American Signature, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 880
Amersig Graphics, Inc., and Amersig Southeast, Inc.
d/b/a American Signature, Inc. and Graphic
Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO

Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc. and Graphic Com-
munications International Union, AFL–CIO.
Cases 10–CA–29813, 10–CA–30025, 10–CA–
30055, 10–CA–30320, 10–CA–30378, and 10–
CA–30896
August 2, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND
WALSH
On March 19, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Law-
rence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent, Amersig Graphics, Inc., and Amersig South-
east, Inc., d/b/a American Signature, Inc. (Amersig), and
the Respondent Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc. (Quebe-
cor), each separately filed exceptions and a supporting
brief. The Charging Party Graphic Communications
International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union) filed an an-
swering brief to the Respondents’ exceptions. Amersig
filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm (except in two noted instances) the judge’s rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions as further discussed be-
low and to adopt the recommended Order as modified
and set forth in full below.1
For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the
judge’s findings: (1) that Amersig violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing to reinstate unfair
labor practice strikers following their unconditional offer
to return to work; (2) that Quebecor is a successor em-
ployer to Amersig under Golden State Bottling Co. v.
NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973); (3) that as a Golden State
successor, Quebecor is obligated to remedy Amersig’s
outstanding unfair labor practices and to offer reinstate-
ment to the former strikers; and (4) that Amersig, along
with Quebecor, must jointly and severally make employ-
ees whole for any losses suffered as a result of both Re-
spondents’ unlawful failure and delay in reinstating
them. The judge found further, and we agree, except in
one instance, that Quebecor violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act, by failing to timely comply with the Un-
ion’s requests for information. Finally, we do not agree
with the judge’s finding that Quebecor violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally implementing a
policy of involuntary layoffs of bargaining unit employ-
ees.

1 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to correct inad-
vertent errors and to conform to the violations found.
Factual Background
The factual background is set forth in full in the
judge’s decision and is summarized here. On April 29,
1993, the Union commenced a strike against Amersig.
The Union also filed unfair labor practice charges against
Amersig. Thereafter, the General Counsel issued a com-
plaint alleging that the strikers were unfair labor practice
strikers.
On November 23, 1996, the Union notified Amersig
that it was terminating its strike and made an uncondi-
tional offer to return to work on behalf of the strikers.
On December 5 and 6, 1996, Amersig responded that it
considered the strikers to be economic strikers who had
been permanently replaced and who would be reinstated
as vacancies occurred. On December 9, 1996, the Union
replied that it did not agree that the employees had been
economic strikers. On December 12, 1996, Amersig
offered seven of the former strikers reinstatement consis-
tent with its treatment of them as economic strikers.
On December 27, 1996, Administrative Law Judge
Howard I. Grossman issued his decision in the unfair
labor practice case referred to above. He found that Am-
ersig had committed numerous violations of the Act, that
the strikers were engaged in an unfair labor practice
strike, and that they were entitled to reinstatement upon
their unconditional offer to return to work. Amersig did
not file exceptions to the judge’s decision.2
On January 8, 1997, Amersig mailed offers of rein-
statement to the former strikers. The offers were accom-
panied by a letter advising that the sale of Amersig to
Quebecor was to take effect on January 15, 1997, and
that the former strikers would no longer have a job with
Amersig upon completion of the sale.
Amersig thereafter instructed former strikers to report
to a mandatory orientation training to be held at a hotel
located approximately 10 miles from Amersig’s Atlanta
facility. There was no functioning printing equipment to
perform the unit work at the hotel; all machinery was
located at Amersig’s Atlanta printing facility. The orien-
tation was conducted on 6 consecutive weekdays, from
Tuesday, January 14, through Tuesday, January 21,
1997.
At the conclusion of the orientation, Amersig advised
the attendees not to report to the Atlanta facility, because
2 On March 14, 1997, the Board adopted the judge’s decision, Foote
& Davies, Inc., d/b/a American Signature, Cases 17–CA–16090, et al.,
in the absence of exceptions.
334 NLRB No. 109
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 881
the sale to Quebecor was to take place on Wednesday,
January 22, 1997. It is undisputed that, following its
offer of reinstatement, Amersig never actually reinstated
any former unfair labor practice striker to his or her for-
mer job at the Atlanta facility.
Analysis
1. The judge found that Amersig violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing immediately to rein-
state the unfair labor practice strikers following their
unconditional offer to return to work in November 1996.
The judge also found that Amersig’s January 1997 rein-
statement offer was not valid. Rather, the judge found
that the offer of reinstatement was a sham designed to
keep the former strikers out of Amersig’s Atlanta print-
ing plant, and to hold them at bay in their quest for rein-
statement. We have carefully reviewed the record evi-
dence and find that it fully supports the judge’s findings.
It is settled law that unfair labor practice strikers are
entitled to immediate reinstatement upon making an un-
conditional offer to return to work. NLRB v. Interna-
tional Van Lines, 409 U.S. 48, 50–51 (1972). An em-
ployer is required to terminate replacement workers who
have been hired to fill the jobs of the unfair labor practice
strikers, if necessary to make room for those returning
strikers. See, e.g., NLRB v. Champ Corp., 933 F.2d 688,
697 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 502 U.S. 957 (1991).
An offer of employment must be specific, unequivocal,
and unconditional in order to toll backpay and satisfy a
respondent’s remedial obligation. See, e.g., Hoffman
Plastic Compounds, 326 NLRB 1060, 1061 (1998), enfd.
237 F.3d 639 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Pace Motor Lines, 260
NLRB 1395 fn. 2 (1982), enfd. 703 F.2d 28 (2d Cir.
1983).
In determining whether a respondent has satisfied
these requirements and made a valid offer of reinstate-
ment, the Board examines whether the respondent merely
“went through the formalities of a job offer” which did
not result in actual reinstatement. IMCO/International
Measurement Co., 277 NLRB 962, 968 (1985), enfd.
mem. 808 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1986). This inquiry is criti-
cal to ensure that compliance with an obligation of rein-
statement does not “consist of simply going through the
motions without fulfilling [the] intent and spirit” of rein-
statement. Id. The key is offering to return employees to
their former jobs at the employing enterprise. See Fab-
steel Co. of Louisiana, 231 NLRB 372, 380 (1977) (“of-
fer of jobs away from the employing enterprise which is
continuing does not constitute an offer of reinstatement
which effectuates the purposes of the Act”), enfd. 587
F.2d 689, 693 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 442 U.S. 943
(1979).
a. When the strikers made their unconditional offer to
return to work on November 23, 1996, they were unfair
labor practice strikers entitled to immediate reinstate-
ment. Amersig, however, did not recall them to their
prestrike jobs and instead treated them as economic
strikers. The judge found, we agree, and Amersig does
not dispute, that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to immediately reinstate the unfair labor
practice strikers.
b. We now turn to Amersig’s contention that its Janu-
ary 8, 1997 offers of reinstatement were valid and tolled
its liability to the unfair labor practice strikers. As dis-
cussed below, we find that the evidence establishes that
Respondent Amersig went through the formalities of a
job offer, while failing to fulfill its remedial obligation to
actually reinstate the former strikers to their former jobs
at Amersig’s Atlanta facility.
We rely first on the fact that the strikers’ orientation
did not in fact take place at the Atlanta facility. The in-
dividuals who conducted the orientation training testified
at the hearing that normally such training is conducted
on-the-job with functioning equipment.3 Manager
Harmon testified that Amersig deviated from traditional
practice and decided to conduct the orientation training
offsite to create a “cooling down period” to “calm things
down before we started a full integration back into the
workforce.” Amersig has not called any evidence of
violence or aggression at the plant to our attention, and
the record contains none. Indeed, Harmon admitted, and
the judge found, that Amersig experienced no problems
when former strikers returned prior to its offer of rein-
statement on January 8, 1997. Amersig has failed to
demonstrate that it was justified in delaying reinstate-
ment because of a concern for employee violence or
other misconduct.4 Harmon testified further that the sec-
ond reason Amersig decided to hold the orientation away
from its Atlanta facility was because of the lack of a
room big enough to accommodate all anticipated return-
ing strikers. Approximately 20 former strikers attended
the offsite orientation. Harmon admitted that, upon
learning of this number of attendees on the first day of
orientation, there was no impediment, logistical or oth-
erwise, to immediately returning them to the plant. Thus,
Amersig has failed to establish any legal or factual justi-

3 One trainer testified that in 8 years of conducting training programs
for operators he could not recall one instance of conducting a training
program away from the relevant equipment. The other trainer testified
that he had done “a little” but “not much” offsite training.
4 See NLRB v. Champ Corp., supra, 933 F.2d at 697 (Ninth Circuit
found that the employer failed to demonstrate that it was justified in
delaying reinstatement because of a concern for potential employee
violence).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 882
fication for conducting the orientation away from its At-
lanta printing plant.
Second, Harmon acknowledged in his testimony that
the orientation as scheduled “went quicker than we
thought.” Instead of returning the strikers to work, how-
ever, he modified the orientation schedule to add a full
day trip in which attendees toured a plant that manufac-
tures printing plates. The record shows that Amersig
does not manufacture printing plates but purchases them
from third-party vendors. Harmon could not cite a single
instance in which Amersig had ever previously sent em-
ployees to tour a plate manufacturing plant. Amersig’s
extension of the offsite orientation with superfluous ac-
tivity, rather than simply returning former strikers to its
Atlanta facility, supports our finding that Amersig
evaded rather than fulfilled its obligation to return the
strikers to their former jobs at the employing enterprise.5
Third, Amersig has failed to offer any meaningful ex-
planation for its requirement that the unfair labor practice
strikers, who were senior, experienced employees, attend
6 full days of orientation. By contrast, when Amersig on
December 12, 1996, offered reinstatement to seven for-
mer strikers (deemed by Amersig to be economic strik-
ers), there was no requirement of any formal orientation,
offsite or otherwise. The Respondent’s decision to treat
the former strikers differently in January further supports
our finding that the Respondent’s January 8 offers were
an exercise in “simply going through the motions” and
were not valid.
Fourth, Amersig’s contention that it satisfied its rein-
statement obligation because it repeatedly told orienta-
tion attendees at the hotel that they were “active” Amer-
sig employees, and enrolled them on its payroll and
benefit programs for the duration of the orientation, is
unpersuasive. These nominal actions are insufficient to
satisfy the Respondent’s legal obligation to return the
employees to their former jobs at the Atlanta plant,
which necessarily would have meant allowing them to
resume their prior duties on the job. Fabsteel Co. of
Louisiana, supra, 231 NLRB at 380.
Finally, while there was a short time period between
Judge Grossman’s decision of December 27, 1996, and
the sale of the plant on January 22, 1997, that factor did
not relieve Amersig of its obligation to properly reinstate
the unfair labor practice strikers. After all, it was Amer-
sig’s admitted and unlawful failure to timely act on the
Union’s unconditional offer to return to work that deter-

5 Amersig’s reliance on Oregon Steel Mills, 300 NLRB 817 (1990),
enfd. 47 F.3d 1536 (9th Cir. 1995), to justify its offsite orientation, is
misplaced. There was no contention in that case that an orientation
conducted for former economic strikers, apparently held in the em-
ployer’s plant, rendered invalid the employer’s offer of reinstatement.
mined this sequence of events. “The order of reinstate-
ment would be a moot consideration if the duty had been
properly carried out.” Capitol Steel & Iron Co. v. NLRB,
89 F.3d 692, 698 (10th Cir. 1996), enfg. 317 NLRB 809
(1995). Amersig cannot be excused from its failure to
actually reinstate former strikers to their jobs based on a
situation created by its own unlawful conduct.
For all these reasons, we find that the record evidence
as a whole confirms the judge’s finding that Amersig’s
reinstatement offers were not valid. Consequently, at the
time Quebecor purchased Amersig’s Atlanta facility,
Amersig’s obligation to reinstate the former strikers re-
mained unsatisfied, and its violation of Section 8(a)(3)
remained unremedied.
2. We agree with the judge’s finding that Quebecor is
a Golden State successor to Amersig. Under Golden
State, a successor employer with notice of an existing
unfair labor practice charge against its predecessor can
be held accountable to remedy those past wrongs. 414
U.S. at 181–186; NLRB v. Jarm Enterprises, 785 F.2d
195, 202 (7th Cir. 1986), enfg. Blu-Fountain Manor, 270
NLRB 199 (1984). “It is the burden of the successor em-
ployer to establish that it lacks knowledge of unfair labor
practices pending at the time of purchase.” Proxy Com-
munications, 290 NLRB 540 fn. 2 (1988), enfd. 873 F.2d
552 (2d Cir. 1989); Robert G. Andrew, Inc., 300 NLRB
444 (1990).
There is no dispute that Quebecor continued Amersig’s
operations without substantial change.6 Quebecor further
does not dispute the judge’s finding, based on ample re-
cord evidence, that it had knowledge of the unfair labor
practice charge filed in this proceeding alleging Amer-
sig’s failure to reinstate the former unfair labor practice
strikers, as well as of Amersig’s unlawful conduct set
forth in Judge Grossman’s decision. Quebecor neverthe-
less argues in its exceptions that the notice requirement
of Golden State is not satisfied because it believed that
Amersig had remedied its unfair labor practices by mak-
ing its offer of reinstatement of January 8, 1997. Quebe-
cor’s asserted belief is based on an oral representation by
Amersig on that date that it was “accepting” Judge
Grossman’s decision and reinstating the former strikers.
Quebecor’s reliance on the simple expression by Amer-
sig that its unfair labor practices were remedied is legally
insufficient under Jarm Enterprises, supra, to negate
Quebecor’s status as a Golden State successor.
6 The parties have stipulated that Quebecor continued to operate
Amersig’s printing business at the Atlanta location, with substantially
the same employees, performing the same functions, operating the
same equipment, with the same supervisors and substantially the same
labor relations personnel, for substantially the same customers.
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 883
In Jarm Enterprises, the successor employer had been
put on notice of a pending appeal of the dismissal of the
union’s unfair labor practice charge against the predeces-
sor. The successor contended that this did not constitute
notice under Golden State since it was informed by its
predecessor’s counsel that in his opinion the union’s
claim was meritless. The Seventh Circuit rejected this
contention:
This argument is unpersuasive. A party who acts in re-
liance upon an initial determination despite the pend-
ency of an appeal assumes the risk that the actions may
later be found to be unlawful. NLRB v. Sav-on Drugs,
Inc., 728 F.2d 1254, 1256 (9th Cir. 1984). Jarm [the
successor employer] was aware of the labor problems
at [the predecessor employer] at the time of purchase
and its reliance on the future prospects of the Union’s
claim was misplaced. [785 F.2d at 205.]
At the time it purchased Amersig, Quebecor was like-
wise clearly aware of the unfair labor practice charge
underlying the instant proceeding. In relying on its
predecessor’s representation, Quebecor assumed the risk
that the charge would later be found meritorious.7 The
pending unfair labor practice charge had neither been
withdrawn by the Union nor dismissed by the Board’s
Region Office without appeal. Further, the Union gave
Quebecor no reason to believe that the Union considered
its legal claims to be settled or otherwise inactive.8 The
record evidence fully supports the judge’s finding that
Quebecor is a Golden State successor to Amersig.9
3. The judge found, and we agree, that Quebecor, as a
Golden State successor, is obligated to remedy Amer-
sig’s outstanding unfair labor practices and to offer rein-
statement to the former strikers. The Supreme Court in
Golden State approved the Board’s Perma Vinyl10 line of
cases imposing liability on the successor for past unfair

7 Quebecor’s argument is particularly tenuous because it rests not
even on an initial decision by a disinterested adjudicative body, but
solely on the assertion of a litigant.
8 Contrary to the judge’s finding, the Union’s letter of January 10,
1997, asserting that Amersig’s offer of reinstatement was invalid, was
sent to Amersig, rather than Quebecor. However, the record is replete
with other evidence that the Union repeatedly notified Quebecor that it
was required to reinstate all former strikers to their prestrike positions.
9 Quebecor has excepted to the judge’s denial of its motion to dis-
miss, which asserted that the General Counsel failed to allege that
Quebecor had notice of the unfair labor practice charge filed against
Amersig. Quebecor reiterates its argument on appeal, further asserting
that the pleadings were not amended to conform to the evidence offered
at the hearing. The judge correctly denied Quebecor’s motion, because
the amended consolidated complaint clearly alleged that Quebecor was
a successor to Amersig liable to remedy the latter’s unfair labor prac-
tices, and Quebecor does not dispute that the issue of whether it was on
notice of those unfair labor practices was fully litigated.
10 164 NLRB 968 (1967), enfd. sub nom. United States Pipe &
Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 398 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1968).
labor practices committed by the predecessor. Specifi-
cally, the Court held that the Perma Vinyl doctrine strikes
an appropriate balance among “the conflicting legitimate
interests of the bona fide successor, the public, and the
affected employee.” 414 U.S. at 181. The Court cited
with approval the Board’s emphasis upon protection for
the victimized employee:
Especially in need of help . . . are the employee victims
of unfair labor practices who, because of their unlawful
discharge, are now without meaningful remedy when
title to the employing business operation changes
hands. [414 U.S. at 181, quoting Perma Vinyl Corp.,
164 NLRB at 969. (Internal quotation marks omitted.)]
As the Court explained at length:
When a new employer . . . has acquired substantial as-
sets of its predecessor and continued, without interrup-
tion or substantial change, the predecessor’s business
operations, those employees who have been retained
will understandably view their job situations as essen-
tially unaltered. Under these circumstances, the em-
ployees may well perceive the successor’s failure to
remedy the predecessor employer’s unfair labor prac-
tices arising out of an unlawful discharge as a continua-
tion of the predecessor’s labor policies. To the extent
that the employees’ legitimate expectation is that the
unfair labor practices will be remedied, a successor’s
failure to do so may result in labor unrest as the em-
ployees engage in collective activity to force remedial
action. Similarly, if the employees identify the new
employer’s labor policies with those of the predecessor
but do not take collective action, the successor may
benefit from the unfair labor practices due to a continu-
ing deterrent effect on union activities . . . [and] a fail-
ure to reinstate may result in a leadership vacuum in the
bargaining unit. [414 U.S. 184–185.]
The Board, thus, has the authority under Golden State
to require Quebecor to remedy Amersig’s unfair labor
practices, since it is established that Quebecor is Amer-
sig’s successor and knew of those unfair labor practices
when it bought the company. Quebecor nevertheless
argues that it should not be required to remedy Amer-
sig’s outstanding unfair labor practices and to offer rein-
statement to the former strikers.
Quebecor first contends that a reinstatement obligation
should not apply in the absence of evidence that it dis-
criminated against former strikers when hiring its work-
force. This contention fundamentally misconceives the
basis for imposing successor liability under Golden State.
The basis for liability “is not focused on the conduct of
the successor but rather the need to prevent mere changes
in the title to the business from frustrating the national
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 884
labor policy of remedying unfair labor practices.” NLRB
v. Jarm Enterprises, supra, 785 F.2d at 202.
According to Quebecor, its status as a Burns succes-
sor11 precludes an order under the Golden State doctrine
that it offer reinstatement to former strikers. It is true
that a successor employer under Burns is under no obli-
gation to hire the employees of its predecessor, subject,
of course, to the restriction that it not discriminate
against union employees. 406 U.S at 280 fn. 5. The Su-
preme Court held in Golden State, however, that nothing
in Burns militated against the imposition of successor
liability to remedy a predecessor’s outstanding unfair
labor practices, including offering reinstatement. 414
U.S. at 184–185. As the Court explained, the successor
must have notice before liability can be imposed. Its
potential liability for remedying prior unlawful conduct
is thus a matter which may be reflected in the price paid
for the business or otherwise addressed in the terms of
the transaction. Id. Quebecor purchased Amersig and
made its initial hiring choice with full knowledge of the
latter’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, the terms of the trans-
action required Amersig to indemnify Quebecor for li-
abilities arising out of the underlying unfair labor prac-
tice proceedings. Quebecor cannot now point to its free-
dom under Burns to make initial hiring choices for le-
gitimate reasons as a bar to Golden State liability. See
Proxy Communications, supra, 290 NLRB 540, 543
(1988), enfd. 873 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1989) (successor
employer under Burns ordered to offer reinstatement to
employees under Golden State doctrine); Jarm Enter-
prises, supra, 785 F.2d 195 (same); Fabsteel Co. of Lou-
isiana, supra, 587 F.2d 689 (same).
Quebecor additionally contends that a balancing of the
conflicting legitimate interests involved, as required un-
der Golden State, should absolve it of any obligation to
remedy Amersig’s unfair labor practices. Quebecor as-
serts that requiring it to offer reinstatement to the former
strikers unduly favors them in hiring, works to the detri-
ment of the rights of other employees it hired, and in-
fringes its right to nondiscriminatorily hire its own initial
workforce. Quebecor’s purported application of the
Golden State balancing test, however, entirely ignores
the Supreme Court’s instruction that an emphasis must
be placed upon protecting the employee victims of unfair
labor practices. 414 U.S. at 181. Nor does Quebecor
accord any weight to the important national labor poli-
cies of protecting employee exercise of statutory rights,
preventing deterrence of the exercise of those rights, and
avoiding labor strife that may result from unremedied

11 NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972). The par-
ties have stipulated that Quebecor is a successor employer under Burns.
unfair labor practices. Id., at 184–185. Rather, Quebecor
unduly elevates its own interests as the purchaser of Am-
ersig’s assets with a right to hire its employees, and the
interests of the employees it hired, to the exclusion of the
other probative factors. Proxy Communications, supra,
290 NLRB at 543. An appropriate balance under Golden
State warrants a finding that Quebecor is required to of-
fer reinstatement to the former strikers to remedy Amer-
sig’s outstanding unfair labor practices.12
4. We further agree with the judge that Amersig,
along with Quebecor, must jointly and severally make
employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the
unlawful failure and delay in reinstating them. Amersig
argues in its exceptions that even if the offers of rein-
statement are deemed invalid, it can only be held liable
until the date it sold its operation to Quebecor and effec-
tively went out of business. The Court in Golden State,
however, specifically rejected such an argument by the
predecessor respondent. 414 U.S. at 186–187. “[W]ith
respect to the offending employer himself, it must be
obvious that it cannot be in the public interest to permit
the violator of the Act to shed all responsibility for reme-
dying his own unfair labor practices by simply disposing
of the business.” Id., quoting Perma Vinyl Corp., supra,
164 NLRB at 970. Accordingly, we shall order that Am-
ersig, along with Quebecor, jointly and severally make
employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the
unlawful failure and delay in reinstating them.
5. We do not agree with the judge’s finding that Que-
becor violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally
implementing a policy of involuntary layoffs of bargain-
ing unit employees. At the hearing, the judge granted the
General Counsel’s motion, over the Charging Party’s
objection, to amend the amended consolidated complaint
to allege that Quebecor unilaterally implemented a policy
of soliciting volunteers from the bargaining unit for lay-
offs.13 In his decision, however, the judge did not ad-
dress the merits of the amended complaint allegation
(unilateral implementation of a policy of voluntary lay-
offs). Instead, the judge found an unfair labor practice
12 Quebecor’s additional attempt to avoid liability based on fn. 6 of
Golden State is misplaced. The Court there clarified that a successor
employer may not be bound to a predecessor’s outstanding bargaining
obligation, because the successor is not initially obligated to hire any of
the predecessor’s employees, and there may thus be no showing of
majority support for the union necessary to support a bargaining order.
In this case, Quebecor does not dispute that it has a bargaining obliga-
tion to the Union and that it continued Amersig’s business with sub-
stantially the same employees. The basic holding of Golden State that
a successor may be ordered to reinstate discriminatees to remedy the
predecessor’s unfair labor practices is not altered by fn. 6 of Golden
State.
13 The Charging Party has not filed exceptions to the judge’s ruling
granting the motion to amend the complaint.
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 885
that the General Counsel had not alleged (unilateral im-
plementation of a policy of mandatory layoffs).
In light of the judge’s ruling at the hearing, the com-
plaint allegation as amended is the one before us for de-
cision. We have carefully reviewed the record evidence
and find that it is insufficient to support a finding that
Quebecor implemented a policy of voluntary layoffs.
Rather, the record shows that the layoffs were manda-
tory. We shall accordingly dismiss this amended com-
plaint allegation.
6. We agree with the judge’s finding that Quebecor
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to
timely comply with requests for information by Local 8–
M, Graphic Communications International Union (Local
8–M), and by Local 96–B, Graphic Communications
International Union (Local (96–B).14
It is axiomatic that an employer has an obligation to
furnish to a union, upon request, information that is rele-
vant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining
representative of unit employees. Detroit Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); NLRB v. Acme Indus-
trial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967). An employer
must respond to the information request in a timely man-
ner. Leland Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75,
80 (1992). An unreasonable delay in furnishing such
information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all.
Valley Inventory Service, 295 NLRB 1163, 1166 (1989).
An employer has a duty to timely furnish such informa-
tion absent presentation of a valid defense. See, e.g.,
Mary Thompson Hospital, 296 NLRB 1245 fn. 1 (1989),
enfd. 943 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1991); NLRB v. Illinois-
American Water Co., 933 F.2d 1368, 1377–1378 (7th
Cir. 1991), enf. 296 NLRB 715 (1989).
a. On January 22, 1997, and on subsequent dates, Lo-
cal 96–B requested from Quebecor the names, classifica-
tions, hire dates, seniority dates, race, sex, addresses,
telephone numbers, and pay rates of employees in the
bargaining unit it represents.15 On February 20, 1997,
Local 8–M requested from Quebecor the names, ad-
dresses, classifications, seniority dates, and wage rates of
employees in the bargaining unit it represents.16 Quebe-
cor does not dispute that such information pertaining to

14 Local 8–M represents a bargaining unit composed of pressroom
and preparatory department employees employed at Quebecor’s Atlanta
facility. Local 96–B represents a bargaining unit composed of bindery
and mailing department employees employed at Quebecor’s Atlanta
facility.
15 The record shows that Local 96–B repeated its request on January
28, February 14 and 20, and March 27, and requested updated lists on
April 18, May 11, June 2, and August 23, 1997.
16 The record shows that Local 8–M requested an updated list on
June 27, 1997.
employees within the bargaining units is presumptively
relevant.17 The record shows that Quebecor did not reply
to the requests for this information until April 1 and 24,
1997. Quebecor has advanced no justification for its
delay in furnishing the requested information. “Absent
evidence justifying an employer’s delay in furnishing a
union with relevant information, such a delay will consti-
tute a violation of Section 8(a)(5) inasmuch ‘[a]s the Un-
ion was entitled to the information at the time it made its
initial request, [and] it was Respondent’s duty to furnish
it as promptly as possible.’” Woodland Clinic, 331
NLRB 735 (2000), quoting Pennco, Inc., 212 NLRB
677, 678 (1974). The record further shows that Quebe-
cor has not complied with the requests by Local 96–B
and Local 8–M for updated lists of unit employees. For
these reasons, we conclude that Quebecor violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide Local
96–B and Local 8–M with updated lists of employees
and by failing to timely furnish the other requested in-
formation.
b. The record shows that Quebecor failed to furnish
Local 96–B and Local 8–M with the names of all tempo-
rary employees working at its Atlanta facility, including
their wage rates, hire dates, and job descriptions. Local
96–B and Local 8–M made this request on February 20,
1997. Local 96–B repeated its request on June 2, 1997.
Local 8–M repeated its request on June 27, 1997. Que-
becor asserts that it complied with these requests by in-
forming Local 96–B and Local 8–M that it has not em-
ployed any temporary employees at the Atlanta facility.
The record shows, however, that Quebecor did in fact
employ temporary workers at the Atlanta facility during
the relevant timeframe. Quebecor’s failure to comply
with the requests by Local 96–B and Local 8–M for a list
of temporary employees, including their wage rates, hire
dates, and job descriptions, violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
c. On February 20, 1997, Local 96–B and Local 8–M
requested that Quebecor furnish them with documents
related to the sale of Amersig’s assets to Quebecor.
Quebecor did not respond to this request until July 30,
1997, at which time Quebecor supplied the asset pur-
chase agreement of the transaction between Amersig and
Quebecor. Quebecor has supplied no explanation for its
more than 5-month delay in supplying this requested
information. The record shows further that the asset pur-
chase agreement as supplied does not include referenced
attachments or schedules to that document. Quebecor’s
delay in furnishing, and failure to furnish the complete
17 See, e.g., E. J. Alrich Electrical Contractors, 325 NLRB 1036,
1039 (1998). Indeed, Quebecor does not dispute the relevance of any
of the information requested by the Union.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 886
asset purchase agreement, violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
d. The record shows that Quebecor violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to furnish lists of all
unit employees who have been laid off since Quebecor
began operations at the Atlanta facility. On April 8,
1997, Local 96–B requested a list of employee layoffs in
the unit it represents. It repeated this request on April 18
and June 2, 1997. Quebecor does not dispute in its brief
to the Board that it never supplied a response to these
requests. On May 13, 1997, Local 8–M requested a list
of employee layoffs in the unit it represents. Quebecor
does not dispute that it failed to provide a complete and
updated list of employee layoffs in the bargaining unit
represented by Local 8–M.18 We accordingly find that
Quebecor violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to
furnish Local 96–B and Local 8–M with a list of all unit
employees who have been laid off since Quebecor began
operations at the Atlanta facility.
e. Finally, we reverse the judge’s finding that Quebe-
cor violated the Act by failing to comply with Local 96–
B’s request of January 28, 1997, and on subsequent oc-
casions, for a statement of the reasons why Quebecor had
not hired, or returned to their former positions of em-
ployment, all of the unfair labor practice strikers and
discriminatees referred to in Judge Grossman’s decision.
The record shows that Quebecor complied with this re-
quest by informing the Union of its legal position that it
was not liable to remedy the unfair labor practices of
Amersig. We shall accordingly dismiss this complaint
allegation.19
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that
A. Respondent, Amersig Graphics, Inc., and Amersig
Southeast, Inc. d/b/a American Signature, Inc., Atlanta,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to timely reinstate unfair labor
practice strikers to their former positions of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
18 On June 23, 1997, Quebecor did provide, however, a partial list of
employee layoffs in the bargaining unit represented by Local 8–M.
19 Neither the Union nor the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
judge’s failure to find that Quebecor violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by failing to comply with Local 96–B’s request that Quebecor
furnish it with the machine numbers worked on by unit employees at
the time they received a bonus of Atlanta Braves’ tickets.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Quebecor
Printing Atlanta, Inc., make whole the employees listed
in Appendix C for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of both Respondents’ discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the judge’s decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to its unlawful failure to rein-
state the former strikers, and within 3 days thereafter
notify in writing the employees named in Appendix C
that this has been done and that the failure to reinstate
will not be used against them in any way.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records, including an electronic copy of the records
if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail at its own expense copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix A”20 on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, to all em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since
November 23, 1996, including the discriminatees named
in the attached Appendix C.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. Respondent, Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc., At-
lanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to timely reinstate unfair labor
practice strikers to their former positions of employment.
(b) Failing or refusing to timely furnish Local 96–B,
Graphic Communications International Union, and Local
8–M, Graphic Communications International Union,
information that is relevant and necessary to their role as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit
employees.
20 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.”
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 887
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
the employees named in Appendix C full reinstatement
to their former jobs, discharging, if necessary, any em-
ployees currently in those positions, or, if these jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Amersig
Graphics, Inc., and Amersig Southeast, Inc. d/b/a Ameri-
can Signature, Inc., make whole the employees named in
Appendix C for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of both Respondents’ discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the judge’s decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful failure to re-
instate the former strikers, and within 3 days thereafter
notify in writing the employees named in Appendix C
that this has been done and that the failure to reinstate
will not be used against them in any way.
(d) To the extent it has not already done so, furnish
Local 96–B, Graphic Communications International Un-
ion, in a timely manner the information requested by it in
letters dated January 22 and 28, February 14 and 20,
March 27, April 8 and 18, May 11, June 2, and August
23, 1997.
(e) To the extent it has not already done so, furnish
Local 8–M, Graphic Communications International Un-
ion, in a timely manner the information requested by it in
letters dated February 20, May 13, and June 27, 1997.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records, including an electronic copy of the records
if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B.”21 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all

21 See fn. 20, supra.
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the 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 cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since November 23, 1996.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found.

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to timely reinstate unfair
labor practice strikers to their former positions of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Respondent
Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc., make whole the follow-
ing employees for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest:
Local 8–M Strikers
Davis L. Adams, Carroll H. Allen, John C. Allen, Ken-
neth R. Baker, William E. Baldwin, Charles P. Banks,
Herbert L. Barber, Harold V. Barnes, James R. Bivins,
Jr., Terry Boss, Robert H. Braddock, Jr., Billy J.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 888
Brannon, Harold G. Bray, Felix J. Brittain, Franklin D.
Brogdon, John D. Brown, Marcus R. Buice, Phillip R.
Buice, Kenneth L. Carver, Ancil D. Chambers, Alvin
B. Chewning, Buddy E. Cooper, Richard Darnell, John
M. Dixon, Clifford L. Dunson, Bruce W. Elzey, T.L.
Fortenberry, Donald T. Fox, Creighton T. Fuller, Ken-
neth Gates, Oscor C. Griffeth, Gary N. Griswell, Don-
ald E. Harvey, Robert C. Hice, Benny F. Hickey,
Loyed J. Hillard, Buddy Holt, Donald L. Jenkins, Er-
win D. Jones, Jack E. Keen, Michael W. Kelley, Billy
G. Lummus, James H. Mabry, David E. Manis, Mi-
chael Martin, Joe A. McWilliams, Henry R. Meyer, Jr.,
Clinton R. Mulkey, Ronald J. New, David K. Noland,
James R. Noland, Jr., Tommy C. Parrott, Howard W.
Payne, Dewayne E. Richmond, Ricardo Rogers, Jarell
Scott, Glenn A. Shuler, Willie R. Simmons, Spencer
Smith, Eugene Spraggs, Larry S. Stanley, Jarred L.
Starnes, Wade B. Stephens, Oscar A. Stovall, James D.
Street, Darrel E. Timpson, Lester L. Torbush, Robert L.
Turner, Kermit W. Warcop, Phillip Weaver, Felix G.
Whiten, Andrew E. Williams, Ralph E. Williamson,
David L. Wooten, Michael A. Yancey, Ronnie B. Zas-
trow
Local 96–B Strikers
Hollis Bagwell, Mildred Blake, Janice Bolton, John
Bolton, Roger Brantley, Lenore Buice, John Carson,
David Constans, Bobby Craddock, Stan Cunningham,
Morris Darnell, Randy Dewberry, Lex Dockery,
Melvin Dukes, Leon Furgusson, Elizabeth Freeman,
Nancy Frix, Alan Green, George Grieves, Virginia
Hannah, William C. Haynes, James Hogsed, Mary In-
gram, Tommy Johnson, Byran Laird, Charles Ledford,
Debra Meacham, Gertrude Morton, Mildred Newsome,
Ann Nuckles, James Osborne, Nancy Overcash, Jerry
Parks, Jackie Pressley, Lori Richards-Spraggs, JoAnn
Slaton, Van Spraggs, Walter J. Tipton, Betty Toole, C.
Wayne Torbush, Howard P. Ward, John B. Watson,
Patricia A. Williams, Betty Williamson.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to
our unlawful failure to reinstate the former strikers and
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the failure to rein-
state will not be used against them in any way.

AMERSIG GRAPHICS, INC., AND
AMERSIG SOUTHEAST, INC. D/B/A
AMERICAN SIGNA-TURE, INC.

APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to timely reinstate unfair
labor practice strikers to their former positions of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to timely furnish Local
96–B, Graphic Communications International Union, and
Local 8–M, Graphic Communications International Un-
ion information that is relevant and necessary to their
role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, offer the following employees full rein-
statement to their former jobs, discharging, if necessary,
any employees currently in those positions, or if these
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed:
Local 8–M Strikers
Davis L. Adams, Carroll H. Allen, John C. Allen, Ken-
neth R. Baker, William E. Baldwin, Charles P. Banks,
Herbert L. Barber, Harold V. Barnes, James R. Bivins,
Jr., Terry Boss, Robert H. Braddock, Jr., Billy J.
Brannon, Harold G. Bray, Felix J. Brittain, Franklin D.
Brogdon, John D. Brown, Marcus R. Buice, Phillip R.
Buice, Kenneth L. Carver, Ancil D. Chambers, Alvin
B. Chewning, Buddy E. Cooper, Richard Darnell, John
M. Dixon, Clifford L. Dunson, Bruce W. Elzey, T.L.
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 889
Fortenberry, Donald T. Fox, Creighton T. Fuller, Ken-
neth Gates, Oscor C. Griffeth, Gary N. Griswell, Don-
ald E. Harvey, Robert C. Hice, Benny F. Hickey,
Loyed J. Hillard, Buddy Holt, Donald L. Jenkins, Er-
win D. Jones, Jack E. Keen, Michael W. Kelley, Billy
G. Lummus, James H. Mabry, David E. Manis, Mi-
chael Martin, Joe A. McWilliams, Henry R. Meyer, Jr.,
Clinton R. Mulkey, Ronald J. New, David K. Noland,
James R. Noland, Jr., Tommy C. Parrott, Howard W.
Payne, Dewayne E. Richmond, Ricardo Rogers, Jarell
Scott, Glenn A. Shuler, Willie R. Simmons, Spencer
Smith, Eugene Spraggs, Larry S. Stanley, Jarred L.
Starnes, Wade B. Stephens, Oscar A. Stovall, James D.
Street, Darrel E. Timpson, Lester L. Torbush, Robert L.
Turner, Kermit W. Warcop, Phillip Weaver, Felix G.
Whiten, Andrew E. Williams, Ralph E. Williamson,
David L. Wooten, Michael A. Yancey, Ronnie B. Zas-
trow
Local 96–B Strikers
Hollis Bagwell, Mildred Blake, Janice Bolton, John
Bolton, Roger Brantley, Lenore Buice, John Carson,
David Constans, Bobby Craddock, Stan Cunningham,
Morris Darnell, Randy Dewberry, Lex Dockery,
Melvin Dukes, Leon Furgusson, Elizabeth Freeman,
Nancy Frix, Alan Green, George Grieves, Virginia
Hannah, William C. Haynes, James Hogsed, Mary In-
gram, Tommy Johnson, Byran Laird, Charles Ledford,
Debra Meacham, Gertrude Morton, Mildred Newsome,
Ann Nuckles, James Osborne, Nancy Overcash, Jerry
Parks, Jackie Pressley, Lori Richards-Spraggs, JoAnn
Slaton, Van Spraggs, Walter J. Tipton, Betty Toole, C.
Wayne Torbush, Howard P. Ward, John B. Watson,
Patricia A. Williams, Betty Williamson.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Respondent
Amersig Graphics, Inc., and Amersig Southeast, Inc.,
d/b/a American Signature, Inc., make whole the employ-
ees named above for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to
our unlawful failure to reinstate the former strikers and
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the failure to rein-
state will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL furnish Local 96–B, Graphic Communica-
tions International Union, in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by it in letters dated January 22 and 28,
February 14 and 20, March 27, April 8 and 18, May 11,
June 2, and August 23, 1997.
WE WILL furnish Local 8–M, Graphic Communica-
tions International Union, in a timely manner, the infor-
mation requested by it in letters dated February 20, May
13, and June 27, 1997.
QUEBECOR PRINTING ATLANTA, INC.
APPENDIX C
Local 8–M Strikers
Davis L. Adams, Carroll H. Allen, John C. Allen, Ken-
neth R. Baker, William E. Baldwin, Charles P. Banks,
Herbert L. Barber, Harold V. Barnes, James R. Bivins,
Jr., Terry Boss, Robert H. Braddock, Jr., Billy J.
Brannon, Harold G. Bray, Felix J. Brittain, Franklin D.
Brogdon, John D. Brown, Marcus R. Buice, Phillip R.
Buice, Kenneth L. Carver, Ancil D. Chambers, Alvin
B. Chewning, Buddy E. Cooper, Richard Darnell, John
M. Dixon, Clifford L. Dunson, Bruce W. Elzey, T.L.
Fortenberry, Donald T. Fox, Creighton T. Fuller, Ken-
neth Gates, Oscor C. Griffeth, Gary N. Griswell, Don-
ald E. Harvey, Robert C. Hice, Benny F. Hickey,
Loyed J. Hillard, Buddy Holt, Donald L. Jenkins, Er-
win D. Jones, Jack E. Keen, Michael W. Kelley, Billy
G. Lummus, James H. Mabry, David E. Manis, Mi-
chael Martin, Joe A. McWilliams, Henry R. Meyer, Jr.,
Clinton R. Mulkey, Ronald J. New, David K. Noland,
James R. Noland, Jr., Tommy C. Parrott, Howard W.
Payne, Dewayne E. Richmond, Ricardo Rogers, Jarell
Scott, Glenn A. Shuler, Willie R. Simmons, Spencer
Smith, Eugene Spraggs, Larry S. Stanley, Jarred L.
Starnes, Wade B. Stephens, Oscar A. Stovall, James D.
Street, Darrel E. Timpson, Lester L. Torbush, Robert L.
Turner, Kermit W. Warcop, Phillip Weaver, Felix G.
Whiten, Andrew E. Williams, Ralph E. Williamson,
David L. Wooten, Michael A. Yancey, Ronnie B. Zas-
trow
Local 96–B Strikers
Hollis Bagwell, Mildred Blake, Janice Bolton, John
Bolton, Roger Brantley, Lenore Buice, John Carson,
David Constans, Bobby Craddock, Stan Cunningham,
Morris Darnell, Randy Dewberry, Lex Dockery,
Melvin Dukes, Leon Furgusson, Elizabeth Freeman,
Nancy Frix, Alan Green, George Grieves, Virginia
Hannah, William C. Haynes, James Hogsed, Mary In-
gram, Tommy Johnson, Byran Laird, Charles Ledford,
Debra Meacham, Gertrude Morton, Mildred Newsome,
Ann Nuckles, James Osborne, Nancy Overcash, Jerry
Parks, Jackie Pressley, Lori Richards-Spraggs, JoAnn
Slaton, Van Spraggs, Walter J. Tipton, Betty Toole, C.
Wayne Torbush, Howard P. Ward, John B. Watson,
Patricia A. Williams, Betty Williamson

Jeffery D. Williams, Esq., for the General Counsel.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 890
Harry J. Secaras, Esq., for the Respondent, Amersig.
Russell Morris, Esq., for the Respondent, Quebecor.
Thomas A. Allison, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard before me on June 30 and July 1 and 2,
1998, in Atlanta, Georgia, pursuant to an amended consolidated
complaint filed by the Regional Director of Region 10 of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on April 2, 1998,
and is based on charges filed by Graphic Communications,
International Union AFL–CIO (the Charging Party or the Un-
ion) alleging the commission of violations of the National La-
bor Relations Act (the Act) by AmerSig Graphics, Inc., and
AmerSig Southeast, Inc. d/b/a American Signature, Inc.
(Respondent AmerSig), and Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc.,
(Respondent Quebecor). The complaint is joined by the an-
swers of Respondents AmerSig and Quebecor as amended at
the hearing wherein they deny the commission of any violations
of the Act.
On the entire record in this proceeding, including my obser-
vations of the witnesses who testified here and the exhibits
received in evidence and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the parties, and their contentions at the hearing, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1
I. JURISDICTION
A. The Business of Respondents
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit in part, and I find
on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence that at all material
times prior to January 22, 1997, Respondent AmerSig, a Dela-
ware corporation, had and maintained an office and place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia, where it had been engaged in the
business of commercial printing, that during the 12-month pe-
riod preceding January 22, 1997, Respondent AmerSig, in con-
ducting its aforesaid business operations purchased and re-
ceived products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sup-
pliers located outside the State of Georgia, and was an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and at all material times since January
22, 1997, Respondent Quebecor, has been a Delaware corpora-
tion with an office and place of business in Atlanta, Georgia,
where it has been engaged in the business of commercial print-
ing and sold and shipped from its Atlanta, Georgia facility,
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Georgia and was an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
B. The Labor Organization
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that at
all times material here, the Union and its Locals 8–M and 96–B

1 This decision includes a composite of the credited testimony of the
witnesses at the hearing, the exhibits received in evidence and stipula-
tions of facts.
collectively called the Union are, and have been, each a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
C. The Successorship Issue
The complaint alleges and the record supports a finding that
on or about January 22, 1997, Respondent Quebecor took pos-
session of all assets of Respondent AmerSig’s Atlanta, Georgia
facility, and since then has been engaging in the same business
operations at the same location, providing the same services,
and has employed as a majority of its employees, individuals
who were previously employees of Respondent AmerSig, and
that Quebecor has continued the employing entity and is a suc-
cessor to Respondent AmerSig.
The Appropriate Unit
The parties stipulated at the hearing, and I find that as of
January 23, 1997, Quebecor had employed 203 employees in
bargaining unit jobs, 88 of which were in the 8–M bargaining
unit which represented pressroom and preparatory department
employees and 115 of which were in the 96–B bargaining unit
which represented bindery and mailing department employees.
In a prior decision issued by Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Howard I. Grossman, on December 27, 1996, and
adopted by the Board in the absence of exceptions in Foote &
Davis, Inc., d/b/a American Signature, Case 17–CA–16090 on
March 14, 1997, the ALJ found that in 1992, in Atlanta, Local
8–M represented 120 pressroom and preparatory department
employees and Local 96–B represented about 170 bindery and
shipping and receiving employees of AmerSig.
Facts
Foote & Davies, Inc. (Foote), a Georgia corporation owned
printing facilities in Atlanta, Georgia; Lincoln, Nebraska; Dal-
las, Texas; and Memphis, Tennessee, which were acquired in
1990 by ASG Acquisition Corp. d/b/a American Signature, Inc.
(ASG), with financing provided by Heller Financial, Inc.
(Heller), a Chicago-based financial services company and sub-
sidiary of Fuji Bank. ASG failed to make required payments to
Heller and in 1992 Heller obtained control of ASG’s facilities
by deeds in lieu of foreclosure. This case involves only the
Atlanta, Georgia facility.
When AmerSig took over the Atlanta facility from Foote in
November 1992, the pressroom employees were represented by
Graphic Communications International Union Local 8–M and
the bindery employees were represented by Graphic Communi-
cations International Union Local 96–B. AmerSig made sev-
eral unilateral changes and refused to hire approximately 33
unit employees because of their union support and activities
and the Union called a strike on April 29, 1993, and filed
charges with the Board against AmerSig. A complaint was
issued and the case was heard in November and December
1995. Heller had been seeking to sell AmerSig for several
years prior to 1998. In October 1996 Heller entered into exclu-
sive negotiations with Quebecor for the sale of AmerSig to
Quebecor.
The strike called by the Union in 1993 had been ongoing and
shortly prior to September 27, 1996, the Union’s representa-
tives became aware of Quebecor’s interest in the purchase of
AmerSig. The Union sent Quebecor a letter dated September
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 891
27, 1996, informing Quebecor of its status as collective-
bargaining representative of the pressroom and bindery em-
ployees at the Atlanta facility and of the ongoing strike, the
pending case, and the underlying complaints and charges. Cop-
ies of the complaints and charges were enclosed with the letter.
On October 9, 1996, Quebecor issued a press release which
announced an agreement in principle between Quebecor and
AmerSig and which provided for the purchase of AmerSig by
Quebecor in a stock transaction. On October 10, 1996, Amer-
Sig notified its employees by a written memorandum that it
would be acquired by Quebecor with a projected closing date of
November 30, 1996. On November 23, 1996, Locals 8–M and
96–B made an unconditional offer to return to work to AmerSig
on behalf of the striking employees and on about the same date
Quebecor was given written notification by the Locals of the
unconditional offer to return to AmerSig. On November 25,
1996, AmerSig issued a memorandum to its employees at the
facility notifying them of the unconditional offer to return to
work and assuring them that their status as employees working
at the facility would not be affected.
On December 4, 1996, the Union sent the charge in Case 10–
CA–29813 to Region 10 of the Board with a copy to Respon-
dent Quebecor which alleged an unlawful refusal and failure to
reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers to their former posi-
tions. On December 5, 1996, Respondent AmerSig sent a letter
to the former strikers informing them that Respondent consid-
ered them economic strikers who had been permanently re-
placed and would be reinstated as vacancies occur. Patrick
Pesch, a senior vice president and senior corporate credit offi-
cer of Heller Financial, Inc., who is also a member of the board
of directors and executive vice president of AmerSig testified
that the board of directors of AmerSig had been advised by
their attorney that the strikers were economic strikers who
could be permanently replaced rather than unfair labor practice
strikers who were entitled to reinstatement to their former posi-
tions upon their unconditional offer to return to work. On
December 6, 1996, Respondent AmerSig sent letters to the
Locals acknowledging receipt of the unconditional offer to
return to work and notifying them that the strikers were
economic strikers who had been permanently replaced and
would be placed on a preferential hire list and reinstated as
vacancies occurred. These letters of December 6 were the first
direct response to the Union’s unconditional offer to return to
work made on behalf of the strikers on November 23.
Subsequently on December 12, 1996, AmerSig offered rein-
statement to seven of the former strikers. The Union wrote a
letter to AmerSig on December 9, 1996, notifying it that the
Union disagreed with AmerSig’s position that the former
strikers were economic strikers. The parties agreed to meet on
December 17 to discuss the issue with no agreement reached as
to the status of the former strikers or the appropriate method of
reinstatement. At that meeting AmerSig also informed the
Union that it was anticipated that the sale to Quebecor would be
concluded by the end of the year. AmerSig also informed the
Union that there would be no probationary period for the
former strikers and also did not assert that an orientation would
be necessary. Administrative Law Judge Grossman issued his decision on
December 27, 1996, and found that the strikers were unfair
labor practice strikers, thus, entitling them to reinstatement
upon their unconditional offer to return to work. A copy of this
decision was mailed to Quebecor by the Union on January 6,
1997. The decision was adopted by the Board on March 14,
1997, in the absence of exceptions.
AmerSig sent two letters to the former strikers on January 8,
1997. One letter informed them that AmerSig was offering
them their former positions, shifts and rates of pay, and directed
them to contact AmerSig by January 13, 1997, concerning their
reinstatements. The second letter informed the former strikers
that the negotiations with Quebecor were completed and that
the sale of AmerSig to Quebecor was to take effect on January
15, 1997, that they would no longer have a job with AmerSig
on completion of the sale and would have to apply with Quebe-
cor.
International Union Vice President Charles Ellington testi-
fied that he received a telephone call from Quebecor’s senior
vice president and general labor law counsel, Don Bush, who
informed him that Quebecor had purchased the assets of Amer-
Sig. Ellington informed Bush that Quebecor was obliged to
reinstate the former strikers to their former positions as the
Union had made an unconditional offer to return on their be-
half. Bush, however, informed Ellington that Quebecor would
accept applications from the public, including the former strik-
ers and would select its employees through its own selection
process. During that conversation Bush informed Ellington that
there were one or two new items of equipment at the plant, but
that no problems were foreseen with the operation of this
equipment by the former strikers. Ellington sent a letter to
Bush on January 9, 1997, outlining this conversation of January
8, and asserting that Quebecor was liable to remedy the viola-
tions found by the ALJ which had not been remedied by Amer-
Sig and also asserted the Union’s opposition to Quebecor’s
stated application process requiring the former strikers to apply
for positions with Quebecor. Ellington asserted the Union’s
position that Quebecor was obligated to reinstate the former
strikers. Ellington followed up this conversation with a letter
dated January 10, 1997, asserting the Union’s position that the
January 8 offers to the former strikers made by AmerSig were
not valid and constituted an attempt by AmerSig to escape its
obligation to reinstate them. Ellington remarked in his letter
that the January 8 letters were sent long after the unconditional
offer to return to work. He also noted in his letter that the of-
fers of reinstatement directed the former strikers to reply to
AmerSig’s offer by January 13, 1997, which was only 2 days
prior to the date AmerSig was to terminate its operations.
On January 10, 1997, Quebecor sent a letter to the former
strikers notifying them that it had purchased the assets of Am-
erSig, inviting them to apply for employment with Quebecor at
designated dates, time, and place where it would be accepting
applications. Following the receipt of the January 8 letters
from AmerSig, many of the former strikers contacted AmerSig
seeking reinstatement. However, none were permitted to return
to the plant and commence work at their former positions.
Rather those who informed AmerSig of their immediate avail-
ability for work were told to report to an orientation to be held
at a hotel away from the plant. Former strikers who told Am-
erSig they must provide 2 weeks notice to their current em-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 892
ployer were not informed of the orientation but were told they
would be contacted later but were never contacted by AmerSig.
Some of the former strikers who attended the orientation be-
lieved it would only be 1 day. Some were told that if they
needed to give a 2-week notice to their current employer, there
would be no job for them when they subsequently reported for
work.
The orientation lasted 6 consecutive weekdays from Tues-
day, January 14 through Tuesday, January 21, 1997. The for-
mer strikers who were called to testify at the hearing testified
that at the orientation they received little or no training relevant
to their job duties and in the case of the bindery employees
were informed by AmerSig that no substantive changes had
occurred in their jobs during their absence. The pressmen were
given only rudimentary offsite training concerning new presses,
whereas training on new presses had always previously been
on-the-job training utilizing the actual presses. Former strikers
Kenneth Baker, John Holt, Joann Slaton, and Gertrude Morton
attended the orientation. Employee Ann Nuckles was returned
to her job in January without training. Employees Janice Bol-
ton and James Bivins told AmerSig’s representatives they
needed to give their current employer 2 weeks’ notice and were
not contacted again. Employee James Scott attempted to enter
the plant to return to his job but was turned away following his
receipt of the offer of reinstatement.
Vernon Harmon, AmerSig’s division director who was in
charge of the facility, testified he was advised by AmerSig’s
president, Marc Fors to prepare to take the former strikers back
to work. There were approximately 130 former strikers who
were eligible for reinstatement. Harmon testified he did not
know how many of them would choose to return to work and
their immediate assimilation into the work force could be a
problem and that he decided to conduct the orientation offsite
since there was not enough space at the facility and that he also
wanted to have a cooling off period prior to reinstating the for-
mer strikers to their former positions along with the replace-
ment workers and crossover former strikers who were then
working at the plant and whom he planned to retain for at least
a 30-day period. Harmon admitted that there had been no prob-
lems encountered when former strikers were returned to work
following the December 12, 1996 offers of reinstatement.
Harmon acknowledged that less than 20 former strikers ap-
peared for the first day of orientation and that they could have
been returned to their jobs rather than being required to attend
the orientation. Harmon who was subsequently hired by Que-
becor as a vice president and general manager of the Atlanta
facility on the date of the transfer of the assets from AmerSig to
Quebecor, acknowledged that some of the former strikers who
AmerSig required to go to the orientation were hired by Quebe-
cor and put to work immediately.
On January 15, 1997, the Union sent a letter to AmerSig in
which it stated that the orientation was a sham and an attempt
to avoid AmerSig’s obligation to reinstate the former strikers.
The Union also sent a letter to Quebecor on January 15 object-
ing to Quebecor’s requiring the former strikers to file applica-
tions and the Union demanded in that letter that Quebecor offer
reinstatement to the former strikers. Quebecor, by its letter of
January 17, 1997, reaffirmed its decision to select its initial
employee complement from the aforesaid pool of applicants
including but not limited to former strikers. The Union re-
sponded in two letters that Quebecor was a successor to Amer-
Sig and was required to reinstate the former strikers.
As of January 31, 1997, when Quebecor commenced opera-
tions at the facility, it employed 203 employees in bargaining
unit jobs, 88 of whom were in the Local 8–M unit and 150 of
whom were in the Local 96–B unit. Quebecor had not offered
all of the former strikers reinstatement to their former positions
and not all of the aforesaid 203 employees were former strikers
and discriminatees. AmerSig admitted that it did not reinstate
the former strikers to their former positions at least from No-
vember 23, 1996, when the Union made an unconditional offer
to return on their behalf through January 7, 1997, the day prior
to the January 8 letters. After its purchase of AmerSig’s assets,
Quebecor continued to operate the facility with substantially
the same employees, performing in the same positions, operat-
ing the same equipment with the same supervisors, and sub-
stantially the same labor relations personnel for substantially
the same customers.
The amended consolidated complaint also contained refusal-
to-provide information allegations against Respondent AmerSig
which were settled at the hearing pursuant to a bilateral infor-
mal settlement agreement which was entered into the record
and approved by me undersigned. The amended consolidated
complaint also contained allegations that Respondent Quebecor
refused to provide the Unions with information requested by
the Unions, unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union,
unilaterally implemented a practice of providing unit employ-
ees with Atlanta Braves’ tickets, and unlawfully laid off em-
ployees. Respondent Quebecor and counsel for the General
Counsel entered into an informal settlement agreement which
was entered into the record concerning these allegations. I
approved the settlement agreement as it pertained to the with-
drawal of recognition and unilateral awarding of Atlanta
Braves’ tickets. However, on objection from the Charging
Party Union, I reserved judgment concerning the refusal-to-
provide information allegation and the unlawful layoff allega-
tion. At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel made a
motion to amend the amended consolidated complaint to mod-
ify the unlawful layoff allegation to reflect that Respondent
Quebecor solicited volunteers from the bargaining units for
layoffs and I reserved judgment on this motion, also. I do not
approve the settlement agreement with respect to Quebecor’s
alleged refusal-to-provide information and the alleged unlawful
layoffs. I grant the General Counsel’s motion to reflect the
solicitation of volunteers.
With respect to the alleged refusal by Quebecor to furnish in-
formation, this concerns requests by Local 96–B by its letter of
January 22, 1997, to Quebecor for a seniority list which in-
cluded job classifications, seniority dates, and rate of pay, and
the reasons why Quebecor had not offered all of the former
strikers reinstatement to their prestrike positions. By January
28, 1997, Quebecor had not responded to these requests and on
that date Local 96–B directed two separate letters to Quebecor
which received the requests for information and Local 96–B
additionally requested the addresses, telephone numbers, race
and sex of the unit employees. This information was again
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 893
requested by Local 96–B by its letters of February 14 and
March 27, 1997. Quebecor only initially responded to these
requests by providing Local 96–B with a seniority list on April
1, 1997. On April 8, 1997, Local 96–B by its letter of that date
requested the names of bargaining unit employees who had
been laid off since the commencement of operations by Quebe-
cor at the facility and also requested bargaining over future
layoffs. In its letter of April 11, 1997, to Local 96–B, Quebe-
cor stated there had been no layoffs. By its letter of April 18,
1997, Local 96–B set out the reasons for its contention that the
seniority list provided on April 1, 1997, was deficient and also
disputed Quebecor’s contention in its April 11 letter that there
had been no layoffs and Local 96–B contended that there had
been layoffs on two dates in February 1997.
Local 96–B and Quebecor met on April 24, 1997, and Que-
becor gave Local 96–B another seniority list and acknowledged
that there had been layoffs of Local 96–B unit employees on
two dates in February 1997. On May 11, 1997, Local 96–B
directed another letter to Quebecor setting out the deficiencies
in the seniority list provided it by Quebecor on April 24, and
requested a new, corrected seniority list. Quebecor responded
by its letter of May 22, 1997, explaining its position with re-
spect to the seniority lists which it had provided to Local 96–B
and in this letter Quebecor also contended that Judge
Grossman’s decision was only applicable to AmerSig. In its
letter of June 2, 1997, Local 96–B set out its problems with the
seniority lists provided by Quebecor and requested current
seniority lists which request was renewed by Local 96–B’s
letter to Quebecor on August 23, 1997.
By its letter of May 13, 1997, Local 8–M demanded to bar-
gain over layoffs and Quebecor responded that it was entitled to
lay employees off on a temporary basis when there was an in-
terruption in work because of equipment failure or job comple-
tion, in accordance with its initial terms and conditions of em-
ployment. The reason for layoff of Local 96–B unit employees
on February 2 and 3 was lack of work.
The central issues in this case are:

1. Did American Signature violate Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers represented by Locals 8–M and 96–B, GCIU, to
their prestrike classifications and shifts following their
November 23, 1996, unconditional offer to return to work?
Answer—Yes.
2. Is Quebecor a successor to American Signature
with an obligation to reinstate the unfair labor practice
strikers after its purchase of the assets of American Signa-
ture on January 22, 1997, and did its failure and refusal to
reinstate the strikers violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act? Answer—Yes!
3. Did Quebecorr’s unilateral layoff of bargaining unit
employees, without affording notice to and opportunity to
bargain to Locals 8–M and 96–B, GCIU violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act? Answer—Yes!
4. Did Quebecor violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by its refusal to provide relevant information re-
quested by Locals 8–M and 96–B, GCIU? Answer—Yes!
Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel’s Position
The General Counsel contends that the crux of this case is
whether the January 8 letters from AmerSig to the former strik-
ers combined with the orientation constituted valid reinstate-
ment and contends that it did not. The General Counsel cites
Caterair International, 309 NLRB 869 (1992), in support of the
entitlement of unfair labor strikers to immediate reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment on their unconditional offer to return to work. He cites
Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809 (1995), in support of
the duty to reinstate former strikers even where replacement
workers have been hired to perform their jobs and that the re-
placement workers must be terminated, if necessary, to make
room for the reinstatement of the strikers.
The General Counsel contends that on receipt of the
unconditional offer to return AmerSig immediately made it
clear that under no circumstances would the replacement
employees be displaced by the former strikers as evidenced by
its memorandum distributed to its employees on November 25,
1996. The General Counsel asserts that AmerSig’s contention
that it sent the January 8 letters out on the earliest possible date
it could do so following Judge Grossman’s decision is not
credible. He contends that AmerSig sent out the January 8
letters to give an appearance of compliance with the ALJ’s
decision in order to avoid liability to Quebecor as its successor
by appearing to offer reinstatement to the former strikers
although it had no intention of terminating its replacement
workers. He notes that these reinstatement letters were sent
only 1 week prior to the anticipated sale of the facility to
Quebecor but that this was 6 weeks after the unconditional
offer to return was made. He contends that the orientation was
a sham designed to keep the former strikers away from the
plant and to delay their actual reinstatement until the sale was
consummated and Quebecor commenced its operations.
He thus contends that AmerSig has not reinstated the former
strikers to their prestrike positions. Consequently Quebecor is
liable to reinstate the former strikers as well as AmerSig as
Quebecor is an undisputed Burns successor in this case NLRB
v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972). The Union
put Quebecor on notice of the charges, complaint and proceed-
ings before Judge Grossman, the charge against AmerSig over
its refusal to immediately reinstate the former strikers, Judge
Grossman’s decision, AmerSig’s flawed January 1997 offers to
the former strikers, and the Union’s contention that Quebecor
would be a successor and liable to reinstate the former strikers.
Quebecor is a successor pursuant to Golden State Bottling Co.
v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973), and is thus obligated to reinstate
the former strikers and is jointly and severally liable along with
AmerSig for all backpay owed.
With respect to the information request allegations, the Gen-
eral Counsel contends that the seniority lists provided on April
1 and April 24, 1997, had some discrepancies and the Union
made a legitimate request for a current corrected seniority list
on May 11, 1997, which was never provided by Quebecor.
There is no evidence that Quebecor provided the Union with
the requested information concerning Quebecor’s use of tempo-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 894
rary employees in the Union’s efforts to find out the extent to
which Quebecor was utilizing temporary workers while there
were unreinstated former strikers. The General Counsel con-
tends that the foregoing information requests were necessary
and relevant to the performance of the Union’s role as
collective-bargaining representative, and therefore, was infor-
mation to which the Union was entitled, citing Central Manor
Home for Adults, 320 NLRB 1009 (1996).
With respect to the layoff of employees, the General Counsel
contends there is no evidence that Quebecor laid off employees
involuntarily but did on occasion lay employees off for lack of
work which type of layoffs are provided for in Quebecor’s
initial terms and conditions of employment. There is no evi-
dence that the Union requested bargaining over this layoff pro-
vision prior to the February 1997 layoffs. The motion to amend
the amended consolidated complaint to reflect the solicitation
of volunteers for these layoffs is pending before the administra-
tive Law Judge. Counsel for the General Counsel and Respon-
dent Quebecor have already submitted an executed informal
settlement into the record which resolves the soliciting of vol-
unteers for layoffs violation.
Charging Party’s Position
The Charging Party contends that as unfair labor practice
strikers, the strikers were entitled to immediate reinstatement to
their prestrike jobs and classifications on their unconditional
offer to end the strike and return to work. AmerSig was obli-
gated to displace junior strikers and replacement employees to
recall the strikers to their positions, citing Mastro Plastics
Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 278 (1956); and NLRB v. W. C.
McQuaide, Inc., 552 F.2d 519, 528–529 (3d Cir. 1977). Strik-
ers whose seniority entitled them to positions higher than their
prestriker positions are entitled to reinstatement to those higher
positions, citing Mooney Aircraft, 164 NLRB 1102, 1103
(1967); and NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part One) Compli-
ance Section 10527.2 (1993).
The Charging Party contends that AmerSig knowingly chose
not to recall the strikers to their prestrike jobs, but to treat them
as permanently replaced economic strikers. AmerSig’s attor-
ney briefed its board of directors concerning the difference
between unfair labor practice and economic strikers and in-
formed them that if the Board found them to be unfair labor
practice strikers, AmerSig would be liable for backpay from
November 23, 1996, until the strikers were reinstated. Relying
on their attorney’s prediction that AmerSig would prevail in the
case, the directors elected to disregard the striker’s statutory
rights as unfair labor practice strikers and accordingly know-
ingly assumed liability to make the strikers whole for their loss
of earnings from November 23, 1996, until their reinstatement
to their prestrike jobs, in the event the strikers were found to be
unfair labor practice strikers. Immediately after receiving the
striker’s unconditional offer to return to work, AmerSig assured
the nonstriking and replacement employees in writing that their
employment would not be affected thereby and on December 5
and 6, 1996, AmerSig wrote to the strikers and the Unions tell-
ing them that all of the strikers had been permanently replaced.
On December 27, 1996, Judge Grossman found the strikers to
be unfair labor practice strikers and accordingly AmerSig’s
treatment of the strikers as economic strikers, and its refusal to
accept their unconditional offer to return to work on November
23, 1996, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Charging Party also contends that AmerSig’s January 8,
1997 “offers of reinstatement” without actually recalling the
strikers to their jobs were not valid offers and did not remedy
its violation of the Act. Regardless of what the strikers did to
get back their jobs including completion of questionnaires in
December, telephoning AmerSig after receiving the January 8
“offers,” driving to the plant gates, or attending an 8-day “ori-
entation” at a remote hotel, the unfair labor practice strikers
were not allowed to return to their prestrike jobs in the 8 weeks
after making their unconditional offer to return to work. Con-
sequently, as of the sale of the Atlanta facility to Quebecor on
January 22, 1997, AmerSig had not met its obligation under the
Act to recall the unfair labor practice strikers and its violation
of Section 8(a)(3) remained unremedied at the time the plant
was sold to Quebcor.
It is undisputed that “no one” who received the January 8
“offers of reinstatement” was ever allowed to return to work at
AmerSig. AmerSig never intended to actually reinstate the
strikers to their prestrike jobs. The AmerSig “script” devised
by Marc Fors, AmerSig’s President, and Rody Biggert (Amer-
Sig’s former attorney), was:

(1) If a striker who received the ‘offer of reinstate-
ment’ told American Signature that he had to give 2
weeks’ notice to his interim employer, the Company said
OK, and never contacted the striker again. A striker who
needed to give two weeks notice was never reinstated to
his pre-strike job.
(2) If the striker said he could return to work immedi-
ately, American Signature sent him to the Raddison Hotel
for an eight-day ‘orientation’ which was scheduled to end
after the plant was sold, to Quebecor. A striker who could
return to work immediately was never reinstated to his
pre-strike job. Whatever a striker did, and as hard as he
might try, there was no avenue available by which he was
allowed to actually return to work.

The Charging Party argues further that AmerSig’s communica-
tions to the replacement employees confirm it never intended to
return the strikers to their jobs. On Monday, November 26,
1996, immediately after receiving the November 23 uncondi-
tional offer to return to work, it posted a notice in the plant
assuring the nonstrikers and replacement employees that their
employment would not be affected by the unconditional offer to
return to work. On January 9 and 10, 1997, after the mailing of
the January 8 offers of reinstatement, AmerSig held in-plant
meetings of the nonstrikers and replacement employees and
again assured them their employment at AmerSig would not be
affected. AmerSig never took any action to return the former
strikers to their jobs or to alert the nonstrikers and replacement
employees that it would be doing so. Nor did it ever terminate
any replacement employees.
AmerSig’s “good faith” or “bad faith” is irrelevant to the ob-
jective fact that the unfair labor practice strikers were never
recalled to their jobs. The evidence is overwhelming that the 8-
day “orientation” was as the Union claimed at the time “a bla-
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 895
tantly phony attempt to terminate its legal obligations to rein-
state the former strikers at the same time that (American Signa-
ture) is continuing its illegal refusal to reinstate these employ-
ees, in fact.” The returning strikers were senior employees with
decades of experience and there was no need for them to be
“trained” on jobs which they had performed for many years.
AmerSig had already recalled several strikers to their prestrike
jobs in December 1996 without any orientation or training and
without any problem. There was no evidence that the jobs of
the former strikers had changed significantly during the strike.
When Quebecor began operations 1 week later, it recalled
many unfair labor practice strikers without any training or ori-
entation and without any adverse effect on production. The
substance of the 8-day orientation confirms it was simply a
device to keep the strikers out of the plant until it was sold.
The entire first day of the orientation was spent filling out
forms, a procedure which took less than an hour for the return-
ing strikers in December. The next 3 days of the orientation
were spent sitting in a hotel room while trainers talked about
equipments that the strikers had operated for years. On one
occasion the strikers were sent by AmerSig on a useless field
trip to visit a plate manufacturer although it had never before
done so. AmerSig’s assertion that it required an offsite orienta-
tion because it did not know how many strikers would return
should be rejected as in fact only 15 former strikers and 3 dis-
criminatees were able to return to work immediately. Harmon
admitted that once AmerSig learned of this small number, there
was no reason those 15 employees should not have been re-
turned to work that day. Nor can AmerSig’s claimed fear of its
concern of the physical return of the strikers justify its refusal
to honor their statutory rights. There were no confrontations or
other problems when strikers returned in December and early
January. In making this argument AmerSig admits that the 8-
day orientation was designed to keep the strikers out of the
plant. Any argument that AmerSig had no choice but to recall
strikers to jobs that did not exist because of the limited time
period between Judge Grossman’s decision of December 27
and the sale of the plant on January 22 should be rejected as
this situation was the sole result of its own illegal actions. It
chose not to hire the 33 union activists when Heller took over
the Atlanta facility in November 1992. This illegal action re-
sulted in the unfair labor practice strike. After consultation
with its attorney, AmerSig made the deliberate decision not to
accept the unconditional offer to return to work. If it had rein-
stated the strikers in November 1996 it would not have found
itself “jammed” when it sold the plant in January 1997.
The Charging Party contends that the Board’s case law con-
firms that the January 8 letters were not valid offers of rein-
statement citing Fabsteel Co. of Louisiana, 231 NLRB 372
(1977), enfd. 587 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1979), where the Board
adopted the ALJ’s holding that, “[A] respondent obligated to
remedy unfair labor practices of a predecessor in the process of
litigation, including the reinstatement of unfair labor practice
strikers, acts at its peril if it does not reinstate such unfair labor
practice strikers,” 231 NLRB at 379. In that case the Board
also held that a belated “offer of reinstatement” (by the prede-
cessor employer) was ineffective. The offer had to be to the
strikers’ actual jobs which were then under the control of the
Golden State successor. The “offer of jobs away from the em-
ploying enterprise which is continuing does not constitute an
offer of reinstatement which effectuates the purpose of the
Act.” 231 NLRB at 380. In Weco Cleaning Specialists, 308
NLRB 310, 319 (1992), the Board held that letters purporting
to offer reinstatement to employees who had not been hired by
a successor employer, when in fact it had no jobs available, was
a clumsy attempt to cut off backpay and was not a valid offer.
In IMCO/International Measurement Corp., 277 NLRB 962,
968 (1985), the Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the em-
ployer’s “offer of reinstatement” to an unlawfully discharged
employee was not valid when the evidence showed that the
Employer had gone through the formalities of a job offer but in
practice had rebuffed the discharged employee’s efforts to seek
reinstatement at every opportunity. The Charging Party also
asserts there is a substantial body of Board precedent holding
that once strikers make an unconditional offer to return to work,
their employer cannot condition their reinstatement citing
Domsey Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 794 (1993), where it
was held improper for an employer to condition reinstatement
of strikers on filling out applications. The Charging Party con-
tends that as there was no production reason why the strikers in
the instant case could not have been immediately reinstated to
their jobs, conditioning their return to their prestrike jobs on
their attendance at the “orientation” at the hotel for 8 days did
not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement.
The Charging Party thus urges the conclusion that as a result
of AmerSig’s refusal to honor the striking employees’ Novem-
ber 23 unconditional offer to return to work, none of the strik-
ers were reinstated to their prestrike jobs and that the January 8
letters to the strikers were not valid offers of reinstatement and
that as of January 22, 1997, when Quebecor purchased the as-
sets of AmerSig, AmerSig had not fulfilled its legal obligation
to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers to their prestrike
positions.
The Charging Party contends that Quebecor’s refusal to rein-
state the unfair labor practice strikers violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act as Quebecor was a Golden State successor.
The obligation of a purchaser of a business to remedy a seller’s
unfair labor practices was established in Perma Vinyl Corp.,
164 NLRB 968 (1967), enfd. sub nom United States Pipe &
Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 398 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1968), and ap-
proved by the United States Supreme Court in Golden State. In
Perma Vinyl, the Board held that a purchaser of a business
assumes the seller’s obligation to remedy unfair labor practices
if (1) it operates the facility in essentially the same form as the
seller, and (2) it had notice of the seller’s unfair labor practices.
In Golden State, the Supreme Court enforced the Board’s order
against the purchaser, finding it was a successor under the Act
and was required to remedy the seller’s unfair labor practices,
and that the purchaser and the seller were jointly and severally
liable for any backpay. The Charging Party also contends that
the Board has routinely applied the Golden State doctrine to
situations involving unreinstated unfair labor practice strikers
citing Proxy Communications of Manhattan, 290 NLRB 540
(1988), where the Board found that Proxy was a successor to
Federated both under Burns (with respect to the bargaining
obligation) and under Golden State (with respect to the obliga-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 896
tion to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers upon their
unconditional offer to return). The Board stated in Proxy at
290 NLRB 543:
An emphasis on victimized employees is especially [impor-
tant] in this case where the victimized employees were on
strike as a result of Federated’s unfair labor practices—thus
entitling the strikers to reinstatement on their unconditional
offer to return to work. Further, the Respondent was aware of
these facts and still decided to hire all of the striking employ-
ees’ replacements. This shows that the Respondent essen-
tially continued unaltered the job situations of Federated’s
strikers and, thereby, their legitimate expectations that Feder-
ated’s unfair labor practices would be remedied.
The Charging Party argues in its brief that the Golden State
criteria are met in this case as Quebecor had knowledge of Am-
erSig’s unfair labor practices and continued AmerSig’s opera-
tions without substantial change. The Charging Party cites the
several communications from the Union to Quebecor fully
informing it of the pending unfair labor practices against Am-
erSig, including the ALJ’s decision. The Charging Party cites
the September 27, 1996 letter from GCIU International presi-
dent, James J. Norton, to Pierre Peladeau, president of Quebe-
cor advising him of the outstanding National Labor Relations
Board charges and complaints against AmerSig, the November
23, 1996 mailing and faxing to Peladeau and James A. Dawson,
president of Quebecor’s United States subsidiary, copies of the
unconditional offer to return to work by Local 8–M President
Hal Landis and Local 96–B President James Osborne. The
Charging Party also notes that on December 4, 1996, Union
Attorney Thomas D. Allison sent Peladeau and Dawson copies
of the unfair labor practice charge in Case 10–CA–29813,
involving AmerSig’s refusal to reinstate the former unfair labor
practice strikers. The Charging Party also notes that the asset
purchase agreement, signed by Quebecor and Heller on Sep-
tember 27, 1996, specifically refers to the cases pending before
the Administrative Law Judge as does the new unfair labor
practice charge filed on December 4, 1996. Furthermore, on
December 30, 1996, and January 6, 1997, AmerSig and the
Unions sent copies of the ALJ’s decision to Quebecor. The
Charging Party notes that the parties stipulated at the hearing
that, after it purchased the assets of AmerSig on January 23,
1997, Quebecor continued to carry on the business without
interruption or substantial change in method of operation, em-
ployee complement, or supervisory personnel. The Charging
Party thus concludes that under Golden State, Quebecor as-
sumed AmerSig’s legal obligation to reinstate the unfair labor
practice strikers. The Charging Party argues that nothing in the
record provides any basis for Quebecor to claim that it had any
meaningful assurance from AmerSig or the Union that Amer-
Sig’s unfair labor practices had been remedied.
With respect to the layoff of bargaining unit employees by
Quebecor, the Charging Party objected at the hearing to the
General Counsel’s motion to amend paragraph 34(b) of the
complaint to allege that Quebecor had implemented a policy of
voluntary layoffs and the effort to settle that allegation with a
posting and no backpay to the laid off employees. I reserved
judgment on this motion. I grant the General Counsel’s motion
only with respect to the amendment of the complaint.
The Charging Party contends in reliance on the evidence es-
tablished at the hearing that Quebecor involuntarily laid off
bargaining unit employees on February 3 and 4, 1997, selecting
a few employees to remain and clean the machines. When
Local 96–B inquired about these layoffs, Quebecor initially
denied it but admitted on April 24 that employees had been laid
off. (Tr. 253–254, 298–299, 419–421.) Employee Ruth Long
testified at the hearing that the layoffs had occurred. (Tr. 380–
381, 387–388.) Quebecor thereafter laid off employees in both
bargaining units again without notice to or bargaining with the
Unions despite their requests for notice and bargaining (GC
Exh. 33; CP Exh. 21). At the hearing Quebecor produced
documents for the first time in response to the Union’s sub-
poena, which showed it had engaged in additional layoffs since
January 22, 1997 (Tr. 559; CP Exh. 36).
The Charging Party argues that it is well established that the
layoff of employees is a mandatory bargaining subject, and that
an employers’ failure to notify and bargain about layoffs is a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act citing First Na-
tional Maintaince v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 667 (1981). Improp-
erly laid-off employees are entitled to backpay for the periods
of their unilateral layoffs citing Adair Standish Corp., 292
NLRB 890 (1989), enfd. 912 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1990). Quebe-
cor’s argument (that the terms and conditions of employment
which it unilaterally implemented on January 22, 1997, gave it
the authority to lay off employees) should be rejected. Even if
the layoffs were voluntary as asserted by Quebecor (a claim
which the evidence does not support) the layoffs and the selec-
tion of employees for layoffs are still mandatory bargaining
subjects and Quebecor’s unilateral actions were still a violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In Farina Corp., 310
NLRB 318, 320 (1993), the Board held that once a union repre-
sents its employees, the employer is obligated to notify and
bargain with the union regarding layoffs and until there is a
collective-bargaining agreement governing layoffs, the em-
ployer is obligated to bargain over any decision to lay off as
well as the effects of the decision. In the absence of a contract
conferring the right to lay off employees, layoffs are not a man-
agement prerogative in a bargaining unit having union repre-
sentation.
Quebecor’s unilateral layoffs of bargaining unit employees,
without notice to or bargaining with the Local Unions, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and the unilaterally laid-off
employees are entitled to backpay. In view of Quebecor’s ille-
gal refusal-to-provide information concerning the names and
duties of all bargaining unit employees since January 22, 1997,
and the dates on which they were laid off, all of the laid-off
employees should be entitled to backpay.
Quebecor refused to provide relevant information requested
by the Unions, in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. An employer is obligated to provide information required
by a bargaining representative for the proper performance of its
duties. The information must be relevant and of use to the Un-
ion’s duty to represent, NLRB v. Acme Industrial, Co., 385 U.S.
432, 435–436 (1967). “[I]nformation directly related to wages,
hours[,] or other terms and conditions of employment of unit
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 897
employees is ‘presumptively relevant’ to the Union’s represen-
tative duties; such information is prima facie required to be
produced and the employer bears the burden of showing a lack
of relevance.” Operating Engineer Local 12, 237 NLRB 1556,
1558 (1978.) An “unreasonable delay in furnishing requested
information is as much a violation of the Act as an out-and-out
refusal to supply such information.” Teamters Local 921 (San
Francisco Newspaper), 309 NLRB 901, 902 (1992). Further-
more “subsequent compliance with a request for information
does not cure the unlawful refusal to supply the information in
a timely manner and belated compliance with a request for such
information does not render moot a complaint of an unlawful
refusal . . . to supply the requested information.” Local 921
(San Francisco Newspaper), supra. In the instant case, it is
undisputed that Quebecor repeatedly refused to provide infor-
mation requested by Locals 8–M and 96–B which was directly
related to their representation of bargaining unit employees.
Quebecor refused to provide the names, classifications, hire
dates, seniority dates, race, sex, addresses, telephone numbers
,and rates of pay of bargaining unit employees. This informa-
tion is directly related to the Unions’ representation of employ-
ees. See Valley Programs, 300 NLRB 423 (1990), and cases
cited therein. Although the Unions initially requested this in-
formation on January 22, 1997 (GC Exh. 14), the day Quebecor
purchased the Atlanta facility and regularly repeated it (GC
Exhs. 15–19, 23, 25, 27, 34, 38; CP Exh. 16) Quebecor did not
respond to these requests until April 1997 when it provided
some of the information but refused to produce classifications,
seniority dates, and to correct clearly erroneous information.
Although the Unions continued to request updated information
about bargaining unit employees, after April 1997 (GC Exhs.
25, 27–28, 34) it never provided any further information con-
cerning bargaining unit employees (Tr 317–318, 426–432, 449–
452). Accordingly, Quebecor’s long delay in producing this
basic information, and its subsequent refusal to produce up-
dated information violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Unions repeatedly asked Quebecor to state why it was
refusing to hire or reinstate the former unfair labor practice
strikers and discriminatees (GC Exhs. 14–19, 27–28; CP Exhs.
17–18) but Quebecor never responded to this request for infor-
mation, which was clearly relevant to the Union’s representa-
tion of the bargaining unit employees. See Brooklyn Union
Gas, Co., 296 NLRB 591, 595 (1989), Quebecor’s refusal to
provide this information violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
It is undisputed that Quebecor has employed a large number
of temporary employees as its own employees to perform bar-
gaining unit work. The Unions repeatedly requested informa-
tion concerning temporary employees performing bargaining
unit work, including their names, wage rates, hire dates, and job
descriptions (CP Exh. 16; GC Exhs 27, 34). Quebecor never
responded to these requests. This information is clearly rele-
vant and its refusal to provide it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. Beverly Enterprises, 310 NLRB 222, 227 (1993).
On February 20, 1997, the Unions requested of Quebecor the
contract documents relating to its purchase of AmerSig and
Quebecor delayed over 5 months in responding to this request
until July 30, 1997, when it provided only the asset purchase
agreement without the many exhibits and schedules which are
part of the agreement and bear directly on issues related to bar-
gaining unit employees (Tr. 315, 319; CP Exhs. 19–20, 41–42).
These documents, exhibits, and schedules were necessary to
protect the interests of the employees and to determine whether
Quebecor was a new business or a successor. Weswood Import
Co., 251 NLRB 1213, 1227 (1980), enfd. 681 F.2d 664 (9th
Cir. 1982); Daniel I. Burk Enterprises, 313 NLRB 1263, 1269
(1994). Quebecor’s long delay in providing any of this infor-
mation and its continuing refusal to produce the exhibits and
schedules to the asset purchase agreement violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Unions repeatedly requested the names of bargaining
unit employees who were laid off and the dates of layoffs.
Although Quebecor finally admitted it had laid off members of
Local 96–B, it never produced their names or the dates of lay-
offs (Tr. 319). Quebecor produced some but not all of the
names and dates of members of Local 8–M (GC Exh. 33).
Records of additional layoffs of employees in both bargaining
units were discovered at the hearing. Quebecor’s refusals to
provide this information, which is directly related to the terms
and conditions of bargaining unit employees, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Miami Rivet of Puerto Rico, 318
NLRB 769, 771 (item 4) (1995).
Quebecor initiated a practice of giving free Atlanta Braves’
baseball tickets to bargaining unit employees whose machines
achieved high production levels. Local 96–B considered this a
unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment and
that Quebecor was discriminating against former strikers in
their distribution and asked for the names of employees who
received these tickets. Quebecor refused the request and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Quebecor’s refusal to provide seniority lists after the partial
distribution of them to the Union on April 1 and 24, 1997, de-
spite repeated requests (GC Exhs. 25, 27–28, 34; Tr. 259, 317–
318, 426–432, 449, 452), was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act. Burk Enterprises, supra.
AmerSig’s Position
Respondent AmerSig contends that it did not violate Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by failing and refusing to reinstate the
strikers and discriminatees in Case 17–CA–16090 as the un-
conditional offers of reinstatement issued to the strikers and
discriminatees on January 8, 1997, were valid and tolled Amer-
Sig’s obligations under the Act. AmerSig admits that it failed
to reinstate those employees determined to be unfair labor prac-
tice strikers in Case 17–CA–16090, et al. from November 23,
1996, to January 7, 1997. AmerSig contends that the General
Counsel and the Charging Party presented no credible evidence
to support their contention that AmerSig’s unconditional offers
of reinstatement were invalid, unlawfully motivated, or a result
of some retaliatory conspiracy between AmerSig and Quebe-
cor.2 AmerSig contends that once its board of directors decided
to comply with the ALJ’s Order in Case 17–CA–16090, its
efforts were focused on immediately reinstating the strikers and
discriminatees to their prestrike jobs and in less than 6 days

2 AmerSig’s motion for a directed verdict is denied.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 898
from the Order, it issued unconditional offers of reinstatement
to all strikers and discriminatees and scheduled an orientation
for returning strikers and discriminatees to facilitate their to
enrollment on to its payroll and into its benefit programs and to
provide them with an introduction to the many changes in ma-
chinery and equipment configurations that had occurred during
their 3-1/2 year absence from the plant. There were significant
changes in the plant operations during the strike. Equipment in
the plant had changed during the strike and most of the strikers
were not employed in the printing industry during the strike.
AmerSig relies on the testimony of Roy Bivins, a journeyman
press operator who testified that when he was hired by Quebe-
cor in January 1997, he relied on his leadman over a 3-month
training period on a new press. AmerSig contends it was pre-
pared to reinstate all 135 strikers and discriminatees on January
14, 1997, to put them on the payroll effective immediately,
enroll them in all benefit plans, and to return them to their
prestrike positions. Thus, it scheduled the orientation at the
hotel to accommodate a large group. Although only 17 strikers
and discriminatees returned to work, it is hindsight to contend
that this smaller number of employees could have been inte-
grated into the plant without the scheduled orientation. Once
the January 8, 1997, unconditional offers of reinstatement were
made, AmerSig’s remedial obligations ended. Any other con-
clusion would place the strikers in a better position than they
would have been, if they had been immediately reinstated on
their unconditional offer to return to work.
AmerSig contends its offers of reinstatement were clear, un-
equivocal, and unconditional. It contends that neither Local 8–
M President Hal Landis nor Local 96–B President James Os-
borne received an offer of reinstatement as they were full-time
presidents. Landis admitted this at the hearing and that he
would not have returned to work at AmerSig even if offered
reinstatement. Osborne also testified that at the time of the
strike he was a full-time president and at no time had he noti-
fied AmerSig of his desire to return to work.
AmerSig also contends that its conduct subsequent to the un-
conditional offers of reinstatement did not taint the validity of
these offers. The requirement that the returning strikers and
discriminatees attend an orientation prior to being placed in
plant jobs did not taint the unconditional offers of reinstate-
ment. There were new equipment, new processes, and a con-
siderable length of time that the strikers had not been in the
plant all of which demonstrates valid reasons for the orienta-
tion. AmerSig relies on Oregon Steel Mills, 300 NLRB 817
(1990), where the Board held that orientation for returning
strikers did not taint the unconditional offers of reinstatement
where, during the strike, the employer had cross-trained the
work,force, installed new equipment, and implemented new
employment policies.
AmerSig also argues that the timing of its unconditional of-
fers of reinstatement did not invalidate the offers. The January
8 letter announcing the acquisition of AmerSig by Quebecor
which accompanied the unconditional offers of reinstatement
did not taint those offers because the Company was offering
reinstatement to jobs which would not exist in a few weeks.
This letter was simply a statement of fact and did no more than
fully inform the strikers and discriminatees of the business
circumstance at AmerSig. If AmerSig had not fully informed
them of the pending transaction and simply terminated them
when the transaction closed, this conduct would have been
deemed unconscionable and retaliatory. Finally, had AmerSig
immediately reinstated the strikers and discriminatees 2 months
earlier, their status as unfair labor practice strikers would have
had no bearing on Quebecor’s acquisition of AmerSig’s assets.
An employer’s liability for unfair labor practice infractions is
tolled on the employer’s going out of business. Pacemaker
Driver Service, 290 NLRB 405 (1988); and Collateral Control
Corp., 288 NLRB 308 (1988).
AmerSig argues further that the remedy sought in this case
exceeds that required by the Act and places the strikers and
discriminatees in a more favorable position than they otherwise
would have been. Relying on Golden State, the General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party assert not only that the strikers and
discriminatees were not unconditionally offered reinstatement
by AmerSig on January 8, but also that AmerSig’s liability, if
any, continues beyond the time when it ceased operations and
extends jointly and severally to AmerSig and Quebecor. In
Golden State the Court made a very narrow determination that
under certain circumstances where a bona fide purchaser of a
business acquires the business with knowledge of an unreme-
died unfair labor practice charge the purchaser may be held
jointly and severally liable for remedying the unfair labor prac-
tice. In Golden State the Court accepted the Board’s rationale
in Perma Vinyl Corp., 164 NLRB 968 (1967), enfd. sub nom
.United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 398 F.2d 544 (5th
Cir. 1968), that such a remedy is appropriate under certain cir-
cumstances and to guard against the purchaser benefiting from
the unfair labor practices of the seller. In Golden State, the
equitable balance required the reinstatement of the employee at
issue because the alternative would be the employee being out
of work while his colleagues remained employed by the succes-
sor. The equitable balance relied on by the Court in Golden
State does not exist here. The Board’s remedial mission is
compensatory in nature providing for backpay and reinstate-
ment and is not punitive. The objective is to place the employ-
ees in the same circumstances as if the unfair labor practice had
not occurred. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177
(1941); and Republic Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7, 10
(1940). The unfair labor practice strikers at issue here are enti-
tled to unconditional reinstatement from the time they made an
unconditional offer to return to work, and absent such timely
reinstatement, backpay and benefits until reinstated to their
prestrike jobs. Associated Grocers, 253 NLRB 31, 34 (1980);
and Drug Package Co., 228 NLRB 108, 113–114 (1977).
Under Burns and its progeny it is well settled that a succes-
sor employer is free to set initial terms and conditions of em-
ployment and is not bound by the collective-bargaining agree-
ments and obligations of its predecessor unless it makes clear
its intent to retain all of the predecessor’s bargaining unit
employees. However, if the successor hires a majority of the
predecessor’s bargaining unit employees, it is obligated to rec-
ognize and bargain with the employee’s bargaining representa-
tive over terms and conditions of employment. In Burns, the
Court specifically noted that a successor is not obligated to
remedy every unfair labor practice of the predecessor because,
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 899
under the Act, the successor is not obligated to hire any of the
predecessor’s employees. Under First National Maintenance
Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981), and its progeny, it is clear
that an employer may cease its operations at any time, and out-
standing remedial obligations do not extend beyond the cessa-
tion of the business.
Applying the foregoing fundamentals to the instant case
militates against any liability continuing beyond January 22.
The unfair labor practice strikers, if reinstated, would not have
been entitled to employment beyond the time that AmerSig
operated the plant. Any obligation of Quebecor to these
employees attached only after it had determined the
composition of its work force, and if Quebecor had hired a
majority of AmerSig’s employees (strikers, discriminatees,
crossovers, and replacements) to bargaining unit jobs,
Quebecor’s only obligation would have been to recognize and
bargain with the Charging Party. Quebecor stipulated to its
status as a Burns successor. Thus, if AmerSig’s offers of
reinstatement were not valid, the make-whole remedy for strik-
ers and discriminatees would be limited to backpay for the time
period AmerSig could have returned them to work. After that
time AmerSig could not control their employment destiny.
Extending Golden State protections to the strikers in this case
will have the ultimate result of placing them in a better position
than if the purported unfair labor practice had not occurred,
specifically requiring Quebecor to hire them under
circumstances under which Quebecor would have otherwise
had no obligation to hire them. Since Quebecor had no
knowledge that AmerSig had not remedied its unfair labor
practices to extend liability beyond January 22 would provide
these strikers and discriminatees with a remedy greater than
that contemplated by the Act. Quebecor did not benefit from
the unfair labor practices of AmerSig. It simply exercised its
right to set initial terms and conditions of employment and hire
a work force. AmerSig cooperated with Quebecor in posting
notices of Quebecor’s interview location and arranged for those
attending the orientation to have sufficient time to apply to
Quebecor. Quebecor informed all of AmerSig’s former
employees of its application process and invited them to apply
for work. Their status as strikers or discriminatees had no
bearing on Quebecor's decision to offer employment to those
who applied. Quebecor’s Position
Quebecor in its brief argues that the complaint against it
should be dismissed because the General Counsel failed to
plead that Quebecor had notice of AmerSig’s unfair labor prac-
tices. This motion was denied by me at the hearing and is reas-
serted in its brief. It is again denied as the complaint ade-
quately put Quebecor on notice that it was a Golden State suc-
cessor and implicit therein is the requirement that it had notice
of AmerSig’s unfair labor practices. Moreover the testimony
and exhibits submitted at the hearing adequately established
that Quebecor was put on notice of AmerSig’s unremedied
unfair labor practices, its failure to reinstate the employees on
their unconditional offer to return in November 1996 and the
Union’s contention that AmerSig’s offer of reinstatement in
January 1997 was a sham.
Quebecor further contends that the General Counsel has not
proven the elements necessary to establish Golden State liabil-
ity, asserting again that the General Counsel has not established
a necessary element of his cause of action (that Quebecor had
knowledge of an “unremedied” unfair labor practice of its
predecessor AmerSig). Quebecor contends that insofar as it
was aware, it knew that AmerSig had informed the affected
employees that the ALJ’s decision, including the reinstatement
order would be fully complied with, and that unconditional
reinstatement offers pursuant to that order had been made to all
former strikers and discriminatees as of January 9, 1997. It
contends that even if an otherwise valid reinstatement offer
states an unreasonable reporting date the employee still has an
obligation to respond and to inquire as to flexibility concerning
the return date and the failure to respond tolls backpay. Ester-
line Electronics Corp., 290 NLRB 834, 835 (1988). AmerSig’s
offer of reinstatement meets this test. On January 8, 1997,
AmerSig sent overnight as well as certified letters to all former
strikers and discriminatees, unconditionally offering employ-
ment to their former positions, shifts, and the current rate of pay
for those positions. All former strikers and discriminatees had
the opportunity to be reinstated immediately by AmerSig.
Those who responded were reinstated to their former positions,
shifts, and rates of pay pursuant to the ALJ’s Order as of Janu-
ary 14, 1997. All individuals who responded that they wished
immediate reinstatement and who reported for work as in-
structed on January 14 were immediately reinstated to their
former positions, were immediately placed on AmerSig’s pay-
roll, and were immediately provided all employee benefits.
Those individuals who responded that they could not attend the
orientation because of prior commitments or personal desires to
give current employers notice were told about Quebecor’s im-
pending purchase of AmerSig, and were told they were wel-
come back to AmerSig when their commitments ended, as long
as AmerSig was in business. The time allowed employees to
accept the reinstatement offers and report by January 14, 1997,
was reasonable. To extend the time for reinstatement beyond
that date would have placed AmerSig in the position of not
being able, on its own account, to reinstate, since the sale of its
assets was pending. To effectuate compliance with the assur-
ance it was accomplished, AmerSig had to immediately rein-
state. AmerSig did everything it could to comply by reinstating
and so informed Quebecor. Accordingly Quebecor had no
knowledge of “unremedied” unfair labor practices.
Quebecor was not required to hire any former striker or dis-
criminatee as contended by the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party. Quebecor knew AmerSig had offered reinstatement
to all these persons and had a right to rely on that compliance
with the ALJ’s Order as satisfaction of any potential hiring
obligation. If Quebecor as a Burns successor had given prefer-
ence to these individuals, it would have discriminated against
other individuals because of their membership or lack of mem-
bership in a labor union. Rather, it hired without regard to the
applicant’s former status, basing its decision on the best quali-
fied applicants. It hired a combination of strikers, discrimina-
tees, returned strikers, referred to as “crossovers,” and replace-
ment employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 900
Quebecor did not violate the Act by failing to bargain about
employee layoffs because those layoffs were made consistent
with Quebecor’s initial terms and conditions of employment.
Generally, a successor employer is free to set the initial terms
on which it will hire the employees of a predecessor citing
Burns. All Quebecor employees were hired under initial terms
and conditions of employment set by Quebecor. These terms
and conditions provided that Quebecor may lay off employees
for a period of up to 7 days without regard to seniority and
without prior notice. On February 2 and 3, 1997, Quebecor
shut down the Atlanta facility and laid off most of its employ-
ees. The General Counsel alleges that Quebecor violated the
Act by failing to bargain about these layoffs.3 Osborne testified
that the Unions’ first demand to bargain about layoffs occurred
April 8, 1997. The layoff did not violate the Act as it was con-
sistent with Quebecor’s initial terms and conditions of em-
ployment. Hilton Mobile Homes, 155 NLRB 873 (1965).
Complaint allegations that Quebecor violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by failing to furnish the Unions with senior-
ity lists, a statement of the reasons for not hiring former strikers
and discriminatees subject to Judge Grossman’s decision, the
names of all temporary employees working in the Atlanta plant,
documents relating to the sale of AmerSig’s assets to Quebecor,
and a list of all unit employees who have been laid off since
Quebecor began operations, should all be dismissed.
Analysis
I find that AmerSig violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers
represented by Locals 8–M and 96–B, GCIU to their prestrike
classifications and shifts following their November 23, 1996
unconditional offer to return to work.
Initially, AmerSig received the unconditional offers to return
to work on November 23, 1996, and failed and refused to rein-
state the unfair labor practice strikers based on the advice of its
attorney that they were not unfair labor practice strikers. This
advice was clearly incorrect as evidenced by the ALJ’s decision
which AmerSig did not appeal and AmerSig assumed the risk
of its failure to reinstate when it failed to comply. I find that
the January 8 offers of reinstatement were a sham designed to
keep the former strikers out of the plant in order to favor the
replacement workers and crossovers then working in the plant
in their opportunities for employment with Quebecor, thus, also
assuring Quebecor, a more compliant work force with respect
to employee rights under Section 7 of the Act as well as em-
ployees who had been performing on the job for a considerable
period of time up to the sale of the assets to Quebecor. This
certainly benefited Quebecor in that it would be placed in a
favorable position with a ready work force on site as well as a
pool of former strikers to choose from. I find that AmerSig’s
relegation of the former strikers to the orientation at the offsite
hotel with coverage of several irrelevant subjects with respect
to their duties supports a finding that the real reason for the
orientation was to keep its in plant work force in place without

3 The Unions also argue that Quebecor failed to bargain collectively
about a “layoff” occurring on January 22, 1997. However, it is undis-
puted that Quebecor did not hire its work force and begin operations
until January 23, 1997.
disruption and to hold the former strikers at bay in their quest
for reinstatement. This also placed the former strikers at a dis-
advantage in their opportunities for hire by Quebecor. If the
former strikers had been reinstated in November 1996, they
would have been on the job for almost 2 months which would
have placed them in their proper positions. AmerSig's failure
and refusal to reinstate them in November and its belated offer
in January did not remedy the unfair labor practices. By so
doing AmerSig violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I
find the cases cited by the General Counsel and the Charging
Party are controlling.
I further find that Quebecor is a Golden State successor and
as such is liable to remedy the unfair labor practices of Amer-
Sig including the duty to reinstate the former strikers and dis-
criminatees which I have found AmerSig failed to do. Quebe-
cor was aware of the Union’s contentions that the unfair labor
practices had not been remedied and assumed the liability to
remedy them just as it assumed the benefits of the unfair labor
practices. In this instance Quebecor took advantage of the
benefits of AmerSig’s unfair labor practices and must remedy
them by reinstating the former strikers to their prestrike posi-
tions. Quebecor’s failure and refusal to reinstate the unfair
labor practice strikers violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
Quebecor’s unilateral layoff of bargaining unit employees
without affording Locals 8–M and 96–B notice and an opportu-
nity to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Quebecor had an obligation to reinstate the former strikers
which AmerSig had failed to do and to bargain with the Unions
on their behalf concerning the layoff. Since the former strikers
had not been reinstated by AmerSig, Quebecor had no right to
set the initial terms and conditions of its bargaining unit em-
ployees. For the same reasons Quebecor violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its delay and failure and refusal to
provide the aforesaid information requested by the Unions all
of which I find to have been relevant to their duty to represent
the unit employees. I find the cases cited by the General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party are controlling.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Amersig Graphics, Inc., and Amersig
Southeast, Inc. d/b/a American Signature, Inc., is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Quebecor Printing Atlanta, Inc., is a successor of Ameri-
can Signature and an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. Graphic Communications International Union, AFL–CIO
and its Locals 8–M and 96–B collectively the Unions are each a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
4. As of January 23, 1997, Quebecor had 203 employees in
bargaining unit jobs, 88 of which were in the Local 8–M bar-
gaining unit which represented pressroom and preparatory de-
partment employees and 115 of which were in the Local 96–B
bargaining unit which represented bindery and mailing depart-
ment employees.
5. American Signature violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to reinstate the following unfair labor prac-
AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. 901
tice strikers represented by Locals 8–M and 96–B, to their
prestrike classifications and shifts following their November
23, 1996 unconditional offer to return to work:
Local 8–M Strikers
Hollis Bagwell, Mildred Blake, Janice Bolton, John Bolton,
Roger Brantley, Lenore Buice, John Carson, David Constans,
Bobby Craddock, Stan Cunningham, Morris Darnell, Randy
Dewberry, Lex Dockery, Melvin Dukes, Leon Furgusson,
Elizabeth Freeman, Nancy Frix, Alan Green, George Grieves,
Virginia Hannah, William C. Haynes, James Hogsed, Mary
Ingram, Tommy Johnson, Byran Laird, Charles Ledford,
Debra Meacham, Gertrude Morton, Mildred Newsome, Ann
Nuckles, James Osborne, Nancy Overcash, Jerry Parks,
Jackie Pressley, Lori Richards-Spraggs, JoAnn Slaton, Van
Spraggs, Walter J. Tipton, Betty Toole, C. Wayne Torbush,
Howard P. Ward, John B. Watson, Patricia A. Williams,
Betty Williamson
Local 96–B strikers
Davis L. Adams, Carroll H. Allen, John C. Allen, Kenneth R.
Baker, William E. Baldwin, Charles P. Banks, Herbert L.
Barber, Harold V. Barnes, James R. Bivins, Jr., Terry Boss,
Robert H. Braddock, Jr., Billy J. Brannon, Harold G. Bray,
Felix J. Brittain, Franklin D. Brogdon, John D. Brown, Mar-
cus R. Buice, Phillip R. Buice, Kenneth L. Carver, Ancil D.
Chambers, Alvin B. Chewning, Buddy E. Cooper, Richard
Darnell, John M. Dixon, Clifford L. Dunson, Bruce W. Elzey,
T.L. Fortenberry, Donald T. Fox, Creighton T. Fuller, Ken-
neth Gates, Oscor C. Griffeth, Gary N. Griswell, Donald E.
Harvey, Robert C. Hice, Benny F. Hickey, Loyed J. Hillard,
Buddy Holt, Donald L. Jenkins, Erwin D. Jones, Jack E.
Keen, Michael W. Kelley, Billy G. Lummus, James H.
Mabry, David E. Manis, Michael Martin, Joe A. McWilliams,
Henry R. Meyer, Jr., Clinton R. Mulkey, Ronald J. New,
David K. Noland, James R. Noland, Jr., Tommy C. Parrott,
Howard W. Payne, Dewayne E. Richmond, Ricardo Rogers,
Jarrell Scott, Glenn A. Shuler, Willie R. Simmons, Spencer
Smith, Eugene Spraggs, Larry S. Stanley, Jarred L. Starnes,
Wade B. Stephens, Oscar A. Stovall, James D. Street, Darrel
E. Timpson, Lester L. Torbush, Robert L. Turner, Kermit W.
Warcop, Phillip Weaver, Felix G. Whiten, Andrew E. Wil-
liams, Ralph E. Williamson, David L. Wooten, Michael A.
Yancey, Ronnie B. Zastrow

6. Quebecor is a successor to American Signature with an
obligation to reinstate the above-named unfair labor practice
strikers after its purchase of the assets of American Signature
on January 22, 1997, and its failure to reinstate them violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. Quebecor’s unilateral layoff of bargaining unit employees
without affording notice and an opportunity to bargain to Lo-
cals 8–M and 96–B, GCIU violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
8. Respondent Quebecor has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by failing and refusing since about January 22, 1997,
to furnish the Unions with relevant information requested by
them as follows.
(a) The names, classifications, hire dates, seniority dates,
race, sex, addresses, telephone numbers, and pay rates of bar-
gaining unit employees employed by Quebecor.
(b) A statement of the reasons why Quebecor has not hired
or returned to their former positions of employment, all of the
unfair labor practice strikers and discriminatees referred to in
the Administrative Law Judge’s December 27, 1996 Decisions
and Recommended Order in Cases 17–CA–16090, et al.
(c) The names of all temporary employees working at Que-
becor’s Atlanta, Georgia facility, including their wage rates,
hire dates, and job descriptions.
(d) Documents related to the sale of AmerSig’s assets to
Quebecor including all schedules attached thereto.
(e) A list of all unit employees who have been laid off since
Quebecor began operations at the facility.
9. Respondent Quebecor has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act since about May 11, 1997, by failing and refusing to
furnish the Unions with seniority lists for the bargaining units
and has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act since about
January 23, 1997, by laying off employees in the bargaining
units without proper notice to the Unions and without affording
the Unions an opportunity to bargain with Quebecor with re-
spect to this mandatory subject of bargaining.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices in conjunction with
American Signature’s status as an employer and Quebecor’s
status as its successor and an employer affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in viola-
tions of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed
to effectuate the purposes of the Act and post the appropriate
notice and mail the appropriate notice to the employees.
It is recommended that Respondents’ AmerSig and Quebecor
jointly and severally make the aforesaid employees whole for
any loss of earnings and benefits suffered as a result of their
failure and refusal and/or delay to reinstate them to their former
positions of employment. It is recommended that Respondent
Quebecor offer these employees full reinstatement to their for-
mer positions of employment, or if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
jointly and severally, make them whole for any loss of earnings
and benefits suffered as a result of its failure and refusal, and/or
delay to reinstate them to their former positions of employment
or as a result of the layoffs of employees and that it rescind the
layoffs of the bargaining unit employees. It is further recom-
mended that Quebecor furnish the Union with the information it
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 902
has requested as the collective-bargaining representative, of the
unit employees. Backpay shall be in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]