent in its negoti-
ations with Local 51 during the period when Respondent
was a member of the League, it was McConnin's position
that the League had no authority to act for Respondent
in the upcoming negotiations because Respondent had
not executed a new authorization form.
On 20 December, according to Julius Seide, the
Union's representative, and Martin Dillon , the League's
representative, the parties met and exchanged written
proposals for a new contract and during this meeting
they scheduled dates for future meeting for 7, 14, 21, and
28 January. 5 Both Seide and Dillon testified that the par-
ties, basically, reached an agreement for a new contract
on 28 January, although the agreement was not reduced
to written form on that day. In fact, both testified that
they had discussions about some minor language changes
a few days before the hearing in the instant case. The
agreement reached on 28 January was subject to a ratifi-
cation vote by the employer-members of the League and
by employee-members of Local 51. The League members
voted to accept the agreement on 6 February and Local
51 was notified of this fact on that day and the employ-
ee-members voted their acceptance on 18 February and
the League was so notified.6
On 30 January, after the League and Local 51 had
reached a verbal agreement on the terms for a new con-
tract, but before employee-members of the League and
Local 51 members had voted to accept the agreement,
the Union received a letter on 3 February, which was
dated 30 January, in which the Respondent advised the
Union that the League no longer was its representative
for collective-bargaining purposes . Local 51 responded
immediately by letter, and notified Respondent that its
effort to leave the League were untimely, they could not
5 According to Dillon, it was his practice to advise Local 51 before
negotiations began regarding the names of the companies the League rep-
resented However, Dillon was not certain that he followed this practice
in these negotiations.
McConnin claimed that he did not expect to be notified by the
League about the number of votes Respondent could cast at the ratifica-
tion meeting because he had not signed an authorization form Neverthe-
less, McConnin called Local 51's office, about a week before 30 January,
to ensure that he would not receive a notice about the ratification meet-
ing, he spoke to Kate Connelly, Dillon 's assistant , and explained to her
that he had not been notified about such a meeting and that he did not
want such a notification. Connelly told him that he had not been notified
because he was not on the League's list.
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO. 619
withdraw from the negotiations. The League also re-
ceived a letter, dated 30 January, in which, Respondent
advised the League that the League was no longer au-
thorized to represent the Respondent for collective-bar-
gaining purposes. The basis for Respondent's withdrawal
from the League and the multiemployer bargaining was
its assertion that it had only one employee in the unit
represented by Local 51. Respondent further stated that
because of this fact it would withdraw recognition from
Local 51 and file an RM petition with the National
Labor Relations Board, which it did.7
McConnin testified that commencing in about 1979
Respondent began to experience financial difficulties due
to a loss of business which was related to the printing of
traveler's checks, food stamps, and stock certificates. As
a result of these losses, Respondent made several changes
in its method of operations, including consolidating some
plants and closing others. In 1984, it sold its Bronx plant
and moved to a location in Ramapo, New York. At the
time of the hearing, Respondent also expected to sell the
building it has on Broad Street in Manhattan: The em-
ployees at both the Bronx and Manhattan, locations were
represented by Local 51. Local 51 did not represent the
employees at the Ramapo location. In 1981, according to
the Respondent's data processing records which go back
to that date, Respondent' had 16 employees at the Bronx
plant and 8 employees at the Manhattan location.8 At
the present time, there are ,no employees at the Bronx lo-
cation and there is only one full-time employee at the
Manhattan location. Respondent has hired another em-
ployee at its Manhattan location as a replacement during
the vacation period of the one full-time employee. This
replacement was hired on 19 December 1983 and
worked until 7 February 1984, was rehired on 9 Septem-
ber 1985 and worked until 20 September 1985, and was
rehired again on 16 December 1985 and worked until 29
December 1985. The 1983-1986, contract contains a ref-
erence to temporary employees and substitutes. Accord-
ing to paragraph 84 of the contract, temporary employ-
ees and substitutes shall not be laid off without reasona-
ble notice. Paragraph 85 also states that an employee
shall be considered a temporary employee or a substitute
if upon hire he is told that he is being hired specifically
to take another employee's placed who is out ill or out
for any reason other than on a permanent basis.9
Discussion
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that for
many years Respondent was a member of the League
and that it had authorized the League to represent it in
negotiations with Local 51 for a new collective-bargain-
ing agreement prior to the commencement of those ne-
7 The petition was not processed due to this case.
8 Respondent has had collective-bargaining agreements with several
unions, in addition to Local 51, at its Bronx and Manhattan facilities. Due
to its financial condition, the number of employees in some units has also
dwindled to one and when this occurred Respondent refused to continue
to recognize the union which represented that unit.
The clause also includes other descriptions of a temporary employee
or substitute. The record does not reveal whether the employee who was
hired for the vacation periods was told that he was being hired on a tem-
porary basis.
gotiations on 20 December. Further, counsel contends
that those negotiations culminated in a collective-bar-
gaining agreement being reached on 28 January between
the League and Local 51 and, therefore, attempts by Re-
spondent to withdraw from the League on 30 January,
absent consent by Local 51, were untimely . Moreover, it
is counsel's position that there were no unusual circum-
stances which would permit Respondent to withdraw
from the multiemployer bargaining group after negotia-
tions had begun. It is Respondent's position that the unit
of its employees represented by Local 51 did not merge
into the multiemployer unit, although the terms and con-
ditions of employment for its employees were established
the 1983-1986 contract negotiated between the League
and Local 51. Moreover, it is Respondent's position that
even if at some point the unit of its employees had
merged with the -multiemployer unit, Respondent had
withdrawn the authority of the League to act for it in
negotiations with Local 51. Further, Respondent argues
that the fact that it had only one employee represented
by Local 51 constituted unusual circumstances which
would permit it to withdraw even if its withdrawal was
untimely. Finally, it is Respondent's position that it
should not be required to observe the terms of the con-
tract between the League and Local 51 because the con-
tract's union-shop clause is illegal.
The Respondent concedes that the League is an asso-
ciation of employers in the printing industry and that it
exists, inter alias for the purpose of collective bargaining,
negotiations and administration of collective-bargaining
agreements with Local 51. Respondent also admits that it
has been a member of the League: Respondent's conten-
tions that its unit employees did not merge with the mul-
tiemployer unit and that it did not grant authority to the
League to act for it in the negotiations with Local 51 for
the 1986-1989 contract are not supported by the evi-
dence in this record.
The three contracts in evidence cover the period from
1979 to 1986. All three contracts state that the League
recognized Local 51 as the exclusive representative for
collective-bargaining purposes for all employees of the
employer-members of the League who were employed as
printing pressmen. This description in the contracts
clearly establishes that the unit consists of the employees
of the multiemployer group and is not limited to the em-
ployees of one employer. Respondent was fully aware of
this unit description when it agreed to be bound by the
contracts that the League had negotiated with Local, 51
from 1979 to 1986. The fact that employer-members may
have ' or did administer the contracts on a one-to-one
basis with Local 51 does not alter the fact that the con-
tract unit was a multiemployer one.
The record discloses that prior to 30 July five docu-
ments were signed by Respondent's representatives in
which they discussed either their delegation of authority
to the League to act for Respondent in negotiations with
Local 51 or the withdrawal of that delegation. The first
document, executed on 10 November 1980 before the
start of negotiations, stated that Respondent was with-
drawing from the' League's multiemployer negotiations
with various unions, including Local 51. On 5 June 1981,
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by letter, Respondent reinstated its authorization to the
League to act for it in negotiations with Local 51. A
similar letter withdrawing the League 's authority to act
for the Respondent was sent in November 1982 and a
similar letter of reinstatement of the League's authority
was sent on 4 February 1983 . Finally, in September 1983
the Respondent signed a new authorization form which
stated that the form superseded all earlier authorizations
and would continue to be binding on Respondent during
its membership in the League . Thus, the last two docu-
ments received by the League, prior to 30 January, ex-
tended authorization to the League to act on behalf of
Respondent as part of the multiemployer group during
negotiations with Local 51. There was no ambiguity in
this delegation of authority . An employer indicates the
unequivocal intention to be bound by the results of the
group bargaining if it gives a multiemployer association
either actual or apparent authority to negotiate and exe-
cute a contract on its behalf with the union as part of the
multiemployer group . NLRB v. Beckham , 564 F .2d 190,
194 (5th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. San Diego Cabinets, 453
F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Johnson Sheet Metal,
441 F.2d 1056. 1060 (10th Cir. 1971). Respondent's argu-
ment that it had not given authority to the League to act
for it in the 1986-1989 negotiations because it had not
signed another authorization form prior to the start of
those negotiations is without merit . The authorization
form executed in September 1983 by Respondent's vice
president continued the delegation of authority for as
long as Respondent continued its membership in the
League, which it did until 30 January. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent was a member of the League at all
pertinent times and that it had granted authority to the
League to act for it in the multiemployer bargaining
with Local 51 which began on 20 December.
The Board has stated in numerous cases that once a
pattern of multiemployer bargaining has been established,
withdrawal from that type of bargaining can be effective
only under certain conditions . These conditions were es-
tablished because the Board was concerned with "foster-
ing and maintaining stability in bargaining relationships."
Carvel Co., 226 NLRB 111, 112 (1976). In Retail Associ-
ates, 120 NLRB 388 (1958), the Board held that in order
for a party to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining
the intention of that party must be unequivocal and exer-
cised at an appropriate time . It is evident from the facts
in the instant case that Respondent, in its efforts to with-
draw, did not meet either criteria. The League notified
Respondent in early December that negotiations were
about to begin. Respondent did not respond to that noti-
fication, nor did it communicate with Local 51. This fail-
ure by Respondent to respond to the notification about
the negotiations does not constitute the type of un-
equivocal statement of a party's intention to withdraw
from the multiemployer bargaining which is required by
the Board. In fact, the League and Local 51 could con-
strue Respondent 's failure to respond as evidence of its
continued participation in multiemployer bargaining in
view of Respondent's prior conduct when it sought to
withdraw from such bargaining. Moreover, when Re-
spondent finally did notify the League and Local 51 of
its intention to withdraw it did so at an inappropriate
time. In Retail Associates the Board stated that an em-
ployer could withdraw from multiemployer bargaining
upon written notice made prior to the date set by con-
tract for modification of the existing contract or prior to
the agreed-on date to begin negotiations . Respondent did
not advise the League or Local 51 in writing of its inten-
tion to withdraw either before 3 December , the date set
for contract modification , or 20 December , the agreed-
on date for the start of the negotiations . In these circum-
stances, it is clear that Respondent 's attempt to withdraw
from multiemployer bargaining was not done in accord-
ance with the standards enunicated in Retail Assoccaten
Respondent, however, argues that under the criteria
established in Retail Associates , a party can withdraw
from multiemployer negotiations, although the with-
drawal may be untimely , where unusual circumstances
exist. In the instant case, Respondent contends that such
circumstances did exist because at the time the negotia-
tions commenced it had only one employee who would
be covered by the Local 51 contract. This situation, Re-
spondent urges, is unusual and, therefore, "it would not
undermine the utility of multiemployer bargaining" to
permit the Respondent to withdraw from the multiem-
ployer bargaining . Moreover, Respondent contends that
its decision to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining
was not a bargaining tactic, it was motivated solely by
the fact that it had only one employee who was repre-
sented by Local 51.
In support of this position Respondent has cited sever-
al cases which it contends stand for the proposition that
the Act does not require an employer to recognize and
bargain with a union where there is only one employee
in the unit. An examination of the cited cases reveals that
they all involve single-employer situations . There is no
dispute that the Act does not require a single employer
to recognize and bargain with a union where that em-
ployer has a stable one-man unit . However , the unit in
the instant case, as noted , does not involve a single em-
ployer, but consists of the multiemployer group and in
that group there are numerous employees. The Board
has recognized the voluntary nature of multiemployer
bargaining. "It neither forces employers into multiem-
ployer bargaining nor erects barriers to withdrawal prior
to bargaining." Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB, 454 U.S.
404 (1982). Respondent was not forced to join the multi-
employer group and it was free to withdraw from that
group at any point to the commencement of bargaining.
Respondent knew its employee complement at least 2
months prior to the start of negotiations and was aware
of the appropriate time to withdraw from the multiem-
ployer group, as evidence by its prior actions, but it de-
cided not to make known its intention until after agree-
ment had been reached between the League and Local
51. Although the Board does not force parties to engage
in multiemployer bargaining, it has sought to foster labor
peace by limiting the time when parties may withdraw
once negotiations have commenced, absent unsual cir-
cumstances . The Board has concluded that unusual cir-
cumstances "will be found where an employer is subject
to severe financial pressure or where a bargaining unit
has become substantially fragmented ." Bonanno Linen
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO.
Service , supra . Respondent has not advanced either of
these situations as the reason for its untimely withdrawal
from the multiemployer bargaining . Moreover, although
Respondent contends that it has suffered financial prob-
lems, it does not contend that bankruptcy is pending as
was the situation in U.S. Lingerie Corp., 176 NLRB 827
(1969). The Board has held that a decline in business,
even to the point where the volume of business is one-
fourth of its previous level, does not constitute unusual
circumstances which would relieve an employer of the
consequences of its failure to give timely notice . Serv-All
Co., 199 NLRB 1131, 1141 (1972).
In support of its position that it should not be required
to adhere to the agreement reached between the League
and Local 51, Respondent has cited Maritas v. Carpet Li-
noleum Service, 490 F.Supp . 369 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In that
case an employer who was a member of an association
had agreed to adhere to the association 's contract. That
contract required the employer-member to be responsible
for wages and fringe benefits for subcontractors engaged
by the employer-member to perform work within the
union's jurisdiction. The employer-member ceased all
work in the union 's jurisdiction and laid off its employ-
ees but it did subcontract work to subcontractors who
performed work with their own employees in the union's
jurisdiction . The subcontractors ' workers were not enti-
tled to any benefits from the fund set up by the associa-
tion agreement . The employer-member argued that en-
forcement of the subcontractors ' clause when it had
withdrawn from the association and had no employees
who would be eligible for union benefits violated Section
302(a)(1) of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947. The court concluded that Section 302(a)(1) prohib-
ited enforcement of the subcontractors' clause where no
employee of the obligated employer was entitled to bene-
fits. The court also stated that the rules set up for with-
drawal from an association had no applicability to the
facts of that case because the employer's withdrawal did
not occur near the end of the agreement 's term and it
was not related to negotiations for a new contract. It is
clear that the thrust of the Maritas decision was the
impact of Section 302(a)(1) in a situation where an em-
ployer was required to make contributions to a union
fund when it had no employees and the court concluded
that Section 302(a)(1) prohibited an employer from
making contributions in such a situation . This is not the
situation in this case . Moreover, unlike the facts in Mari-
tas, Respondent did attempt to withdraw near the end of
the existing contract's term and at a time when negotia-
tions for a new contract had been concluded. Respond-
ent's efforts to withdraw almost immediately on the con-
clusion of the negotiations , although it had full knowl-
edge of the number of its employees for some months,
tends to establish that the withdrawal was triggered
more by the negotiations than by the number of employ-
ees that it had.'
10 Although there were some statements made by Respondent's wit-
nesses about plant closing in the Local 51 jurisdiction , there was insuffi-
cient evidence to establish that Respondent would not operate in this area
at some time in the future.
621
In John J. Corbett Press, 163 NLRB 154 (1967), enfd.
401 F.2d 673 (2d. Cir . 1969), the Board failed to find that
unusual circumstances existed which would excuse an
employer's untimely withdrawal from the multiemployer
bargaining, although the employer had laid off all the
employees represented by the union . Respondent argues
that that case is not applicable because "presumably" the
employer replaced the union employees with nonunion
employees so that at the time of its untimely withdrawal
the employer still had employees. The facts, however, in
the Corbett case do not state that the employer hired
new employees and, therefore , that it had employees at
the time that it attempted to withdraw from the multiem-
ployer bargaining.
Finally, Respondent argues that Respondent should
not be required to execute a contract which contains an
illegal union-security clause. Respondent contends that
the part 1 , 3 of the League-Local 51 contract (G.C. Exh.
2) contains such an illegal union -security provision.
However , the contract (which is G.C. Exh . 2) is the
League and Local 51 contract for the 1983-1986 period.
The contract for the period 1986-1989 is not in evidence
and, therefore, I cannot presume the language in the
1986-1989 contract is the same as the language in the
1983-1986 contract. Nor do I have evidence concerning
whether the pertinent contract contains a "savings and
severability" provision . In view of the decisions in cases
such as NLRB v. Rockaway News Co., 345 U.S. 71 (1953);
NLRB v Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, 367 F.2d 55 (1966),
and NLRB v. Broderick Wood Products Co., 261 F.2d 548
(10th Cir. 1958), it is difficult to make a decision with re-
spect to this argument by Respondent without the rele-
vant evidence.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Respondent
by its withdrawal letter of 30 January and by its failure
and refusal to abide by the agreement negotiated be-
tween the League and Local 51 and by its failure and re-
fusal to recognize Local 51 as the representative of its
employees has violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 51 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All printing pressmen employees of the employer-
members of the League constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective-bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all material times, Local 51 has been and is the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, in-
cluding those of Respondent, in the appropriate unit.
5. By its withdrawal letter of 30 January 1986 and by
its failure or refusal thereafter to honor and abide by the
1986-1989 agreement negotiated between Local 51 and
the League, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. The unfair labor practices- affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom. I shall recommend
also that it post an appropriate notice and take certain af-
firmative actions which are designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5) and
(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it honor and abide
by the 1986-1989 agreement reached between the
League and Local 51, give retroactive effect to the terms
and conditions of that agreement, and make whole its
employees for any loss of wages or benefits they may
have suffered as a result of Respondent's failure to honor
and abide by the agreement , I shall recommend further
that Respondent recognize Local 51 as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees . Backpay, if
any, shall be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB
651 (1977)."
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed12
ORDER
The Respondent, American Bank Note Company,
New York, New York, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize Graphic Communications
International Union, Local 51, AFL-CIO as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its printing pressroom
employees.
(b) Failing and refusing to honor and abide by the
terms of the 1986-1989 agreement reached between
Printers League Section, Printing Industries of Metropol-
itan New York, Inc. and Local 51.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, res-
taining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to join or assist Local 51 or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization , as author-
ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize Local 51 as the collective-bargaining
representative of its printing pressroom employees.
11
The General Counsel argued that any remedy herein should include
a visitatonal clause The Board has indicated that such clauses will not be
granted , pro forma. O. L. Will,, Inc, 278 NLRB 203 (1986) The record
in this case fails to reveal a need for this clause.
12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(b) Honor and abide by the terms of the 1986-1989
collective-bargaining agreement between the League and
Local 51.
(c) Give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions
of the 1986-1989 agreement, including but not limited to
the provisions relating to wages and other employment
benefits and, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision , make whole its employees for any
losses they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
failure or refusal to abide by the agreement.
(d) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its place of business in New York, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced , or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
13 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Graphic Communi-
cations International Union, Local 51, AFL-CIO as the
collective-bargaining representative of our printing press-
men employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to honor and abide by the 1986-
1989 collective -bargaining agreement reached between
Printing League Section , Printing Industries of Metro-
politan New York, Inc. and Local 51 for the printing
pressmen employees employed by the employer-members
of the League.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO. 623
WE WILL honor and abide by the 1986-1989 collec- meat and make our employees whole for any losses they
five-bargaining agreement reached between the League may have suffered with interest.
and Local 51 for the printing pressmen employees em-
ployed by the employer-members of the League and we AMERICAN BANK Nom COMPANY
will give retroactive effect to the terms of that agree-