Bradford Printing & Finishing, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 14, 2010

01-CA-045575 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 14, 2010)

JD(NY)–11–10
Bradford, RI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC
and Case No. 1-CA-45575
NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD, UNITE-HERE
Elizabeth A. Vorro, Esq. Counsel for
the General Counsel
Anne R. Sills, Esq., Counsel for the
Union
Michael J. Murray, Esq., Counsel for
the Respondent
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in Providence, Rhode
Island on February 16, 2010. The charge and the first and second amended charges were filed
on August 17, October 29 and December 21, 2009. A Complaint issued on December 31, 2009
and alleged as follows:
1. That the Respondent, after purchasing the business of Bradford Dyeing, which had a
collective bargaining relationship with the Union, operated the business in such manner as to be
considered a “successor” under the Act and therefore had an obligation to recognize and
bargain with the Union.
2. That since January 16, 2009, the Respondent has failed and refused to recognize or
bargain with the Union.
3. That in early January 2009, immediately upon commencing operations, the
Respondent established the “Guiding Coalition,” an internal entity comprised of employees,
managers and supervisors that was designed to deal with the Respondent concerning wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment. It is alleged that by establishing this
organization, the Respondent rendered assistance and support to and dominated a “labor
organization” in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. That in early February 2009, the Respondent posted a notice with (a) the purpose of
soliciting employees to abandon their support for the Union and (b) which constituted a de facto
interrogation of employees.
The Respondent agrees that it was a “successor” to Bradford Dyeing, but asserts that it
nevertheless had the right to withdraw recognition because a majority the production and
maintenance employees signed a petition stating that they did not want to be represented by the
Union.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
As to the 8(a)(2) assistance allegation, the Respondent contends that the Guiding
Coalition was established as a good faith effort to aid communications between the employer
and the employees and as a reasonable method to resolve issues. It asserts that this was not
formed for the purpose of undermining the Union and it denies that the Guiding Coalition was a
dominated labor organization.
As to the allegation regarding the February notice to employees, the Respondent asserts
that the contents of the Notice are protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, I make the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
I. Jurisdiction
It is agreed and I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. It also is agreed and I find
that the New England Joint Board, Unite-Here, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The New England Joint Board has had a long term bargaining relationship with a
company called Bradford Dyeing Association. The last contract ran from December 1, 2005 to
November 30, 2008. The bargaining unit consisted of all production and maintenance
employees, but excluded general office help, clerical employees, scientific employees, foremen,
department heads, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Bradford Dyeing was engaged in the manufacture of cloth having camouflage designs
that are utilized by the Armed Services. The designs are in part, covered by copy rights and the
manufacture of the cloth, (and the uniforms by its direct customers), are required by law to be
made in the United States. This company had been in business for many years but in 1997
there was a fire at its factory that adversely affected its operations.
In the ensuring years, business suffered and by 2008, there were serious financial
problems. At that time, the predecessor company approached the Union to bargain about
contract concessions but no agreements were reached. On September 24, 2008, Bradford
Dyeing formally notified the Union that it would be permanently closing the facility and laying off
the entire work force as of November 24, 2008. At that time, there were 71 bargaining unit
employees. After that announcement, Bradford Dyeing bargained with the Union about the
effects of the shutdown.
During this process, some of the sales and managerial employees of Bradford Dyeing,
including Nicholas Griseto, (previously the Vice President of Sales and Marketing), decided that
they would like to purchase the assets of that company and create a new company that was
called Bradford Printing & Finishing. 1 In this regard, the parties stipulated as follows:

1 Initially, the ownership of the new corporation was shared by Nicholas Griseto, Vasco Ferrara and
Craig Nichols. Thereafter, Grisetto bought out the ownership interest of the other two individuals and is
now the sole owner.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
That about “December 23, 2008, the Respondent entered into a site access
agreement with Bradford Dyeing Association which agreement has been
mutually extended several times since then. Under that agreement, Respondent
has leased Bradford Dyeing Associations’ former facility and equipment. Since
about January 5, 2009, Respondent has been operating the business formerly
operated by Bradford Dyeing Association in basically unchanged form, and has
employed as a majority of its production and maintenance employees, individuals
who were previously employees of Bradford Dyeing Association.
In November 2008, Griseto addressed a meeting of the employees, (then employed by
the predecessor), and in response to a question about whether the new company would be
unionized, he stated that it would not be a union company. The credible evidence also shows
that at the meeting, Griseto added that it was not within his control as to whether employees
wanted a union and that it was up to them to decide if they wanted union representation.
In December 2008, the new owners held a job fair in Westerly, Rhode Island. This was
attended by many of the employees of Bradford Dyeing and Griseto was again asked about
whether the new company was going to be unionized. Once again, the credible evidence
indicates that he told prospective employees that the company would not open as a union
company and that the question of union representation would be decided by the employees.
In short, the evidence indicates to me that Griseto was of the belief that as a new
company, he would not be encumbered by a union relationship upon the commencement of
operations and that any question of unionization would be decided by the employees at a latter
time. From these statements made in anticipation of the transition, it appears to me that Griseto
was not, at least at that time, familiar with the law regarding “successorship” and was simply
expressing his belief as to what would happen when the new company took over the old
company’s operations.
Bradford Printing commenced operations on January 5, 2009. And by January 16, 2009,
the Company was up and running after having hired about 33 bargaining unit employees, the
majority of whom had previously been employed by Bradford Dyeing. It seems that before
hiring its work force, the Company established new terms and conditions of employment and the
Complaint does not allege that the Respondent unilaterally changed any of the terms of the
predecessor’s contract.
There was an orientation program held on January 5 for the new employees at which
Griseto spoke. In preparation for his talk, Griseto prepared a document which sets out how the
new company was going to be different and better than the predecessor. Whether or not he
read the entire document is not really relevant because even if he didn’t, it represents his
intentions at the time. The document reads in part:
We intend to operate the business in compliance with all employment and labor
laws. Our corporate position is that we will strive to provide good jobs with
good pay and benefits that will enable all associates to provide for the future of
their families….
We are aware that some of the associates of the previous company were
represented by a union. We do not think one is necessary here. Personally I
would like you all to wait on thinking about this subject until we see what kind of
company we can achieve together. Please give our new procedures, vision
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
and cultural changes a chance. I think the Guiding Coalition will be a perfect
forum to get involvement from all ranks and the Guiding Coalition will be able to
address all issues and concerns in a timely and fair manner.
At the orientation meeting, Griseto asked for and got volunteers to act as employee
members of the Guiding Coalition. He also appointed the management members of the
Coalition. Although there is some ambiguity, the probability is that Griseto told the employees
that he believed that as a new company he did not have to recognize the Union and that a union
was unnecessary. But the evidence also indicates that he told them that having a union was
their choice and not his.
With respect to the Guiding Coalition, which was effectively established on the first day
of the Respondent’s operations, Griseto testified that he got this idea back in October 2008,
from an article in a Harvard Business School publication. He testified that after reading the
article, he thought that the creation of such an entity would more effectively facilitate
communications and decision making between management and the employees.
In any event, the Guiding Coalition was established and consisted of employee and
supervisory personnel including Griseto. Each member had a vote and the organization was
designed to deal with various employee or personnel issues such as hours of work, holidays,
attendance and discipline. The Respondent agreed that the Guiding Coalition as an entity,
could deal with and resolve employee grievance, albeit none had come to it as yet. From its
inception, the Guiding Coalition has met about once every month although meetings were
suspended after the Complaint in this case was issued. Employees who attend its meetings
were paid for their time in attendance.
The General Counsel asserts that the Guiding Coalition is a dominated labor
organization as defined in the Act and that its formation was intended to discourage employees
from joining or supporting the Union. The Respondent, contends that the Guiding Coalition was
conceived of before any union activity was present and that it was intended as a tool to help
communications between management and the work force and was not meant to influence
employees regarding any issue of unionization. For my part, I do not think that intent is all that
relevant in this situation.
By letter dated January 16, 2009, the Union asserted that it was the majority
representative of the production and maintenance employees and asked for recognition and
bargaining. This letter was forwarded by the Company to legal counsel.
As indicated by an e-mail dated Saturday, January 24, 2009, the Respondent posted the
following notice, presumably on the next working day which would have been January 26.
Ownership intends to operate the business in compliance with all employment
and labor laws…. Ownership is aware that some of our associates previously
worked at BDA and were represented by a union. Ownership does not think one
is necessary here. Nick Griseto, the President, CEO would like to wait on thinking
about this subject until we see what kind of company we can achieve collectively
and give our new procedures, vision and cultural change a chance. The Guiding
Coalition will be a perfect forum to get involvement from all ranks and the Guiding
coalition will [be] able to address all issues and concerns in a timely and fair
manner.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
By a letter to the Union dated January 30, 2009, the Company’s attorney stated that he
would be studying the situation and would get back to the Union in the near future.
At some point during the first week of February 2009, the Respondent posted the
following notice.
A couple of weeks ago, Bradford Printing & Finishing received a letter
from former Bradford Dyeing Associations’ union, Unite-Here. In that letter, the
union demanded that it be recognized as the bargaining representative or union
for all current Branford Printing employees holding the type of positions that were
formerly in the union at Bradford Dyeing Association.
Bradford’s position on this topic has been clear. We believe a union is
not necessary given Bradford’s new vision, culture change and procedures. Our
new working environment and practices will address all employees concerns and
issues. It is Bradford’s intent to provide stable jobs with good wages and good
benefits. We need your help in making our company’s business succeed and
meet the serious challenges facing every new business in this economy.
Unite Here seeks recognition as your union without the benefit of election
at which you can freely vote your preference and determine for yourself whether
a union and/or Unite Here shall be your bargaining representative.
If you desire to have a role in this decision, you must take immediate
steps to make your opinions and views known to Unite Here, the National Labor
Relations Board in Boston and Bradford. It is Bradford Printing’s position that
your views and opinions are the most important on this issue. You alone should
make the decision on whether Unite Here becomes your union and the
bargaining agent for employees.
Your opinion, however, can only be taken into account if you make your
wishes known to all parties involved. If you do not take any action, a decision on
this issue could be made without any input from you. Bradford urges you to
become involved and exercise your rights to have a sway on what happens in
your workplace.
On or about February 3 or 4, 2009, John Parker, an employee, had his wife type up a
petition that states:
We the employees at Bradford Printing and Finishing are quite satisfied working
as non-union employees. We do not want nor do we need union support at this
textile facility at this time.
With respect to the above, Parker testified that after discussing the matter with a few of
his fellow workers, he decided to draw up this petition and solicit signatures. In substance, his
testimony was that he and the other people he spoke to, figured that with the Guiding Coalition
in place, there was no need for union representation at that time. He also testified that his
decision to solicit the petition was not the result of any statements or actions by company
managers or supervisors.
On or about February 5, 2009, Parker circulated the petition on company premises and
during working hours, but without any direct assistance or involvement by supervisors or
managers. He did ask his supervisor if he could go around the shop with a petition and that his
supervisor, who refused to read the petition, said he could but to make if fast. This process took
about 45 minutes and Parker collected 31 signatures. There is no indication that employees
were coerced into signing the petition or that the purpose of it was misrepresented to them.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
After obtaining the signatures, Parker gave a copy to the Company and sent a copy to the
Union.
By letter dated February 11, 2009, the Union’s counsel wrote to the Company indicating
that unless she received a response to the previous request for recognition by February 20,
2009, the Union would file unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.
By a letter to the Union dated February 20, 2009, the Respondent’s attorney stated his
opinion that the Company was neither an alter ego nor successor to Bradford Dyeing. He
asserted that the Respondent had no obligation to bargain with the Union. The letter went on to
note that it had been presented with a petition showing that “an overwhelming majority of
Bradford’s production employees do not want Unite Here or any union to represent them.”
III. Analysis
There is no dispute that the Respondent is a “successor” to Bradford Dyeing as that
terms is used in Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987), affg. 775 F. 2d 425 (1st
Cir. 1985). Therefore, I conclude that when the Respondent commenced its operations on
January 5, 2009, and reached a representative complement of employees within a matter of
days thereafter, it became a successor and therefore incurred an obligation to recognize and
bargain with the Union.
That the Respondent was a successor does not, however, mean that it could not
withdraw recognition if there was objective evidence that a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit no longer desired union representation. In this regard, the Respondent relies on
the petition that was signed by 31 out of 35 employees in early February 2009.
The question here is whether that petition was tainted by unfair labor practices
committed by the Respondent.
a. The February Posted Notice
The General Counsel contends that the February notice that was posted at the facility
violated Section 8(a)(1) because (a) it solicited employees to abandon their support for the
Union and (b) it constituted unlawful interrogation. I don’t agree.
The content of this posted message was that the Union had demanded bargaining; that
the Company did not believe that a union was necessary; and that if employees wanted their
opinions to count, they should contact the Union, the National Labor Relations Board and the
Employer. There is no mention of a decertification petition and the employees were told, as
they had been told in the past, that the decision to unionize was within their own control and not
the Employer’s. The notice contained nothing that I would construe as a threat of reprisal or a
promise of benefit. There is no indication that if a union was selected, the Company would
refuse to bargain or that the selection of a union would be futile.
As to the General Counsel’s theory that this constituted unlawful interrogation, I do not
view these facts as remotely comparable to those cases where a supervisor or manager goes
around the plant insisting that employees take a vote-no button or an anti-union T-shirt. See for
example, The Tappan Company, 254 NLRB 636 (1981) and Pillowtex Corporation, 234 NLRB
560 (1978). Although asking employees to make their views known to the Union, the Labor
Board or the Company, this notice did not invite employees to report to management, which
employees were in favor of the Union. First Student, Inc., 341 NLRB 136, 137 (2004). In short,
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
I view the contents of this notice as being protected by Section 8(c) of the Act and I therefore
shall recommend that this allegation of the Complaint be dismissed.
b. The 8(a)(2) Domination Issue
In Electromation, Inc., the Board did an exhaustive review of the law regarding alleged
8(a)(2) violations involving situations where employers establish committees to discuss and
“deal with” issues relating to terms and conditions of employment. In reaffirming settled law, the
Board held that Electromation violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by setting up certain
“action committees,” composed of management and employee representatives that sought to
resolve matters such as pay progressions, bonuses and absentee rules. The Board concluded
that these were labor organizations as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act and that they dealt with
the employer as that term is used in Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. (Electromation dealt with a
situation involving an employer that did not have a collective bargaining relationship with a
union).
In E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 311 NLRB 893 (1993), the Board concluded that
employee committees and management can be found to be dealing with each other either in
situations where management representatives function outside of a committee or as members
within a committee. In this case the Board held that joint safety committees were labor
organization that dealt with management because they made proposals to the Company about
incentive awards. As these committees were established by the Employer and were set up
despite the fact that there was an incumbent labor organization, the Board held that the
Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 2
In the present case, the Guiding Coalition was established by management on January
5, 2009, the day that the Respondent opened for business. It consisted of an equal number of
employee and supervisory representatives and was presided over by the Company’s President
who also set the agenda for the meetings. As a committee consisting of employee and
managerial representatives, each having a vote, the group was established as a forum in which
employees dealt with Respondent’s management with respect to employment issues such as
hours of work, holidays, pensions and lunch breaks. The entity was also admittedly set up to
deal with employee grievances, albeit this did not happen during the time that meetings were
held.
In light of the above, I conclude that the Guiding Coalition was a “labor organization”
within the meaning of the Act; that it dealt with the Employer regarding terms and conditions of
employment; and that it was dominated by the Employer in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
c. The Withdrawal of Recognition
It was stipulated that the Respondent was a successor because of its continuity of
operations with Bradford Dyeing and the fact that a majority of its employees had previously
been employed by the predecessor. Therefore, the legal obligation to recognize and bargain
with the Union attached to the Respondent at the time it commenced operations with a
representative complement of employees. In this regard, I note that even though the
Respondent, as a successor, inherited the obligation to bargain, it did not have any obligation to

2 For a thorough discussion of this subject see Chapter 8, Sections II and III of The Developing Labor
Law, published by the Bureau of National Affairs.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
adopt or assume the collective bargaining agreement that the Union had with the predecessor.
See NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972).
Nevertheless, although there was an obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union
at or about the time that the Respondent commenced operations, there was no extant collective
bargaining agreement and the Employer would be legally entitled to withdraw recognition if it
could demonstrate that the Union had, in fact lost its majority status. Levitz Furniture Co. of the
Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001).
In this case the Respondent relies on the petition that was signed by a majority of the
bargaining unit employees on or about February 5, 2009, to show that the Union lost its majority
status. (The General Counsel conceded that the signatures on the petition were authentic).
The General Counsel counters that this petition cannot be the basis for a lawful withdrawal of
recognition because it was tainted by the Respondent’s other unfair labor practices. Atlas
Refinery, Inc; 354 NLRB No. 120; Penn Tank Lines, 336 NLRB1066, 1067-1068 (2001); Lee
Lumber & Building Material Corp., 322 NLRB 175, 177.
In Master Slack, 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984), the Board set forth the factors to be
considered in determining whether a causal relationship exists between unfair labor practices
and employee disaffection. These are:
(1) the length of time between the unfair labor practice and the withdrawal of recognition;
(2) the nature of illegal acts, including the possibility of their detrimental or lasting effect
on employees; (3) any possible tendency to cause employee disaffection from the union;
(4) the effect of unlawful conduct on employee morale, organizational activities and
membership in the union.
There is, in my opinion, no doubt that there was a direct causal relationship between the
creation and maintenance of the Guiding Coalition and the employee petition. In my opinion,
the question as to whether or not the Guiding Coalition was originally established in order to
discourage union membership is essentially irrelevant. For even if it wasn’t, the fact is the
Employer on or about January 24, 2009, notified the employees, soon after the Union made a
demand for recognition, that union representation was not necessary and that the Guiding
Coalition could serve as an alternative means to discuss and resolve employment issues.
Indeed the testimony of John Parks was that he created the petition in early February
2009 because he wanted to give the Employer a chance. He testified that in his discussions
with other employees, “we said, let's give Nick a chance to prove to us what he wants to do,
what he said he wants to do.”
In light of the above, I conclude that because the employee petition was tainted by the
maintenance of an illegally dominated “labor organization,” the Respondent’s refusal to bargain
with the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. By creating and maintaining the Guiding Coalition as a joint employee-management
committee that was authorized to “deal with” terms and conditions of employment, the
Respondent dominated a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
2. By withdrawing recognition from and refusing to bargain with the Union, the
Respondent, as the successor to Bradford Dyeing Association, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
of the Act in the absence of a demonstrated showing that the Union had legitimately lost its
majority status.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having concluded that the Respondent unlawfully dominated the Guiding Coalition, it is
recommended that it be ordered to cease dealing with it as a representative of its employees.
In relation to my conclusion that the Respondent has not demonstrated that the there
was an untainted loss of majority status by the Union, I shall also recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union concerning wages, hours and
all terms and conditions of employment.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended 3
ORDER
1. The Respondent, Bradford Printing & Finishing, LLC, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall Cease and Desist:
(a) From recognizing and dealing with the Guiding Coalition as a representative of its
employees in relation to the terms and conditions of employment of its employees.
(b) Withdrawing recognition from the Union in the absence of a demonstrated and
untainted showing that the Union has lost its majority status.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in
the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the New England Joint Board,
UNITE-HERE, as the exclusive representative of its employees with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached, embody such
agreement in a signed document. The appropriate bargaining unit consists of
All production and maintenance employees employed at the Respondent’s facility, but
excluding general office help, clerical employees, scientific employees, foremen,
department heads, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Bradford, Rhode
Island, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix ” 4 Copies of the notice, on forms

3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)–11–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, or sold the business or the facilities involved
herein, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
current employees and former employees employed by the Respondents at any time since
January 5, 2009.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2010.
_____________________
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge
_________________________
4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read
“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(NY)–11–10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
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 withdraw recognition from the New England Joint Board, UNITE-HERE, in the absence of a
demonstrated and untainted showing that the Union has lost its majority status.
WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with the Guiding Coalition as a representative of our employees in relation to
their terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement
is reached, embody such agreement in a signed document. The appropriate bargaining unit consists of:
All production and maintenance employees employed at the Respondent’s facility, but excluding
general office help, clerical employees, scientific employees, foremen, department heads, watchmen,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Bradford Printing & Finishing LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the
Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional
Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
10 Causeway Street, Boston Federal Building, 6th Floor, Room 601
Boston, Massachusetts 02222–1072
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
617-565-6700.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 617-565-6701.