Lawson Printers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

LAWSON PRINTERS
Lawson Printers Inc. and Local 263, Graphic Arts
International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-
19378, 7-CA-19550, and 7-CA-19746
29 August 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 28 April 1983 Administrative Law Judge
James T. Youngblood issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Charging Party filed cross-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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified herein. 2
We agree with the judge's conclusion, for the
reasons stated in his decision, that the Respondent
unilaterally laid off virtually the entire bargaining
unit on 1 July 1981, some for the whole day and
some for half the day, in violation of Section
I In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent discontinued
its practice of granting wage increases in violation of Sec. 8(aX3) and (I).
we rely on the following: the admission of the Respondent's president.
Ullrich, that based on past experience employees could have expected
wage increases in 1981 and 1982; the statements found by the judge to be
violative of Sec. 8(aX3) and (1) including Ullrich's statement to employ-
ees Washam and Gallop that he could not give them raises because of the
Union, and former Supervisor Elliott's statement to Gallop that he and
Washam had not received raises because of the Union; and the fact that
no unit employee employed at the time the union campaign commenced
in January 1981 received a wage increase after November or December
1980, while the Employer continued to hire new unit employees, some of
them at wage rates higher than those paid to employees already em-
ployed.
While agreeing with her colleagues that the work reassignments made
on 21 May 1981 were discriminatory, and thus violated Sec. 8(a)(X3) and
(1), Member Dennis would not find that the reassignments constituted
unilateral changes in violation of Sec.
8
(aX5) and (I).
2 In par. I(i) of his recommended Order, the judge used the broad
cease-and-desist language "in any other manner." However, we have
considered this case in light of the standards set forth in Hickmott Foods,
242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and have concluded that the narrow cease-and-
desist language "in any like or related manner" is appropriate. We shall
modify the judge's recommended Order accordingly.
We also shall further modify the judge's recommended Order so as to
require the Respondent to remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful layoff of Craig Coats on 21 May 1981, and to the unlawful warn-
ing notices and absentee reports issued to Rockwell Lyon and Raymond
Gallop in August 1981, and to notify them in writing that this has been
done and that evidence of these unlawful actions will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against them. See Sterling Sugars, 261
NLRB 472 (1982).
We also shall modify the recommended Order so as to require the Re-
spondent to rescind the 21 May 1981 unilateral changes in employees'
routine press assignments and to restore the pressroom employees to the
press positions they held prior to the 21 May reassignments. Finally, we
shall modify pars. I(h) and 2(a) of the recommended Order in order to
more appropriately remedy the violations found.
271 NLRB No. 202
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We also agree with the
judge's conclusion that such action by the Re-
spondent was designed to "punish" unit employees
for their support of the Union and therefore was
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), but we do so
for the following reasons.
The Respondent's posted work schedule for the
week of 28 June 1981 to 4 July 1981 indicated that
the plant would be closed on Wednesday, 1 July,
and Thursday, 2 July, and that employees would
receive a paid holiday for 2 July but would have to
take a vacation day for I July if they wanted to be
paid for a full 40-hour week. When pressroom em-
ployee Hoag asked his supervisor, Elliott, about
the I July closing, he was told it was for invento-
ry. Credited testimony indicates, however, that the
pressroom inventory had been completed by 1 July
and that there was regular pressroom work to be
done on 1 July. As it turned out, two pressroom
employees, Gallop and Jacobs, worked the entire
day on I July,3 and the bindery employees worked
for half the day.
It is undisputed that the Respondent's conduct in
closing the plant and not paying employees on the
day adjacent to a paid holiday was contrary to its
predominant past practice during holiday weeks.
Such an unpaid closing apparently had occurred
only once before, i.e., when the plant was officially
closed on 4 and 5 July 1979, but 4 July was the
one paid holiday that week. It also is undisputed
that it was not the Respondent's regular practice to
close the plant for the taking of inventory, but
rather to have it done during normal working
hours. We find it significant that this conduct by
the Respondent came just 6 weeks after it unlaw-
fully changed the routine press assignments of all
but one of the pressroom employees, effectively de-
moting them to presses they operated formerly,
and discriminatorily laid off employee Coats. We
further note, as found by the judge, that the Re-
spondent had told employees during the election
campaign that everything was going to change if
the Union got in, specifically threatening, inter alia,
that in slack periods employees would be laid off
rather than assigned to odd jobs around the plant.
In our view, the Respondent's scheduling of the
unpaid holiday on 1 July, albeit with the option of
conversion to a paid vacation day, amounted to a
layoff for most of the unit employees. Based on the
timing of such conduct, the deviation from past
3 The judge characterized both Jacobs and Gallop as "non-union em-
ployees." However, although there is evidence that Jacobs did not sign a
union authorization card and attended only the first union meeting, there
is no basis for finding that Gallop did not support the Union, in view of
his testimony that he signed an authorization card, attended a union meet-
ing, and wore a union pin.
1279
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practice, and the animus evidenced by the other
8(a)(1) and (3) violations, we find that the 1 July
layoff was taken in retaliation for the employees'
union activities and therefore was violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts as
its Order the recommended Order of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge as modified and set forth in full
below and orders that the Respondent, Lawson
Printers Inc., Battle Creek, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and sympathies.
(b) Soliciting grievances from its employees and
promising that the Respondent would attempt to
remedy said grievances without the Union's assist-
ance.
(c) Informing employees that they had not re-
ceived wage increases because of the Union and in-
forming employees that they would receive no
future wage increase because of the Union.
(d) Threatening to lay off employees in the
future if they ran out of work rather than follow-
ing its past practice of reassigning employees to
other available work.
(e) Creating the impression that it was engaged
in surveillance of employee union activities and
sentiments.
(f) Refusing to grant unit employees periodic
wage increases in conformance with its past prac-
tice regarding such increases.
(g) Discouraging membership in Local 263,
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, the
Union, or any other labor organization, by refusing
to grant unit employees periodic wage increases in
conformance with its past practice regarding such
increases; discriminatorily reducing the amount of
overtime work assignments made available to its
employees; adversely changing the routine press as-
signments of its pressroom employees; discrimina-
torily laying off its employees; and discriminatorily
issuing employee warning notices and/or absentee
reports.
(h) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union, the certified bargaining representa-
tive of the Respondent's employees, by unilaterally
changing employees' routine press assignments,
laying off employees, and issuing employee warn-
ing notices and/or absentee reports without prior
notice to or consultation with the Union.
(i) 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 designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union regarding
changes in routine press assignments, layoffs, and
the issuance of employee warning notices or absen-
tee reports.
(b) Rescind the 21 May 1981 unilateral changes
in employees' routine press assignments and restore
the pressroom employees to the press positions
they held prior to such changes.
(c) Offer Craig Coats immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
in the manner described in the section of the
judge's decision entitled "The Remedy" for any
losses suffered as a result of his discriminatory
layoff on 21 May 1981.
(d) Remove from its files any reference to the
discriminatory layoff of Craig Coats on 21 May
1981 and notify him in writing that this has been
done and that evidence of this unlawful layoff will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions
against him.
(e) Rescind and remove from its files any refer-
ence to the discriminatory warning notices and ab-
sentee reports issued to employees Rockwell Lyon
and Raymond Gallop, and notify them in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of such
unlawful warnings will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against them.
(f) Put into effect all employee periodic wage in-
creases which it denied its employees and make
them whole in the manner described in the section
of the judge's decision entitled "The Remedy."
(g) Make whole any of its employees discriminat-
ed against as found herein, in the manner described
in the section of the judge's decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(h) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(i) Post at its Battle Creek, Michigan facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
4 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
1280
LAWSON PRINTERS
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(j) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning their union membership, activities, and
sympathies.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our em-
ployees and promise them that we will attempt to
remedy said grievances without the Union's assist-
ance.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that the
denial of wage increases was because of the Union
and WE WILL NOT inform our employees that they
will not receive future wage increases because of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off our employees
in the future if they run out of work rather than
following our past practice of reassigning employ-
ees to other available work.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are
engaged in the surveillance of our employees'
union activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to grant unit employees
periodic wage increases in conformance with our
past practice regarding such increases.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local
263, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, by refusing to
grant unit employees periodic wage increases in
conformance with our past practice regarding such
increases; discriminatorily reducing the amount of
overtime work assignments available to our em-
ployees; adversely changing the routine press as-
signments of our pressroom employees; discrimina-
torily laying off our employees; and discriminatori-
ly issuing employee warning notices and/or absen-
tee reports.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collec-
tively with the Union, the certified bargaining rep-
resentative of our employees, by unilaterally
changing employees' routine press assignments,
laying off employees, and issuing employee warn-
ing notices and/or absentee reports without notice
to or consultation with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union re-
garding changes in routine press assignments, lay-
offs, and the issuance of employee warning notices
or absentee reports.
WE WILL rescind the 21 May 1981 unilateral
changes in routine press assignments and restore
our pressroom employees to the press positions
they held prior to such changes.
WE WILL offer Craig Coats immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE
WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to
the discriminatory layoff of Craig Coats on 21 May
1981, and WE WILL notify him in writing that this
has been done and that evidence of this unlawful
layoff will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL rescind and remove from our files any
reference to the discriminatory warning notices and
absentee reports issued to employees Rockwell
Lyon and Raymond Gallop, and WE WILL notify
them in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of such unlawful warnings will not be
used against them in any way.
WE WILL put into effect all employee periodic
wage increases which we denied our employees
and make them whole for any loss of wages with
interest.
WE WILL make whole any of our employees
found to be discriminated against and WE WILL
make them whole for any loss of pay, with interest.
LAWSON PRINTERS INC.
1281
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. YOUNGBLOOD, Administrative Law Judge.
The consolidated amended complaint which issued on
October 8, 1981, alleges that Lawson Printers Inc.
(Lawson or Respondent), beginning in early February
1981,1 engaged in various acts and conduct in violation
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act. In an
answer dated October 15, Lawson denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices. This matter was tried
before me on September 13, 14, and 15, 1982, in Mar-
shall, Michigan. All parties were represented at the hear-
ing and following the hearing the Respondent and the
Charging Party filed posttrial briefs which have been
duly considered.2
On the entire record in this matter, and from my ob-
servations of the witnesses and their demeanor while tes-
tifying, and after due consideration of the briefs filed
herein, I make the followings
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, maintains its
office and place of business at 605 Columbia Avenue
West, Battle Creek, Michigan, where it is engaged in
commercial printing. The Respondent admits, and I find,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that Local 263,
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO (the
Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In early January, employee Keith Hoag was contacted
by Union Representative Joe Horvath regarding his in-
terest in a union, and about starting a union at the facility
of the Respondent. After a meeting with Horvath, Hoag
talked with other employees and a meeting was arranged
between union representatives and the Respondent's em-
ployees around mid-January. At this meeting there were
about 12 employees. Two separate unions, the Union,
and the International Printing Pressmen presented their
I Unless otherwise specified all dates refer to 1981.
s By letter dated December 2, 1982, the General Counsel advised that
because of other pressing matters he was unable to file a brief. He ad-
vised, however, that he had reviewed the brief filed by the Charging
Party and subscribed to the arguments made therein.
3 The facts found herein are a compilation of the credited testimony,
the exhibits, and stipulations of fact, viewed in light of logical consisten-
cy and inherent probability. Although these findings may not contain or
refer to all of the evidence, all has been weighed and considered. To the
extent that any testimony or other evidence not mentioned in this deci-
sion may appear to contradict my findings of fact, I have not disregarded
that evidence but have rejected it as incredible, lacking in probative
weight, surplusage, or irrelevant. Credibility resolutions have been made
on the basis of the whole record, including the inherent probabilities of
the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses. Where it may be re-
quired I will set forth specific credibility findings.
viewpoints to the employees. The next day Hoag had a
conversation with the Respondent's president, Richard
Ullrich, around noon, in the plant near the washbasin.
Hoag credibly testified that he was washing his hands
and Ullrich walked up to him and asked about the union
meeting, and when Hoag said, "What union meeting?"
Ullrich responded, "Well how about your meeting?"
Hoag responded, "It went fine." Ullrich told Hoag that
if they wanted a union the ball game would change, that
he could not afford it, and that if the people ran out of
work he would send them home, rather than have them
do odd jobs as had been done in the past. He explained
that there was no door on his office and if anyone had
any problems they could come in and talk to him. Ull-
rich suggested that Hoag draw up a list of the employee
grievances and bring them to him. Hoag testified that
several days later he gave the list of grievances to UI1-
rich. Hoag stated that Ullrich looked the grievances over
and said they were legitimate and that he would take
care of them. Employee Craig Coats credibly testified
that he overheard the conversation between Ullrich and
Keith Hoag at the washbasin, and heard them discussing
something about a meeting. He heard Ullrich say that
they could have a union but the whole ball game would
change. Ullrich stated that, instead of people helping out
on the presses and painting walls, sweeping parking lots,
and straightening up the shop and cleaning things up in
general, he would start laying people off. He said he
would not let them put in their 40 hours. He also heard
Ullrich tell Keith Hoag to draw up a list of the employee
complaints. Ullrich admitted that he solicited grievances
from the employees so that he could find out why the
employees wanted a union in order for him to convince
them that they did not need a union.
It is my conclusion that Ullrich interrogated employee
Hoag concerning the union meeting at his home and also
gave the impression to Hoag that the employee's activi-
ties were under surveillance by informing Hoag that he
was aware of the union meeting. Additionally, his threats
to discontinue the company's past practice of assigning
employees to odd jobs during the slow time if the union
came in, and his solicitation of grievances, admittedly to
convince the employees that they did not need a union,
all violate Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint, and I so find.4
Hoag testified that after the first meeting they held
weekly meetings on Wednesday nights. He testified that
around January 30 they first obtained union-authorization
cards, and it was at this meeting at his house on January
30 that the employees first signed union-authorized
cards.
The record reflects that, on February 11, a representa-
tion petition in Case 7-RC-16250 was filed by the Union
seeking to represent certain employees of the Respond-
ent. On March 24, a Board-conducted election was held
in which 13 of the eligible 14 voters cast their ballots, 9
were for the Union and 4 were against the Union. On
April 20, a hearing was held with respect to the conduct
To the extent that there is any disagreement between the testimony
of Ullrich and the General Counsel's witnesses, it is my conclusion that
Ullrich's testimony is not to be credited.
1282
LAWSON PRINTERS
of the election, based on the Respondent's objections. On
November 19 a certification of representative was issued
to the Union by the Board.
In the meantime, the Union, by letter dated February
6, had advised the Respondent of its organizational drive
and that several of the employees in the plant were as-
sisting the Union in this regard.
On March 19, 5 days before the scheduled Board elec-
tion of March 24, Ullrich assembled the bargaining-unit
employees in the bindery. Ullrich addressed the assem-
bled employees, and informed them that he was wearing
the union button upside down because he frowned on
unions, that his pin was unhappy. Ullrich also told the
assembled employees that everything would change if
the Union got in, that he would not be able to give them
odd jobs around the shop in slack periods, and that they
would have to be laid off. He told the employees that he
did not have a door on his office and they could come in
and talk about their problems at any time.
Employee Byron Washam testified that at this meeting
Ullrich informed the employees that he knew who the
Union organizers were, and named Keith Hoag and
Craig Coats. Ullrich himself testified that by March 19
he knew that Keith Hoag was one of the employees who
was hostile to the Company because he was signing up
people for the Union.
The employees who testified concerning this meeting
all consistently testified that Ullrich solicited grievances
from the employees asking them about their problems
and what had made them go to the Union. Additionally,
he promised that he would take care of these grievances.
Ullrich admitted that he addressed the meeting and that
he solicited grievances from the employees and promised
to take care of these grievances so the employees would
stop their support for the Union.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Ullrich's threats
that employees would be laid off rather than assigned
odd jobs during slack periods, his continued solicitation
of grievances from the employees, and promises to re-
solve them without union interference in order to per-
suade the employees not to support the union, clearly
violate Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and I so find.
Employee Byron Washam testified that several weeks
after the first union meeting at Hoag's home, he had a
conversation in the plant with Dick Ullrich. He stated
that Ullrich told him that he was up for a raise but that
he could not give it to him because of the Union. Ullrich
said that they had always been a family there and that he
could not understand why the employees wanted a
union.
Washam testified that several weeks after the election,
he and Ray Gallop were working on a press when UII-
rich joined them and stated that he did not know how
the employees could do this to him. Gallop asked him
what he meant and Ullrich said, "to vote a union in."
Ullrich said that they had always been just like a family
and he did not see how the employees could do this to
him. Ullrich stated that he knew the employees who had
voted for the Union and those who had voted against it.
Again he repeated that he knew that Craig Coats and
Keith Hoag were the main organizers behind the Union.
These statements by Ullrich clearly give the impression
to the employees that their union activities were under
surveillance and clearly constitute interference with their
rights guaranteed under Section 7, and violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. Additionally, U11-
rich's statement to Washam that he would not get a pay
raise because of the Union clearly violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, and I so find.
Ray Gallop testified that on July I he had lunch at the
Round Table Bar in Battle Creek, Michigan, where he
ran into company supervisor Bill Elliott and employee
Roy Jacobs. Gallop stated that he immediately men-
tioned to Elliott the fact that he had not had a raise in a
long time. Elliott responded by saying, "Well, don't look
at me . . . I could have had you and Byron another
dollar an hour right now but because of this union thing
Dick got pissed off and he says fuck you." Elliott men-
tioned that Craig Coats, who had been laid off the week
before, "will never see the back door again." Elliott also
asked Gallop how he would vote if another election
were held that day. This testimony stands uncontradict-
ed, as neither Elliott nor Roy Jacobs was called to testi-
fy. The statement that the employees' regular wage in-
crease had been stopped because of the Union clearly
violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Additionally, the
question to Gallop as to how he would vote if a union
election were held today, in view of the statement that
the wage increases were held up because of the Union,
clearly was to convey to the employees that this was a
reprisal of their support of the Union and clearly intend-
ed to turn the employees against the Union in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find.
Paragraph 17 of the complaint alleges that, since early
February, the Respondent has failed and refused to grant
unit employees periodic wage increases in conformance
with its past practice regarding such increases. This
record clearly reflects that the company's past practice
has always been to grant regular periodic wage increases
to all bargaining unit personnel. This fact is undisputed
and is clearly reflected by the General Counsel's Exhibit
3. This exhibit confirms that it was a consistent practice
to give several wage increases per year to each unit em-
ployee which ranged from 25 cents to over a dollar an
hour each time. Moreover, Dick Ullrich admitted this
past practice and stated that the employees could have
reasonably anticipated continuing to receive such in-
creases in 1981 and 1982. The last increases were given
in November 1980. The next increases would have been
due around February.
The testimony reflects that Dick Ullrich told employ-
ees Byron Washam and Ray Gallop that they were due
for raises but that he could not give them the raises be-
cause of the Union. Ullrich testified that he told these
employees he could not give them their anticipated raises
because of the situation and earlier testified that his attor-
ney had advised him not to give the regular wage in-
crease at that time. While this latter statement does not
reflect that the discontinuance of the wage was for dis-
criminatory reasons, it clearly reflects that the discoun-
tinuance of the wage increases was in no way related to
economic matters.
1283
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As indicated, it is undisputed that the consistent prac-
tice of granting several wage increases per year was
abruptly halted after the advent of the Union. And as
can be seen from the General Counsel's Exhibit 3, which
is a exhibit, the bargaining unit personnel received no
wage increases after November or December 1980. It
would appear from the evidence presented in this record
that the discontinuance of the wage increases was limited
to the bargaining-unit personnel and did not apply to
those employees outside the bargaining unit or those em-
ployees hired into the bargaining unit after the election.
Thus, the record reflects that Jack Thurston, an em-
ployee claimed by the Respondent to be outside the bar-
gaining unit, received a wage increase on April 12, 1982.
David Barnard was hired on May 4, 1981, at $5.50 an
hour and on May 10, 1981, he received a 50-cent-an-hour
increase and on June 21, 1981, received S1 increase to
$7.5 Joel Gerber was hired part time on March 5, 1981,
and hired full time on August 18, 1981, and received a $3
wage increase on August 18, 1981, to $7. Mike Bran was
hired on May 26, 1981, at $10.10 an hour. He quit in Oc-
tober 1981 and was rehired March 5, 1982, at $11 an
hour. Michael Haley was hired on June 21, 1982, at $7
an hour and testified that Ullrich promised him a wage
increase of up to $2 an hour within 60 days after he was
hired. Former employee K.C. Jones was rehired on Sep-
tember 22, 1981, at $10 an hour being $2.25 higher than
when he quit on November 6, 1980. These facts clearly
show me that the wage freeze was directed only against
those employees who favored and supported the Union.
Additionally, this disparate treatment clearly establishes
that economic conditions were not a factor in denial of
the wage increases.
The testimony by employee Ray Gallop clearly indi-
cates that Superintendent Bill Elliott told him that the
only reason he and another employee were not getting a
wage increase was because Ullrich was mad about the
Union. Additionally, the question to Gallop of how
would he vote if another union election was held that
day clearly indicates that the wage increases were delib-
erately designed and intended by the Company to chill
the employee's support for the Union.
In August and September 1982, Ullrich had several
conversations with Keith Hoag and K. C. Jones in which
the subject of employees signing a petition to repudiate
the Union was discussed. In these conversations Ullrich
conditioned future wage increases on the signing of such
a petition. This clearly confirms that the freeze on wages
of those employees involved with the Union was directly
linked to their support for the Union.
This record is replete with statements by the Respond-
ent's agents that the Respondent's sudden termination of
its longstanding practice of regular wage increases was
directly related to the employees' desire to be represent-
ed by a union and done to force the employees to repu-
diate the union. There is no question in my mind that the
Respondent's discontinuance of its long practice of grant-
ing wage increases to the bargaining unit employees was
discriminatory and was designed to discourage member-
ship in the Union. As such, this conduct clearly violates
5 See C. P. Exh. 2.
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act as alleged in paragraph
17 of the complaint.
Paragraph 18 of the complaint alleges that, since early
February 1981, the Respondent has discriminatorily re-
duced the amount of overtime work assignments avail-
able to its employee Keith Hoag and since March 24,
1981, discriminatorily reduced the amount of overtime
work assignments available to its employee, Craig Coats.
The record reflects that in 1978 Keith Hoag averaged
5.92 hours of overtime per week. In 1979 he averaged
5.45 hours of overtime per week and in 1980 he averaged
3.25 hours per week overtime. Additionally, for the first
11 weeks of 1981 through March 21, Hoag averaged 3.8
hours of overtime. On March 24, 1981, the election was
held and from that point until the end of 1981, Hoag
averaged .62 hours of overtime per week for the remain-
ing 41 weeks in 1981. It can readily be seen that his
overtime hours were drastically cut following the elec-
tion.
Hoag testified that following the election the Respond-
ent no longer assigned overtime to him when his press
was running a job which required overtime. He stated
that on one occasion he asked Bill Elliott, the supervisor,
if he should work overtime to perform a job which was
being run on his press. Elliott checked with the front
office and informed Hoag "there is overtime to be given
on this job but we don't want you to get it." This testi-
mony stands undisputed on the record. Hoag testified
that on several occasions work was taken from his press
and placed on other presses to be completed. He stated
that this had never happened in the past. Don Richard, a
supervisor and one of Respondent's witnesses, admitted
that this had been done to Hoag but testified that it was
to balance his workload with Mike Brand.
Craig Coats was hired in June 1980 and, from the
week ending July 26 until the end of the year 1980,
Coats worked an average of 2.7 hours of overtime per
week for that 23 weeks. In 1981, through the first 12
weeks ending on March 21, 1981, Coats worked an aver-
age of 2.7 hours of overtime. From the week ending
March 21, several days before the election of March 24,
until Coats was laid off in May 1981, a total of 9 weeks,
Coats worked on .3 hours of overtime being an average
of .03 hours of overtime per week. This clearly estab-
lishes the fact that, following the election, the overtime
for Coats was also drastically reduced.
Byron Washam testified that both Coats' and Hoag's
overtime was reduced after they had publicly supported
the Union. He testified that they were repeatedly told to
go home rather than finish work on their presses which
would require overtime. He testified that on one occa-
sion in mid-May 1981, he had arranged with Coats to
work overtime in his place. When Supervisor Elliott
learned of this he told Washam that he did not want
Coats to work any overtime and, if Washam persisted in
arranging for Coats to work overtime in his place, Elliott
would make things difficult for Washam in the shop.
This testimony was corroborated by employees Ray
Gallop and Craig Coats. Elliott did not testify and the
Respondent did not in any other way dispute this testi-
mony. Respondent's witness, Betty Rankin, testified that
1284
LAWSON PRINTERS
it is the company's policy to pay employees overtime for
fractions of an hour built up by employees punching in
before or after their scheduled starting time. In the week
of May 16, one employee punched in early and was paid
for the overtime reported on his timecard. During that
same week, however, Coats punched in at the same time
and accumulated .3 hours of overtime that week and, al-
though Supervisor Elliott had initialed Coats' card for
overtime payment, Betty Rankin, the witness, wrote on
the card no overtime authorized and refused to pay him
for the time. Betty Rankin did not explain the disparate
treatment of Coats with other employees at this time.
Based on the record as a whole, the stipulated over-
time histories, the testimony of employees as to what
management said and did, and the admissions of the Re-
spondent's witnesses, all indicate and confirm that the
Respondent discriminatorily reduced the overtime hours
of Keith Hoag and Craig Coats after they had publicly
identified themselves as the main organizers for the
Union in the plant. Specifically, the denial of overtime
became critical after the union election on March 24. It
is my conclusion that the Respondent discriminatorily re-
duced the overtime hours for both Keith Hoag and
Craig Coats because of their open support for the Union
and that this was done to discourage membership in the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (7) of the Act,
and I so find.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the complaint allege that on
or about May 21, 1981, Respondent adversely changed
the permanent press assignments of its pressroom em-
ployees, Keith Hoag, Craig Coats, Raymond Gallop,
Rockwell Lyon, and Byron Washam, and on May 21,
1981, laid off its employee, Craig Coats, unilaterally
without notification to the Union or bargaining with the
Union, and that this discrimination was done to discour-
age membership in the Union and because the employees
gave testimony under the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act.
On May 21, Don Richards, a part owner of the Re-
spondent, called all of the employees together in the con-
ference room and talked to the six pressroom employees.
Supervisor Bill Ellitott was also present. Richards stated
that by now the employees should have noticed that the
Respondent had put a listing in the Kalamazoo and
Battle Creek papers for a four-color pressman for their
operations. Keith Hoag asked why he was being re-
placed and he was told by Richards that he was not put-
ting out the production they expected. Richards advised
that he thought Hoag had been raised up too fast. He
stated that as a result of the hiring of a new employee all
of the employees would be shuffled around. Richards ad-
vised that the employees would be moved downward.
Although he said this was not a demotion, the employees
certainly considered it as a demotion. A new employee,
Mike Brand, had been hired on May 5, 1981, and Hoag
was informed that Mike Brand from then on would oper-
ate the four-color press. Richards advised that Hoag then
would be put on the two-color 40-inch press and the op-
erator of that press, Ray Gallop, was demoted to the 25-
inch two-color press, with its operator, Rocky Lyon,
being demoted to the 35-inch one-color press. Byron
Washam, the operator of the 35-inch one-color press,
was demoted to the 15- and 17-inch one-color press.
Craig Coats, who had run these presses was, in turn, de-
moted to becoming a floating helper in the pressroom.
Thus, with the hiring of one employee, Mike Brand, the
Respondent demoted each of its employees in the press-
room downward. The Respondent earlier had warned
the employees that if a union came into the plant that ev-
erything would be run on seniority. Twenty minutes
later Craig Coats, who had been demoted to a floating
helper, was informed by Bill Elliott that he was laid off,
effective immediately. Coats asked to finish the rest of
the day but Elliott told him to leave immediately. To
this date Coats has not been recalled from the layoff.
Other unskilled employees, however, have been regular-
ly hired by the Respondent to perform the same work
that was performed by Coats. This record clearly reflects
that the Respondent unilaterally, and without any notice
to the Union, made these reassignments on May 21. The
Union was given no opportunity to bargain over either
the mass reassignments or the layoff of Coats.
Keith Hoag was first hired by Lawson Printers on
January 31, 1977. He was hired to run a 35-inch single-
color press. He ran this press for approximately 6 months
and then was moved to a bigger press, a 40-inch two-
color press. This is the press that he is currently operat-
ing.
Around June 1980, the Respondent obtained a new
press called a Miehle four-color press. The press came
unassembled and was the only four-color press in the
plant. Hoag was offered the job of running this press and
he also helped to assemble it. A representative from
Miehle Corporation, William Gokman, was assigned to
the plant to train the operator; in this case it was Hoag.
Hoag operated this press from that time until May 21,
when the Responent assigned the operation of this four-
color press to new employee Mike Brand.
The Respondent argues that Hoag was not sufficiently
skilled to operate the four-color press and that he had
previously complained that he was allergic to the press
and it was for these reasons that they hired a new em-
ployee to operate this four-color press. At the outset, I
totally refuse to accept either of these reasons as being a
basis for the demotion of Hoag. This record clearly re-
flects that Hoag operated this four-color press from the
time it came on the premises in June 1980 until May 21,
1981. It is obvious that Hoag was capable of operating
this press and he did in fact operate it. The only other
person capable of operating the press was Bill Elliott, the
supervisor, who did, in fact, operate the press when
Mike Brand quit in October 1981. Additionally, the fact
that Hoag at one point claimed to have a rash and sug-
gested that it might be from the press is certainly no
basis for the Respondent's hiring a new employee and
demoting Hoag and all of the other employees in the
pressroom. This rash was complained about many
months before the demotions took place. The real inter-
vening fact which precipitated this mass demotion was
the Union's raising its head in the early part of 1981.
With one move, the Company swiftly retaliated against
its pressroom employees for their support of the Union
by demoting all of the employees and terminating the
1285
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
service of Craig Coats, who the Respondent was aware
was one of the leading union adherents. The only press-
man who was exempted from this retaliation was Roy
Jacobs, the only pressman who refused to sign a union
card, and the only pressman who had not attended any
union meeting after the first one. The Respondent was
clearly aware of this fact and took care of its own.
In considering this record as a whole, there is no ques-
tion in my mind that the Respondent engaged in the
mass reassignment of its pressroom employees and laid
off employee Craig Coats because they had joined, assist-
ed, or supported the Union in its organizational cam-
paign and had voted the Union in at the Respondent's
plant. There is no doubt that there was disparate treat-
ment and that this conduct was clearly discriminatory in
an attempt to discourage its employees from giving sup-
port to the Union or any other labor organization in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Additionally,
as this action was unilaterally taken without bargaining
with the Union, it also clearly constitutes a major change
in terms and conditions of employment of the employees
in the bargaining unit in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.6
Paragraph 22 of the complaint alleges that on July 1,
1981, the Respondent laid off all of its pressroom and
darkroom employees, except Raymond Gallop and Roy
Jacobs, for one day and laid off all of its bindery em-
ployees for one-half day, and that by this discrimination
and unilateral change without bargaining with the bar-
gaining representative, the Respondent engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
The record reflects that the Company's normal work-
week is Monday through Thursday, a four-day week.
When a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, employees
receive Thursday as a paid holiday and, when the holi-
day falls on Sunday, Monday is the paid holiday. The
record reflects that July 4 is one of the six paid holidays.
In July 1981, July 4 fell on a Saturday and the employ-
ees received a paid holiday for Thursday, July 2. In ad-
dition, the Company also laid off almost all of the bar-
gaining unit employees on Wednesday, July 1, requiring
them to take vacation pay if they wanted to be paid a
full 40 hours.7 The only employees not laid off were
Raymond Gallop and Roy Jacobs who were nonunion
employees. Mike Brand, who had been hired to replace
Keith Hoag on the four-color press after the employees
voted for the Union, received a vacation pay even
though he had not been employed long enough to earn
one.
When Keith Hoag asked Supervisor Bill Elliott why
the layoff, Elliot replied that it was to take inventory.
The record reflects that Hoag and Rocky Lyon had al-
l The fact that Board certification had not issued at this time is of little
consequence, because Board law clearly states that an employer who
makes unilateral changes after an election and before certification acts at
his peril in making such changes in terms and conditions of employment
during that period. And, where the final determination results in certifica-
tion of a bargining representative, in this case the Union, Board law
clearly holds that the employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) for such
unilateral changes made during that interim period. Therefore, the Re-
spondent's engaging in unilateral changes in this case clearly violates Sec.
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, and I so find.
7 Employees in the bindery were only laid off for one-half day.
ready taken a complete pressroom inventory several days
prior to this and had turned it in to Elliott. The record
reflects that this was the first time employees had been
laid off on the day before a holiday. In 1979 the Fourth
of July fell on a Wednesday and the plant was closed on
Thursday to give the employees a long weekend. On
every other holiday weekend in the company's history,
the employees would work three days and receive a paid
holiday, thus receiving a full paid workweek. There is no
doubt that there was press work to be performed.
The Company did not notify the Union that the bar-
gaining unit would be laid off on July 1, nor did it give
the Union an opportunity to bargain over this fact. This
change of past practices with regard to paid holidays and
the layoff of virtually the entire bargaining unit are
clearly mandatory subjects of bargaining and the Re-
spondent's unilateral action in this regard clearly violates
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In addition, it is clear
that this action was designed to punish the bargaining
unit employees for their support for the Union which is
clearly evident by the preferential treatment accorded to
employees Roy Jacobs and Mike Brand who did not sup-
port the Union. Such discrimination clearly discourages
membership in this Union or any labor organization and
violates Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, and I so find.
Paragraph 23 of the complaint alleges that about
August 4, 10, and 12, 1981, the Respondent issued em-
ployee warning notices and/or absentee reports to its
employees Robert Lyon and Raymond Gallop and by
such conduct, the Respondent engaged in violations of
Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act. The record re-
flects that prior to any union activity among the Re-
spondent's employees, the Respondent had no disciplin-
ing system or warning-notice procedure. In fact, Betty
Rankin admitted that the company did not begin issuing
absentee and warning notices until after the union elec-
tion on March 24.
On August 4, Rocky Lyon received a written warning
notice from Dick Ullrich for talking to other employees.
At the time he gave the written warning, Ullrich stated
to Lyon that he had been trying to have people join a
work slowdown and that this was the reason for the
warning. Later Supervisor Bill Elliott gave Lyon a
second written notice for being late to work, and told
him to start a filing system. This was the first time that
Lyon had ever received a written warning for being late
for work.
About a week later on August 11, Ray Gallop re-
ceived a written disciplinary notice from Bill Elliott for
leaving work due to sickness. He received a second
warning notice for being late and, on both occasions, Bill
Elliott informed Gallop that he should get a filing system
for his written-warning notices.
Although these written disciplinary notices were given
to the employees after the Board issued its first amended
complaint, I cannot conclude from this fact alone that
this conduct on the part of the Respondent was based on
any employees giving testimony to a Board agent in the
investigation of this matter. Although I conclude that
this conduct on the part of the Respondent was certainly
discriminatory in changing working conditions, and was
1286
LAWSON PRINTERS
done to discourage membership in the Union and be-
cause the employees supported the Union, and was done
unilaterally without bargaining with the Union, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act, I cannot
find that this conduct also violates Section 8(a)(4) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ON COMMERCE
The acts of the Respondent set forth above, occurring
in connection with its business operations, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and
continues to engage in, certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that the Board issue an Order re-
quiring the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including bargaining with the Union
as the duly designated representative of the Respondent's
pressroom employees in the appropriate unit effective
from March 24, 1981, the date of the election. The Re-
spondent will also be ordered to immediately offer rein-
statement to Craig Coats to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to an equivalent position of employ-
ment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in F. W Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed in the
manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651
(1977).8 Additionally, the Respondent will also be or-
dered to make all employees whole for any loss they
may have suffered as a result of Respondent's discrimina-
tory reduction in the amount of overtime work, the dis-
criminatory layoff of July 1, 1981, the adverse changes in
permanent press assignments, and its refusal to grant the
unit employees their periodic wage increases, to be com-
puted in the manner set forth above. The Respondent
will also be ordered to rescind the discriminatory warn-
ings issued to employees Rockwell Lyon and Raymond
Gallop and any other employee who received such
warning.
On the basis of these findings of fact and the entire
record, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lawson Printers, Inc., the Respondent, is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and is engaged
in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local 263, Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-
CIO, the Union, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
8 See Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
3. Since March 24, 1981, the Union has represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit de-
scribed below, and has been the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of said employees within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including pressroom em-
ployees, darkroom employees and bindery employ-
ees employed by Respondent at its 685 Columbus
Avenue West, Battle Creek, Michigan, facility; but,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and sympathies; by creating
the impression that it was engaged in surveillance of em-
ployee union activities and sentiments; by soliciting
grievances from its employees and promising them that it
would attempt to remedy said grievances; by informing
employees that the discontinuance of wage increases was
because of the Union and that there would be no more
wage increases because of the employee organizational
activity; threatening employees that in the future if they
ran out of work, rather than follow past practices of re-
assigning employees, the Respondent would lay off the
employees, Respondent has engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By failing to grant unit employees periodic wage in-
creases in conformity with its past practice regarding
such increases; by discriminatorily reducing the amount
of overtime work assignments made available to employ-
ees Keith Hoag and Craig Coats; by adversely changing
permanent press assignments of its pressroom employees
Keith Hoag, Craig Coats, Raymond Gallop, Rockwell
Lyon, and Byron Washam; by discriminatorily laying off
employee Craig Coats; by discriminatorily laying off all
of its pressroom and darkroom employees, except Ray-
mond Gallop and Roy Jacobs, for one day and laying off
all of its binding employees for one-half day, and by dis-
criminatorily issuing employee-warning notices and/or
absentee reports, which had not been used before the
advent of the Union, to its employees Rockwell Lyon
and Raymond Gallop because its employees assisted
and/or supported the Union, and in order to discourage
such support and/or assistance or membership in the
Union, the Respondent has engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By unilaterally, without bargaining with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ-
ees, engaging in the conduct described above in para-
graph 5, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the exclusive representative of its employees and
thereby did engage in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The above-described unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the contemplation of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
1287