Graphic Communicatins Local 17B (Quebecor World Buffalo

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 2008

353 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
353 NLRB No. 4
30
Local 17B of the Graphic Communications Confer-
ence of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters and Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc. Case 3–
CB–8648
September 12, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On January 18, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Wal-
lace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent Union filed exceptions, and the General Coun-
sel and the Charging Party Employer filed answering
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Local
17B of the Graphic Communications Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b).
“(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the Act.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to include the
Board’s standard remedial language, and we shall substitute a new
notice to conform to the modified Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Que-
becor World Buffalo, Inc. by failing to execute the col-
lective-bargaining agreement submitted to us on Febru-
ary 7, 2007.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL, on request of Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc.,
execute forthwith the collective-bargaining agreement
reached by Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc. and us, and
tendered to us on February 7, 2007.
LOCAL 17B OF THE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Aaron Sukert, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Francis Novak, Esq., of Eden, New York, for the Respondent
Union.
Ronald L. Jaros, Esq., of West Seneca, New York, for the Re-
spondent Union.
Sean F. Beiter, Esq., of Buffalo, New York, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Buffalo, New York, on August 28 and 29,
2007. The original charge was filed by Quebecor World Buf-
falo, Inc. (Company or Employer) on February 21, 2007, and
an amended charge was filed on June 27, 2007.1 Region 3
issued a complaint and notice of hearing on June 28, 2007. The
complaint alleges, inter alia, that Local 17B of the Graphic
Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (Respondent, Local 17B, or Union) has engaged
in conduct that violates Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor

1 All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 31
Relations Act (the Act). Respondent Union filed a timely an-
swer in which, inter alia, it admits the jurisdictional allegations
of the complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, Union, and the Charging Party, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Charging Party-Employer, a corporation, has been en-
gaged in the commercial printing of paperback books and retail
advertising inserts and other items at its facility in Depew, New
York.2 Annually, the Employer purchased and received at its
Depew, New York facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of New York. The Re-
spondent admits and I find that the Charging Party-Employer is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Respondent-Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Complaint Allegations
The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits that the
following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their
respective names and have been agents of Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Robert Mamon President, Secretary/Treasurer,
Business Agent
Elizabeth Snyder Vice President
David R. Klyczek Executive Board Member
Michael Casey Recording Secretary
At all material times, Respondent has been the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Respon-
dent’s employees in the unit set out below and has at all mate-
rial times been recognized as such by the Employer. This rec-
ognition has been embodied in successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which was effective from March
14, 2000, through May 31, 2009. The following employees of
the Employer (the unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All employees in the Bindery Department working on binding
processes and operations, including preparation, movement,
and storage of in-process materials for bindery processes, and
operations, including jurisdiction over all machines and all
work, as described in Article 4.1, Union Recognition, of the
collective bargaining agreement, effective from March 14,
2000, through May 31, 2009.
The complaint alleges that on or about December 13, 2006,
the Employer and Respondent reached complete agreement on
terms and conditions of employment of the unit to be incorpo-

2 The Depew facility is sometimes referred to as the Buffalo facility.
rated in a collective-bargaining agreement. It further alleges
that since on or about February 1, 2007, the Employer has re-
quested that Respondent execute a written contract embodying
the agreement described immediately above. It further alleges
that since on or about February 7, 2007, Respondent, by Robert
Mamon, orally failed and refused to execute, and has reneged
on the terms of the agreement described in this paragraph. The
complaint alleges that by this conduct, Respondent has been
failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
with an employer in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
The questions for determination framed by the complaint are:
1. Whether on December 13, 2006, the parties reached
a “meeting of the minds” regarding an essential term of a
collective-bargaining agreement?
a. Did the parties agree to the Employer’s ability to re-
duce 21 employees on the binder/trimmer line without re-
striction?
b. Did the parties agree to utilize article 17.15–Special
Note of the collective-bargaining agreement after imple-
mentation of the reduction of 21 employees?
2. Should Respondent be required to execute a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement presented on February 7, 2007,
after ratification of the collective-bargaining agreement by
Respondent’s membership?
3. Can Respondent claim a unilateral mistake enabling
it to rescind its agreement to collective-bargaining terms
with the Employer?
B. Facts Related to the Issues
1. The general operation of the Employer
Dennis Kerl is the manager of human resources and produc-
tion control for the Employer. In this position, he is responsible
for, inter alia, the negotiation of collective-bargaining agree-
ments between the Employer and its various unions. He has
been negotiating contracts since 1984. He testified that the
Employer engages in the printing, binding and distribution of
mass market paperback books and retail advertising inserts for
newspapers generally. The Employer has about 80 facilities in
the U.S. and 120 worldwide. Kerl works in the Employer’s
Depew, New York facility which is the only facility involved in
the case. The employer at Buffalo prints and binds paperback
books for such publishers as Harlequin, Simon & Shuster,
Hashet, Merriam Webster, Kensington, and others. It prints tour
guide books for AAA and prints newspaper advertising inserts
for Best Buy stores.
At the Depew facility, the Employer maintains the following
departments: the press room, the bindery, electrotypers, or cylin-
der manufacturing, shipping and receiving, distribution, me-
chanical maintenance, building maintenance, and office and
clerical. The press room is involved in printing the text for the
paperback books, the AAA tour guide, the covers for the books,
and the Best Buy ad inserts. The bindery department binds and
trims the books and the tour guides. Shipping and receiving
provides the named services. The cylinder manufacturing de-
partment makes photo polymer plates used in one of the printing
processes. It also cuts the cylinders for the gravure printing proc-
ess. This printing process uses a copper cylinder which has the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD32
texts engraved into it and then is put on a gravure printing press.
The bindery department is the department chiefly involved in
this case. Printed paper is manually or mechanically fed into
binding machines where the pages are clamped together and a
spine affixed with glue to one side and then the bound items are
conveyed to a trimmer which trims up the books. The books
are then either manually or mechanically packed into boxes and
palletized for shipment. General Counsel introduced a series of
photographs which show the actual machines used in the bind-
ing and trimming process. They are interesting, but have no
real bearing on this decision.
From the end of 2006 to January 2007, normally 14 employ-
ees were assigned to each of seven separate binder/trimmer
lines, which run over three shifts. The employer can run an
additional line if needed because of volume. This eighth line is
run regularly at least 3 months a year. The employees generally
fall into three classifications, journeymen, assistant loaders and
helpers. One journeyman is employed on each binding line and
trimming line. They are responsible for the rest of the crew.
The loaders load printed sections into the binder machinery.
The assistant loader loads covers into a “cover feeder” as well
as packaging material. Helpers are assigned to a variety of
tasks, such as assisting the trimmer operator or any other tasks
which may arise that would require help.
One of the printers used is from Europe and is called a Tim-
son press and uses an offset printing process. It is used to print
the paperback texts. The employer also uses Gravure presses. In
2006, it operated four or five of them at Depew depending on
volume. Another printer used is called a Bobst press and it is
used for fancy book covers that have cuts in them or employ
foil.
The parties to this case entered a stipulated set of facts into
the record. Those stipulated facts I find relevant are set out
below or in other places in this decision where they are identi-
fied as stipulated by being put in italics. The wording is almost
entirely as set out in the stipulation, except for some obvious
errors which I have corrected.
At the Depew facility in 2006, there were eight separate bar-
gaining units with eight separate contracts with six different
local unions. There has been a longstanding collective-
bargaining relationship between the Employer and the Union.
The Union involved in this case represents a unit of the em-
ployees in the bindery department and a separate unit of em-
ployees on the so-called QDS line. This latter line involved
employees picking a variety of book titles to ship and packing
them to meet specific orders. There are approximately 353
bindery and 16 QDS employees in the bargaining units repre-
sented by Local 17B. The Employer and Respondent Union
were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement effective
from March 2000 through May 31, 2009.
The Employer has a separate contract with Graphic Com-
munications Conference of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (GCC/IBT) Local 27C, which represents printing
press employees. The Employer has separate contracts with all
of the following unions as well: GCC/IBT Local 75 (electrotyp-
ers, also known as the cylinder manufacturing/foundry unit)
(which represents a unit of cylinder/photopolymer plate manu-
facturers); GCC/IBT Local 26 (which represents the paper
handlers), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) Local 41 (which represents the electrical workers),
IAMAW (International Association of Machinists) (which
represents machinists and building maintenance employees).
All of the collective-bargaining representatives present at the
Employer’s Depew facility will be collectively referred to as the
Unions. The Employer has typically negotiated new collective
bargaining agreements with all of the Unions, since at least
1984.
2. Existing contractual terms affecting staffing levels
The General Counsel introduced into evidence the current
collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and
Respondent. Article 17.15 of this contract reads: “Special
Note–All Equipment: Whenever unusual circumstances arise
due to the nature of the job or the materials used, affecting the
normal scheduled production on the machine, the manning of
this equipment will be adjusted to meet the conditions based on
mutual agreement between the Company and the Union.” Ac-
cording to Kerl, this provision has been used in the past, usually
just on one shift. If a need arises, the Employer notifies the
union steward and the staffing is adjusted. If the need for a
staffing change would be longer, the union president would be
notified. In either case, the provision has only been used in
unusual circumstances, not as a permanent or even long term
staffing change. The staffing change might be to add a person
to the shift or remove a person. According to Kerl, this hap-
pens 6 to 10 times a year.
With respect to article 17.15, Interim Vice President David
Smith testified that this clause had been used to increase and
decrease manning in the past. It has typically been used in un-
usual circumstances such as a slowdown on the line, which
would allow a person to be taken off until the job was finished.
There are also circumstances that would require adding some-
one to a line. Smith cited an example of the clause’s use about
2-1/2 years ago. The Employer was running a book cover and
because of the covers design the covers fed very slowly requir-
ing a manning adjustment. He also noted that some AAA cov-
ers were gate fold covers and those required less manning than
others. Such adjustments to manning following the provision of
article 17.15 occur about twice a year according to Smith. On
each occasion, the manning was adjusted for 4 or 5 days in a
row. Some adjustments add personnel and others reduce per-
sonnel. When the Employer knows in advance that it will need
to make a manning adjustment, written notice is given to the
affected union steward or stewards and the union president.
General Counsel, through Smith, put three such written notices
in evidence. When the situation arises suddenly, the supervisor
involved notifies the steward on duty.
Article 21 of the contract is entitled “New Processes and
Productivity.” Section 21.1 of this article reads:
This will confirm the agreement of both the Company
and the Union that the Contract contains the commitment
of both parties to work together to the best of their abilities
to improve productivity, reduce waste and improve qual-
ity. During the 1995 negotiations, the parties have agreed
to and implemented improved work practices. They fur-
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 33
ther agreed to meet to resolve issues that inhibit the effec-
tive utilization of the work force.
Article 21.12 reads:
In order to remain competitive, the Company assumes
an obligation to study its equipment and methods so that it
can make use of any automation and technical changes
that are available. In the event of the installation of a new
machine or a new operation or substantial modification of
a present operation or crew complement which falls within
the jurisdiction of this Contract, the Company will review
and discuss the manning with the Union as soon as possi-
ble before establishing such manning. In the event that the
parties to this Contract shall fail to agree, the Company
shall establish and operate under the manning for a trial
period of up to two (2) months of actual operation with
progress reviews after every fifteen (15) days. The trial pe-
riod may be extended by mutual consent of the Union and
the Company. At the end of the trial period, there shall be
a review of the recommended manning. If no agreement
can be reached at the end of a thirty (30) calendar day pe-
riod, this matter may be submitted by either party to arbi-
tration under the conditions of the Arbitration Clause as
contained in this contract.
Kerl testified that the provisions of article 21.12 (the “New
Process” clause) have been used and cited an example that took
place about 2 months before this hearing. The Employer made a
modification to an existing machine which enabled it to remove
one person from the operation over three shifts. The matter was
discussed with the Union and an agreement was reached.
Smith testified that the “new processes” clause is used when
the Employer adds a new piece of equipment, when it adds an
insert or line, and when it makes a major modification to an
existing line. The Employer used the clause within the preced-
ing 6 months when it added an automated carton erecting and
carton forming machine on the end of Binder 400. Utilizing
this equipment resulted in a manning decrease of three persons
per shift.
Kerl testified that article 17.15 is used when unusual circum-
stances arise in a normal operation and that article 21.12 is used
when new equipment or technology is brought in or significant
modification is made to existing machinery. The duration of
staffing changes under 17.15 is usually just one shift or one
specific job order and under 21.12 the duration is permanent.
3. The Employer’s financial condition at the end of 2006
In 2006, the Employer became aware that printing as an in-
dustry was in a continuing decline. There was either no growth
or very little growth in the industry. Thus, the Employer needed
to effect consolidations and cost reductions to continue in busi-
ness. The Depew facility was identified, along with others, as
one with costs higher than the Company could sustain. This
plant was put on the list of plants facing potential closure in the
first quarter of 2006. Kerl was notified of this fact by Kevin
Clarke, the president of Quebecor USA’s Book and Directory
Services Group. On July 20, 2006, Clarke held meetings with
employees at the Depew facility. In these meetings he used a
power point presentation that informed the employees that:
Due to the high cost of production in our facility and
numerous market changes, Quebecor World has made a
decision to shut down all gravure operations in Buffalo
(Depew). The current retail business will transfer out of
Buffalo and into other Quebecor World gravure and offset
facilities during December of this year.3
The entire gravure operation will be shut down once
the transfer of AAA to Corinth has been completed during
the first quarter of 2007.
Going forward, we must become low-cost producers,
exceed customer expectations in schedule, quality and
overall service with a highly focused effort on safety and
housekeeping. Exceeding customer expectations is critical
to our future and equally applies to all remaining custom-
ers as well as those moving to other plants.
The points made in the quoted sections above were included
in a notice to employees that the Employer posted in the plant.
On or about August 9, 2006, Respondent’s president, Ma-
mon, sent a letter to his membership related to the impending
changes at the plant. In this letter, Mamon notes the July 20
meetings and informs the membership of the loss of the AAA
business and the fact that as of the letter’s date, no decision had
been made to close the Depew facility. He notes that the Em-
ployer was currently negotiating with Harlequin to renew its
contract. He also notes that getting that contract was vital for
the plant’s future. He advised employees as individuals to con-
tinue to stay focused on the job at hand, continue to keep their
work area clean, continue to closely monitor product quality,
and never quit on the job.
In September 2006, the employer held a management meet-
ing to discuss possible cost-saving measures. The management
team at this meeting was composed of: Vice President and Gen-
eral Manager Bob Scheifflee, Human Resources Manager Kerl,
Manufacturing Manager Dave Smith,4 Maintenance and Engi-
neering Manager Dan Nolsom, Controller Mark Bargnesi, and
Logistics Manager Dennis Wybac. They decided that to make
changes significant enough to get the plant off of the closure
list, it would be necessary to renegotiate the union contracts
under which it was currently operating.
In late September or early October, the Unions were notified
of the Employer’s desire to renegotiate their contract.
4. The December 2006 concessionary negotiations
As noted earlier in this decision, the Parties stipulated cer-
tain facts which are set out in italics. On December 4, 2006, at
approximately 8 a.m. at a conference room in the Employer’s
facility Kevin Clarke announced that the Depew facility was
slated to be closed by Quebecor’s corporate parent in a meet-
ing attended by Quebecor management and representatives of
the eight bargaining units at the Employer (including Respon-

3 During 2006 the Employer ran five Gravure presses, which are
used for the AAA guide books. This work constitutes about 20 percent
of the plant’s volume, but about 40 percent of the labor utilized. This
work however is among the most profitable work done at the Depew
facility and accounts for about 60 percent of the plant’s profit.
4 As of the date of hearing, Smith had been promoted to the position
of interim vice president.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD34
dent Union President Robert Mamon). The Employer suggested
that the parties engage in concessionary bargaining as part of
a plan to keep the facility open. After Clarke left the meeting at
approximately 9:30 a.m., the representatives of the bargaining
units present continued to meet without the Employer being
present. At approximately 11:40 a.m. the same day, the follow-
ing representatives of the Employer met with the following
representatives of the bargaining units (Elizabeth Snyder,
David Kleczka, and Edward Jablonski were not present at this
meeting:
Name Union/Position
Dave Mecca GCC/IBT Local 27C/Business
Agent
Gene Opatkiewicz GCC/IBT Local 27C/President
John Kumpf GCC/IBT Local 27C/Vice
President
Dennis Mohr GCC/IBT Local 76/Vice President
Ken Zawistowski GCE/IBT Local 26/President
Robert Noble IBEW Local 41/Steward
Michael Gaiser IBEW Local 41/Asst. Business
Manager
Ron Warner IAMAW/Business Agent
Celio Nero IAMAW/Steward
Tim Zagst IAMAW/Steward
Robert Mamon GCC/IBT Local 17B/President,
Treasurer
Elizabeth Snyder GCC/IBT Local 17B/Vice Presi-
dent
David Klyczak GCC/IBT Local 17B/Steward
Michael Casey GCC/IBT Local 17B/Secretary
Edward Jablonski GCC/IBT Local 17B/Steward
Employer’s Representatives
Dennis Kerl Manager Human Resources
Mark A. Bargnesi Controller
Lisa Bennett VP HR Book & Directory Grp
David M. Smith Manufacturing Manager
Kerl served as the spokesperson for the Employer during these
negotiations.
For concessions from the Unions, the Employer was offering
as quid pro quo securing the Harlequin contract extension, in-
stalling Timson presses at Depew, and keeping one Gravure
press at Depew for 1 year. The Timson presses are state of the
art and produce a better quality product than the process that
was being used at Depew in 2006. They also required 10 to 15
minute set up time as compared with 1 to 2 hours set up for the
existing presses. The Timson presses involved a significant
capital investment (about $12 million), but achieved great cost
savings in operation. As the Employer was encountering more
and more short runs, the setup time between the runs is an im-
portant cost factor. Evidently its customers are making fre-
quent small orders rather than a few big ones.
The parties stipulated certain facts about the concessionary
negotiations which followed the December 4, 2006 meeting.
They are as follows:
On December 5, 6, and 7, 2006, Bargnesi, Bennett, Kerl, and
Smith for the Employer met for the purposes of negotiations at
the Millennium Hotel in Cheektowaga, New York, with repre-
sentatives of all of the bargaining units listed above. Represen-
tatives of Local 17B were present at the negotiations.
At various times during the negotiations, which lasted from
December 5 through December 8, 2006, Gene Opatkiewicz,
GCC/IBT Local 27C, served as chief spokesperson for the Un-
ions. Ron Warner, IAMAW, Ken Zawistoski, GCC/IBT Local
26, and at times, Dave Mecca, GCC/IBT Local 27C, spoke at
these negotiations. At no point in time did any representatives
from Respondent Local 17B serve as chief spokesperson on
behalf of the various units.
a. The December 5 meeting and proposals of that date
At the hearing Kerl testified about the meeting of December
5. He testified that as of that date the Depew facility remained
high on the list of facilities the Employer’s parent planned to
close. This information was related to the various unions often
in the negotiations. On December 4, the Employer gave to the
Unions a list of concessionary changes it wanted to make to the
contracts it had with them. The list reads as follows:
1. Contract term though May 31, 2015.
2. Zero percent GWI for June 1, 2007, 2008, 2009.
3. Employee contributions towards medical and dental
will be increased to no less than 20% with annual in-
creases of 1% per year over term of the contract.
4. Eliminate WNYLISF and revise company pension
5. Eliminate 5th week vacation for anyone currently
receiving it.
6. Extend forth week vacation eligibility from 10 years
to 25 years of service worked.
7. Eliminate Birthday paid holiday.
8. Eliminate paid lunch and all other premium rates
currently paid.
9. Establish a 40hr workweek where time and a half is
paid only after 40hrs are worked in a week and eliminate
double time pay.
10. Gravure press crewing 5 people per press effective
10/1/2006.
11. Crewing on Press 125 single web 3 people and
Press 125 double web 4 people on all calipers and roll di-
ameters.
12. Work cell for roll stand assistant in photo polymer
text press area.
13. Work cell crewing for any combination of Bobst or
sheet fed offset presses.
14. Establish a requirement for PPO involvement for
all workers compensation claims.5
15. Utilization of temporary employees for term of
CBA.
Kerl testified that the Employer was seeking cost savings of
$10-1/2 to 11 million by its proposals. It also stressed that it
could not guarantee the plant would stay open even if the con-
cessions were made.

5 PPO stands for preferred provider organization.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 35
b. The meeting of December 6 and proposals as of that date
On December 6, the Employer gave the unions a modified
list of changes it desired supplanting the list of December 4.6
This one reads:
1. Increase employee contributions towards medical and den-
tal to 18% 1/1/2007, 20% 2008, 22% 2009.
2. Eliminate fifth week vacation, include fifth week for
significant years 25, 30, 35 etc.
3. Eliminate all double time & replace with time & a
half, exclude holidays.
4. Lead men premium remain and all other premiums
in all CBA’s or past practice terminate.
5. Eliminate 20 day bump provision.
6. Establish a 40 hour work\eek where time and half is
paid only after 40 hours are worked in a workweek.
7. Implement new work cell crewing when running
any two sheet fed combination of Bobst or sheet fed off set
presses.
8. Implement work cell crewing when running any
three photopolymer presses sharing two roll stand opera-
tors.
9. Extend forth week vacation eligibility from 10 years
of service to 20 years of service worked.
10. Implement new crewing for press 125 double webs
at 4 people on all calipers and roll diameters from 40” to
50.”
11. Reduce crew size by one person per
binder/trimmer line.
12. Establish a requirement for PPO involvement for
all workers comp claims.
13. Use of temporary employees year round.
14. Interdepartmental workforce flexibility to have the
ability to flex employees from one department to another
for productivity needs on a shift by shift basis. Productiv-
ity based flexibility.
15. Freeze current company pension and replace plan
with 401A/401K plan with company contribution.
16. Elimination of WNYLISF7 Payments. Increase
Company group life insurance to $17,000.
17. Zero GWI, 2007, 2008, 2009–2010 through 2014
to be determined.
Item 11 above would have changed the normal complement
of each binder/trimmer line by one, going from 14 to 13. In the
normal operation of seven lines on three shifts, that means item
11 would cause the reduction in force of 21 people. Kerl testi-
fied that these people would not have been laid off, but moved
to other jobs and the actual reduction in force would occur by
attrition over time. The affected employees would undergo
cross training and be used where needed. This proposal and the
way it would be put into effect was discussed with Local 17B.
Reducing the crew size on the binder/trimmer line was ne-
cessitated, according to Kerl, by the six involved unions telling

6 Between December 4 and 6, there may have been other lists given
to the Union, but they are not in evidence and in any case, were super-
seded by the one passed out on December 6.
7 Western New York Labor Income Security Fund.
him that certain items on the original list of December 4 were
“sacred” to them and a proposal containing changes to sacred
items could not be ratified by their membership. On the list of
December 6, set out above, items identified by the Unions as
“sacred” were items 2, 3, 4, 6, and 16. Mamon testified that he
and Snyder sought to have this reduction proposal dropped
without success. They then repeatedly urged that it be subject to
the parties’ “mutual agreement.”
At some point in these negotiations the Employer determined
what each item sought would likely save and gave this informa-
tion to the unions. A great deal of discussion was had relative
to the proposed manning reductions in the press room and on
the binder/trimmer line. The binder/trimmer line reduction is
contained in item 11. The press room reductions are contained
in items 7, 8, and 10. The costs savings associated with the
reduction on the binder/trimmer line amounted to approxi-
mately $790,000 annually and was the second most significant
cost savings proposed.
c. The meeting of December 7 and the proposals of that date
On December 7, the Employer gave the Unions a revised list
of changes it wanted. This list superseded the one from De-
cember 6 and reads:
1. Increase employee contributions towards medical
and dental to 18%–1/1/07, 20% 2008, 22% 2009, 23%
2010, 24% 2011.
2. Eliminate 20-day bump down provision 2008.
3. Implement new work cell crewing when running
any two sheet fed combination of Bobst embossing or
sheet fed offset presses, will share an assistant.
4. Extend fourth week vacation eligibility from 10-
years to 15-years of service worked.
5. Implement new crewing for Press 125 double webs
4 people when running .004 caliper or lower on 40” rolls.
6. Reduce crew size by one person per binder/trimmer
line.
7. Establish a requirement for PPO involvement for all
workers’ compensation claims.
8. Use of temporary employees year round after recall.
9. Productivity Based Flexibility: If the need arises on
a shift to provide additional crewing to cover for absentee-
ism or tardiness, or to provide manpower for short-term
production demands or for the need for a particular skill
for short-term employees may be temporarily assigned or
transferred to a classification or department other than
his/her own. Under such conditions, a qualified available
employee will be transferred without regard to seniority
from the same shift and will be paid the rate of the classi-
fication they are working.
10. Freeze current company pension and replace plan
with 401(a)/401(k) plan with company contribution.
11. Zero GWI 1/1/2007, Zero GWI 1/1/2008, Zero
GWI 1/1/2009, 2% GWI 1/1/2010, 2% GWI 1/1/2011
Above contingent on quid pro quo of the following: Signed
Harlequin contract, 2 Timsons installed in Buffalo, 1 Gravure
press for 1 year.
This proposal differs from the previous one in a number of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD36
ways. The proposal to eliminate the fifth week of vacation has
been dropped. The proposal to eliminate doubletime has been
dropped. The proposal to establish a 40-hour workweek has
been dropped. The proposal to implement new work cell crew-
ing for the photopolymer presses has been dropped. Forth
week vacation eligibility has been changed from the original
proposal of 20 to 15 years of service. The crewing proposal for
press 125 has been changed to be less inclusive. Use of tempo-
rary employees has been restricted somewhat from the original
proposals. The flexibility proposal has been limited. The gen-
eral wage increase proposal has been changed to add a 2-
percent increase in the years 2010 and 2011. And the quid pro
quo for agreement has been added to the proposal.
With respect to item 6 above, Kerl testified that he told the
Respondent Union during these negotiations that it meant 21
employees would be removed from the binder/trimmer line. He
testified that both Mamon and Snyder said that they understood
that to be the case. They had discussions about the process to
be used to select the actual persons to be removed upon imple-
mentation of this proposal. Kerl testified that on December 7,
he and Snyder discussed this topic. Snyder felt the position
eliminated should not be a loader as that position had seen
enough reductions. Klyczak spoke on the subject, and Kerl
suggested that decision be deferred until after the matter of the
reduction per se had been ratified by the membership.
Kerl and his team became frustrated with the negotiations in
the afternoon of December 7 and sensing they were not suc-
ceeding, decided to leave before they failed completely. He
testified that most of the day had been spent dealing with the
proposed reduction in the binder/trimmer line and no agreement
seemed imminent. According to Kerl, the Respondent wanted
to use “mutual agreement” to achieve the reduction in force.
Kerl rejected this approach as it gave the Respondent a veto
over the reduction and could not guarantee the cost savings the
Employer needed to keep the plant open. The Respondent then
suggested using article 21.12 of the existing contract, the New
Process clause, and the Employer rejected this approach as
there was no new process, just an overriding need for cost sav-
ings. The Respondent’s unwillingness to agree to the Em-
ployer’s proposal to reduce the crewing on the binder/trimmer
line caused the breakdown in negotiations.
Dave Smith offered corroborating testimony on these points,
adding that the Employer was not adding new equipment or
employing new processes, so these articles in the existing con-
tract were not appropriate. He testified that it was pointed out
to Respondent that if the concessions sought were not given
and the quid pro quo items put in place, the Depew plant would
permanently close. Smith pointed out to Respondent that mu-
tual consent was not acceptable as the Employer need the cost
savings represented by the binder/trimmer line staff reductions
immediately. Smith testified that Mamon stated that he knew
that one person per line must come off, but he wanted to ac-
complish that end by mutual consent.
During the negotiations on December 7, 2006, at the Millen-
nium Hotel, the Employer advised the representatives of the
bargaining units that they were leaving and would report that
these negotiations had failed to achieve the desired goal. Later
in the evening of December 7, 2006, another meeting was ar-
ranged for Friday, December 8, 2006, at the Hilton Garden
Inn, with the representatives of the Unions.
d. The meeting of December 8 and the Employer’s final offer
On Friday, December 8, 2006, Bargnesi, Bennett, Kerl, and
Smith for the Employer met with representatives of the bargain-
ing units listed above at the Hilton Garden Inn. Present at
these negotiations from Respondent Local 17B were Mamon,
Snyder, Klyczak, and Casey. The representatives of all of the
bargaining units met amongst themselves from 9 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. At approximately 1:30 p.m., the parties resumed their
negotiations. At approximately 4:18 p.m. on December 8,
2006, Kerl presented the Employer’s “final offer” to the union
representatives. The union representatives agreed to present
the final offer to their members without their recommendation.
Kerl testified that when the meeting began, he asked Gene
Opatkiewicz, who was the lead spokesperson for the Unions, if
a resolution had been reached with respect to item 6, the reduc-
tion in the crew for the binder/trimmer line. Also present were
the representatives of Respondent. Opatkiewicz stated that
manning issues had been resolved and turned to Mamon and
asked if that was correct. Mamon said it was. During this
meeting, the Employer presented what is referred to in the
paragraph above as the Employer’s “final offer.” It reads:
1. Increase employee contributions toward medical and
dental to 20% 6/1/07, 20% 1/1/09, 22% 1/1/08, 22%
1/1/10, 24% 1/1/11.
2. Eliminate 20-day bump down provisions 1/1/2008.
3. Implement new work cell crewing when running
any two sheet fed combination of Bobst embossing or
sheet fed offset presses, will share an assistant.
4. Extend forth week vacation eligibility from 10-years
to 15-years of service.
5. Implement new crewing for Press 125 double webs
4 people when running .004 caliper or lower on 40” rolls.
6. Reduce crew size by one person per binder/trimmer
lines.
7. Establish a requirement for PPO involvement for all
workers’ compensation claims.
8. Use of temporary employees year round only after
recall rights exhausted and maximum of 60 shifts worked
per employee and 50% of entry level positions.
9. Productivity Based Flexibility: If the need arises on
a shift to provide additional crewing to cover for absentee-
ism or tardiness, or to provide manpower for short-term
production demands or for the need for a particular skill
for short-term employees may be temporarily assigned or
transferred to a classification or department other than
his/her own. Under such conditions, a qualified available
employee will be transferred without regard to seniority
from the same shift and will be paid no less than their cur-
rent classification rate.
10. Freeze current company pension and replace plan
with 401(a) 4% company contribution. 401(k) employee
contributions optional with no company match. Effective
6/1/07.
11. Zero GWI 1/1/2007, Zero GWI 1/1/2008, Zero
GWI 1/1/2009, 2% GWI 1/1/2010, 2%GWI 1/1/2011
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 37
12. Expiration 12/31/2011
Above contingent on quid pro quo of the following: “signed
Harlequin contract,8 commitment to install 2 Timsons in Buf-
falo by June 30, 2007, and 1 Gravure press for one year.”
The final offer differs from the previous proposal with re-
spect to items 1, 8, and 10. The Employer gave up on several
concessions it has originally sought in these negotiations and
lowered its overall cost-savings target. The original of the final
offer is signed by each of the union representatives present,
including those from Respondent. Their signatures indicated
that they understood the terms of the final offer. Mamon, in
particular, stated that he understood the terms of the offer. The
final offer, in addition to the crew reductions on the
binder/trimmer lines, calls for crew reductions in other depart-
ments in items 3 and 5, which involve the press room.
From the Employer’s standpoint, the final offer if ratified by
the Unions, gave the local management something tangible to
show higher management in their effort to keep the Depew
plant open and running. It did not, however, guarantee that
outcome would happen. This message was conveyed to the
involved unions.
Kenneth Zawistowski of Local 26 testified. With respect to
negotiations over the binder reductions, Zawistowski recalled
the Respondent raising issues of safety and productivity being
impacted by the proposed reduction. He remembered the Em-
ployer saying that it would not run a machine that was unsafe and
unproductive. He remembered the Respondent stating that if
there could be mutual agreement added to the reduction lan-
guage, then it would agree. He recalled management saying they
already had that right in the existing CBA. He recalled that on
the meeting of December 8, the Respondent agreed to the pro-
posed reduction of one person per line on the binder/trimmer
lines. On the other hand, he also recalled Mamon continuing to
press for “mutual agreement.”
e. The meetings of December 11 and “clarifications” of that date
On Monday, December 11, 2006, on approximately three oc-
casions, Clarke held a series of meetings with employees at the
Employer’s facility and presented a power point presentation
and a business overview.9 It was explained that the quid pro
quo for approval of the final offer was to sign the Harlequin
contract, a commitment to install 2 Timson presses, and to
operate on Gravure press for 1 year.
Respondent’s representatives attended one of these meetings.
On December 11, 2006, in response to various questions from
the various union representatives, the Employer distributed
what is entitled “Clarifications.” This document reads:

8 The Harlequin business accounts for 45 percent of the plant’s pa-
perback book business, which is the bulk of the work at Depew.
9 The presentation also pointed out that the Depew plant was in a
break even or no profit position, that the Employer needed productivity
based flexibility, cost reductions including wage freezes, crewing re-
ductions, and benefit changes in order to secure a successful future for
the Depew plant. It urged the employees to ratify the Company’s con-
cessionary proposals.
“One Gravure Press for one year. One Gravure Press
will be scheduled Mon-Fri thru March of 2008 for Best
Buy or Equivalent.”
“#7: PPO will be post negotiated–The current CBA
process for dispute resolution will be utilized if the parties
are unable to successfully negotiate acceptable terms.”
“#8: Temporary employees–Utilize temporary em-
ployees in entry level positions only.”
Kerl testified that he gave a copy of this document to each
union representative, explained it, and noted that it did not in
any way affect the terms of the final offer.
f. The ratification vote of December 12 and events
surrounding it
By the time of the first ratification vote by Respondent’s
membership, Mamon had become convinced that the Employer
was not going to drop the reduction in force proposal and
would not agree to have it subject to mutual agreement. Re-
spondent’s Executive Board had recommended to the member-
ship that they not ratify the final offer.10 According to Mamon,
at the initial ratification vote, the membership had many ques-
tions about item 6 and Mamon left the membership to try to get
answers from Kerl. Mamon testified that he called Kerl and
asked how the Company planned to achieve the reduction in
force and was told by Kerl that the new process clause would
be used. According to Mamon, when he gave this information
to the membership, they wanted to see it in writing. The mem-
bership then rejected ratification.
Respondent’s vice president, Liz Snyder, also testified on
this subject. According to Snyder, during the meeting of Re-
spondent’s membership for the ratification vote, Mamon ex-
cused himself for a few minutes and on returning, told the
membership that Kerl had agreed that the reduction in force
would take place using the guidelines of the new process article
in the existing contract. According to Snyder, this still did not
satisfy the membership because it was not in writing.
Respondent’s recording secretary, Michael Casey, testified
that at the first ratification vote Mamon excused himself for a
while, then told the membership that he had just spoken with
Kerl and that Kerl has said that negotiations after ratification
would determine the persons to be cut from the binder/trimmer
lines. He testified that there was no discussion of new process
at this juncture.
Kerl testified that on December 12, 2006, he received a tele-
phone call from Mamon. Mamon was in the process of con-
ducting a ratification meeting with his members. He indicated
to Kerl that the meeting was rowdy and asked if the Employer
would use the “new process clause” of the existing contract in
relation to item 6 of the final offer, the reduction of the
binder/trimmer line crew. Kerl told Mamon he could not
change the terms of the final offer and, further, that the new
process clause was not part of the final offer as it did not
achieve cost savings absolutely.
I will find here and at later junctures in this decision that the

10 Mamon had left the Employer with the understanding that there
would be a neutral recommendation as was apparently the case with all
the other unions involved.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD38
Respondent’s witnesses gave fabricated testimony designed to
support their position regardless of the truthfulness of the testi-
mony. I credit Kerl’s testimony that in the phone call he re-
jected Mamon’s plea to use the new process clause to accom-
plish the reductions. This finding is totally consistent with the
Employer’s unwavering position throughout the negotiations.
To do what Mamon said, make the reduction subject to the new
processes clause, would have the effect of withdrawing the
reduction from the table as the parties could have tried to have
a reduction using this clause under the existing contract. It
would have also made the reductions dependent on mutual
agreement and subject to arbitration. I find it telling that Casey
did not go along with Mamon’s and Snyder’s fabrication. Ca-
sey’s testimony is wholly consistent with Kerl’s testimony and
the position of the Employer in the preceding negotiations. I do
not find Snyder’s and Mamon’s testimony on this point to be
credible and reject it.
At ratification votes held on Tuesday, December 12, 2006,
five (5) bargaining units voted to accept the Employer’s final
offer. The following three (3) bargaining units rejected Quebe-
cor’s final offer: The Bindery Unit and QDS Unit represented
by Local 17B, and the Electrotypers Unit represented by
GCC/IBT Local 76. On December 12, 2006, the Employer met
with representatives from Respondent Local 17B to discuss the
ratification vote held on December 12.
Kerl testified that the meeting was held in the afternoon of
December 12. The parties talked about the reasons for the Re-
spondent not ratifying the final offer. With respect to item 6,
the discussion was about the item relative to the new process
clause and the concerns of the affected employees as to who
would be selected to be in the group of 21 to be shifted to other
jobs. Mamon testified that he told Kerl that the Employer
would have to put in writing its intention to use the new process
clause to achieve staff reductions. Kerl testified that he again
rejected the new process clause approach to item 6 as it did not
give absolute certain savings. Dave Smith testified about this
meeting. He testified that the Respondent indicated that the
lack of identification of the person to be removed from the lines
was the sticking point. According to Smith, the Employer then
made it clear that the final offer was the final offer and would
not be revised. Then the Respondent’s representatives, Mamon
and Snyder, asked if they could present a proposal to the Em-
ployer the next day.
Kerl also met this day with representatives from Local 76.
They told him that the electrotypers had rejected the final offer
because of concerns with the changes proposed with respect to
the pension, use of temporary employees, and productivity
based flexibilities.
g. The meeting of December 13 and additional “clarifications”
On December 13, 2006, Mamon and Snyder for Respondent
met with the Employer (Bargnesi, Kerl, and Smith) in the Hu-
man Resources conference room at the Employer’s Depew,
New York facility, and presented the Employer with a proposal
for a re-vote. At some point Bennett joined this meeting. Also
on December 13, the Employer prepared a document dated
December 13, 2006, which was presented to Mamon and Sny-
der during the course of the meeting described above. This
document was thereafter provided to the representatives of
every bargaining unit.
Snyder testified that she prepared a document which ad-
dressed the membership concerns on each of the final offer
items the membership differed with. This was in the form of a
counterproposal. She testified that her wording of item 6 re-
ferred to the new process clause because of Mamon’s telephone
conversation with Kerl during the vote. She said the wording
also reflected her fear that if the reduction of one person per
line were too severe that a mechanism would be in place to add
extra manpower at times, if needed. Snyder also testified that
when the counterproposal was presented to Kerl on December
13, he seem to have no problem with it and said we can work
with it.11 Consistent with my earlier credibility finding about
the Kerl–Mamon phone call of the previous day, I reject Sny-
der’s contention that her wording of the counterproposal on
item 6 was worded the way it was because of the phone call.
Instead, I believe it was worded that way to once again try to
convince the Employer to use that approach and to address her
fear about the effect of the reduction on production and quality
after the reduction in staff had been effected.
The Respondent’s proposal for a re-vote is similar to the
Employer’s final offer, except for a few proposed changes. In
item 1, the Respondent proposed adding a phrase to the end of
the item, which reads “using IH Encompass B as the base rate.”
Kerl testified that he reminded Respondent that this matter had
been discussed in negotiations.
To item 4, the Respondent added a sentence to the end of the
Employer’s item 4 reading, “All already receiving forth week
will be grandfathered in.” Kerl testified that he told Respon-
dent that those employees already receiving the forth week
would be grandfathered in.
The Respondent’s proposed modification of item 6 reads:
“Reduce crew size by one person per binder/trimmer line fol-
lowing guidelines of new process clause. Once implemented, if
the need arises in difficulty of a job, management will afford
the crew an extra person to assist.”
Kerl testified that he reiterated his position of the day before
and during negotiations that the new process clause could not
be used.12 He asked the Respondent’s representatives if they
understood that there would be a reduction of one person per
binder/trimmer line and they indicated that they understood
that. There was also some discussion about the second sen-
tence the Respondent proposed to make to this item. Kerl then
told Respondent’s representatives that he would meet with
them postratification and discuss the position and classification
to be targeted for reduction.
Dave Smith offered testimony corroborating that of Kerl on
this point. Smith also testified that the Employer’s clarification
of item 6 was a response to the Respondent’s concern that it
would fail to perform its work properly with a reduced work
force, and provided a mechanism for adding employees in

11 This statement is not in Snyder’s affidavit covering the December
13 meeting.
12 Kerl credibly denied a suggestion by Respondent’s counsel that he
had made the suggestion that the “new process” clause be used to
achieve the reduction in crew size on the binder/trimmer lines.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 39
situations where they were needed on a particular project. Ac-
cording to Smith, the meeting ended with the Respondent again
stating its understanding that one person would come off each
binder/trimmer line. According to Smith, there was no mention
in the meeting that the clarification of item 6, mentioning arti-
cle 17.15, would apply before the implementation of the reduc-
tion, only afterward.
With respect to item 7, the Respondent’s proposal reads,
“Establish a requirement for PPO involvement for all Compen-
sation claims, within NY State guidelines. All existing claims
grandfathered. 90 day opt out and other details Post Negotia-
tions.”
With respect to item 9, Respondent added an asterisk to the
word “short term” each time it appears in the item and then
noted the asterisk meant “shift by shift.”
With respect to item 10, the Respondent proposed that it
read: “Freeze current company pension and replace plan with
401(a)/401(k) plan with company contribution of 4% to the
401(a). Based on gross wages of employee.”
Respondent proposed adding to the quid pro quo language
the words “Quebecor Buffalo” in conjunction with the Harle-
quin contract language and the word “Quebecor” before the
word “Buffalo” in the line dealing with the installation of the
Timson Presses.
Kerl testified that, with respect to Respondent’s re-vote pro-
posal, he told the Respondent’s representatives that he was not
authorized to change the final offer and that in any event, it
would not be fair to the unions that had ratified the offer. He
did offer to make clarifications to the final offer to answer any
questions the Respondent might have, but stated he would not
change the language of the final offer. Mamon asked Kerl to
put this in writing.
At this point, the management representatives caucused and
prepared what it entitled “Clarifications.” This document
reads:
“One Gravure Press for one year. One Gravure Press will be
scheduled Mon–Fri thru March of 2008 for Best Buy or
Equivalent.”
#7: PPO will be post negotiated—The current CBA process
for dispute resolution will be utilized if the parties are unable to
successfully negotiate acceptable terms.”
#8: Temporary employees—Utilize temporary employees in
entry level positions only.”
Rev 1:13
#1: Medical & Dental: EE contribution percentage
based on total cost of plan.
#4: Fourth Week Vacation: Employees currently re-
ceiving fourth week are grandfathered.
#6: Reduce crew size on Binder/Trimmer—Reference
CBA Article XVII SPECIAL NOTE—ALL
EQUIPMENT.

13 Kerl testified that REV 1 means revision one to the earlier clarifi-
cation document which is repeated in the first three paragraphs above.
He testified that this language is required by the Employer’s document
control procedures.
#7: PPO involvement will follow NYS guidelines.
#9: Productivity based Flexibility—Short term is de-
fined as shift by shift and last sentence in paragraph is
clarified to “with” regard to senority and employee will be
paid higher rate if applicable. #9 is not applicable to Cyl-
inder and Merigraph depts.
#10: 401(k)/401(a) plan—Guidelines calculate com-
pany contribution on employees’ gross wages.
As noted earlier, article 17.15 of the existing CBA reads:
“Special Note—All Equipment: Whenever unusual circum-
stances arise due to the nature of the job or the materials used,
affecting the normal scheduled production on the machine, the
manning of this equipment will be adjusted to meet the condi-
tions based on mutual agreement between the Company and the
Union.”
Kerl testified that this new document was a revision or con-
tinuation of the earlier clarification made to the final offer.
Kerl testified that it was not only prepared to clarify items for
Respondent, but for some of the other unions as well. For ex-
ample, the clarification of item 9 is applicable to the Cylinder
and Merigraph departments and does not apply to Local 17B.
With respect to item 6, Kerl testified that he came up with
the language utilized. He explained that he meant that once the
crew reduction had been implemented, article 17.15 would be
used to handle unusual circumstances that might arise. He testi-
fied that he believed that this is what Mamon wanted put in
writing. It also fit the concern that Snyder addressed in the
second sentence of her counterproposal to item 6. Kerl testified
that in no way did this language change the final offer’s lan-
guage of reducing the binder trimmer crew by one person per
line. He further testified that he told the Respondent that this
was the case. Kerl also testified that he told the Respondent’s
representatives that he and the other management personnel at
the meeting did not have any authority to change the terms of
the final offer. The clarification language of item 6, like the
language used in the other items noted, is simply a shorthand
clarification and does not replace the language in the final offer.
After the clarification document was given to Respondent’s
representatives, all parties met again. At this meeting Kerl
stated that the document would be given to all the Unions and
reiterated that it in no way changed the final offer.14 He asked
the Respondent to take the matter to a re-vote. According to
Kerl, the Respondent’s representatives said they would take the
clarification to their executive board for review and would ad-
vise about a re-vote after that had occurred. Kerl testified that
based on what was said in this meeting, the Respondent under-

14 Kerl testified that copies of the document were in fact given to all
the Unions with the caveat that it did not in any way change the final
offer. Joseph Ziewicki is president of Local 76 at the plant. He testi-
fied that after his union initially voted not to ratify the Employer’s final
offer he met with Kerl and received clarifications about certain sticking
points. Kerl satisfactorily clarified some concerns and put the clarifica-
tions in writing. These related to whether one of the items applied to
his bargaining unit and a clarification that in the workers’ compensation
proposal the New York State guidelines for PPO would be followed.
These clarifications satisfied his membership. It was his understanding
that the clarifications did not change the final offer.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD40
stood what the clarification meant as he described in earlier
testimony. He again testified that during his explanation of the
document he asked the Respondent’s representatives if they
understood that the Employer was going to remove one person
per binder/trimmer line and they said they did. Kerl also testi-
fied that they discussed meeting after ratification to discuss
whether the person removed from each line would be a loader
or assistant. He also noted to the union representatives that the
clarification was in line with their re-vote proposal, that once
the reductions were implemented, they would use the provi-
sions of article 17.15 to handle problems that arose. Kerl testi-
fied that at no time on December 13 did the parties talk about
using article 17.15 prior to the implementation of the crew re-
duction. Their discussions of the use of this article were all
about its use post-implementation. Kerl testified that at no time
on December 13 did the Employer indicate that the proposed
reductions on the binder/trimmer line would only occur when it
could show special circumstances as envisioned in article 17.15
or by mutual agreement of the Employer and Respondent. Kerl
also denied that there was any discussion of the Respondent
having veto power over the proposed crew reductions. Kerl
testified that at this meeting, the Union gave no indication that
its interpretation of item 6 was different from that of manage-
ment.
The Employer’s controller, Mark Bargnesi, testified about
the December 13 meeting. Bargnesi testified that when they
discussed item 6, Snyder raised the matter of how staffing prob-
lems on the binder/trimmer lines would be handled after im-
plementation. According to Bargnesi, that was the reason for
the clarification of item 6 by the Employer and it related only to
the second sentence of the Union’s proposal for a revision of
item 6. Bargnesi testified that the Employer reiterated that it
was not changing the language of its final offer, that it still
called for the reduction of one person per line, and that the
clarification language was only to be used to solve problems
after implementation of the reduction. At no time on December
13 was it ever suggested that the Respondent would have veto
power over the proposed reduction or that special circum-
stances as defined in article 17.15 of the existing contract
would have to exist before the reduction could take place.
Respondent’s witnesses had an entirely different and far less
credible version of the meeting with respect to item 6. Mamon
testified that the Respondent’s proposal regarding item 6 was
prepared as a result of Mamon’s phone call to Kerl the previous
day. I have previously discredited Mamon’s testimony in this
regard. Mamon testified that when the Employer came back
with its clarifications, he asked questions about the one related
to item 6 as it proposed to use article 17.15, a more restrictive
clause than the new process clause. He testified that he under-
stood the manning reductions would be accomplished using
article 17.15. Mamon testified that he or Snyder asked if article
17.15 would be used prior to reductions, as the means to
achieve reductions. He testified that the management team, by
Kerl, said that article 17.15 would be used to achieve the reduc-
tions. According to Mamon, Kerl asked if they would have a
second vote, and Mamon replied he had to have the approval of
the executive board. Mamon then testified that he went to the
Board and showed them the clarifications and the Board felt it
was a significant enough change to have a second vote. Ma-
mon testified that at the vote, he told the members that the re-
ductions would take place under the provisions of article 17.15.
Mamon’s affidavit that addresses this meeting of December
13, in pertinent part, states:
The Employer provided us with a clarification sheet,
dated December 13, 2006, and asked if we would take this
to our membership for a revote. Liz Snyder may have
asked if the reference to #6 was going to be done prior to
the reduction, or if this was the vehicle, Article XVII, Spe-
cial Note, to reduce crew size on binder/trimmer. That
language does not state ‘one person.’ Liz Snyder may
have asked how are you going to do it. To me, that meant
that some of the lines would possibly be saved from a re-
duction. I do not recall the Employer’s specific comment
about #6. However, I affirmatively recall that the Em-
ployer did not state anything at that meeting that led the
Union to believe that Article XVII would not be used to
reduce the manning as proposed. The Employer made no
statements, or set up any red flags, that would lead the Un-
ion to believe anything other than that the Employer would
be using Article XVII as a vehicle to reduce manning.
The Employer never stated that they would implement the
reduction and then apply Article XVII to the future. Arti-
cle XVII is more restrictive than the new process lan-
guage. This was the first time the Employer brought up
the Special Note—All Equipment language. I do not re-
call a discussion about the Special Note occurring at all in
the first meeting earlier in the day.
At one point during the afternoon meeting, Liz Snyder, asked
whether the Employer was going to utilize article XVII (17.15),
the parameters of special note, prior to the manning reduction.
One of the Employer representatives said it would apply “prior
to.” After this meeting, the general consensus among Liz Sny-
der and myself, there was no question that the Employer was
going to use article XVII special note to reduce the manning at
issue. The Union did not even conceive that the Employer
would be referring to manning in the future. The Union be-
lieved that the Employer threw out the new language, because
they thought it would be more amenable to the Executive Board
and the employees.” (End of quote from Mamon’s affidavit.)
Snyder testified that when she saw the clarification to item 6,
she was shocked because she felt that the Employer had taken
the proposed staff reduction off the table as the language of the
clarification was already in the existing contract. She testified
that she was still concerned so she asked if the clarification
language was to be used prior to the reduction. According to
Snyder, Kerl said, “Yes, yes, yes.” For reasons set out below, I
do not credit this testimony and believe it to be fabricated to
serve Mamon’s and Snyder’s personal agendas.
There were several items clarified by the Employer on De-
cember 13, and those clarifications were discussed by the par-
ties on that date. Each in some fashion modified or clarified in
some small way the Employer’s final offer, but did not signifi-
cantly change it. Yet, those items were discussed, but the clari-
fication of item 6 was almost entirely left alone, save for the
cryptic “prior to” question purportedly posed by Snyder. This
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 41
is true even though Snyder felt or says she felt that the change
to item 6 had the effect of taking that item off the table. If her
testimony is to be believed and I do not believe it, certainly she
would have asked whether the Employer was taking it off the
table.
It should be noted that if article 17.15 were used as the
method to reduce one person per line, it could never be accom-
plished. Article 17.15 is very restrictive, allowing a reduction
only when there are special circumstances shown, something
that would not happen on a daily basis. Article 17.15 addresses
temporary problems and is not used to make permanent staffing
changes. Moreover, if the Employer did make this proposal, it
was making the proposed new contract even more restrictive in
this regard than the existing one, which would have allowed the
new process clause to be used or perhaps other existing provi-
sions.
I find that the Employer did not change the terms of its final
offer. It was not authorized to change it, and as its witnesses
noted at hearing and to Respondent, it would not have been fair
to the other local unions to change the offer. All that the Em-
ployer was willing to do was to provide some clarification, and
specifically with respect to item 6, to provide a mechanism for
solving manning problems that arose in future after the
binder/trimmer line reductions had taken place. The clarifica-
tion only dealt with the second sentence of Respondent’s coun-
terproposal on item 6 which dealt with problems post reduction.
I find that the Employer clearly communicated to Respondent
its rejection of the new process clause or article 17.15 as a
means to make the reduction. The existing contract already
contained the new process clause and article 17.15 and thus, the
Employer was not getting anything by asking the Respondent
for it. There was no new process involved nor were there spe-
cial circumstances as envisioned by article 17.15, simply and
significantly there was an overriding financial necessity to
achieve cost reductions to keep the plant alive. The Employer
had consistently and repeatedly rejected the notion of new
process, mutual agreement, or any other mechanism that gave
the Respondent a veto power of the reduction. To have agreed
to new process or any other similar mechanism, would have not
allowed the Employer to have a chance to save the plant, or
make the investments envisioned by the quid pro quo items.
I credit the testimony of Kerl, Smith, and Bargnesi over that
of Snyder and Mamon regarding the events of December 13.
Using article 17.15 it makes sense in the way its use was in-
tended, as related by the Employer. It would afford a mecha-
nism to solve any production staffing problems that arose on
particular jobs post reduction. It makes no sense whatsoever to
use it to make the reductions. The Employer already had article
17.15 in its contract. Nothing had changed with respect to the
financial necessity of achieving the cost savings the 21-person
reduction represented.
I do not think Snyder and Mamon were confused or misled
in any respect in this meeting. They have simply chosen to
play a game to serve their own limited and short sighted inter-
ests. I find that the Employer made perfectly clear that the final
offer remained the same with respect to the reduction, that it
would involve one person per binder/trimmer line for a total of
21 persons without restriction or limitation on its implementa-
tion. I find that it was likewise perfectly clear that article 17.15
would be used in the future, post reduction, to solve problems
that might arise. The clarification was only made to clarify
what would happen if problems arose post reduction, a legiti-
mate concern of Respondent, and expressly raised by Snyder.
When two of Respondent’s representatives left the December
13 meeting, the state of the agreement was that the reductions
would take place as proposed in the Employer’s final offer and,
if problems arose thereafter, they would be addressed by use of
article 17.15. I believe and find that Mamon and Snyder knew
this and agreed to it, but chose after this meeting to jump on the
language of the clarification in a last ditch effort to avoid the
reduction. I do not credit their representations that the Em-
ployer agreed that article 17.15 would be used prior to the re-
ductions and find their testimony in this regard to be fabricated
and untrue. I similarly find all of Mamon’s and Snyder’s testi-
mony about their reaction to the Employer’s clarification of
item 6 fabricated. Respondent’s counsel, at one point, accused
the Employer of playing a “shell game” when in fact that is
clearly what Respondent did in the timeframe following agree-
ment on December 13.
h. Other events of December 2006
On December 14, Mamon called Kerl and told him that a re-
vote would take place on December 15. Kerl made available to
Mamon 300 copies of the final offer and 300 copies of the
clarification document for distribution to unit members. Snyder
testified that at the membership meeting of December 15 Ma-
mon told the membership that the Employer would attempt to
reduce staff following a procedure used in February 2006. The
Employer, on that occasion, submitted a written request to re-
duce force to the Respondent and it was voted up or down by
the Respondent’s executive board. This procedure was clearly
not mentioned in the December 13 meeting.
On December 15, 2006, the members of the Bindery bargain-
ing unit, represented by Local 17B, voted to ratify. The electro-
typers unit represented by Local 76 voted to accept the final
offer; and the QDS bargaining unit represented by Local 17B
rejected the final offer. On December 18, 2006, the QDS bar-
gaining unit voted to accept the final offer.
Subsequent to the ratification of the Employer’s final offer,
the Employer did get the Harlequin contract and got a commit-
ment from higher management to install the two Timson
Presses in Depew and to keep one Gravure Press in Depew for
1 year. Thus, it followed through on its quid pro quo offer.
i. The meeting and events of January 29
On January 29, 2007, there was a meeting between repre-
sentatives of the Employer and representatives of Respondent
Local 17B. Present for the Employer were Bargnesi, Smith,
and Bill Reese, manager of the Bindery Operations. Present
for the Respondent were Mamon and Snyder.
Mamon testified that in early January 2007 he received one
draft of the new contract which the Employer wanted him to
sign. It was introduced as Respondent’s Exhibit 2. It does not
contain the language reducing the binder/trimmer line as does
the copy of the contract Mamon was asked to sign in February.
He testified that he got that language on the day of the sign-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD42
ing.15 Kerl testified that the language of the reduction was not
in the early drafts because the position to be eliminated had not
been decided.
Mamon testified that he received a voice mail from Kerl on
January 26, 2007. Mamon testified that Kerl’s message was
that he wanted to talk about contractual language on reducing
the manning on the binder/trimmer lines. Mamon added that
Kerl indicated that he wanted to reduce manning by one person,
per line, noting that he had not included that language in the
draft contract he had sent Mamon.
According to Kerl, the purpose of the meeting from the Em-
ployer’s perspective was to discuss the position or clarification
to be reduced on the binder/trimmer line pursuant to item 6.
Smith testified and agreed with Kerl as to the purpose of the
meeting. According to Smith, the Employer proposed eliminat-
ing the cover feeder position. The Respondent, by Snyder,
objected that this position on the binder/trimmer lines had been
reduced earlier. At that point, Mamon called a caucus. When
Respondent’s representatives returned, Mamon inquired what
process was to be used to determine the position eliminated and
indicated that he expected it to require mutual agreement of the
parties. Smith then asked if Mamon understood that a person
had to be eliminated from each line. According to Smith, Ma-
mon said “yes,” then added that it had to be by mutual consent.
The parties went back and forth over this issue and the dialogue
became heated. Finally, Smith stated that on February 12,
2007, the reduction would take place and a person would come
off each binder/trimmer line. The parties, at some point in this
meeting, agreed to meet again. The Employer stated that if
agreement had not been reached in these meetings, it would
implement its proposals as of February 19, 2007.
Snyder testified about the January 29, 2007 meeting. She
testified that Smith opened the meeting by saying “who are we
going to cut from the manning.” She testified that she and
Mamon had no clue as to what he was talking about as they
thought they were meeting to discuss contract language. She or
Mamon asked how the Employer was going to use article 17.15
to achieve a reduction in force. Snyder said the reduction
would be accomplished by February 12, 2007. Smith testified
she realized that the Employer was applying article 17.15 only
after the reduction in force had been achieved. If, after the
reduction, a need arose for an extra person, that person would
be supplied using the terms of article 17.15. As found above, I
believe that Respondent had known this since December 13.
According to Mamon, at the meeting held January 29, 2007,
the Employer stated that it wanted to reduce manning in the
Bindery Department by February 12, 2007. Mamon testified
that he expected to achieve the reductions by use of article
17.15 and as of January 29, 2007, the Employer had no inten-
tion of doing it that way. He said the parties had two com-
pletely different understanding of how the reductions were
going to take place. Because of this difference, he prepared and
sent a letter to the Employer that reads:

15 On cross-examination, it appears that Mamon got by some means
one or two other drafts of the proposed contract.
As per our meeting of 1–29–07, 1100 a.m. I have met
with my bargaining committee. We have come to the same
interpretation of #6 on the concessionary bargaining list
based on the company clarification of #6 which reads “#6:
Reduce crew size on Binder/Trimmer—Reference CBA
Article XVII SPECIAL NOTE-ALL EQUIPMENT” THIS
CLAUSE READS: “Special Note—All Equipment: When-
ever unusual circumstances arise due to the nature of the
job or the materials used, affecting the normal scheduled
production on the machine, the manning of this equipment
will be adjusted to meet the conditions based on mutual
agreement between the Company and the Union.”
Manning reduction is to follow articles XVII, para-
graph 17.15 prior to manning reduction changes as was
explained to us prior to the voting on Dec. 15 and was pre-
sented to the people with this understanding.
With that understanding no further contractual lan-
guage is needed. (End of quoted letter.)
Kerl credibly disagreed with Mamon’s assertion that his in-
terpretation of the reduction provision was that given to him by
the Employer prior to the December 15 vote. Kerl testified that
no one from the Employer had explained the reduction provi-
sion as Mamon now interpreted it. Respondent’s attorney on
the record stated that Respondent’s view is that Item #6, as
clarified on December 13, was a nullity. It takes the position
that in insofar as manning reductions were to be accomplished,
the decision to do so would be made pursuant to the directions
of the existing contract provisions, article 17.15 and the new
process clause. Thus, if one believes the Respondent’s position,
it ratified the existing contract with no change as it concerned
the proposed reductions in staffing on the binder/trimmer lines.
For reasons noted above, I have rejected this assertion and have
found that the testimony given by Respondent’s representatives
about the December 13 meeting to be fabricated and untrue.
j. Meeting and events of February 1, 2007
The Employer’s representatives (Bargnesi, Kerl, Reese, and
Smith) met with representatives of Respondent (Mamon, Sny-
der, Klyczak, and Casey) in the Employer’s human resources
conference room on February 1, 6, 7, 9, and 17, 2007. Dave
Smith did not meet during the February 1, 2007 meeting.
Kerl testified that at the meeting of February 1, 2007, the
Employer discussed various positions that could be eliminated
and the impact of each. They also discussed what the person
removed would be doing post reduction.16 The Respondent’s
representatives joined in these discussions with questions.
According to Kerl, at this meeting he asked Mamon and Snyder
if they understood they were to discuss the removal of one per-
son per line, and they said they did.
Kerl recalled Mamon asking what process they would follow
and Kerl told him they were in the process, as the Employer
had stated it would discuss identifying the position or classifi-
cation to be eliminated post ratification. According to Kerl, he
told the Union that after implementation of the reduction, if

16 As noted earlier in this decision, the Employer was not going to
lay off the persons removed from the binder/trimmer lines, but transfer
them to other lines and actually reduce staff by attrition.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 43
unusual circumstances arose, article 17.15 would be used to
meet them. Also at this meeting, Kerl asked the Union if it
would sign the revised CBA and the Union indicated it would
not.
Kerl identified a document reading: “The Company/Union
have negotiated/ratified as follows: Reduce crew size by one
person per binder/trimmer line. Furthermore the Company will
meet with the Union starting on February 5, to identify the
position/classification to be removed. We will use an imple-
mentation date of no later than Monday February 19, 2007.
This implementation would utilize article XVII, Special Note—
All Equipment, when unusual circumstances arise.” It is signed
by Kerl and states in handwriting “This document presented on
February 1, 2007.” It also has in handwriting, “Reviewed on
February 5 and 6, 2007.” Kerl testified that these latter dates
should be February 6 and 7. He also testified that the document
was prepared in response to Mamon’s request of January 29,
2007, that the process to be used in the reduction be put in writ-
ing.
k. The meeting and events of February 5, 2007
At the meeting held on February 5, 2007, the Employer be-
gan talking about implementing its final offer on February 19,
2007. Following this meeting, Mamon sent the Employer a
letter reading:17
Local 17B has delayed the signing of the concession-
ary contract due to a change in the position of the Com-
pany. When the final Company offer (concessionary con-
tract list of Dec. 8, 2006), was voted on by the Union body
on Dec. 12, 2006 it was turned down. The Union and
Company met to discuss the concerns of the members.
One major concern was #6 on the list (#6 Reduce crew
size by one person per binder/trimmer line). It was said to
be open ended. Questions as to who and how this was to
be done and where was it in writing were high on the list.
Shortly after that meeting the Union and Company met
again to discuss a Company clarification which included
the clarification of #6 which reads: “Reduce crew size on
Binder/Trimmer—Reference CBA Article XVII SPECIAL
NOTE—ALL EQUIPMENT.” This was the contractual
clause the Company said they would use to adjust man-
ning. This clause reads: (omitted as repetitive, see above
Union letter of January 29, 2007).
In past practice this article was successfully used to ad-
just contractual manning as follows: When the Company
wanted to adjust contractual manning based on this clause
they contacted the Union. The Union and the Company
worked toward a mutual agreement. The same held true
for Union request of contractual manning changes based
on the said clause. This was all done prior to the manning
adjustment as clearly aligns and stated in this clause and
by mutual agreement.
With that understanding of this clause supported by the
clarification document and meeting, the negotiating com-
mitted presented this clarification list to the Union’s ex-

17 The letter is copied verbatim with no changes in spelling or word-
ing.
ecutive board and asked for a revote on the concessionary
list based on the Company’s clarification document of the
list. The board OK’d a revote. On Dec. 15, 2006, the list
as well as the clarifications were presented to the Union
body for a vote. I was the presenter of the clarification and
explained the clarification of #6 as follows: Manning well
be adjusted as it aligns with articles XVII, 17.15 of our
present contract. I read the entire clause and explained the
clause to them which included its use as prior to any man-
ning adjustment. This was the same understanding that the
bargaining committee as well as the Executive Board had.
With that understanding, it was taken to another vote by
the Union body and was passed by a close YES vote.
On January 29, 07 at a meeting on manning reduction
with the Company, Liz Snyder and I were told that the
manning reduction will take place February 12, 07 and it
was not the intent of the Company to use this clause as we
understood it but to use it after the manning changes were
implemented.
It is the position of GCC.IBT Local 17B that, “Manning re-
duction is to follow Article XVII, paragraph 17.15 prior to
manning reduction changes, as was explained to us prior to the
voting on Dec. 15 and was presented to our members with that
understanding. We want what we voted on.” (End of quoted
letter) Again, for reasons set out above in my discussion of the
December 13 meeting, I reject this claim as pure fabrication.
l. Meeting and events of February 6, 2007
Kerl testified that he received Mamon’s letter on February 6,
2007. Kerl took the letter as an answer to his question of Ma-
mon about whether he was going to sign the revised CBA. On
February 6, 2007, Kerl again asked Mamon if he were going to
attend the February 7, 2007 signing ceremony that was to be
attended by all the Unions and their representatives for the
purpose of signing the revised CBA. Mamon indicated he
would be there representing the QDS employees and sign their
revised contract, but would not sign the Bindery CBA.
Following this conversation, Kerl sent Mamon a letter dated
February 6, 2007, which details the Employer’s position. It
states:
A series of meetings to collectively bargain certain
changes to the current collective bargaining agreement be-
tween Quebecor World Buffalo and GCC/IBT Local 17B
were held over the past several months. As a result of
those meetings, the Company believed it had reached full
agreement with GCC/IBT Local 17B consistent with the
Company’s final offer of December 8, 2006 as to changes
to this current collective bargaining agreement. This belief
was validated by the fact that you presented the tentative
agreement reached to the GCC/IBT Local 17B member-
ship for ratification. I was thereafter advised that the
GCC/IBT Local 17B membership had ratified the new
agreement.
Following your notification that the new agreement
was ratified by GCC/IBT Local 17B you have now in-
formed me that you do not believe full agreement was
reached. Specifically, you raised an issue regarding Item
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD44
#6 of the tentative agreement that called for a reduction of
crew size on Binder/Trimmer equipment. On January 29,
2007 the Company met with you and responded to this is-
sue with a clarification (this clarification did not change
the agreed upon language or intent of the parties). On
January 29, 2007, you provided the Company a document
indicating that you and the GCC/IBT Local 17B bargain-
ing committee had “come to the same interpretation of #6
on the concessionary bargaining list based on the company
clarification of #6.” In your letter of January 29, 2007 you
further stated “Manning reduction is to follow Article
XVII paragraph 17.15 prior to manning reduction changes
as was explained to us prior to voting on Dec. 15 and was
presented to the people with this understanding.” Based on
your letter of January 29, 2007 there appeared to be no
disagreement as to the meaning and intent of Item #6.
Despite the communication of January 29, 2007, you
then informed the Company that GCC/IBT Local 17B was
refusing to sign the new collective bargaining agreement.
In light of that refusal to sign the new collective bargain-
ing agreement, a meeting was held on January 29, 2007 to
discuss the reason for such refusal. During this meeting,
Item #6 was again discussed as to its language, meaning,
intent and implementation. Based on those discussions a
document was prepared setting forth the common under-
standing of the parties. This document read: The Com-
pany/Union have negotiated/ratified as follows: Reduce
crew size by one person per binder/trimmer line. Fur-
thermore the Company will meet with the Union starting
on February 5, to identify the position/classification to be
removed. We will use an implementation date of no later
than Monday February 19, 2007. This implementation
would utilize article XVII, Special Note—All Equipment,
when unusual circumstances arise.
This document was prepared during the course of the
meeting and, upon your review, you agreed that it was ac-
curate in its description of the agreement and implementa-
tion plan.
Additional telephone calls between you and I follow-
ing this January 29, 2007 (meeting) have failed to bring
about any change in the GCC/IBT Local 17B position, i.e.,
that the Local will not execute the agreed upon collective
bargaining agreement.
Despite the several above noted instances of GCC/IBT
Local 17B agreement to all items of the new agreement
and specifically, Item #6, you continue to refuse to execute
the agreed upon collective bargaining agreement. In a fur-
ther effort to bring this matter to conclusion, the Company
has met with you on this date. During that meeting you
have continued to take the position that GCC/IBT Local
17B will not sign the new collective bargaining agreement.
In response to specific Company inquiry, you have indi-
cated that GCC/IBT Local 17B has not changed in this po-
sition and has nothing to offer by way of alternative reso-
lution or compromise.
Based on the position taken by GCC/IBT Local17B in
today’s meeting, it is clear that GCC/IBT Local 17B is in
violation of the NLRA by its refusal to execute the collec-
tive bargaining agreement to which it has agreed and rati-
fied.
Additionally it is also clear that if there were a legiti-
mate issue as to Item #6 between the parties, that the
GCC/IBT Local 17B position is absolute and fixed. This is
in contrast to the Company position that the language re-
lating to Item #6 along with its meaning, intent and im-
plementation method is clear as set forth in the new collec-
tive bargaining agreement, the GCC/IBT Local 17B letter
of January 29, 2007 and the mutually agreed upon memo
stemming from the January 29, 2007 meeting between the
parties. In light of this, it must be concluded that the par-
ties are as impasse.
Given the existence of impasse regarding Item #6, it is
the Company’s intention to implement the terms of Item
#6 effective Monday, February 19, 2007. The Company
remains willing to meet to discuss and identify the posi-
tion/classification to be removed from the Binder/Trimmer
equipment as mutually agreed upon in the January 29,
2007 and reflected in the memo of that agreement. If
GCC/IBT Local 17B does not engage in these discussions
to identify the position/classification to be removed be-
cause of its refusal to execute the new collective bargain-
ing agreement, the Company will have no other choice,
based on the impasse status, but to unilaterally identify the
position/classification.
Based on the above, GCC/IBT Local 17B is strongly
urged to execute the agreed upon collective bargaining
agreement. Further, GCC/IBT Local 17B is strongly urged
to engage in discussions per the prior mutual agreement to
identify the position/classification to be removed from the
Binder/Trimmer equipment. [End of quoted letter.]
With regard to his mention of a mutual agreement, Kerl testi-
fied that he continued to ask Mamon and Snyder if they under-
stood that one person per binder/trimmer line had to be re-
moved and they continued to say they understood this to be the
case. With regard to Kerl’s mention of Mamon’s January 29,
2007 letter in which Mamon indicated that article XVII would
be used prior to the reduction in force, Kerl testified that was
never agreed to or discussed in the negotiation leading to the re-
vote on December 15.
Kerl testified that Respondent brought up the matter of “mu-
tual agreement” in the February meetings. Kerl testified that he
rejected that idea each time it was raised, noting that it would
not guarantee the savings the Employer needed.
m. Meeting and events of February 7, 2007
On February 7, 2007, during the course of a signing cere-
mony for the respective bargaining units to execute collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer, Respondent, by
Mamon, did not execute a collective-bargaining agreement
between the Employer and Respondent for the Bindery Unit.18
Mamon was presented with a copy of the new contract, but

18 Mamon did review drafts of the new contract and made some
cosmetic corrections to the drafts. The language in the contract relative
to item 6 reads: “Reduce crew size by one person per binder/trimmer
line.”
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 45
refused to sign it.19 All of the other unions signed their new
CBA’s and Mamon signed the one for the QDS unit.
Snyder testified that things got heated at this meeting. Ac-
cording to Snyder:
Respondent’s representative Casey asked the employer
that if its intent was to use 17.15 only after the reduction in
force had taken place, why did not management say that
before the second ratification vote. According to Snyder,
Smith responded, saying that the Employer needed to give
it to you to sell the package.
With respect to the February 6, 2007 meeting, Casey testified
that Smith was upset and said, “[Y]ou know, you guys blew me
out of the water. I thought I had a deal here. I thought we had
an agreement, why aren’t you signing this contract.” Accord-
ing to Casey, Mamon said that the Respondent had a problem
with item 6. Kerl then asked if that meant he was not signing
the contract. Mamon said, “Yes, we are not signing the con-
tract.” As the parties left the meeting, Casey remembered ask-
ing Smith, “Dave, why the hell didn’t you put that in your revi-
sion proposal, when we brought it back to the membership for
the second vote, if you weren’t going to use it.” According to
Casey, Smith angrily replied, “To sell it, that’s why we gave it
to you. We gave that to you to sell it.” Casey testified that this
exchange took place in the meeting room.
While Casey’s Board affidavit states that Smith did make a
statement to the effect that “[W]e gave it to you to sell it,” there
is no reference in the affidavit that Casey asked Smith about the
clarification document. This change in Casey’s testimony
changes the whole context of this exchange, assuming it ever
happened. Both Kerl and Bargnesi were in the meeting room at
all times when Casey was there. Kerl testified that he never
heard Casey ask the question nor did he hear Smith say what
Casey attributes to him. Bargnesi testified similarly. Mamon
did not testify about this alleged outburst. Given Respondent’s
previous demonstrated willingness to fabricate testimony to suit
its ends, I do not credit this testimony by Casey and give it no
weight.
On February 7, 2007, the Employer put out and posted a no-
tice entitled, “Buffalo Status.” It noted that the Company had
signed a contract with Harlequin books for its mass market
books that would be effective until 2014. It also extended its
agreement with Best Buy for its newspaper inserts and had
decided to run two or even three Gravure presses during their
busy season of September to December. It notes that because
the employees approved the new 5-year CBAs, higher man-
agement was installing two Timson presses in late February or
early March 2007.
n. The events occurring subsequent to February 7, 2007
The Employer and representatives of Local 17B met again
on February 9, 2007 for the purpose of choosing what position
on the binder/trimmer line would be cut. Management said that

19 Respondent noted that earlier drafts of the new Bindery CBA did
not have language reducing the crew size on the binder/trimmer lines.
Kerl testified that it was not included in some drafts as the classification
of the persons to be reduced had not been determined.
it had decided that the assistant cover feeder classification
would be the one. The Employer noted that it would be imple-
mented on February 19, 2007.
On February 14, 2005, Mamon sent a letter to the Employer
that reads:
I have reviewed your letter of February 6, 2007 stating
impasse and found it to encompass information voids and
inaccuracies. Based on the meeting of Feb. 9, 2007, it is
apparent that this contract dispute needs to be resolved
immediately for the benefit of all involved. The Union has
noted this resolution of a #1 priority. I will be in contact
with you to keep you informed of our choice of action.
On Monday, February 19, 2007, the Employer implemented
the reduction of the crew size by one person for each of the
binder/trimmer lines on all three shifts, for a total reduction of
21 employees. The Employer implemented the reduction of the
cover feeder position.
On February 20, 2007, Kerl wrote a letter to Mamon that
reads:
On February 6, 2007, the Company provided you with
a letter calling upon you to sign the ratified collective bar-
gaining agreement and detailing events regarding Item #6
of that agreement which lead the parties to impasse as of
that date. Since that time the Company has initiated multi-
ple meetings in an effort to break the impasse. These meet-
ings have been held on February 6th, 7th, 9th and 14th. At
each meeting the sole topic was resolution of Item #6, i.e.,
resolution as to what position was to be removed from
each of the Binder/Trimmer lines.
During each of these meetings you have continued to
take the position that GCC/IBT Local 17B will not sign
the new collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, in
response to specific Company inquiry as to the Union’s
stance on which position is to be removed from each of the
Binder/Trimmer lines, you continue to indicate that
GCC/IBT Local 17B has no change in its position and
nothing to offer by way of input, suggestion, ideas, or al-
ternatives on this issue. You continue to simply refuse to
discuss the matter of what position should be removed
from each of the Binder/Trimmer lines despite the Com-
pany’s ongoing effort to engage in that dialog. Your one
suggestion that the Company make a capital expenditure
was non-responsive to the issue.
In light of your ongoing refusal to engage in discussion
as to the position to be removed from each of the
Binder/Trimmer lines the impasse of February 6, 2007 re-
mains. In light of this impasse, during the February 14th
meeting the Company indicated that it could no longer de-
lay implementation of the contractual agreement that
clearly stated a position was to be removed from each of
the Binder/Trimmer lines. In that February 14th meeting
the Company outlined its intended implementation process
to effect the removal of the contractually agreed upon po-
sition from each of the Binder/Trimmer lines. That imple-
mentation process was:
The Company would discuss the removal of a position
from each of the Binder/Trimmer lines and its implemen-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD46
tation as part of the agenda during the regularly scheduled
monthly meetings with the Bindery Journeymen on Thurs-
day February 15th. One meeting was held per shift, each
of which you attended. The position removal and imple-
mentation process would then be presented during the
crew meetings with the first shift on Monday, February
19th, the second shift on Tuesday, February 20th and the
third shift on February 22nd.
The next meeting with you and your team is scheduled
for Thursday, March 1st, which would provide approxi-
mately 20 shifts of actual implementation to evaluate. Either
party can call a meeting prior to that date as appropriate.
On February 14th, you presented the Company with a
document entitled “Re: Company’s decision of impasse”
and a document referencing “In the matter of grievance
“Manning Reduction” requesting the Company to (waive)
the first three steps of the grievance procedure. As to the
impasse, the Company clearly believes impasse was reached
on February 6th and that impasse remains given your refusal
to discuss the implementation of Item #6 (removal of a posi-
tion from each of the Binder/Trimmer lines) as required per
the collective bargaining agreement ratified by Local 17B.
The fact that you illegally refuse to execute this Agreement
does not, in the Company’s view, absolve you of your re-
sponsibility to discuss implementation of Item #6.
As to the request to waive the first three steps of the
grievance procedure, it should be noted that no grievance
has yet been filed (only your verbal indication that one
would be filed at a later date). Since no grievance has yet
been received, it would be entirely premature to agree to
any waiving of grievance steps.
On Monday, February 19, I contacted you by tele-
phone indicating that the new collective bargaining pages
had been revised to reflect the Binder/Trimmer line man-
ning adjustments implemented and once again requested
you to sign the new collective bargaining agreement. Your
response to this request was again “No.” I asked you to
clarify and you replied, “We will not sign this contract.”
As we have done from the time Local 17B ratified the
new collective bargaining agreement, we again strongly
urge GCC/IBT Local 17B to execute such agreement.
[End of letter.]
C. Conclusions
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to
execute and by reneging on the terms of the agreed-upon col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
1. The final offer was clear and unambiguous
I find that Respondent, by Mamon, violated Section 8(b)(3)
of the Act when, on February 7, 2007, it refused to execute the
agreed-upon contract and subsequently reneged on the terms of
that agreement concerning the reduction in manning on the
binder/trimmer line. I further find that Respondent was bound
to execute that contract based on a December 13, 2006 meeting
of the minds between the Employer and the Respondent over
the reduction in manning on the binder/trimmer line.
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act provides that “[i]t shall be an un-
fair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to refuse
to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the
representative of his employees subject to the provisions of
Section 9(a).” A labor organization violates Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act when refusing to execute a collective-bargaining agree-
ment at the request of the employer once the parties have
reached agreement on the terms of that agreement, and those
terms are accurately reflected in the agreement. H. J. Heinz Co.
v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941).
The Board has placed limits on the Heinz contract execution
requirement. Most importantly, that obligation will only attach
if it is found that the parties reached a “meeting of the minds”
on all material terms of that agreement. Intermountain Rural
Electric Assn., 309 NLRB 1189, 1192 (1992). To obtain a
meeting of the minds, there must be “mutual expressions of
assent” to the exchange of promises between the parties to the
contract. Corbin on Contracts, section 4.13 (2002).
When analyzing whether the parties achieved a “meeting of
the minds” during negotiations, the Board has consistently ap-
plied an objective, reasonable person standard. “A ‘meeting of
the minds’ in contract law is based on the objective terms of the
contract rather than on the parties’ subjective understanding of
the terms. Thus, subjective understandings (or misunderstand-
ings) of the meaning of terms that have been agreed to are ir-
relevant, provided that the terms themselves are unambiguous
[as] ‘judged by a reasonable[ness] standard.’” Vallejo Retail
Trade Bureau, 243 NLRB 762, 767 (1979); Hempstead Park
Nursing Home, 341 NLRB 321, 322 (2004); see also MK-
Ferguson Co., 296 NLRB 776, 776 fn. 2 (1988). In utilizing
this standard, the Board looks to the contract negotiations as a
whole. “What the parties may have agreed upon must be deter-
mined from what they said and did during their negotiations.”
Electrical Workers Local 398, 200 NLRB 850 (1972).
In this case there is no dispute about any provision of the of-
fer given to Respondent by the Employer except for item 6.
Item 6 of the final offer is clear as can be, reading: “Reduce
crew size by one person per binder/trimmer line.” Based on
Respondent’s witness’s testimony, as of the end of the day on
December 8, they understood that one person would be re-
moved from each binder/trimmer line with no restrictions or
limitations on implementation. Both Snyder and Mamon testi-
fied that they understood a person would be removed from each
line and that the Employer rejected use of the new process
clause or any other form of mutual agreement or mutual con-
sent to achieve this reduction.
Under the objective reasonableness standard set forth in
Vallejo Retail, supra at 767, the final offer reflected an under-
standing, held by both parties, that upon passage of the final
offer, one person would be reduced from each binder/trimmer
line. The final offer’s silence as to mutual agreement or any
other restriction as a part of the manning reduction process
illustrates that the Employer was not offering any limitation on
achieving the $790,000 in projected cost savings. Further the
content of the negotiations between the parties leading up to the
final offer indicates that the Employer flatly rejected Respon-
dent’s proposal to require mutual agreement regarding the
manning reduction. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to Re-
spondent’s understanding of the clear and unambiguous lan-
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 47
guage of Item 6 of the final offer. See Electrical Workers Lo-
cal 398, supra.
2. The parties entered into a meeting of the minds on
December 13
I have heretofore found that the parties reached a meeting of
the minds on December 13, rejecting as fabricated Respon-
dent’s testimony regarding its understanding of the meaning of
the clarification of item 6 made that day. Under the reasonable
person standard laid out by the Board in Vallejo Retail, supra at
267, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have interpreted
the Employer’s revised clarification document as an assent by
the Employer to establish mutual agreement as a condition
precedent to implementation. Rather, as found earlier, the
document merely reflected the parties’ agreement about Re-
spondent’s second sentence in its counterproposal of December
13, which pertained only to matters arising post-
implementation of the reduction. This agreement was demon-
strated in discussions held during the December 13 meeting,
that under certain circumstances arising postimplementation,
the Employer would make temporary manning adjustments
utilizing article 17.15.
The discussion between the parties following presentation of
the Employer’s clarification document, under Vallejo Retail,
supra at 267, put Respondent on notice that the Employer
would not allow mutual agreement, or any other restriction, as a
precondition to reduction in staff on the binder/trimmer lines.
On presenting the document, Kerl stated that its contents did
not in any way change the terms of the final offer. During dis-
cussions of the manning reduction clarification, Kerl specifi-
cally asked Mamon and Snyder if they understood the passage
of the final offer would result in the reduction of one person
from each binder/trimmer line. Both Mamon and Snyder stated
that they understood. I have found earlier that the Employer’s
witnesses credibly testified that the discussion surrounding the
reference to article 17.15 specifically pertained to post-
implementation issues regarding potential changes in manning
under special circumstances. These discussions made it abun-
dantly clear to any reasonable person that there would be no
mutual agreement requirement or other restriction to the reduc-
tion of 21 employees prior to implementation.
As I found in my discussion of the December 13 meeting,
the clarification document did not constitute a new offer or a
revision of the final offer. This point was made abundantly
clear to Respondent at that meeting by the Employer. I have
heretofore found that Respondent understood that the clarifica-
tion as it affects item 6 related only to post reduction imple-
mentation and that the final offer with respect to the reduction
itself remained unchanged. For the reasons set forth in my
credibility finds relating to this meeting, I have rejected Re-
spondent’s postmeeting rationalizations and fabrications re-
garding its understanding of the clarification document relating
to item 6. It should also be noted that the Employer fashioned
the clarification document not only based on its December 13
discussion with Respondent, but also to address concerns raised
by the electrotypers. Prior to the December 15 re-vote by the
electrotypers unit, Kerl provided that Union President Ziewicki
with a copy of the clarifications. Ziewicki testified that by “just
looking at it, it was clear that no terms of the Final Offer had
been changed.” Further, on its face, the clarification document
does not abrogate the terms of the final offer, rather simply
clarifies them.
Prior to the re-votes by the three units that had rejected the
final offer, all of the Unions received a copy of the revised
clarification document, as that document, like the original clari-
fication document, helped explain certain aspects of the final
offer which some unions had already ratified. However, those
units which had already ratified the final offer on December 12,
including the pressmen which ratified a manning reduction,
were not asked to take a re-vote based on the revised clarifica-
tion document. If, as Respondent incorrectly and falsely
claims, the revised clarification document represented a com-
plete overhaul of the terms of the final offer, it would have
necessitated a re-vote among the units that already ratified the
final offer, as the Employer had previously expressed that it
would not agree to change the terms of the final offer for just a
single unit.
Under an objective reasonable person standard, the revised
clarification document did not negate nor alter the terms of the
final offer, including item 6. As discussed at length in my dis-
cussion of the meeting of December 13, the Employer’s wit-
nesses established that Respondent, on December 13, under-
stood that one person would be coming off the binder/trimmer
line, without limitation or restriction. Respondent also clearly
understood that the reference to article 17.15 referred only to
special manning circumstances arising after the reduction had
been accomplished. I find that the Employer’s final offer as
clarified December 13 was clear and unambiguous on its face
under a reasonable person standard. Vallejo Retail, supra at
767; Electrical Workers Local 398, 200 NLRB 850 (1972)
(conduct and substance of prior negotiations is relevant in de-
termining whether a meeting of the minds exists). That at some
point, subsequent to December 13, Respondent had a change of
heart with respect to its agreement and decided to renege on it
does not change the fact that the parties did have a meeting of
the minds.
3. After reaching a meeting of the minds, Respondent failed to
execute the subsequent collective-bargaining agreement
It is undisputed that throughout meetings in February 2007,
despite the passage of the final offer by its members, Respon-
dent consistently stated that it would not execute the final offer.
It is also undisputed that on February 7, 2007, a signing cere-
mony was held at which all units, with the exception of the
bindery unit, executed their respective collective-bargaining
agreements. Further, it is undisputed that Mamon attended the
ceremony and signed the contract on behalf of the QDS unit,
but refused to execute the bindery contract. Respondent admits
as much in its answer to the complaint.
It is a violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act for a labor or-
ganization to refuse to execute a collective-bargaining agree-
ment which accurately reflects the terms and conditions of the
agreement between the parties to the contract. H. J. Heinz Co.
v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941). As I have previously found, the
parties had already agreed on a contract which included all of
the terms of the final offer, including the manning reduction on
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD48
the binder/trimmer line. Further, the bargaining unit members
had voted to accept the offer and Respondent had informed the
Employer of that acceptance. Respondent thus violated the Act
by failing and refusing to execute the final offer.
4. Respondent’s failure to properly communicate the agreed-
upon contract to its members would not constitute a unilateral
mistake that would necessitate the rescission of the contract
It is not certain what the Respondent told its membership
prior to the re-vote which resulted in ratification. Given the
very shaky credibility of Respondent’s witnesses, that is really
up in the air. I have already found that Snyder and Mamon did
not tell the truth about what was told the membership at the
first ratification vote. However, even assuming arguendo, that
they told the membership the same incorrect and fabricated
story they gave in this hearing, and further assuming that the
membership ratified the contract based on that tale, it would at
most constitute a unilateral mistake by Respondent, but one that
would not lead to a rescission of the December 13 agreement.
“[A] party to a contract cannot avoid it on the grounds that he
made a mistake where the other [party] has no notice of the
mistake and acts in perfect good faith.” North Hills Office
Supplies, 344 NLRB 523, 525 (2005).
In Hospital Employees Local 1199 (Lenox Hill Hospital),
296 NLRB 322 (1989), the employer and the union bargained
to an apparent meeting of the minds regarding a salary increase
during contract negotiations. The union, on presenting the de-
tails of the raise prior to the ratification vote, neglected to dis-
close a specific, important detail of the raise to the membership
(the raise did not apply to all classifications). The membership
ratified the contract and the union informed the employer of the
ratification. Prior to contract signing, the union membership
found out that the raise did not apply to one of the classifica-
tions. As a result, the union refused to sign the contract. The
Board upheld the administrative law judge’s finding that the
union, by failing to sign the contract, had violated Section
8(b)(3). The judge found that because the proposal made by the
employer was “unambiguous and clear,” and that “only the
[u]nion negotiator made a mistake in misinterpreting the . . .
plain language used by [the employer],” the union’s action
constituted unilateral mistake which was ‘not obvious” to the
employer. Id. at 326. The judge found that the union violated
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act because “[t]he [u]nion should be held
to the representations made by its negotiator that the employees
agreed to the contract and Lenox Hill should be able to rely on
the bargain it made.”
Similarly in the present case, the Employer could not have
been on notice that Respondent was acting under an “obvious”
mistaken assumption regarding the utilization of mutual agree-
ment or the requirement of special circumstances before it
could reduce 21 employees in accordance with the final offer,
item 6. As previously found, the Employer on numerous occa-
sions made it clear to Respondent that it refused to include
mutual understanding, prior to the manning reduction imple-
mentation, because it would jeopardize the cost savings that the
Employer needed to realize through the final offer. The impor-
tance of obtaining the manning reduction without strings at-
tached was illustrated many times, including when the Em-
ployer walked out of negotiation prior to presentation of the
final offer because Respondent was insisting on the utilization
of mutual agreement. Throughout the December 13 meeting,
Respondent demonstrated under a reasonable objective stan-
dard, that there was agreement that article 17.15 applied post-
implementation; Respondent requested that the Employer me-
morialize its understanding in writing; Respondent stated it
would take the matter to its executive board for a re-vote; and
according to the Employer’s witnesses, Mamon expressed that
the offer, including the clarification of item 6 was valid and he
thought it would be approved. For all of the reasons I have
given in this decision, including Respondent’s failure on De-
cember 13 to assert a differing interpretation, Respondent’s
current interpretation could not have been obvious to the Em-
ployer. Therefore, following Respondent’s apparent acknowl-
edgement of the meaning of the terms of the final offer after its
receipt of the revised clarification document, the Employer
could not have been on notice of Respondent’s later “mistake.”
Even from January 29 through the February meetings, Respon-
dent continued to accept that one person would have to come
off the binder/trimmer line, which totally contradicts Respon-
dent’s position that there are restrictions on item 6 of the final
offer. Thus, since Respondent’s unilateral mistake would not
have been obvious to the Employer, rescission should not take
place. Lennox Hill Hospital, supra at 326.
In addition, under North Hills Office Services, supra at 525,
the Board examines whether the party that is supposed to have
received notice of a unilateral mistake, acted in good faith.
Here, the Employer’s good faith was evident not only during
the negotiations, but also following what it thought was accep-
tance of the final offer by the units. By February 7, 2007, the
Employer had procured all of the quid pro quo items it had tied
to the Unions’ passage of the final offer, including the new
Timson presses, the operation of the gravure press which kept
the Best Buy contract in Depew, and the extension of the Har-
lequin contract. Therefore, it is clear that the Employer, in
good faith, was acting as if there were an agreement between
the parties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Local 17B of the Graphic Communica-
tions Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. The Employer, Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc., is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
3. The following employees of the Employer (the Unit), con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees in the Bindery Department working on binding
processes and operations, including preparation, movement,
and storage of in-process materials for bindery processes, and
operations, including jurisdiction over all machines and all
work, as described in Article 4.1, Union Recognition, of the
collective bargaining agreement, effective from March 14,
2000, through May 31, 2009.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS LOCAL 17B (QUEBECOR WORLD BUFFALO) 49
4. At all times material, the Respondent has been the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the unit described above
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. On December 13, 2006, the Respondent and the Employer
reached a meeting of the minds consistent with Board law on
the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement that, inter alia,
called for the unrestricted reduction of 21 employees from the
binder/trimmer lines and if a problem arose on the lines post-
implementation, the use of article 17.15 to adjust the manning
on the lines.
6. On February 7, 2007, Respondent failed and refused to
execute that collective-bargaining agreement and thereafter
reneged on the terms of that agreement.
7. By its conduct as set forth above, Respondent has engaged
in conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Respondent is further ordered to, on the request of the Em-
ployer, execute the collective-bargaining agreement reached by
the parties and tendered to Respondent by the Employer on
February 7, 2007. Respondent is further ordered to post an
appropriate notice to members.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended20
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 17B of the Graphic Communications
Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Quebecor World
Buffalo, Inc. by failing to execute the collective-bargaining
agreement submitted to it on February 7, 2007.

20
If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(b) In any like manner refusing to bargain with Quebecor
World Buffalo, Inc., in accordance with the requirements of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request of Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc., execute
forthwith the collective-bargaining agreement reached by the
parties and tendered by Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc. on Feb-
ruary 7, 2007.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
business office and meeting places, copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix.”21 Copies of the notice (and versions
in other languages as deemed appropriate by the Regional Di-
rector) on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
3, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized represen-
tative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees and members 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.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies
of the notice for posting by Quebecor World Buffalo, Inc., if
willing, at all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted.
(d) 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.

21
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.”