Jordan Graphics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

JORDAN GRAPHICS
Jordan Graphics , Inc. and United Paperworkers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No. 71, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 11-CA-12577 and 11-CA-12715
July 31, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND
DEVANEY
On March 3, 1989, Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions, to modify the remedy,2 and to adopt
the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Jordan
Graphics, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance 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's decision contains two inadvertent errors . In the section of
his decision entitled "II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices, A. The
Presettlement Conduct" the judge misstated the case number in the un-
derlying original complaint The correct case number is Case 11-CA-
12577. In the "Analysis" section of his decision , par. 3 , the judge refers to
"the lack of discipline accorded to Blount for work damaged as a result
of the malfunction of his machine." The employee 's name should read
"Blanton."
In agreeing with the judge that a portion of the settlement agreement
was properly set aside, we rely only on the related postsettlement viola-
tions of the Act that occurred in February and April 1988 Having set
aside the agreement , we find for the reasons set out by the judge that the
Respondent 's presettlement conduct in December 1987 and January 1988
was unlawful
2 Backpay shall be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950)
Paris Favors Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard F. Kane, Esq. and David L. Terry, Esq. (Bla-
keney, Alexander & Machen), of Charlotte, North
Carolina, for the Respondent.
295 NLRB No. 125
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1085
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge.
These consolidated cases were heard before me on No-
vember 1 and 2, 1988, at Charlotte, North Carolina. The
hearing was held pursuant to a consolidated complaint
issued by the Acting Regional Director of Region 11 of
the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The
complaint in Case 11-CA-12577 is based on an amended
charge filed by the United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (Charging Party Paperworkers
Union or the Paperworkers Union) on January 19, 1988.
The complaint in Case 11-CA-12715 is based on a
charge filed by the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Drivers, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No. 71, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Charging Party Team-
sters Local No. 71 or Teamsters Local No. 71) on May
12, 1988. The consolidated complaint alleges that Jordan
Graphics, Inc. (the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by inter-
rogating its employees concerning their union activities,
creating the impression among its employees that their
union activities were under surveillance , threatening its
employees with unspecified reprisals to dissuade them
from supporting the Union, and soliciting its employees
to inform on the union activities of other employees.
Each of these allegations are based on the charges al-
leged in Case 11-CA-12577. On February 3, 1988, the
Respondent and the United Paperworkers Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC entered into a private settlement which dis-
posed of the aforesaid alleged unfair labor practices. On
February 4, 1988, the Paperworkers Union requested the
withdrawal of these charges in Case 11-CA-12577. On
February 10, 1988, the Regional Director conditionally
approved the Paperworkers withdrawal request.
The consolidated complaint further alleges , based on
the allegations in Case 11-CA-12715, that Respondent
orally promulgated, maintained, and enforced a broad
no-solicitation rule prohibiting its employees from engag-
ing in union activities in nonwork areas during nonwork
times on or about December 23, 1987, issued written
warnings to its employee Douglas S. Bell on December
23, 1987, and April 28, 1988, issued a verbal warning to
employee Bell on January 28, 1988, and on April 28,
1988, placed Bell on probation until August 1, 1988, and
refused to grant an annual wage increase to Bell on Feb-
ruary 17, 1988, because of his engagement in union and
concerted activities all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
On June 24, 1988, the Acting Regional Director re-
voked the Regional Director's conditional approval of
the withdrawal request of the Paperworkers Union in
Case 11-CA-12577 as it relates to the conduct allegedly
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent has by its answer filed on July 7, 1988,
denied the commission of any violations of the Act and
has also asserted as an affirmative defense that all matters
in Case 11-CA-12577 have been resolved to the satisfac-
1086 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the parties and that there is no basis in law or fact
for these matters to be reopened . Respondent further as-
serts as an affirmative defense that all matters encom-
passed within Case 11-CA-12577 are barred by Section
10(b) of the Act. Pursuant to these affirmative defenses
Respondent also filed a motion at the hearing to dismiss
the allegations in Case 11-CA-12577 and also contended
that the two cases are distinct and thus their consolida-
tion is improper.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding , including
my observations of the witnesses who testified herein,
and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
A. The Business of Respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find
that the Respondent was, and has been at all times mate-
rial herein, a North Carolina corporation with a facility
located at Charlotte, North Carolina, where it is engaged
in the printing of business forms and labels ; that during
the 12 months prior to the filing of the complaint, a rep-
resentative period , Respondent received at its Charlotte,
North Carolina facility goods and raw materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of North Carolina, and shipped from its facility in
Charlotte, North Carolina, products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of North
Carolina and that Respondent is now , and has been at all
times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
B. The Labor Organization
The complaint alleges , the Respondent admits, and I
find that the two Charging Party Unions are each now
and have been at all times material herein labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ent had violated the Act by interrogating its employees,
creating the impression that its employees union activi-
ties were under surveillance , threatening its employees
with unspecified reprisals and soliciting its employees to
inform on the union activities of other employees and on
February 1, 1988, the Regional Director forwarded to
Respondent a copy of a proposed Notice to Employees
and Settlement Agreement in Case 11-CA-12577 which
provided for the reinstatement of Andrews and Byrd, a
make-whole remedy and the posting of an appropriate
notice . On February 3, 1988, the parties entered into a
private settlement which purported to dispose of the al-
leged unfair labor practices and whereby Andrews and
Byrd waived their right of reinstatement and received
money payments in settlement of their backpay claims.
On February 4, 1988 , the Paperworkers Union submitted
a request that the charges in Case 11 -CA-12577 be with-
drawn and on February 10, 1988, the Regional Director
conditionally approved the withdrawal request . Bell had
been the subject of a written warning issued by Stephen
Coe on December 23, 1987, for soliciting for the Paper-
workers Union on company worktime and was subse-
quently issued a verbal warning on January 28, 1988,
denied an annual wage increase in February 1988, and
issued another warning and placed on probation in April
1988 for alleged poor job performance . On May 12,
1988, the Teamsters filed the unfair labor practice
charges in Case 11-CA-12715. The Regional Director
determined that the evidence in Case 11-CA-12715 es-
tablished violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Regional Director also concluded that the Respond-
ent's conduct in Case 11-CA-12715 demonstrated a fail-
ure to comply with the provisions of the private settle-
ment agreement and on June 24, 1988, the Acting Re-
gional Director revoked that conditional approval of the
withdrawal request in Case 11 -CA-12577 and reinstated
the charge as to the 8(a)(1) allegations only and issued an
order consolidating in Cases 11-CA-12577 and 11-CA-
12715.
A. The Presettlement Conduct
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In December 1987, Respondent's employees Fred
Byrd , Christopher Andrews, and Douglas S. Bell initiat-
ed a union drive to organize Respondent 's employees on
behalf of the Paperworkers Union. This campaign came
to the attention of Respondent 's director of human re-
sources, Stephen Coe,' giving rise to questioning of
Byrd and Andrews by Coe. On December 18, 1987, Re-
spondent terminated employees Byrd and Andrews. The
Paperworkers Union filed a charge against Respondent
on December 28, 1987, and an amended charge on Janu-
ary 19, 1988, alleging the terminations of Andrews and
Byrd as violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Regional Director concluded that the terminations
of Andrews and Byrd were violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act and also concluded that the Respond-
' I find, based on the admission in Respondent 's answers, that Stephen
Coe and Supervisor Rick Cochran were supervisors within the meaning
of Sec . 2(11) of the Act at all times material.
The Facts Underlying the Original Complaint in
Case 11-CA-12577
The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
Fred Byrd testified that he was employed as a helper
by Respondent at its facilities in Atlanta , Georgia, in
August 1986 and then as a press operator at its facilities
in Charlotte, North Carolina, in March 1987. Byrd testi-
fied he began to work on behalf of the Paperworkers
Union in December 1987 by talking to other employees
on behalf of the Union and soliciting the employees to
sign union cards along with employees Chris Andrews
and Douglas (Steve) Bell and that he (Byrd) was ob-
served by Supervisors Doug Alexander and Stephen Coe
going from table to table at lunchtime and talking to em-
ployees in the hallways . Byrd testified that on December
15, Director of Human Resources Stephen Coe asked
him to step behind the press where he was working so
that they could "talk one on one." Coe then asked Byrd
whether he had heard anything about a union getting
JORDAN GRAPHICS 1087
started or about an employee, Chris Andrews, "trying to
get a union started and I told him no that I had not. I
asked him why and he said , because a couple of people
had came on a voluntary basis and asked him or told him
that he was, in fact, trying to start a union . And, I told
him that I didn 't know anything about it. He said, he
didn 't understand why people would come and tell him
that if it wasn't true. He said that he asked Chris [An-
drews] point blank if he was involved in the union and
Chris said no."
Byrd testified further that on December 17 he was
again approached by Stephen Coe, this time in back of a
die cutter and that he, Byrd, asked Coe whether he was
serious when he had previously asked Byrd whether An-
drews was involved in union activities . Coe replied,
"yes, that he didn 't understand why people would come
to him on a voluntary basis and tell him that if it was not
true . And he also said that he didn 't-when there was
not work that they made a job for Chris [Andrews] and
kept him a job and then the little fucker comes in and
tries to start a union ." Byrd testified further that Coe
said also that "he [Andrews] didn't realize how much
trouble he would stir up trying to bring a union into
Jordan." Byrd testified that Coe then said, "if you [Byrd]
hear anything, will you let me [Coe] know and I [Byrd]
said, I will." Byrd testified that the effort by the Paper-
workers Union went on about 3 to 4 weeks. Byrd and
Andrews were laid off on December 18 but Byrd and
Andrews later kept contact with the other employees on
behalf of the Union, particularly employee Bell.
Christopher Andrews testified that he was initially em-
ployed by Respondent in April 1987 and worked in the
tag department. Approximately 2 to 2-1/2 weeks before
his layoff on December 18, he became involved in union
activities . He obtained the union cards and union pam-
phlets and distributed them on behalf of the Paperwork-
ers Union . Fellow employees Douglas Steve Bell and
Fred Byrd also worked with him on behalf of the Paper-
workers campaign . The campaign lasted for about 2 to 2-
1/2 weeks. On December 14 Director of Human Re-
sources Stephen Coe spoke to Andrews in the canteen
area and told him he needed to see him before the end of
the day. Andrews testified, "Mr. Coe asked me, after he
had stated that some people in the bindery, . . . said that
some of the employees in the bindery were saying to the
supervisor in the bindery that I had been talking up the
union . He said that the production manager in the bind-
ery or just the production manager , he didn't state exact-
ly, had been watching me and then he came to Mr. Coe.
Mr. Coe then asked me if I had been talking up the
union and I said , no. He told me it was a protected sub-
ject. And, then he said he just wanted to make sure so
that I wouldn 't get into any trouble by employees being
mad at me. Then we left."
The Respondent called Director of Human Resources
Stephen Coe who testified that on or about December
14, 1987, "a couple of employees" approached him and
said that "other employees had told them that Chris An-
drews was talking about a union in the bindery area, an
area in which Chris didn't normally work, but he was
helping out there one day. Frankly, and mistakenly, I
thought that it was a joke. . . . I asked him [Andrews]
to come to my office and explained to him that employ-
ees had come to me discussing those matters and that I
didn 't think it was a serious matter, that I didn 't think
that, you know, whether or not he was, I didn't know,
but I wanted to remind him that our company philoso-
phy was that we try to handle our problems internally
when we have them, that we don't feel the need for a
third party intervention, and he said he had absolutely
said nothing about the unions and we pretty much let it
go at that."
Coe testified further that he had only one conversation
with Byrd and that the conversation was initiated by
Byrd as Byrd would often step in his office and talk,
"And he [Byrd] came in one day and said that I heard
that Chris Andrews-or you had talked to Chris An-
drews about a union and I explained it to him. I said yes,
we had heard some things, but again , I think it's a joke, I
don't think there's anything serious going on about it.
And then he said, well, I don't either, I don't think
there's anything happening with it. So-there may have
been some more casual conversation but in terms of what
was pertinent, there was no more." Coe acknowledged
that the conversation took place after his conversation
with Andrews. Coe denied having spoken to Byrd in the
plant.
B. The Alleged Violations of the Act Under the
Charges in Case 11-CA-12715
Douglas Stephen Bell, a pressman employed by Re-
spondent , testified as follows : He was hired by Respond-
ent in December 1985 and was trained to operate a press.
He received 3-month salary progressions until February
1988 when he was denied a wage increase. Approximate-
ly the first of December 1987 he started to engage in
union activities along with Andrews and Byrd by solicit-
ing employees to sign union cards before work and
during breaks and after work on behalf of the Paper-
workers Union . He engaged in this activity for about a
month. On December 23, 1987, his immediate supervisor,
Rick Cochran , approached him at his press and said that
Steve Coe wanted to talk to him in his office . He went
to the office and Cochran came also . Coe told Bell that
another employee had told him (Coe) that Bell "had so-
licited him for a union and that solicitation of any type
was against company policy, and if it happened again, it
could lead to more serious disciplinary action ." a He re-
ceived a written warning which he signed at the request
of Coe. The written warning states that, "Any further
occurrence of this activity will result in termination."
Bell testified that he had not solicited any employees on
that date but had talked to an employee named Wayne
Carrigan concerning a supervisory meeting about the
Union and asked Carrigan about it when Carrigan
walked by Bell's press. Bell testified that when he asked
Coe what he was supposed to be soliciting , Coe replied,
"I know and I think you know and we'll leave it at
that." Coe concluded the meeting of December 23 by re-
viewing the benefits provided by the Respondent such as
2 There was in existence a posted no -solicitation, no-distribution rule
which is not the subject of an unfair labor practice in this case.
1088 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ESOP and the 401K plan . No question as to benefits had
been asked by Bell. Bell testified he was still engaged in
activities on behalf of the Paperworkers Union when he
received a warning on January 28, 1988, for running bad
work from his immediate supervisor , Rick Cochran. This
incident resulted from a machine malfunction wherein
the pinfeed holes on the machine were not staying in the
correct position on the form . Bell tried to correct the
problem while the machine was running but was unable
to do so . Bell testified he had attempted to adjust the
machine manually as he did not want to stop the press
because the paper must have a great deal of stretch on it.
It was subsequently determined that a gear on the dial
was loose . This was the first time he had run a roll-to-
roll job such as this . Prior to running this job in its en-
tirety he had run samples and checked the stretch on the
paper and presented it to his leadman James Winders
whose function is to check the samples and approve or
disapprove them . In this case Winders checked and ap-
proved the samples . The sample shown to Winders was
correct . On the employee comment portion of the disci-
plinary form , Bell had commented that he was aware of
the problem but didn 't think it mattered . At the hearing
he explained that he did not think there had been suffi-
cient movement to affect the paper in the bindery and
that he was trying to adjust the machine.
Bell testified further that on April 28, 1988, he re-
ceived another written warning for running poor work
and was called into Cochran 's office and that Cochran
told him that he was placing Bell on probation . On this
particular occasion he (Bell) had been assigned the job
by Cochran on April 27 and Bell checked the samples
and presented them to Winders who approved them. As
a result of the failure of Bell to match the layout , slightly
over $ 1000 worth of labels were run unacceptably. The
personnel file memo signed by Cochran states, in part,
that Bell had been verbally reprimanded on December 7,
1987, for excessive tardiness and on January 28, 1988, for
running unacceptable work and had not received a raise
on February 1, 1988, as a result of these incidents and
substandard production and that as a result Cochran was
placing Bell on a 90-day probationary period beginning
April 30, 1988, and terminating August 1, 1988, at which
time he would be reevaluated , and that further incidents
will be grounds for dismissal . At this meeting according
to the memorandum written by Cochran , Bell asserted
that he was being "unjustly pressured from upper man-
agement since the incident involving solicitation during
working hours." Bell testified that he blamed the dis-
pleasure and his placement on probation on his union ac-
tivities but that Cochran denied this . Bell acknowledged
having been late on a number of occasions as noted in
the December warning although he minimized the length
of time he was tardy to a matter of brief durations of
minutes . In September 1988 Bell was reevaluated and re-
ceived half of the hourly raise he had been scheduled to
receive in February 1988 and about 3 weeks prior to the
hearing in this case Bell received the remainder of the
raise he had been scheduled for in February 1988.
Bell testified further that in March and April 1988 he
was engaged in union activities on behalf of the Team-
sters . Bell initiated the campaign by calling the Team-
sters representative , Miller, in order to show their sup-
port. On approximately the first of April, Bell passed out
union cards on behalf of the Teamsters . The Teamsters
representative , Miller, came to Respondent 's facility and
passed out handbills on behalf of the Union in front of
the Respondent 's premises . Coe testified that Miller was
actually on Respondent 's property and he asked Miller
to stand outside the Respondent 's property and Miller
complied . Miller has not returned since this occasion.
Bell testified that employees James Winders, Larry
Freeman , and Troy Blanton had all run unacceptable
work and had not received warnings for doing this.
Winders had run unacceptable work in mid-February
1988. The cost of the unacceptable work run by Bell on
January 27 and April 27, 1988, totaled approximately
$2000 or a little more for both.
The General Counsel also called Larry Freeman the
second-shift pressman who follows Bell's shift and oper-
ates the same machine that Bell does . Freeman testified
that when he "got ready to run out an okay sheet and I
noticed that the line holes in relationship to the label
weren't staying consecutive . So, it could only mean one
thing , the dial was moving , the gear was slipping." He
reported this to his supervisor, Ed Robinson . Freeman
tightened the gear and he was able to run the job. Free-
man testified , "It done better. That job is hard to really
keep the holes centered on that spot where it needs to be
the perforation to go down the middle, but it didn't slip
like it was. I mean , it was noticeable when I first cranked
it up . I could see it moving."
The General Counsel also called Kenneth Fender, a
press operator , who testified that he was asked by his su-
pervisor to run a job that had been assigned to employee
Troy Blanton and had been improperly run. Fender testi-
fied that the job had a print on it and the print had not
held the registration with the die and approximately
$2000 or $3000 of work was lost as a result . Fender was
told by his Supervisor Rick Cochran to rerun the job as
his machine was operating properly. He further testified
that the variation on the work performed by Blanton and
the registration was visible to the naked eye. Fender also
testified that as a pressman he does not routinely check
the gear on the dial unless there is a noticeable problem.
He also testified that when he is operating his machine it
is usual for the materials he is running to move and that
he normally does not stop the machine but rather uses
the adjustments on the machine to keep the materials in
line.
The General Counsel called James Winders, lead
pressman employed by Respondent . In February 1988
Winders ran unacceptable work on CETA tickets for
Roses label. The unacceptable work was discovered by
Second-Shift Supervisor Robinson . The unacceptable
work was caused by the back die not cutting the labels
properly. Winders testified that the unacceptable work
had occurred toward the end of the run and that al-
though he had periodically pulled samples during the run
he had failed to detect the problem . He had run 250
boxes and on the last 41 boxes, the die had ceased cut-
ting on the back. He believed that he had received a
verbal warning from his supervisor , Rick Cochran, but
JORDAN GRAPHICS 1089
none appears in his personnel file. The verbal warning as
described by Winders consisted of Cochran asking him
whether he was aware that the back die had quit cutting
on the Roses order that he had run the day before and
instructions that any time he runs this type of material,
that he should watch for something like that.
Winders also approved the job that Bell had been as-
signed to run on January 27, 1988, and the initial approv-
al by Winders was not the problem , but rather the prob-
lem was incurred while Bell was running the work.
Winders received a verbal reprimand from his supervi-
sor, Rick Cochran, in April 1988 for approving the work
run by Bell on April 27, 1988. Winders had missed the
difference between the horizontal slits on the sample
shown to him by Bell . Winders had not seen the verbal
reprimand documented by Cochran and signed "R. C."
and could not recall whether Cochran had told him he
was receiving a reprimand on April 27, 1988. Winders
was also Troy Blanton's leadman and Cochran spoke to
him concerning the job that had been run by Blanton
which had fluctuated while being run by Blanton and
told Winders that he should make sure that the print was
a certain measurement at all times . Cochran did not rep-
rimand Winders with respect to the unacceptable work
performed on Blanton 's machine. He is not aware wheth-
er Blanton received a warning in connection with the
unacceptable work performed on his machine . Winders
agreed with earlier testimony by employee Freeman that
the gear is not normally checked by press operators
unless there is a problem.
The General Counsel also called press operator Keith
Anderson who testified that he had found unacceptable
work that leadman James Winders had run on two occa-
sions . On the first occasion between January and Febru-
ary 1988 involving CETA tickets, 46 boxes were im-
properly run at a cost of $1500. On this occasion the
back die was off about one-quarter inch and the gears on
the die and anvil roller had collided and the gear was
ruined . Anderson testified this would have been noticea-
ble to an operator running the press . On the second oc-
casion , 2 weeks later, he noticed the back die had quit
running and on this occasion 40 boxes were ruined. He
informed his supervisor , Ed Robinson , of these problems
on each of the two occasions and Robinson searched
through the boxes . He is not aware whether Winders
was warned or reprimanded for running this work. An-
derson also testified that on another occasion he was
aware of, employee Larry Freeman ran unacceptable
work running a roll-to-roll job and on that occasion
Robinson told Freeman not to let it happen again. This
incident occurred some time prior to the incidents in-
volving Winders.
Respondent called Stephen Coe, its director of human
resources , who testified that the reason he had called
Andrews into his office in December was he did not
want a union at the plant and he reminded him of the
Respondent's policy against third-party intervention. Coe
acknowledged that he had not apprised Bell specifically
as to what he was accused of soliciting for and contend-
ed he told Bell he was being warned for soliciting on
worktime. Coe also testified that there was a meeting
held in late December or early January by Respondent
with its supervisors at which the supervisors were told
that information had surfaced concerning unions and at
which the supervisors were instructed "to keep their
eyes open ." Coe also testified he became aware of the
Teamsters Union attempting to organize the plant in
March or April 1988 when Teamsters Representative
Miller handbilled the plant but that he was not aware at
that time that Bell had anything to do with this effort.
First-Shift Label Supervisor Rick Cochran was also
called by the Respondent . Cochran testified he gave Bell
a verbal warning on January 28, 1988, for running an
order incorrectly wherein the pin feed holes on the side
of the form were out of register with the die cut on the
form and could not be collated with a corresponding
form in another department . Cochran testified that there
was no problem with the approval of the sample for Bell
by leadman Winders but that the problem developed
while Bell was running the order . Cochran testified that
it was Bell's responsibility to continually check the prod-
uct during the run against the sample on the layout to
make sure all measurements were correct and that the
die holes and the die cut was lining up with the sample.
When Cochran came in the next day he was informed
that the problem had occurred by a note from Second-
Shift Supervisor Ed Robinson . Cochran then called Bell
into his office and gave him a verbal reprimand for not
having monitored his work as he would have discovered
the problem if he had done so.
Cochran gave Bell his annual appraisal on February
10, 1988, and did not give Bell a scheduled raise because
his production standards were below budget and were
the worst he had ever seen and as a result of the January
incident herein Bell failed to monitor his work and as a
result of Bell 's tardiness in December 1987 about which
he had received a prior warning . At the time of this
evaluation he had a production printout which showed
that Bell's work had dropped off significantly from De-
cember 1987. In January 1988 Bell had a charged per-
centage of 53.4 percent as opposed to his budgeted (ex-
pected) percentage of 80 . 1 percent charged time which is
the amount of time the employee has worked which is
charged to an order. The difference between the charged
time and 100 percent of the employees' time at work or
on the job reflects downtime . The budgeted figure is
based on past records as an obtainable figure for charged
time . In addition Respondent uses statistics to reflect
waste incurred with an order and had 95.1 percent budg-
eted as good impressions (or good product) and Bell's
good impression in January were only 89.2 percent re-
flecting a waste figure of 10.8 percent. He used this in-
formation in his annual evaluation of and discussion with
Bell and denied Bell the pay increase and told Bell he
would reevaluate him in 90 days. Cochran has previously
denied pay increases to other employees . On April 27,
1987, Cochran gave a written warning to pressman
Robert Carroll as a result of his poor quality of work
and denied Carroll a wage increase . On October 2, 1987,
Cochran gave pressman Troy Blanton only half of his al-
lowable raise because of his failure to meet budgeted
production figures, Blanton subsequently received the re-
mainder of the raise. On February 10, 1988, Cochran
1090 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gave pressman Richard Keller only half of his allowable
raise for his tardiness.
Following Cochran's review of Bell in February 1988,
Bell's production figures remained below standards and
Bell also ran the University of South Carolina order in-
correctly on April 27, 1988. As a result Cochran placed
Bell on a 90-day probationary period and issued Bell a
written warning on April 28 , 1988. Leadman Winders
had approved this order and the approval was unaccept-
able as the form was not matched up to the layout sheet
as the die was reversed in relation to the sample on the
layout sheet . This is observable by noting the differences
in placement between the labels on the layout sheet. In
the case of Bell he should have continually monitored
the order after every stack he took off the press, by
taking the top sheet off and comparing it with the sample
and failed to do so as a comparison would have shown
the product did not line up with the sample . Approxi-
mately half of the order had been run by Bell before it
was discovered by the second shift . On July 28, 1988,
Cochran met with Bell in Label Manager Doug Alexan-
der's office with Vice President of Manufacturing Meyer
also present and determined they were not making
progress with Bell and wanted to motivate him to do a
better job as in the past he had run the equipment to
budgeted standards . At this time Bell was given only half
of his allowable raise . After this Bell showed some im-
provement in his production . In July his charged produc-
tion was 69 . 8 percent . In August it was 64.6 percent and
in September it was brought up to 77 . 5 percent. After
the September figures were reported , he gave Bell the
remainder of his raise.
Cochran testified further that with respect to the
Oregon job initially run by Troy Blanton , in which case
the print registration varied with the label but was not
detectable to the human eye during the run as the move-
ment was slight but did affect the final product when it
was transfixed to the form as it would not line up with
the print on the form. As a result Cochran ordered it to
be done on another piece of equipment that held a tight-
er registration than Blanton 's machine. No warning was
issued to Blanton as it was a press malfunction.
Cochran also testified that Winders had been partially
at fault in his running of the Rose's seed ticket form by
not monitoring the job correctly and he gave Winders an
informal verbal warning as this was his first offense and
this was the first time Winders had run the order, and
the first time that Winders had run the machine. On
cross-examination Cochran was presented with a produc-
tion report that reflected that Winders had run this ma-
chine for 6 hours in November 1987. With respect to
Bell Cochran acknowledged that there were some me-
chanical problems on the press which Bell was assigned
to at the time of the February review but contended that
this was only a small part of the problems with excessive
downtime . In support of this Cochran noted in the pro-
duction report for Bell , he only attained 57.6 percent of
charged percentage , substantially short of the 79 .4-per-
cent budgeted charged percentage whereas the other
pressman assigned to the same machine attained 76-per-
cent charged percentage . He testified further that Bell's
charged percentage in June 1988 of 46 percent was the
worst he had ever seen for any pressman . Cochran had
had some problems with Bell 's production prior to the
warning for low production in February 1988 such as in
November 1987 when Bell 's charged percentage was
63.4 percent . Cochran did not give Bell a warning in No-
vember . However, the November period was reviewed
at the time of Bell 's evaluation in February 1988. Bell
had previously been granted all scheduled pay increases
from December 3, 1985 , until August 31, 1987. During
this period Bell was reviewed every 90 days. Thereafter
Bell's next scheduled evaluation was the February annual
review and Bell was not due for an evaluation in the
period between November and February until the Febru-
ary 10 evaluation in 1988 . Thus, the February 10, 1988
evaluation covered the period between August 31, 1987,
to February 10, 1988 . When an employee is hired, he is
automatically reviewed every 90 days until he reaches
the top pay for the piece of equipment he is operating at
which time he is thereafter reviewed annually . In Bell's
case he had reached top pay on August 31, 1987, and
February 10, 1988, was his first scheduled annual review.
The Respondent also called Second -Shift Label Super-
visor Eddie Robinson who testified that in January or
February 1988 he discussed a problem with the Roses'
job order that had been run by Winders and repeated it
to his Supervisor Doug Alexander and left a note for
Cochran. One of the cutting dies had quit cutting proper-
ly and every other sheet was bad necessitating the dis-
posal of 41 cartons . He is not aware of any other prob-
lem with an order run by Winders. On another occasion
Winders was getting the press ready for employee An-
derson when Anderson came in on the second shift and a
gear was chewed up but nothing was run on the machine
and there was no work run incorrectly . Robinson, who
supervises Anderson and Freeman on the second shift,
testified that Anderson has complained about other em-
ployees operating the press he operates . Robinson also
testified that he is not aware of any occasion wherein
Freeman has run a bad product as a result of careless-
ness . On one occasion Freeman was involved with a roll-
to-roll order and Freeman had checked the stretch and it
was within acceptable limits but when it was taken to an-
other department for collation with the form , the humid-
ity difference caused the form to shrink. This was not at-
tributable to any error on the part of Freeman.
I credit the testimony of Bell in all respects except his
attempt to minimize the amount of time he was late in
December 1987 which I find was significantly greater in
view of Cochran's testimony which I credit in this
regard . I also credit the testimony of Keith Anderson
concerning the unacceptable work by leadman James
Winders found on two occasions and the unacceptable
work run by employee Larry Freeman about which
Freeman was told by Supervisor Robinson not to let it
happen again . I also credit the testimony of second-shift
pressman Larry Freeman who discovered the problem
with the gear at the beginning of his shift. I also credit
the testimony of press operator Kenneth Fender con-
cerning the unacceptable work run by employee Troy
Blanton and that a pressman does not routinely check a
gear on the dial unless there is a noticeable problem and
JORDAN GRAPHICS 1091
that he usually attempts to make adjustments on the ma-
chine while it is running rather than stop it. I also credit
Winders' testimony. In summary I find each of these em-
ployees to have testified in a straightforward manner
concerning the events they had witnessed and credit
their testimony to the extent it may conflict with that of
Cochran or Robinson . I note these employees are all cur-
rently employed by Respondent and their testimony as
current employees should be accorded substantial
weight.
Analysis
I find that the General Counsel has established a prima
facie case that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by the oral promulgation , maintenance , and enforcement
of a broad no-solicitation rule on December 23, 1987,
and has violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the
issuance of the written warning to Bell on December 23,
1987, pursuant thereto. I further find that the General
Counsel has established prima facie cases of violations of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by Respondent by its
issuances of the warning to Bell on January 28, 1988
denial of an annual wage increase to Bell on February
10, 1988, and by the warning issued to Bell and its place-
ment of Bell on probation subject to dismissal on April
28, 1988, because of his alleged poor work performance.
I further find that Respondent has failed to rebut the
prima facie cases of violations of the Act by the prepon-
derance of the evidence . In making these determinations
I find that the General Counsel has established animus
on the part of Respondent against its employees engag-
ing in union activities and specifically against Bell for his
engagement in union activities. With respect to the testi-
mony of Andrews and Byrd I find that these two exem-
ployees testified in a forthcoming manner and specifical-
ly related the conversations between themselves and Di-
rector of Human Resources Coe and that the substance
of those conversations clearly demonstrated Respond-
ent's antiunion animus and hostility to union activities
and representation on behalf of its employees. I fmd the
testimony and recollection of Andrews and Byrd with-
stood scrutiny and I credit it.
I further find that the imposition of the oral no-solici-
tation rule by Coe establishes Respondent's hostility to
union involvement by its employees and against Bell par-
ticularly who was issued a written warning and threat-
ened with discharge if he again solicited on behalf of the
Union . I credit Bell's testimony in this regard wherein he
testified he discussed a union meeting with another em-
ployee but did not solicit employees during actual work-
ing time . Bell's testimony in this regard was not rebutted
but was only countered by the generalized testimony of
Coe based on alleged hearsay statements of other em-
ployees concerning Bell's activities and Respondent
failed to produce those employees to testify in detail as
to what form the alleged solicitation took and when and
where it occurred which is particularly significant in this
case as Bell as a pressman did not have scheduled breaks
but was permitted to take breaks as the work permitted
as a result of the continuous nature of the printing proc-
ess once a run has begun . Moreover , there was no show-
ing that Respondent had ever disciplined employees in
the past for soliciting. It appears rather that Respondent
responded with disciplinary action by the written warn-
ing and threat of discharge for future infractions only in
the case of the support of the Paperworkers Union by
Bell. I thus find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by its promulgation and maintenance
of the oral no-solicitation rule by Coe as this rule was
overly broad and did not limit its scope to periods when
the employees were actually working. I further find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by the issuance of the written warning to Bell because of
his engagement in union activities by reason of the en-
forcement of the overly broad no-solicitation rule against
him. See Presbyterian/St. Luke's Medical Center v.
NLRB, 723 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1983), enfg. 258 NLRB
93 (1981).
With respect to the written warnings issued to Bell on
January 28, 1988, the denial to Bell of his annual pay
raise on February 10, 1988, and the issuance of a warn-
ing to Bell and placement of Bell on probationary status
subject to dismissal on April 28, 1988, 1 find that Re-
spondent's actions against Bell in each instance were mo-
tivated in part because of its animus toward union orga-
nization and toward Bell in particular as a known orga-
nizer on behalf of the Paperworkers Union. In making
this determination I have considered the hostility of Re-
spondent toward union organization and toward Bell in
particular as demonstrated by the December 23, 1987
warning issued to him. I have also considered the nature
of the alleged inadequacies of Bell in January which was
caused at least in part by a malfunctioning machine and
Bell's attempt to correct the problem and Respondent's
milder response to another situation in which employee
Blanton was not disciplined when the problem with his
work appeared to be caused by a malfunctioning ma-
chine. I have also considered the instance wherein em-
ployee Winders had run poor work resulting in losses to
the Respondent but had not been disciplined and Re-
spondent's issuance of only a verbal warning to Winders
in April 1988 when as a leadman he approved the work
which had been incorrectly set up by Bell. I also have
considered the sudden rush of adverse actions taken
against Bell by the refusal for the first time to grant him
a scheduled pay raise and by its unprecedented place-
ment of Bell on probation in April 1988. Thus, the dem-
onstrated animus of Respondent toward unionization, the
identification of Bell as an active union supporter wheth-
er or not his activities on behalf of the Teamsters Union
were known to management, the clear violation of the
Act by the issuance of the warning to Bell for solicita-
tion on behalf of the Paperworkers Union in December
1987, the timing of the discipline issued to Bell thereafter
and the evidence of disparate treatment convince me that
Bell was the subject of unlawful discrimination in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I did not find
convincing Respondent's attempts to portray its disci-
pline of Bell as legitimate business responses to his inad-
equacies as an employee. Although Respondent brought
forward a significant amount of evidence concerning
Bell's less than satisfactory work performance, I find that
it was insufficient to rebut the prima facie cases of dis-
1092 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
crimination against Bell by the preponderance of clear
and convincing evidence.
In Wright Line , 251 NLRB 1083 ( 1980), enfd . on other
grounds 662 F.2d 899 ( 1st Cir . 1981), cert . denied 455
U.S. 989 ( 1982), the Board held that once the General
Counsel makes a prima facie showing that the protected
conduct was a motivating factor in the action taken
against the employee, the burden then shifts to the em-
ployer to demonstrate that it would have taken the
action even in the absence of the protected conduct. It is
not sufficient for the employer to merely show that it
also had a legitimate reason for the action but the em-
ployer must persuade by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that the action would have taken place even in the
absence of the protected conduct . I find that the General
Counsel has met its burden of proof and has established a
prima facie case that Bell's activities on behalf of the Pa-
perworkers in December 1987 and later on behalf of the
Teamsters in March and April 1988 were known by Re-
spondent and were a motivating factor in the actions
taken by Respondent against Bell. I find that Bell's testi-
mony concerning his activities on behalf of the Team-
sters is sufficient to warrant the inference that Respond-
ent's management was aware of these activities , particu-
larly in view of its previous monitoring of these activities
by Byrd, Andrews, and Bell and the instructions to its
supervisors to keep their eyes open to suspected union
activities . Assuming arguendo , that Bell's activities on
behalf of the Teamsters were not known by manage-
ment , I nevertheless find that Bell's activities on behalf
of the Paperworkers were a motivating factor in Re-
spondent 's actions against Bell. I base this decision on
my analysis of the timing of the sudden rush of discipline
imposed on Bell as a result of his alleged solicitation in
December 1987 and the stern threat of discharge for
future offenses in the warning issued at that time and the
disparity in the discipline meted out to Bell in January
1988 in connection with the work destroyed as a result
of a mechanical error in his machine as contrasted to the
mild informal warning given to Winders for a similar in-
cident and the lack of any discipline accorded to Blount
for work damaged as a -result of the malfunction of his
machine . I also find that the denial of the pay increase
was premised in part on the January warning which I
have found violative of the Act. I also find that the
placement of Bell on probation was violative of the Act
as it was premised in part on the unlawful January warn-
ing. I also find the warning given to Bell in April 1988
was violative of the Act. I also find that the placement
of Bell on probation was unprecedented and shows a
continuing hostility toward Bell . In contrast I recognize
that Bell's performance , particularly in not meeting his
budgeted targets may have given Respondent some
grounds for his discipline . However, I find that Respond-
ent has failed to show by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Bell would have been so disciplined in the ab-
sence of his engagement in protected activities. Roure
Bertran Dupont, Inc., 271 NLRB 443 (1984); NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp ., 462 U.S. 393 ( 1983).
The Presettlement Conduct
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the issuance of the warning
to its employee Bell in January 1988 and by the denial of
the annual wage increase to Bell in February 1988 and
the issuance of the warning and by the placement of Bell
on probation in April 1988 , I now consider whether
these findings support the partial setting aside of the Re-
gional Director's conditional approval of the settlement
entered into by the parties. I find that these postsettle-
ment actions by the Respondent do support the Acting
Regional Director 's actions in revoking the prior approv-
al of the settlement as the unlawful actions taken against
Bell as found herein clearly show a continuation by Re-
spondent of its unlawful course of conduct designed to
deprive its employees of their Section 7 rights to deter-
mine whether they desire union representation. I find
that Respondent sought to inflict more severe discipline
on Bell as a perceived leader of the union campaigns at
its facility , having already rid itself of the other two
principal union adherents by reason of its prior layoff of
them . Although I make no determination as to whether
the layoff of Andrews or Byrd was violative of the Act,
I have considered the animus demonstrated by the inter-
rogation , threats, and the solicitation of Byrd to keep
Coe informed of union activities in my determinations
concerning Respondent's treatment of Bell.
It is well settled that a Regional Director may revoke
a prior approval of a withdrawal of an unfair labor prac-
tice charge and reinstate the charge if an employer vio-
lates the terms of a non -Board settlement agreement.
Moreover, the original charge may be reinstated not-
withstanding the expiration of the 10(b) period. Norris
Concrete Materials, 282 NLRB 289 (1986). See also
NLRB v. Laborers Local 185, 389 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.
1968); Medline Industries , 218 NLRB 1404, 1407 (1975),
in which the practice of permitting evidence of presettle-
ment conduct to establish motive of a respondent 's post-
settlement conduct was recognized as proper . The Board
has also given its approval to the Regional Director's
setting aside only part of the settlement agreement as a
result of the postsettlement conduct of a respondent.
This question was specifically addressed by the adminis-
trative law judge in Davis Electrical Contractors, 291
NLRB 115 fn. 32 (1988), who found, with Board approv-
al, the setting aside of only part of the settlement was
proper. See also Surtenda Steaks, 161 NLRB 957, 968 fn.
23 (1966). The rationale of permitting the set aside of
only part of the settlement is made clear when it is con-
sidered that a respondent should not benefit by its non-
compliance with the terms of the settlement and the
waste of resources that would be entailed if the General
Counsel were required to proceed to litigate the entire
case underlying the settlement , even those matters that
had been fully remedied by the settlement agreement.
See also Golden Age Chairmobile, 243 NLRB 160 fn. 1
(1979).
Thus, I am persuaded under the authority of the
above-cited cases that the Acting Regional Director in
this case properly set aside certain portions of the settle-
ment agreed to by the parties. I further find that the vio-
JORDAN GRAPHICS
lations found with respect to Respondent 's actions taken
against Bell in 1988 justify the setting aside of the prior
settlement agreement and that the General Counsel could
appropriately proceed in this proceeding on the portions
of the settlement that have been set aside .3 In this regard
I have credited the testimony of Andrews and Byrd con-
cerning the statements made to them by Coe in Decem-
ber 1987. I found their testimony to be explicit, detailed,
and believable. To the extent that Coe's testimony con-
flicts with their testimony I credit Andrews and Byrd.
I accordingly find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by Cole's interrogation of Andrews
concerning his union involvement . I find that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Coe's interro-
gation of Byrd concerning his union activities and those
of Andrews, and by giving the impression of surveillance
of the employees ' union activities, and by Coe's threat
against Andrews directed to Byrd concerning unspeci-
fied reprisals ("trouble") which Andrews might incur be-
cause of his support of the Union. I also find that Re-
spondent unlawfully solicited Byrd to report on the
union activities of its employees by Coe's direction to
Coe to let him know if he heard anything which state-
ment also violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. See Tubari
Ltd., 287 NLRB 1273 (1988); Gino Morena Enterprises,
287 NLRB 1327 ( 1988).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Jordan Graphics, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Drivers, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
Union No . 71, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO are each labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
its implementation , maintenance , and enforcement of an
unlawful , no-solicitation rule.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by its reprimand of its employee Douglas Stephen
Bell on December 23, 1987, its verbal warning of Bell on
January 28 , 1988, its denial of a wage increase to Bell on
February 10, 1988, its written warning issued to Bell on
April 28, 1988 , and its placement of Bell on probation on
April 28, 1988.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
its interrogation of its employee Chris Andrews concern-
ing his union activities, by its interrogation of its employ-
ee Fred Byrd concerning his union activities and those of
other employees , by threats of retaliation against An-
drews issued to its employee Fred Byrd, by creating the
impression of surveillance of the union activities of its
employees and by soliciting its employee Fred Byrd to
report on the union activities of its employees.
8 Respondent's motion to dismiss filed at the hearing on grounds of the
alleged improper setting aside of the settlement and untimeliness of the
complaint allegations is denied.
1093
6. The above unfair labor practices have the effect of
burdening commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated the
Act, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom,
and to take certain affirmative actions, including the
posting of an appropriate notice , designed to effectuate
the purposes of the Act, and including the recession of
its no-solicitation rule found unlawful . It shall also be or-
dered to rescind the warnings issued to Bell and the
denial of the pay increase to Bell and the placement on
probation of Bell , to expunge its records of all references
to these unlawful acts and notify him in writing that this
has been done and that such activities will not be used as
the basis for any future personnel actions against him,
and to make Bell whole for all loss of earnings and bene-
fits sustained by him as a result of the unlawful acts of
Respondent , with interest as computed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).4
Accordingly, on the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and on the entire record , I issue the
following recommended"
ORDER
The Respondent, Jordan Graphics, Inc., Charlotte,
North Carolina , its officers, agents, successors , and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully issuing oral and written warnings to its
employees , denying its employees wage increases, and
placing its employees on probation because of their en-
gagement in protected activities under the Act.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating and threatening its em-
ployees because of their engagement in protected con-
certed activities under the Act.
(c) Creating the impression of surveillance of the union
activities of its employees.
(d) Soliciting its employees to report on the union ac-
tivities of its employees.
(e) Promulgating, maintaining, and enforcing an un-
lawful , no-solicitation rule.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the unlawful oral and written warnings
issued to its employee Douglas Stephen Bell , its denial of
a wage increase to Bell, its placement of Bell on proba-
tion , and make him whole for any loss of earnings or
benefits he may have sustained by reason of the discrimi-
4 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in 1986 amendment to 26
U.S C § 6621.
5 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
1094 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nation against him in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Implement the wage increase due Bell retroactive
to February 1988.
(c) Expunge from its records any references to the un-
lawful warnings, the denial of a wage increase , and the
placement of Bell on probation as found herein and
notify Douglas Stephen Bell in writing that this has been
done and that such actions will not be used as a basis for
any future personnel action against him.
(d) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security records, timecards , personnel
records and reports and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order.
(e) Rescind the aforesaid unlawful no-solicitation rule
and post the attached notice informing its employees
thereof.
(f) Post at its facility in Charlotte, North Carolina,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."e
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's authorized representative , shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To organize
To form, join , or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for their mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT issue oral or written warnings to our
employees or deny them wage increases , or place them
on probation because of their engagement in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain , or enforce unlaw-
ful rules prohibiting our employees from soliciting on
our property.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees
because of their engagement in union activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of
the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to report on the
union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the warnings issued to Douglas Ste-
phen Bell on December 23, 1987, and January 28 and
April 28, 1988, and the denial of the wage increase to
Bell on February 10, 1988, and the placement of Bell on
probation on April 28, 1988.
WE WILL implement the wage increase scheduled for
Bell on February 1, 1988 , retroactive to that date.
WE WILL make Bell whole for any loss of earnings or
benefits he may have sustained by reason of the discrimi-
nation against him with interest on any moneys due him.
WE WILL expunge from our records any reference to
the unlawful warnings, denial of a wage increase , and the
placement on probation of Bell and inform him in writ-
ing that this has been done and that such actions shall
not be used as a basis for any personnel actions against
him in the future.
WE WILL rescind the no-solicitation rule found unlaw-
ful herein.
JORDAN GRAPHICS, INC.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act give employees these rights.