Inland Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 283 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 36
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Detroit Legal News Company, d/b/a Inland Press and
David W. Snyder. Case 7–CA–50893
June 26, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On August 26, 2008, Administrative Law Judge John
T. Clark issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an
answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions. The
Respondent filed an answering brief to the General
Counsel’s cross-exceptions, and a reply brief to the Gen-
eral Counsel’s answering brief.
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, as modified below, and to adopt
the recommended Order as modified.
The unfair labor practice allegations in this case arose
out of Union member David W. Snyder’s layoff, and the
Respondent’s allegedly unlawful subsequent refusal to
hire him. The judge found that the Respondent’s state-
ment to Snyder that it refused to hire him because he
took “every problem to the union” violated Section
8(a)(1). We affirm the judge’s findings for the reasons
he states.

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 Liebman and Member Schaumber 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. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, __ F.3d
__, 2009 WL 1676116 (2d Cir. June 17, 2009); New Process Steel v.
NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. May 1, 2009), petition for cert. filed __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. May 27, 2009) (No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land
Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No.
08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake
Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. May 1, 2009), petition
for rehearing filed Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214 (May 27, 2009).
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.
The judge also found that the Respondent’s1 refusal to
hire Snyder violated Section 8(a)(1). Although the com-
plaint alleged that the conduct also violated Section
8(a)(3), the judge made no finding with respect to that
allegation. The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s
failure to find a 8(a)(3) violation. We find merit to this
exception for the reasons discussed below.
Facts
The Respondent hired union member Snyder as a tem-
porary floor worker in December 2005. Snyder also
worked as a second pressman, running a two-color press
and operating a six-color press as part of a two-person
team. Although the Respondent laid off Snyder 8 to 10
times in the period between December 2005–September
2006, Fred Seigrist, his supervisor and fellow union
member, always recalled him. Moreover, Seigrist re-
called Snyder directly rather than requesting a referral
out of the union hiring hall, which was the standard pro-
cedure.
During September 2006, Snyder made an error running
a two-color press. Although the error caused at least 10
percent of the job to be lost, the Respondent did not dis-
cipline Snyder. Snyder also testified without contradic-
tion that Seigrist complimented him on his work during
this period. On September 18, 2006—after Snyder had
made the press error—the Respondent hired him as a
permanent employee.
On February 11, 2007, the Respondent laid Snyder off
for lack of work. After his layoff, Snyder frequently
called the Union to inquire about returning to work for
the Respondent. On May 21, 2007, he went to the Re-
spondent’s facility and spoke with a production manager.
The manager assured Snyder that the Respondent would
consider recalling him. On July 11, 2007, Snyder lost his
right to recall.
In late July or early August 2007, the Respondent re-
quested that the Union refer a floor worker and a second
pressman. Steven Nobles, the union president, called
Seigrist to ask if he wanted Snyder back. Nobles testi-
fied that Seigrist told him that he did not want Snyder
because he struggled on the presses and “tend[ed] to agi-
tate the shop a little bit.” When Snyder learned on Au-
gust 27, 2007, that he had not been referred, he spoke
with Seigrist. Seigrist told him that he was not returning
to work for the Respondent because he talked to the
wrong people, took “every problem to the Union,” and
did not follow the proper pecking order.
Analysis
Where, as here, an employer is charged with violating
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by taking adverse action against
an employee for engaging in union activity, the Board
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
applies the test in Wright Line3 to determine whether the
violation has been established. See, e.g., Faurecia Ex-
haust Systems, 353 NLRB No. 34, slip op. at 2 (2008).
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must first show,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that protected con-
duct was a motivating factor in the employer’s adverse
action. Once the General Counsel makes that showing
by demonstrating protected activity, employer knowl-
edge of that activity, and animus against protected activ-
ity, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to
show that it would have taken the same adverse action
even in the absence of the protected activity.4 If, how-
ever, the evidence establishes that the reasons given for
the employer’s action are pretextual—that is, either false
or not in fact relied upon—the employer fails by defini-
tion to show that it would have taken the same action for
those reasons, and thus there is no need to perform the
second part of the Wright Line analysis. SFO Good-Nite
Inn, LLC, 352 NLRB 268, 269 (2008) (citations omitted).
The General Counsel here has shown that Snyder’s
protected conduct was a motivating factor in the Respon-
dent’s refusal to hire him. Snyder’s alleged pattern of
taking “every problem to the union” is conduct protected
by Section 7 of the Act. See generally NLRB v. J. Wein-
garten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 260 (1975) (Act protects em-
ployee’s action in seeking union assistance at a confron-
tation with employer). Seigrist’s refusal to hire Snyder
because he allegedly engaged in that conduct establishes
that the Respondent had knowledge of Snyder’s union
activity and had animus towards it. See Party Cookies,
Inc., 237 NLRB 612, 622–623 (1978) (employee’s dis-
charge unlawfully motivated in part because supervisor’s
statements to employee that “[she] always ha[d] to run
off to the union” and “[n]ow things are going to change
in the future” indicated the employer’s knowledge of her
union activity and animus towards that activity), enfd. in
part and denied in pert. part mem. 681 F.2d 820 (7th Cir.
1982). Accordingly, the General Counsel met his initial
burden under Wright Line, and the burden shifts to the
Respondent to prove that it would have refused to hire
Snyder even in the absence of his union activity.

3 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Man-
agement Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983).
4 Member Schaumber observes that the Board and the circuit courts
of appeals have variously described the evidentiary elements of the
General Counsel’s initial burden of proof under Wright Line, some-
times adding as an independent fourth element the necessity for there to
be a causal nexus between the union animus and the adverse employ-
ment action. See e.g., American Gardens Management Co., 338 NLRB
644, 645 (2002). As stated in Shearer’s Foods, Inc., 340 NLRB 1093,
1094 n. 4 (2003), because Wright Line is a causation standard, Member
Schaumber agrees with this addition.
According to the Respondent, its refusal to rehire Sny-
der was justified as a result of Snyder’s various perform-
ance problems, including the press error in September
2006. The judge, however, found the Respondent’s
claim that its actions were based on Snyder’s perform-
ance problems to be pretextual, and we agree. The evi-
dence indicates that the Respondent, despite its conten-
tions, consistently recalled Snyder from layoff and, tell-
ingly, hired him as a permanent employee even after the
September 2006 press error. Moreover, there is no evi-
dence that the Respondent ever disciplined Snyder for his
alleged performance problems. Finally, the Respon-
dent’s assurance to Snyder in May 2007 that he would be
considered for recall further belies the Respondent’s as-
sertion that it had been unhappy with his job perform-
ance.
Because the evidence establishes that the Respondent’s
proffered reason for not hiring Snyder is pretextual, the
Respondent has failed by definition to show that it would
have refused to hire Snyder for his performance prob-
lems. SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, supra. Furthermore, in
the circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s attempt
to rely on a pretextual justification for its refusal to rehire
Snyder supports the General Counsel’s showing of dis-
crimination as well. See GFC Crane Consultants, 352
NLRB 1236, 1237 (2008).
For all the above reasons, we find that the Respon-
dent’s refusal to hire Snyder violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1).5
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4.
“4. The Respondent since about August 27, 2007, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
hire David W. Snyder or accept him for temporary refer-
ral because he engaged in union activity.”
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Detroit
Legal News Company, d/b/a Inland Press, Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.

5 We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that the Re-
spondent’s refusal to hire Snyder constituted an independent 8(a)(1)
violation because it would not materially affect the remedy. The
8(a)(1) violation was predicated on the theory that the Respondent
refused to hire Snyder in retaliation for his efforts to enlist the support
of other employees for a proposal to reopen the contract and negotiate a
new pension plan. We also find it unnecessary to reach the judge’s
finding that a Wright Line analysis was not required under the princi-
ples set forth in Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 331 NLRB 858
(2000), enfd. 262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001).
INLAND PRESS 3
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
“(a) Informing employees that it will not rehire them if
they engage in union activity.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b).
“(b) Refusing to hire laid off employees for temporary
jobs, or otherwise discriminating against any employee
for supporting Local 2/289-M of District Council 3,
Graphic Communications Conference of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, or any other labor or-
ganization.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 26, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated 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 with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT inform you that we will not rehire you
because you have engaged in union activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire laid-off employees for tem-
porary jobs, or otherwise discriminate against any em-
ployee for supporting Local 2/289-M of District Council
3, Graphic Communications Conference of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, or any other labor or-
ganization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer David W. Snyder a temporary job or, if no
temporary job exists, offer him a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed as a temporary
worker.
WE WILL make David W. Snyder whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from our unlawful
action against him, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful action taken against David W. Snyder, and WE WILL,
within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that this
has been done and that the unlawful action will not be
used against him in any way.
DETROIT LEGAL NEWS COMPANY D/B/A INLAND
PRESS
Patricia Fedewa, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Fred W. Batten, Esq., (Clark Hill, PLC), of Detroit, Michigan,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN T. CLARK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Detroit, Michigan, on May 5, 2008. The charge was
filed on November 29, 2007, by David W. Snyder (the Charg-
ing Party). The charge was amended by the Charging Party on
January 30, 2008, and the complaint was issued February 29,
2008. The complaint alleges that the Detroit Legal News Com-
pany d/b/a Inland Press (the Respondent), violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)
when, about August 27, it informed the Charging Party that it
was refusing to hire, or accept him for temporary referral, in
retaliation for his union and protected concerted activities. The
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the
essential allegations and requesting that the complaint be dis-
missed.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, my credibility determinations based
on the weight of the respective evidence, established or admit-
ted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences
drawn from the record as a whole and, after considering the
briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of
business in Detroit, Michigan, has been engaged in the business
of printing the Detroit Legal News and other printed materials,
including brochures, annual reports, posters, and catalogs for
various commercial entities. During calendar year 2007, a
representative period, the Respondent in conducting its busi-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
ness operations described above, derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Detroit
facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Michigan. The Respon-
dent admits and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that Local 2/289–M of District Council 3, Graphic
Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (the Union), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
David Snyder, the Charging Party, is a union member who
was referred to the Respondent for temporary work as a floor
worker in December 2005. A floor worker prepares loads for
the press, cleans up, flips stock, restocks, stacks and runs er-
rands. As a temporary worker Snyder accrued no seniority
rights and received no benefits. Snyder testified without con-
tradiction that he also worked as a second pressman, that he ran
a two-color press and that he was a member of a two person
team that operates a six-color press.
Snyder was laid off eight or ten times as a temporary em-
ployee. He was always recalled by Fred Seigrist, his supervi-
sor. Seigrist, who is also a member of the Union, never asked
the Union to refer Snyder out of the union hiring hall, but re-
called Snyder directly. Because Snyder was a temporary em-
ployee, Seigrist did not have to recall Snyder or even consider
him for rehire. Thus, during this period there is no evidence
that Seigrist was not pleased with Snyder’s work. Snyder testi-
fied, without contradiction, that at times Seigrist complimented
him on his work. During September 2006 Snyder made an
error running the two color press. The error resulted in a loss
of at least 10 percent of the job, yet Snyder was not disciplined.
In fact, shortly thereafter, on September 18, 2006, he was hired
as a permanent employee. Permanent employees receive bene-
fits, earn seniority, and have recall rights commensurate with
their length of time in permanent status.
A. Events Before Snyder’s Layoff
1. The pension plan issue
In late October 2006, the Respondent requested that the Un-
ion reopen the collective-bargaining agreement. The Respon-
dent, in an effort to reduce the cost of its pension plan contribu-
tions, intended to propose replacing the existing defined benefit
pension plan with a 401 (k) plan. Snyder was concerned that
the Respondent could not afford the existing pension plan.
Seigrist, Snyder’s foreman, was an active union member who at
one time had sat on the union executive board. Snyder talked
to Seigrist’s about his concern. Snyder testified that Seigrist
opposed the reopening because he thought that the Respondent
was “trying to screw us.” Shortly after talking with Seigrist,
Snyder met with Seigrist, and union steward and employee, Jim
Shedadi. Snyder credibly testified that he continued to argue
for the reopening, which was opposed by both men. Snyder
testified that he talked with other union members employed by
the Respondent and attended meetings on this issue. At some
point thereafter the bargaining unit voted to reopen the agree-
ment and thereafter voted to ratify the changes.
2. The steward election
In December 2006 an election for the position of union stew-
ard, also called the chapel chairman, was held. Nobles testified
that he knew that the candidate Snyder was supporting was not
the individual that was endorsed by Shehadi who was the in-
cumbent steward. Snyder’s candidate lost.
B. Snyder’s layoff and events subsequent
Snyder was laid off for lack of work on February 11, 2007.
The duration of the layoff was initially unknown, but in April
the Respondent’s production manager told Steven Nobles, the
union president that there could be openings for laid off em-
ployees if “work ever dictates.” Snyder frequently called the
Union to inquire about returning to work for the Respondent.
On May 21 he went to the Respondent’s facility and spoke with
the production manager, who assured Snyder that the Respon-
dent would consider recalling him when a new newspaper
printing press was fully operational. Snyder lost his seniority
rights, including his right to recall, on July 11, 2007.
It was not until late July or early August that the Respondent
made its initial request to the Union to refer a floor worker and
a second pressman. An individual was dispatched for the sec-
ond pressman position. Nobles was aware that Snyder was
working for another employer but he called Seigrist anyway to
ask if he wanted Snyder back. Snyder had told Nobles that he
would quit any employer to return to work with the Respon-
dent. Nobles testified that Seigrist told him that he did want
Snyder because “I want to go in a different direction.” Nobles
asked for clarification and Seigrist replied that Snyder struggled
on the presses and that “he tends to agitate the shop a little bit.”
(Tr. 17–18.)
On August 27 Snyder learned that he had not been referred.
Snyder testified that he spoke with Seigrist and Nobles on that
day. I found Snyder to be a credible witness who was making a
sincere effort to be accurate and truthful. He also appeared to
be an extremely nervous and high-strung individual who tended
to ramble and occasionally appeared to be confused as to the
order of things. Accordingly, the following is his credited tes-
timony as to what was said and by whom on August 27, al-
though it is not perfectly clear as to whom Snyder spoke with
first.
Snyder testified that Seigrist told him that he (Snyder), talks
to the wrong people, takes “every problem to the Union,” does
not follow the proper pecking order, and was not returning to
work for the Respondent. Nobles told Snyder that Seigrist said
that the Union could send anyone but Snyder. Nobles said that
there was nothing further that he could do and that Snyder
should plead his case directly to Seigrist. During the final tele-
phone call that Snyder made to Seigrist on August 27, Seigrist
said “why the f—k are you bothering me? The Union assured
me that I’m done with your ass.”
At some point after August 30, 2007, Snyder, Nobles, Sei-
grist, Young, the steward, and Shehadi the past steward, met to
discuss four grievances relating to Snyder’s recall rights and
reimbursement for health insurance. Nobles had filed the
grievances on August 30 and they had been denied by Seigrist.
Nobles asked Seigrist why he did not want Snyder to return to
work for the Respondent. Nobles testified that Seigrist replied
INLAND PRESS 5
that Snyder did not come as advertised, he could not run the
two–color press and he was always agitating. Since September
2007 the Respondent has continued to request referrals from the
Union.
C. Discussion
In Meyers Industries (Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882, 887, the
Board reiterated its definition of concerted activity as encom-
passing “those circumstances where individual employees seek
to initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action, as well as
individual employees bringing truly group complaints to the
attention of management.” The Board also noted with approval
the Third Circuit’s comments in Mushroom Transportation Co.
v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (1964) defining the scope of con-
certed activity:
[A] conversation may constitute a concerted activity although
it involves only a speaker and a listener, but to qualify as such,
it must appear at the very least that it was engaged in with the
object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action
or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of
the employees.
Moreover, when an individual employee solicits other employ-
ees to engage in group action, even where such solicitations are
rejected, the inability to sway coworkers does not change the
concerted nature of the activity. Circle K Corp., 305 NLRB
932, 935 (1991) (citing El Gran Combo, 284 NLRB 1115, 1117
(1987), enfd. 853 F.2d 996 (1st Cir. 1988)).
With the above principles in mind I find, contrary to the Re-
spondent’s contention, that Snyder was engaged in concerted
activity when he spoke with Seigrist, his foreman and fellow
union member, and Shedadi, his steward and fellow employee,
in an attempt to get their support to reopen the collective-
bargaining agreement and negotiate a new pension plan.
Snyder’s credited testimony that Seigrist told him that the
reason he was not going to rehire him was because he took
“every problem to the union” was neither disavowed by Seigrist
nor addressed by the Respondent in its brief. Accordingly, it is
an uncontradicted admission that the Respondent’s reason for
failing to rehire Snyder is unlawful. The Board has long held
that such statements “coerce employees from seeking the assis-
tance of their recognized bargaining agent and impairs their
resort to rights protected under Section 7 of the Act.” Interlake
Inc., 218 NLRB 1043, 1043 (1975), enfd. 529 F.2d 1277 (8th
Cir. 1976); see also Buck Brown Contracting Co., 283 NLRB
488, 502 (1987). The Board has also held that where, as here,
protected concerted activity is the basis for the employee’s
discipline, the analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), is not required. E.g., Chromalloy
Gas Turbine Corp., 331 NLRB 858, 864 (2000) (“where pro-
tected concerted activity is the basis for an employee’s disci-
pline, the normal Wright Line analysis is not required”), enfd.
262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when the Respondent by Seigrist, its supervi-
sor and agent, told Snyder that he did not want him back work-
ing at the Respondent because he took every problem to the
Union. I further find that since about August 27, 2007, the
Respondent has refused to hire Snyder or accept him for a tem-
porary job referral because he has engaged in activities that
were protected by Section 7 of the Act and this refusal has also
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Moreover were I to apply a Wright Line analysis, I would
find that the counsel for the General Counsel has met her initial
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
animus against protected conduct was a motivating factor in the
adverse employment action. In addition to the foregoing
8(a)(1) violation, I would find that Nobles’ undisputed testi-
mony that Seigrist referred to Snyder as an “agitator” who was
“trying to stir up s**t” was evidence of animus. Seigrist nei-
ther rebutted nor offered any alternative explanation. All Pro
Vending, 350 NLRB 503, 507 (2007) (finding that terms such
as agitator are normally applied by employers to individuals
who are attempting to instigate other employees to engage in
concerted or union activities). I would also infer animus from
the obscene response Seigrist directed at Snyder when Snyder
called him to ask why he was not being rehired by the Respon-
dent. I would also find that the Seigrist’s contention that he did
not want to rehire Snyder because he did “not come as adver-
tised” is a total pretext. The Respondent offered no evidence,
documentary or otherwise, that Snyder was ever reprimanded
for anything while employed by the Respondent. Seigrist did
not deny or explain why he recalled Snyder from layoff eight or
ten times, and then hired him as a permanent employee, if Sei-
grist was dissatisfied with Snyder’s work. Nor did Seigrist
dispute Snyder’s testimony that Seigrist had commended Sny-
der for his work performance. Because I would have found that
the evidence establishes that the reasons offered by the Re-
spondent for its failure to rehire Snyder are pretextual—that is,
are either false or were not in fact relied upon—the Respondent
would fail by definition to show that it would have taken the
same action for those reasons, absent the protected conduct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Detroit Legal News Company d/b/a
Inland Press, Detroit Michigan, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union, Local 2/289–M of District Council 3, Graphic
Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its
supervisor and agent, Fred Seigrist, informing David W. Snyder
that the Respondent did not want him working for the Respon-
dent because he took every problem to the Union.
4. The Respondent since about August 27, 2007, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by refusing to hire David W. Snyder
or accept him for temporary job referral because he engaged in
activities that were protected by Section 7 of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices found above are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
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.
The Respondent having unlawfully refused to hire David W.
Snyder or accept him for temporary job referral must offer him
a temporary job and make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from August
27, 2007, the date that the Respondent unlawfully refused to
accept him for a temporary job to date of proper offer of a tem-
porary job, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Detroit Legal News Company, d/b/a Inland
Press, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Informing employees that it will not rehire them if they
engage in protected concerted activity.
(b) Refusing to rehire laid-off employees for temporary jobs
because they engaged in activities that were protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
David W. Snyder a temporary job or, if no temporary job ex-
ists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or any other rights or privileges, if any, that he
previously enjoyed as a temporary worker.
(b) Make David W. Snyder whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful action
taken against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful action take
against him, and within 3 days thereafter notify David W. Sny-
der in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
action will not be used against him in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since August 27,
2007.
(f) 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.
(g) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 26, 2008
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT inform you that we will not rehire you because
you have engaged in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to rehire employees for temporary jobs
because they engaged in activities that were protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.

2 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.”
INLAND PRESS 7
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer David W. Snyder a temporary job or, if no temporary job
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges, if any, that he
previously enjoyed as a temporary worker.
WE WILL make David W. Snyder whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from our unlawful action
against him, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful action taken
against David W. Snyder, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereaf-
ter, notify him in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful action will not be used against him in any way.
DETROIT LEGAL NEWS COMPANY D/B/A/
INLAND PRESS