Lawson Printers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 771 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 771
tion 8 ( b) (4) (D), to force or require Falstaff Brewing Corpora-
tion to assign the work of operating the grain -dryer and pelletizer
to employees represented by it at the Employer's Galveston , Texas,
brewery.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determi-
nation of Dispute, the International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 347 , shall notify the Regional
Director for Region 23, in writing , whether it will refrain from
forcing or requiring Falstaff Brewing Corporation , by means pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act , to assign the work in
dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.
Lawson Printers, Inc. and Southwest Michigan District Joint
Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-5194 and
51941(2). June 21, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and rec-
ommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed certain exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,'
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
1 Of the violations found by the Trial Examiner, the finding of the discriminatory dis-
charge of Bewley alone is excepted to by Respondent.
159 NLRB No. 75.
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These cases, heard before Trial Examiner Owsley Vose in Battle Creek, Michi-
gan, on October 11 to 14, 1965, pursuant to charges filed on the preceding May 7,
June 7 and 14, and July 26, and a consolidated complaint issued on July 29, 1965,
present questions as to whether the Respondent discriminated against seven of its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and
engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due
consideration of the brief and proposed findings and conclusions filed by the
Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the commercial print-
ing business at Battle Creek, Michigan. During 1964, a representative period, the
Respondent delivered printed materials to numerous customers, including" $175,000
worth of printed materials to Clark Equipment Company, which during 1964 pur-
chased from out-of-State sources and had shipped to its Battle Creek, Michigan,
plant, greatly in excess of $50.000 worth of raw materials and which shipped
more than $50,000 worth of finished products to customers located outside the
State of Michigan. Upon these facts, I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Southwest Michigan District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
It will be helpful in understanding the conduct alleged to constitute unfair labor
practices in this case to set forth, at the outset in broad outline, the sequence of
events here involved. After thus summarizing the Respondent's course of conduct
as a whole, the individual incidents relied on by the General Counsel will be con-
sidered in greater detail.
The Respondent employs approximately 16 nonsupervisory employees. For the
first 31 years of its existence its employees had not been organized by any union.
In late March 1965 the Union initiated efforts to organize the Respondent's press
operators, compositors, and bindery and maintenance employees, about 13 in num-
ber. Within a few days a substantial majority of these employees had signed union
cards. On April 6, the Respondent was notified of the Union's claim of majority
status and right to recognition both by letter informing the Respondent of the
filing with the Board of its petition for an election and by the personal visit of
Robert D. Obenour, the president of the Union, to the Respondent's plant.
Early the next morning the Respondent's assistant plant superintendent sum-
moned Robert Reynolds, a bindery employee, to the office. There, after accusing
Reynolds of advocating the Union, the assistant superintendent threatened him
with a possible layoff and a wage cut in the event the Union organized the plant.
Later that day the Respondent abruptly laid off a second union adherent, Beverly
Riggle. The next day, April 8, 1965, two other union card signers, Antonio Fer-
reira and Helen Taylor, were notified that their 60-day probationary periods, which
were about to expire, were to be extended to 120 days. On April 23, a little over
2 weeks after the Union requested recognition, the Respondent laid off, and a week
later discharged, John Kewley, one of its press operators. Kewley had been the
Union's most active advocate in the plant.
On April 19, 1965, the Respondent signed an agreement for the holding of a
consent election which, after later being signed by the Union, was approved by
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 773
the Board's Regional Director on April 29, 1965. Subsequently, the election was
scheduled for May 28, 1965. In the period between the signing of the consent elec-
tion agreement and the election the Respondent's officials and supervisors had
numerous conversations with employees in which they expressed their opposition
to having a union in the plant. In some of these conversations supervisors threat-
ened that various adverse consequences, such as layoffs, a cut in wages, or the loss
of benefits might follow the unionization of the plant. In a communication with
the employees 2 days before the election the Respondent marshaled its arguments
against having a union in the shop and concluded with an appeal "to vote `no' in
the bargaining election." In the election on May 28, eight votes were cast in favor
of the Union, three were against the Union, and two votes were challenged.
Ten minutes after the results of the election became known, the Respondent
posted a notice stating that hereafter the Respondent "will no longer provide hos-
pitalization, paid vacations or paid holidays." Less than an hour after the election,
Foreman Harvey laid off Antonio Ferreira; a few minutes later Harvey rescinded
this layoff and changed it to a layoff for the rest of the afternoon. That same
afternoon the Respondent notified Paul Emerson, a compositor with 10 years' serv-
ice with the Respondent, that his hours would be drastically reduced commencing
immediately. Thereafter, for the next few weeks Emerson's hours were cut almost
in half and he was not recalled for any work after July 13. On June 4 the
Respondent terminated Kenneth Gray, its truckdriver and janitor, and Ralph Wat-
kins, whom it had hired to help out with cleanup duties in the plant. On June 8,
about a week after the election, the Respondent discharged Antonio Ferreira and
Helen Taylor, both of whom were given an extended probationary period on
April 8, 2 days after the Respondent received notice that a majority of the employ-
ees had joined the Union.
Thus in the interval between the advent of the Union and June 8, a week and a
half after the election, the Respondent had gotten rid of 6 of the 13 employees
in the appropriate unit and had cut almost in half the working hours of the seventh
employee. As above indicated, this seventh employee, Emerson, was in effect
terminated completely on July 13, for he was not recalled after that date.
B. Sequence of events
1. Events of April 7 and 8
a. Assistant Superintendent Jolin's threats to Robert Reynolds
Preliminarily, it should be stated that Robert Reynolds was employed by the
Respondent in November 1963 and was assigned, among other duties, to operating
the cutter in the bindery. Two women also worked regularly in the bindery. At
some time during Reynolds employment, he was designated as bindery foreman.
Reynolds' wages remained the same despite his new title, as did his duties. He
continued to operate the cutter, as before, and he relayed to the two women in
the bindery instructions which he received from General Foreman Harvey.
Reynolds was one of the early supporters of the Union. On the morning of
April 7, he informed Eva Hall of an impending union meeting. Within a half
hour, after Reynolds observed Hall in a conversation with William Lawson, the
Respondent's president, Robert John, the Respondent's assistant superintendent,
summoned Reynolds to the office. There John informed Reynolds, as John him-
self testified, that "it was very obvious that [he] was advocating the union, and we
felt he could not play roles-the part of Management and the part of labor." For
this reason, as John further testified, he informed Reynolds "that he would no
longer be the bindery foreman; that he would work in the bindery as an employee
only." Reynolds retorted that he did not want the job anyway. John told
Reynolds on this occasion that the Respondent was "considering hiring a bindery
foreman to run the department," that the Respondent "would consider a journey-
man . . . and that [Reynolds] would not meet these qualifications. He would be
an apprentice." John went on to say, as he testified, that in the event of a "work
slowdown" the "journeyman would remain on the job and the apprentice would
be subject to layoff." In addition, John told Reynolds at this time that if the
Union came in to the shop "all wages would be negotiated, and perhaps he would
suffer a decrease in wages." The discussion ended with Jolin relieving Reynolds of
his keys to the shop.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. The layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7
Beverly Riggle had been hired originally as an extra employee in the bindery in
September 1964. After being laid off early in November she was recalled later
that month. In February Assistant Superintendent Jolin notified Riggle that she
was now a full-time worker and would receive hospitalization benefits. The
Respondent concedes that Riggle was a good worker.
On the morning of April 7, as he was driving Genevieve Andrews to the plant,
Vice President Ernest Drew asked Andrews if she knew about "a petition being
brought into the shop for a union." Andrews replied that she "knew nothing of
it, until Beverly Riggle spoke of it just before quitting time, the night before." As
Drew and Andrews entered the shop, Drew remarked to Andrews that "he would
go back in the shop and see if there was enough work for Beverly Riggle."
During the noon hour that day, April 7, Robert Reynolds notified Riggle that
he had been informed by Foreman Harvey that she was to be laid off that day.
Shortly thereafter Foreman Harvey stopped Riggle and asked her if she knew of
any union talk going around the shop. Riggle replied that "it didn't matter one
way or another because [she] was already laid off" and walked off. After Riggle's
layoff on April 7 she was recalled by the Respondent and worked for a day or so
about April 15. She was recalled again at the end of June and worked about a
week at that time.
c. The extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor
from 60 to 120 days
Antonio Ferreira was employed by the Respondent on February 11, 1965, and
Helen Taylor on February 15. Both worked as press operators. When Ferreira
and Taylor were hired it was the Respondent's established policy to keep new
employees on probation for a 60-day period. At the end of this time, as stated
in the Respondent's written statement of employment conditions, employees were
entitled to be covered, at the Respondent's expense, with hospitalization insurance.
On April 8, Ferreira and Taylor were notified by Foreman Harvey that their pro-
bationary periods were being extended from 60 to 120 days. A notice was posted
on the Respondent's bulletin boards dated April 9, amending the Respondent's
earlier statement of working conditions to provide for a 120-day probationary
period for all new employees and for employee coverage for hospitalization insur-
ance at the end of the probationary period. As stated more fully below in connec-
tion with the discussion of their discharge on June 8, the Respondent's supervisors
had not seriously criticized the work of either Taylor or Ferreira prior to the time
of the extension of their probationary periods.
2. The discharge of John Kewley on April 23
John Kewley was hired by the Respondent in February 1964 and was assigned to
operate a small offset press called a Chief 15. According to Foreman Harvey,
Kewley did a "very creditable job on the Chief 15."
In November, Vice President Drew and Foreman Harvey inquired whether
Kewley had had any experience in photographic work. Kewley informed them
that he had some experience when he was in the Army. After this conversation,
Kewley was transferred to the darkroom, where the Respondent had recently
installed a new camera. The Respondent had decided to make its own metal plates
which are used in the offset printing process. The camera plays an important role
in this process. Previously the Respondent had had its platemaking done by out-
side contractors. Kewley performed all the work done in the darkroom including
the making of the zinc plates. In January, without any solicitation on Kewley's
part, he was given a 25-cents-per-hour raise in wages. At the time he was given
the raise, Foreman Harvey told Kewley that he was doing a good job and was
working hard.
Late in March or early April (before the Respondent received information con-
cerning the union activities then going on in the plant) Harvey told Kewley that he
was shorthanded in the pressroom, that he had been able to hire a new man for the
darkroom, and asked Kewley to tarnsfer back to the pressroom. About this same
time Assistant Superintendent John commented to Philip Hurley, one of the
Respondent's journeymen press operators, that the Respondent did not have anyone
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 775
"any better than Kewley and they were going to put him back on 15, the offset 15
and hire a new camera man." i
Kewley worked with Ron Abbey, the new photographer, for a few days showing
him the equipment and teaching him how to strip the negatives and make the zinc
plates. Abbey, although an experienced photographer, had not done this type of
work before. After thus breaking in Abbey, Kewley worked on the Chief 15 press
for a few days. Then Harvey transferred Kewley to operate its Chief 20 offset
press, which he had not previously operated. As President Lawson testified, the
Chief 15 is a "very simple" machine compared with the Chief 20. Kewley at first
demurred about accepting this transfer without a wage increase , but when Harvey
insisted , commenced operating the Chief 20. Kewley was operating the Chief 20
at the time Union President Obenour came to the plant on April 6 and conferred
with Respondent's officials about recognition of the Union.
President Lawson testified that it takes from 5 to 7 years of training for an
apprentice to become a journeyman in the graphic arts trade and that in the big
printing plants an apprentice is just a helper for over a period of years. A journey-
man is a craftsman in the trade who can take a job order and turn out a competent
job with a minimum of supervision from the general foreman.
On April 23, after about 3 weeks on the Chief 20 press, Foreman Harvey came
to Kewley and asked him to take a few days off. At that time Kewley had about
2 days' work ahead of him. When Kewley asked Harvey why, Harvey told him
that he did not have enough work for him and asked Kewley to check with him
the middle of the following week. When Kewley checked with Harvey the follow-
ing Wednesday afternoon, Harvey told him to take the rest of the week off and
report the following Monday. On Saturday afternoon, May 1, Kewley received a
letter from the Respondent saying that his employment was terminated for "ineffi-
ciency-and low production."
3. Conversations between the Respondent's supervisors and employees
in the preelection period
a. General Foreman Frank Harvey
Harvey was the general foreman having direct supervision over the Respondent's
press operators, compositors, and bindery and maintenance employees. Harvey
admitted having talked about the Union to all of the employees at one time or
another before the election. Gerald Ives, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Robert
Reynolds, and Paul Emerson all gave testimony about conversations which Harvey
had had with them concerning the Union. Shortly after the Union requested
recognition, Harvey went over to Ives' press and asked him if he had attended a
union meeting. Ives replied he had. Harvey said that he did not think the Union
was a good idea. However, when Ives declared that he did not want to argue
about the matter, Harvey dropped the subject.
On another occasion about this time, Harvey told Kewley, Reynolds, and Fer-
reira that the Company had operated for about 30 years without a union, that
"things had been going fine, and if the union came in it would hurt the business."
Harvey further declared on this-occasion that "if the Union came in he would
hire all top-notch pressmen, journey [men] pressmen , and get rid of all the people
1 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Harvey had at any time expressed
to Kewley any dissatisfaction with his work in the darkroom. Kewley denied that Harvey
had done so . Harvey testified , in response to a question as to why Kewley had been
transferred back to the pressroom , that Kewley ' s work "started to decline a little bit"
and that he had been reprimanded for it on one occasion when he had to have some of
Kewley's negatives restripped , saying to Kewley, "John, you were doing a good job. I
don't know what is happening but we are getting into trouble somewhere along the line "
In view of Hurley's testimony concerning Assistant Superintendent Jolin's comment
above quoted about Kewley's transfer back to the pressroom , which tends to corroborate
Kewley's testimony in this regard , and the fact that Harvey had earlier complimented
Kewley on his work in the darkroom and given him an unsolicited wage increase, I find
that Harvey in his testimony exaggerated Kewley's deficiencies , in the darkroom. Under
all the circumstances , I find that the Respondent transferred Kewley back to the press-
room not because of dissatisfaction with his services in the darkroom but because it needed
a press operator ( Bill McMillan, a press operator , quit about this time ) and it had found
a photographer whom it believed could satisfactorily take over the darkroom operations.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that were left in the shop." At this time, none of the three employees had had
sufficient experience to qualify as a journeyman on their operation. Kewley and
Ferreira were press operators and Reynolds, as above noted, was a bindery
worker.2
Another time in April, Harvey told Reynolds, Ives, Kewley, and Phillip Hurley
that "if the union got in that we wouldn't gain nothing; that we would probably
lose; and he didn't know why we wanted it." 3
As the date of the election, May 28, approached, Harvey spoke to Ferreira sev-
eral times about voting in the election. About 3 weeks before the election, while
Harvey was talking to Ferreira, Kenneth Gray, the Respondent's truckdriver and
janitor, came up and Harvey told Gray that he also should listen to what he was
saying. According to Gray's credited testimony, Harvey told them that "manage-
ment would know pretty much which way the employees voted in the election, and
if the employees would go with the company, they would be taken care of, and the
employees that didn't go with the company would be taken care of too." As put
by Ferreira, Harvey warned them as follows on this occasion, "If you stay on our
side you have everything, and if you go for the union you have nothing." 4 About
a week before the election, Harvey asked Ferreira if he had yet made his decision
about the Union. When Ferreira said no, Harvey told Ferreira to make it "a good
decision" and offered as follows: " ... If you need some help about the Union I
can help you." 5
b. Assistant Superintendent Robert Jolin
At the time of the events involved in this case Robert John acted in the dual
capacity of the Respondent's sales representative and assistant plant superintendent.
In the latter capacity he was responsible to Ernest Drew, the Respondent's vice
president. Before the hearing in this case in October, John had left the Respond-
ent's employ.
John had various conversations with employees in the weeks preceding the elec-
tion . The same theme is repeated in a number of conversations with different
employees, namely, that in the event the Union was voted in, the Respondent
"would take away hospitalization and paid holidays and paid vacations," and what
benefits they later received would depend on the outcome of the negotiations.6
Helen Taylor, Philip Hurley, and Robert Reynolds each testified that John had
similar conversations with them. John admitted informing Taylor, who operated
one of the smaller presses, that if the Union came in "we would without a doubt
have a press breakdown in wages. That is, a smaller press man would get a lesser
rate than a bigger press man, on a bigger press." John further told Taylor on this
occasion, according to Taylor's credited testimony, that if the Union came in Kew-
ley would be laid off before she would because of greater experience on the Chief 15.
In the above-quoted conversation with Ives, John also remarked, with respect to
Reynolds, that in the event the Union came in that "they would hire a journeyman
bindery man to take his place, and in case of a slack that they would lay Reynolds
off and keep the journeyman." 7 John further told Ives on this occasion that the
Respondent would hire a journeyman pressman to take the place of John Kewley.
2 The above-quoted testimony is that of John Kewley which is corroborated , in part, by
that of Antonio Ferreira.
3 This is the testimony of Robert Reynolds It is corroborated by that of Ives and
Kewley. Harvey testified that he could not recall any such conversation . Reynolds'
testimony is credited.
4 Harvey admitted having several conversations with Ferreira about the Union during
this period and did not specifically deny the above-quoted testimony. However, Harvey's
versions of these conversations with Ferreira omit any reference to any threats. The
testimony of Gray and Ferreira is consistent with the actual events in this case , for, as
found below , as soon as the Union won the election the Respondent announced the with-
drawal of valuable employee benefits and shortly thereafter discharged several employees.
The testimony of Gray and Ferreira is credited.
5 Foreman Harvey in effect admitted having this conversation with Ferreira.
6 This finding is based on the credited testimony of Gerald Ives Jolla testified that he
made it clear to employees with respect to existing benefits "that all issues-if the union
was to be voted in-would be negotiated . . . [f]rom the point of zero."
7 This is Ives' credited testimony . As above indicated , Jolin testified that he had told
Reynolds himself the same thing.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 777
c. President William Lawson and Vice President Ernest Drew
Phillip Hurley credibly testified that he was summoned to Lawson's office about
May 1 where Lawson questioned him as to how he felt about the Union. When
Hurley gave a noncommittal reply, Lawson said that he did not think that the
Union was "the type of union that he wanted in his shop," and that "the way the
shop had been run for so many years he felt the union wouldn't be any good for
the type of people he has working there, and ... if the Union does go through
we will have to lay some people off, get rid of some people ...." According to
Hurley, Lawson named Helen Taylor and said "her work was a little slow and he
thought he should have journeymen pressmen." Hurley further testified that Tony
Ferreira was also named by Lawson, who said "he would have to go if the Union
went through." 8
Paul Emerson, one of the Respondent's compositors, had worked for the Respond-
ent for 10 years. About 2 weeks before the election, according to Emerson's unde-
med testimony, President Lawson said to Emerson, "If the Union came in he
would discharge Helen Taylor and Tony Ferreira . . . because they hadn't had
enough experience" to qualify as journeymen. Emerson testified that a day or two
before the election Lawson came up to him at his work and engaged him in a con-
versation about union strike benefits. In the course of the conversation, according
to Emerson, Lawson asked him "if [he] could live on unemployment," and added
that "[he] might get the chance " 9
As appears more fully below, Ralph Watkins has been employed to work around
Lawson's home for several years. In February 1965 Watkins was hired to work
full-time for the Respondent. He continued, however, to do yard work for Lawson
at his home. On one such occasion during April, when Lawson was driving Wat-
kins home, Lawson asked Watkins whether he had heard any "talk about a union."
When Watkins replied, "No, sir," Lawson told him as follows: "Well, if you do,
anybody comes up to you and says anything about it, just tell them you can't afford
to pay union dues." Watkins replied, "Yes, sir." 10
Ralph Watkins testified that Ernest Drew, the Respondent's vice president, told
him on the day of the election "to be sure and vote no" in the election. When
asked whether Drew had told him why, Watkins answered that "he told me that I
wouldn't be able to pay union dues.""
8In order to understand Lawson's testimony about this conversation, it should be stated
preliminarily that Hurley had been hired by Lawson at the request of Hurley's father in
1956 or 1957. When young Hurley started working for the Respondent he had been
wearing leg braces. It was at Lawson's suggestion that Hurley removed the braces in
an effort to strengthen his legs. Lawson admitted speaking to Hurley about the Union
after receiving a copy of the Union's petition for an election and certification Accord-
ing to Lawson, he "spoke to Mr. Hurley of his incapacities and told him [he] didn't know
if it would do him any good or wouldn't do him any good , and [he ] asked his opinion,
what he thought for his own benefit of his . . . physical condition . . [he] asked him to
think over what was best for the Company and best for him." Lawson never specifically
denied Hurley's testimony quoted in the text above. In my opinion Lawson understated
the substance of his conversation with Hurley on this occasion. Hurley's version is
credited.
9 Although Lawson was questioned about the portion of the conversation dealing with
strike benefits, he was not asked about suggesting to Emerson that he might have a
chance to live on unemployment compensation . Consequently Emerson's testimony in this
regard is undenied
io Lawson testified that be had a conversation with Watkins in which Watkins asked him
what NLRB meant and also what the union dues were. According to Lawson, he told
Watkins that he understood the dues were $8 a month, to which Watkins replied, "I
couldn't begin to afford that." It is not clear from the record whether both Watkins and
Lawson were referring to the same conversation. In any event, I credit Watkins' testi-
mony As appears below, Lawson was confused, to say the least, in other portions of his
testimony , and Watkins impressed me as testifying sincerely
n Drew testified that he had never had any conversation with Watkins before the elec-
tion about how he might vote. Drew 's own testimony establishes that he was very much
concerned with the outcome of the election. It is wholly consistent with such a concern
for Drew to have spoken to Watkins, as testified to by Watkins. I credit Watkins'
testimony.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Respondent's letter of May 26 appealing to the employees to
vote "No" in the election
On May 26, 2 days before the election , the Respondenttgave personal letters to
each of the employees in which it stated its position as to how the employees should
vote in the election. The letter given Robert Reynolds is quoted in full below:
Undoubtedly, representatives of International Printing Pressmen and Assistant
Union of North America, of which Mr. Obenour is the representative, has
discussed with you the impending election to be held pursuant to N.L.R.B.
regulations whereby that union seeks to become the sole bargaining agents for
the employees here in Lawson Printers, Inc.
The Union has every right to present its side of the case and we have a right
to present ours. I am writing you this letter because I am of the opinion that
the interest of our employees and our mutual relationship will not be advanced
by the intervention of a union between management and labor in this small
plant, and I think that such a union, with us, could only destroy our
relationship.
As you know, Lawson Printers , Inc. is a small company. We have been in
business for 30 years and we have had very little labor difficulty. We like to
think that our employees enjoy working for us, appreciate their working condi-
tions and are contented . We also like to think that the employees can talk to
us about their problems on an individual basis and that every employee is
treated as an individual and not as a member of an impersonal group. That
is one of the advantages of being a . small plant. We try to help the employees
and we hope that the employees have a personal pride in Lawson Printers, Inc.
I suppose that the union has told you many things that they will do if certi-
fied as your sole bargaining agent. Perhaps they have not told you other
things, but no union can promise the employees that, as a matter of fact, they
will receive any particular thing if they join the union because every union
contract is arrived at only after negotiation and bargaining , which are often
long and difficult and this small business cannot possibly be compared to large
plants where the union may have contracts which are similar to one another.
Furthermore, the union probably has not told you that, for instance, in its
contract with St. Regis Paper Company, Crowell Carton Co. Division, at Mar-
shall, Michigan, the employees are required by the contract to contribute to
the insurance benefit as follows: employees without dependents, $1.17 per
week, employees with dependents, $2 29 per week. Your individual plan is
entirely paid for by Lawson Printers, Inc.
I am reliably advised that union dues will be $8.00 per month. This amounts
to $96.00 per year to belong to the union and this is $96.00 less that you will
have to spend for what you need and actually for the $96.00 the union cannot
guarantee you a single thing but everything is subject to collective bargaining.
Bob, you are now making $2.00 per hour. We are paying all employee con-
tributions to the insurance program. You have no union dues. If you have
a grievance you do not have to go through the complicated grievance pro-
cedure set forth in most union contracts which is almost always hard to under-
stand and takes a long time through the various steps. I believe it would be
advisable for you to check the union scale, for your job, in plants of our size
and type to see if it would be to your advantage to have a union . You would
be subject to all of the provisions of the contract , you would be making con-
tributions to the insurance program, and you would be paying union dues.
You would also be subject to the seniority provisions of the contract which
might make it possible for an employee with longer service than you to "bump"
you off your job under certain circumstances. You would also be expected
that any complaints or problems that you might have would have to go through
the union and there might be long delay in solving your individual problems.
I am afraid that if the union is successful in organizing this little business all
of our personal relationships will be destroyed and you will not be able any
longer to take up your problems with me as you have done in the past. You
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 779
will be subject to all kinds of rules and regulations that the union imposes
upon its members and you will be subject to union discipline for breaking
their rules under certain circumstances. We have tried to be fair with every-
body that works for us. We would like to continue the personal relationships
which have always existed between the company and its employees.
If you agree with us, we urge you to vote "no" in the bargaining election
of May 28, 1965.
Very truly yours,
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC.
5. The election on May 28 and the events of the afternoon after the election
a. The election
The election was held at 12:45 p in. on May 28, as scheduled. There were 13
employees in the agreed-upon appropriate unit on April 2, the date chosen to estab-
lish the employees' eligibility to vote in the election. All 13 employees voted in the
election. The tally of ballots shows that eight votes were cast in favor of the
Union, three votes were cast "no" and two votes were challenged.
b. The notice announcing the withdrawal of employee benefit
Within 10 minutes after the results of the election were made known, the
Respondent posted the following notice on its bulletin board:
May 28, 1965
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT FROM AND AFTER THE DATE HEREOF
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE HOSPITAL-
IZATION, PAID VACATIONS OR PAID HOLIDAYS.
LAWSON PRINTERS; INC.
(S) W. S. Lawson -
May 28, 1965
Since under the Respondent's statement of working conditions the Respondent nor-
mally grants a Friday or a Monday off when a holiday falls on a Saturday or a
Sunday (Memorial Day fell on Sunday, May 30, 1965), one effect of the Respond-
ent's action in abruptly rescinding holiday and other benefits on May 28 was to
deprive the employees of a day's pay in the following workweek.
At 1:10 p.m. on May 28, just after the election, Foreman Harvey told Ferreira
that he did not have sufficient experience on the press on which he was working
and that he was laid off. However, about 5 minutes later, before Ferreira had left
the plant, Harvey rescinded the layoff in part and instructed Ferreira to take the
afternoon off and to return on next workday, which was Tuesday, June 1 (because
of the Memorial Day holiday).
Paul Emerson was a compositor who had worked for the Respondent for 10
years. He had never been laid off in all this time. Emerson served as an observer
for the Union in the election on May 28. About the middle of that afternoon, Vice
President Drew, in the presence of Henry Clay, Emerson's immediate supervisor,
informed Emerson that from that day on all of his time must be chargeable time
and that he would be laid off whenever no work was available which could be
charged to a specific customer . For several years, at least, almost half of Emer-
son's time had been spent in nonchargeable work . As found below , as a result of
Drew's edict , Emerson suffered a drastic curtailment of working hours commencing
the very next week.
6. President Lawson 's questioning of Watkins on June 1,
as to how he voted in the election
Early on June 1, the first workday after the election , Vice President Drew sum-
moned Watkins to Lawson 's office . There in the presence of Drew, President
Lawson asked Watkins why he had voted for the Union. Watkins replied that he
780 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had not voted for the Union. Drew remarked at this point, "well, now, somebody
is lying .... We know the three that voted against the Union." 12
7. Vice President Drew's abrupt discontinuance of the riding arrangement
with Genevieve Andrews on June 1
At the time of the hearing Andrews had worked in the Respondent's bindery for
3 years. From the very first day of her employment Drew had picked Andrews
up at her home in the morning and driven her to the plant. Around December
1964, Drew moved from the vicinity of Andrews' home and it became necessary
for him to go several miles out of his way to pick Andrews up. Nevertheless, Drew
continued this arrangement , without commenting on the inconvenience it caused
him. However, on Tuesday morning June 1, the first working day after the elec-
tion , Drew failed to show up. Drew did not call her and let her know he was
not going to step by for her, although he previously had told her he would let her
know if he could not pick her up.
Andrews was 40 minutes late for work that morning as a result of having to take
the bus to work. Andrews' time sheet was missing from the rack by the timeclock
when she arrived. When she asked Foreman Harvey what to do about it, he told
her to see Drew. When Andrews saw Drew she told him that "[she] thought he
would be man enough to call [her] if he wasn't going to pick [her] up." Drew
responded, "After what you did, you went against us and let us down." Andrews
denied it and asked Drew about "the third vote, who did he think that was." Drew
replied, "the colored boy's" (Watkins is a Negro). Andrews again denied voting
for the Union . Drew rejoined that "when he found out different he would apologize
to [her]." 13
8. The discharge of Kenneth Gray and Ralph Watkins on June 4
As found below, the discharges of Gray and Watkins are interrelated and hence
they will be discussed together . Gray and Watkins are young men, about 19 years
of age. Both were hired by the Respondent in February 1965. Gray, who had a
chauffeur's license , was hired as a truckdriver and was given miscellaneous other
duties around the plant , including janitorial work , to do when he had no truck-
driving assignments.
The Respondent 's plant is located near a residential area and for this reason the
Respondent attempts to keep its building and grounds in good condition. After
hiring Gray, the Respondent found that he had insufficient time to keep the build-
ing and grounds in good condition . Consequently , President Lawson had Ralph
Watkins, who had worked around his home for several years part-time, come and
work full-time for the Respondent. At the plant Watkins was assigned to washing
windows, cutting the grass , weeding the shrubbery and keeping it trimmed, and
helping Gray with his janitorial duties.
President Lawson testified that when Watkins was hired he intended to keep
Watkins on the payroll only until the extra work on the building and grounds
became caught up. According to Lawson, he told Watkins at the time he was
hired that he was being hired only temporarily . Watkins did not recall being told
any such thing. Foreman Harvey credibly testified that Watkins was not under his
supervision but under that of Lawson . This suggests that Watkins was not in the
19 The finding that Lawson questioned Watkins as to why he had voted for the Union
is based on Watkins' testimony which is corroborated in part by that of Drew Lawson,
after twice denying that he had questioned Watkins about the way he had voted in the
election , when confronted with an affidavit he had previously given to a Board investiga-
tor, admitted that he had done so. Lawson 's unreliability in connection with this incident
has caused me to scrutinize his testimony very closely wherever conflicts in the testimony
have arisen. Both Drew and Lawson denied that Drew had remarked that "somebody is
lying " As found below, Genevieve Andrews' credited and uncontradicted testimony
establishes that Drew made a similar statement to her that same morning . It is logical
and consistent with the established facts for Drew to have made the above quoted state-
ment to Watkins Under all the circumstances I credit Watkins ' testimony.
13 The foregoing finding is based on Andrews' credited testimony . An affidavit of Drew
which was received in evidence in this case fully confirms Andrews ' testimony about
Drew's reference to her having let Respondent down. In the affidavit Drew used the
term "dirty deal" in referring to Andrews ' vote in the election.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 781
category of a regular employee who normally would have been responsible to Har-
vey, the general foreman of the whole plant. Under all the circumstances, I credit
Lawson's testimony that when he hired Watkins he intended him only to perform
the extra work around the building and grounds and so notified him.
Gray, the truckdriver, was spoken to frequently by the Respondent's supervisors
concerning mistakes which he had made in performing his work. Gray admitted
being spoken to about losing delivery slips. Gray testified that he lost these on
three occasions. Gray also admitted being spoken to twice about having made
deliveries to the wrong places. Gray also admitttedly forgot to take packages to
the post office several times . One time his failure to remember a trip to the post
office with a rush order necessitated a special trip by Foreman Harvey to the post
office. Complaints were repeatedly made about Gray's failure to file the job tickets
in numerical order. Foreman Harvey testified that Gray was sloppy and inefficient
and had a completely indifferent attitude toward his work.
Gray was notified by Foreman Harvey on May 27 that he was to be terminated
at the end of the following week. On May 10 his hours had been reduced to 4
hours a day. Vice President Drew had told him at that time that the Respondent
was having trouble keeping him busy on deliveries. When Harvey notified Gray
of his termination on May 27 Gray asked him why he was being discharged. Har-
vey's answer, according to Gray's testimony which I credit, was that he would
receive a letter explaining the reasons.
On June 4 the Respondent sent Gray a letter, the text of which was as follows:
This is to notify you your services at Lawson Printers, Inc. are terminated as
of Friday, June 4, 1965. We have on file and have given copy to our attorney
the reason for employment termination here.
Your probation period has not terminated therefore it is necessary for us to
hire competent employees.
Although Gray was confused about the last day on which he worked for the
Respondent, having testified that he was discharged on May 28, the Respondent's
timecards for Gray establish that Gray worked throughout the week ending June 4.
With respect to Watkins, the Respondent concedes that his work was satisfac-
tory, but points out, as Watkins admits, that he was often tardy and that his
attendance was irregular.
On June 4 Vice President Drew informed Watkins as follows: "Well, Ralph,
you have got everything cleaned up around the plant pretty nice ... there is noth-
ing more here you can do .... Mr. Lawson wants you to keep his grass cut ...."
9. The discharge of Ferreira and Taylor on June 8
As stated above, Ferreira was hired by the Respondent on February 11, 1965,
and was assigned to operate the Respondent's Heidelberg press, an automatic press,
and also two hand-feed letter presses. Ferreira had but 3 months' experience in
the printing industry when he was hired. As Harvey testified, he "took a fancy"
to Ferreira after he hired him and sought to help Ferreira develop his skill on the
various presses. Although he was slow at first, Ferreira progressed and seemed to
have the ability to learn, as Harvey further testified.
Foreman Harvey testified that after Ferreira's probationary period was extended
he noticed that Ferreira was not progressing as well as he should, that he was
having trouble setting up his press, and that he was getting sloppy in his "imposi-
tion," the placing of the type in its proper position. According to Harvey, he
spoke to Ferreira two or three times about his work, but he could not remember
what he said in this regard.
Ferreira testified that his work was criticized by his supervisors on only one occa-
sion and that was 2 weeks before the election, after his probationary period had
been extended to 120 days. On this occasion, Ferreira testified, Vice President Drew
told him that he was not doing a good job, that he had low production, and the
Respondent's records showed that it was losing money with respect to his services.
After Drew left, Ferreira asked Foreman Harvey why Drew had criticized his work.
Harvey assured him that he was "a good workman" and added, "don't worry about
that . . . he [Drew] is mad-because of the Union . . . that G damn union." 14
14 The above-quoted testimony is Ferreira's and is not denied by Harvey. In fact,
Harvey's version of this conversation is substantially the same as Ferreira 's Ferreira's
version is credited.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As above noted, a few minutes after the votes were counted in the election on
May 28, Foreman Harvey notified Ferreira that he was being laid off, but shortly
thereafter told Ferreira that he should come back the following Tuesday, which was
the next workday. Ferreira, as his testimony indicates, doubting that the Respondent
would permit him to return to work, registered for unemployment benefits with the
Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission. On June 2 or 3 President
Lawson went up to Ferreira in the shop and told him that he should not have gone
to the unemployment office to register for unemployment benefits after only being
laid off for one afternoon. Ferreira explained that he feared that the layoff might
turn out to be an indefinite one because of various things that had happened to him,
such as the extension of his probationary period from 60 to 120 days and the elimi-
nation of hospitalization insurance and other benefits. Whereupon Lawson inter-
jected that if Ferreira thought he was going to receive $3.75 per hour for operating
the hand-feed machines he worked on,, he was mistaken. Lawson then queried
Ferreira, "Why don't you quit." Ferreira replied that he did not know any place to
go and that if Lawson "want[ed] to get rid of [him to] have [him]." 15
Taylor was hired by the Respondent on February 15, 1965, and assigned to
work on the. Chief 15 offset press which, as stated above, is a duplicating machine
similar to a Multilith. She had had experience on such machines in her previous
employment.
Taylor testified that the quality of her work was not criticized in any way by
the Respondent's supervisors before May 1965. Her testimony further indicates
that the first time she was spoken to was about May 21, after she had requested
and obtained the assistance of Phillip Hurley, one of the Respondent's senior press
operators, in adjusting her press. After Hurley had left on this occasion, Vice
President Drew came up and told her that if she had any further questions on mak-
ing adjustments on her press she should speak to Foreman Harvey. Drew added
at the time that she knew more about her press than Hurley did.
On June 1, the first working day after the election, Vice President Drew again
spoke to Taylor. At this time Taylor was waiting for instructions from Foreman
Harvey about the number of prints of each of two plates she was to run. Drew
told Taylor that she was taking too much time on the job. Taylor explained that
she was waiting for instructions and that she could not help the delay. Drew
replied that Taylor "would have to help it."
Although, as appears below, Harvey gave testimony concerning his opinion of
Taylor's alleged shortcomings as a Chief 15 operator, his testimony is very vague
about communicating to Taylor this opinion of her work. In fact the most specific
testimony of Harvey in this regard appears in the following portion of the record:
Did you have frequent discussions with Miss Taylor-did you have any dis-
cussions witth Miss Taylor regarding the subject of her work, especially with
reference to adjustments on the press and things of that kind?
A. Considerable, yes.
Q. How frequently were these?
A. Oh, quite frequent for a person of supposedly her capacity. Quite fre-
quent. Well, maybe one or maybe two or three times a day. Sometimes
maybe a day or two would go by and I wouldn't have to do anything.
On the other hand, Harvey testified that he believed that he remembered John and
Drew remarking to him about a month after Taylor was hired that "she was doing
such a wonderful job they wished they could get more like her."
On June 8 Foreman Harvey notified both Ferreira and Taylor that they were
being discharged. Harvey told Ferreira that he was sorry but he had to let him
go. When Ferreira asked why, Harvey replied that he would receive a letter in
the mail. Harvey went to Taylor at 4:30 p.m. and said that "he had some bad
news for [her], and he hated to do this, but as of five o'clock [she] would be
terminated from Lawson Printers." Harvey added that "if there was ever anything
he could do for [her], he would be happy to do so." The next day Taylor received
the following letter from the Respondent in the mail:
Owing to inefficiency in the trade and excessive costs contributed to you in
our plant plus the fact that you are still on probation we find it necessary to
terminate your employment at Lawson Printers Inc. as of this date.
15 Lawson denied Ferreira 's testimony above quoted . However , as stated above, I have
found Lawson not to be wholly reliable as a witness . Ferreira ' s testimony is credited.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 783
10. The Respondent's reduction in Emerson's hours on May 28 and its
refusal to recall Emerson for any work after July 13
As stated above, on the afternoon of May 28, Vice President Drew informed
Emerson that he would be called for work only when chargeable work was available
for him to do. In the 2 weeks following May 28, Emerson was called for work
only 2 days each week. Emerson was not called to work at all the third week
after the election. Thereafter Emerson worked short weeks until July 13, and
after that time Emerson was not recalled for work at all.16
C. The Respondent's contentions; conclusions
1. The Respondent's threats, 'warnings, and other acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion
a. The Respondent's threats to Robert Reynolds and its extension of the
probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor
As found above, the Respondent's almost immediate reaction upon being informed
of the Union's assertion of bargaining rights, was to warn Reynolds that in the
event that the Union organized the shop, he might be replaced with a journeyman
and that a cut in his wages might result from union negotiations. Such threats of
reprisals because of a union constitute acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, even though not couched in positive
terms. The test of a violation is whether "it may reasonably be said" of the con-
duct in question, that "it tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights
under the Act." N.L.R.B. v. William H. Ford, d/b/a Ford Brothers, 170 F.2d 735,
738 (C.A. 6). In my opinion the Respondent's threats to Reynolds meet this test.
At the same time, the Respondent threatened these reprisals the Respondent took
away from Reynolds his title as bindery foreman. Although, as pointed out in the
footnote below, this title was not a very meaningful one because Reynolds at no
time exercised the responsibilities which normally go with such a title, the Respond-
ent's action nevertheless worked a detriment to Reynolds in connection with the
prestige attached to his job. Since this action was taken against Reynolds because
of his advocacy of the Union, it constitutes an act of interference, restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.17
Two days after the Union presented the Respondent with its request for recogni-
tion, the Respondent extended the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor
from 60 to 120 days. The Respondent contends that this was done because the
work of both employees was below par and did not warrant their retention as
permanent employees, and that it desired to give them a further chance to bring
their work up to par. The Respondent, however, has not cited any testimony to
the effect that either Ferreira or Taylor were told this at the time their probationary
periods were extended.18 Aside from Taylor's testimony referred to in the footnote
below, which is inconclusive, the record fails to show that prior to the advent of
the Union the Respondent ever communicated to either Ferreira or Taylor in any
meaningful way its dissatisfaction with the way in which they were performing
their work.19
18 The finding that Emerson was not recalled after July 13 is based upon Emerson's
testimony President Lawson testified that Vice President Drew called Emerson to come
back and that he did not return Drew was not questioned about this subject matter. In
view of Emerson's explicit testimony that he was never recalled after July 13, I cannot
accept Lawson's hearsay testimony to the contrary.
17 Upon the facts of this case Reynolds cannot be regarded as any more than a leadman
or straw boss who is entitled to exercise all of the rights of a nonsupervisory employee.
Reynolds was an hourly paid employee. He at no time had the right to hire or fire, or
discipline or reprimand employees, or independently to direct the other two bindery em-
ployees in the performance of their work. At most, as Assistant Superintendent John
testified, Reynolds passed along instructions from higher authority in the plant
18 When Taylor was asked whether Harvey had not told her that her probationary was
being extended to give her a chance to bring her work up to par, Taylor first answered
that she did not remember, then when asked whether this could have been told her, Taylor
answered in the affirmative.
i9 While Harvey testified that he was dissatisfied with Taylor's work at this time and
.recommended against her retention, he did not testify that he told Taylor about her short-
comings as a worker.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The testimony of Harvey himself reveals how unfounded in fact is the Respond-
ent's claim that it was merely seeking to give him a further opportunity to prove
himself. Thus, Harvey testified as follows:
When I hired Tony Ferreira, as I did with all of the employees that I myself
hired-I notified them of working conditions in the shop, working rules and
regulations that we have in the shop. I specifically told him he would be on
a probationary period of 60 days. I specifically told him that. Now, Tony
did a good job and his time of probation was coming up. He was doing a
good job. At the termination of his probation I would say that Tony would
have gone on to a permanent employee with us, and I notified him that-well,
maybe I shouldn't probably answer that right now. It is not directed to the
question.
s # # ! i t n
The WrrNESS. Tony's probation period, his date was coming up, and I don't
know what time that was, but I know he was close to it, and I had discussed
this situation, his situation with Mr. Drew and Mr. John and explained my views
on it. I thought he was doing a creditable job and as far as I was concerned,
we would go along with him at that moment. It was my intention-I cannot
speak for Mr. Drew or Mr. John, but it was my intention to keep him.
Now this is-I just wonder if I am getting confused here with another issue
which I was going to bring up in relationship to another employee. Any way,
let me say this: As you know, the probationary period was extended, and I
was using that more or less as a time factor as far as dates were concerned.
From that point on I seemed to notice that Tony was not progressing as well
as he should.
In view of Harvey's testimony above quoted I have no hesitancy in rejecting the
Respondent's explanation for extending the probationary period in Ferreira's case
and conclude that his probationary period was extended to give the Respondent
more time to find a plausible explanation for getting rid of him.
With respect to Taylor, I conclude, in view of the entire sequence of events in
this case and the Respondent's failure prior to the extension of her probationary
period to inform her of its alleged dissatisfaction with her work, that the Respond-
ent's motivation in her case was the same as the case of Ferreira, i e., to give the
Respondent an opportunity to build a case against her because of her suspected
union activities.
Respondent's extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor for the
reason hereinabove found, in my opinion, interfered with, restrained, coerced them in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Since a consequence of the Respondent's
action against Ferreira and Taylor was, at least to deprive them of hospitalization
benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled, an act of discrimination,
the Respondent's conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as well.
The Respondent contends in its proposed finding and conclusions that it had no
knowledge of the union activities of any of the employees, excepting Reynolds and
Emerson. From this it argues that no finding of discrimination in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act can be made. The fact that the Respondent accused
Reynolds of advocating the Union the very first morning after the Union requested
recognition suggests that the Respondent was not unaware of what was going on in
its plant. Moreover, Respondent knew that the Union was claiming to represent a
majority of its employees. Under all the circumstances of the case, I conclude
that the Respondent suspected that Ferreira and Taylor were union supporters and
that Respondent's resentment against the employees' decision to affiliate with the
Union was such as to impel it to attempt to get rid of all suspected union supporters,
regardless of whether it had proof of the extent of a particular employee's union
advocacy.
b. Threats and warnings of President Lawson, Assistant Superintendent John, and
Foreman Harvey; the cancellation of hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits
President Lawson, Assistant Superintendent Jolin, and Foreman Harvey all
threatened employees on one or more occasions that if the Union was successful in
organizing the employees , the Respondent would hire journeymen and would let
go those of its employees who could not qualify as journeymen.
The Respondent argues that its officials were merely pointing out that if the
Union was successful in organizing the employees and expected to obtain journey-
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 785
man wages, it would have to hire journeymen workers. However, this is not what
the Respondent's officials said; the Union had made no demand for journeyman
wages for apprentices; and, in any event, qualified journeymen were very difficult
to obtain even at journeyman wages, as all parties agree . In these circumstances, I
conclude that the Respondent , without justification therefor , was attempting to con-
vey to a majority of its employees ( journeymen were in a minority in the Respond-
ent's pressroom and bindery ) that the unionization of the plant would place their
jobs in jeopardy . Such statements , in my opinion , constitute threats of reprisals,
and therefore violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Assistant Superintendent John and Foreman Harvey also threatened various
employees that less advantageous working conditions would result from the union-
ization of the employees. Jolin repeatedly warned that if the employees voted the
Union in, the Respondent would take away the employees' hospitalization, vacation
and holiday benefits , and that the employees might or might not gain these bene-
fits back later through collective -bargaining negotiations . Such threats constitute a
clear-cut invasion of the employees ' rights to be free from employer interference,
restraint , and coercion.
The Respondent carried out these threats as soon as it received word of the Union's
victory in the election. Such action violated not only the prohibition of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act against employer interference , restraint , and coercion but also
the ban of Section 8 ( a)(3) against employer discrimination with respect to terms
and conditions of employment.
Neither the Respondent 's threats nor its subsequent cancellation of benefits can
be justified upon the ground that Union Representative Obenour stated at the April 6
conference that hospitalization insurance, paid vacations, and paid holidays "would
be subject to negotiations" and that it would be "all right" to "stop [them] until the
negotiations were completed." The quoted testimony is that of Lawson. Obenour
was not called as a witness . Consequently Lawson 's testimony in this regard is
undenied. It is almost inconceivable to me that an experienced union official like
Obenour could have stated in effect that the Respondent could suspend existing
benefits pending the outcome of collective-bargaining negotiations since the law
prohibits such action by employers. Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as it has been
uniformly construed by the Board and the courts , prohibits an employer, once a
majority of his employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have selected a collective-
bargaining representative, from unilaterally changing any of the terms or conditions
of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit. However, assuming
that Obenour stated that it would be all right to suspend employee benefits pend-
ing the outcome of the negotiations , the right to be free from employer interference
with the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act is vested in the employees, and
Obenour had no right to waive the protection of the Act so as to render lawful
employer conduct having an obviously coercive effect. It cannot be doubted that
a threat, even temporarily to suspend employee benefits , has a coercive impact.
c. President Lawson's questioning of Watkins concerning his vote in the
election; the incident between Vice President Drew and Andrews
As found above, the first working day after the election, Lawson asked Watkins
why he had voted for the Union in the election. This elicited from Watkins a denial
that he had voted for the Union. The protection of Section 7 of the Act also
covers the right to vote by secret ballot in a Board-conducted election. Any con-
duct such as Lawson's here, the normal tendency of which is to destroy the secrecy
of the ballot, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf. Staub Cleaners Inc., 148
NLRB 278, 279. In any event, in the context of events in this case, Lawson's
questioning of Watkins had coercive implications, and therefore violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act for this reason also.
As stated above, Vice President Drew had given Andrews a ride to work every
day of her 3 years' employment at the Respondent's plant. The first working day
after the election Drew failed to show up to give Andrews her ride. When Andrews
arrived late at work and berated Drew for failing to let her know he was not com-
ing, Drew, in explanation, declared "After what you did, you went against us and
let us down." As the ensuing conversation makes clear, this remark had reference
to Andrews' vote in the election. This remark, coupled as it was with the com-
plete discontinuance of the longstanding riding agreement, a valuable privilege, in
my opinion, had a strong coercive impact and therefore violated Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
243-084-67-vol. 159-51
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel contends that Drew's discontinuance of the riding arrange-
ment also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I would agree if the record ade-
quately showed that the giving of such transportation to Andrews was a term or
condition of her employment . The record does not show the circumstances under
which this riding arrangement was entered into, including whether it resulted from
a neighborhood acquaintance or was purely a business arrangement to insure the
prompt arrival at the plant of a valued employee. In these circumstances, I am
unable to find that Drew's discontinuance of the arrangement with Andrews
also violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act. The 8( a)(3) allegations of the com-
plaint in this . respect are hereby dismissed.
2. The layoffs and discharges in alleged violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act
a. The layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7
As found above, Riggle was laid off on April 7, the day after the Respondent
received the Union's request for recognition and bargaining . This was the same
day that Vice President Drew ascertained , upon inquiring of Andrews whether she
had heard'anything of a union petition , that Riggle had mentioned the petition to
Andrews the night before . Thereupon Drew had remarked that he would see if
there was enough work for Riggle.
The Respondent contends that Riggle was laid off because there was insufficient
work for her to do in the bindery. However, the Respondent adduced only the
vague general testimony of Vice President Drew and Foreman Harvey in this con-
nection . Drew testified that Riggle was a temporary employee who was laid off
when she had cleaned up the little miscellaneous bindery jobs which the Respondent
had for her to do. Drew could not remember whether he personally gave direc-
tions for her layoff. Foreman Harvey, Riggle's immediate supervisor, when asked
to give the circumstances of Riggle's layoff, at first could not recall , but later testi-
fied that "there was no sufficient work." However, on cross-examination Foreman
Harvey admitted that Reynolds had told him at the time he-gave instructions for
Riggle's layoff that there were 2000- 3000 units of the plastic binder on which
Riggle was working still to be assembled.
The layoff of Riggle, and all of the other 'discharges and layoffs here involved,
must _be considered against the background of the Respondent' s entire course of
conduct in 'this case. As found above, the Respondent reacted to the Union's
request for bargaining rights with threats to Robert Reynolds, the layoff of Riggle,
and the extension of the probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor. After agree-
ing to the holding of a consent election, the Respondent 's supervisors repeatedly
threatened that loss of benefits, layoffs, and other adverse consequences would
follow the unionization of the employees. Two days before the election, the
Respondent gave the employees a letter in which it frankly appealed to the employ-
ees to vote against the Union in the election . As soon as the votes in the election
were counted the Respondent openly displayed its strong disapproval of the out-
come by canceling the employees ' hospitalization , vacation and holiday benefits, as
it had threatened to do, laid off Ferreira , as it had also threatened, and drastically
cut back Emerson 's hours. The next workday Vice President Drew discontinued
his longstanding practice of giving Andrews a ride to the plant and frankly attrib-
uted his action , to use his own words , to the "dirty deal" which Andrews had
given the Respondent in the election . The discharges of Ferreira and Taylor and
the termination of Emerson followed.
Viewing the layoff of Riggle in the light of this background , I conclude the
Respondent would not have laid off Beverly Riggle, concededly a valuable employee,
at this particular time had it not been for the union activities then going on in the
plant, activities in which the Respondent knew Riggle had some interest . Accord-
ingly I find that the Respondent 's layoff of Beverly Riggle on April 7, 1965, violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
b. The layoff and discharge of John Kewley
As found above, Foreman Harvey first laid Kewley off assertedly for lack of
work, and then during the period of his layoff the Respondent sent Kewley a letter
notifying him he was being discharged because of inefficiency and low production.
Foreman Harvey had previously warned Kewley and others that the less experi-
enced employees would be let go if the Union came in.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 787
Foreman Harvey testified that after Union President Obenour's visit to the plant
on April 6, Kewley's work was "mediocre, not up to . . . what he was capable of
doing." Harvey mentioned specifically an incident occurring on the afternoon of
April 6, in which Kewley declined Harvey's request to work overtime, saying he
had other plans. Pressman Hurley subsequently declined also for the same reason.
When Harvey later attempted to run Kewley's press the plate became wrapped
around the press, ruining it. Harvey, according to his testimony, attributed this to
Kewley's negligence. This caused Harvey to become critical of Kewley's work. He
discussed the matter of Kewley's work "and other factors" with Drew and Jolin
on several occasions but they did not decide to discharge Kewley during these
discussions. Later without further consultation with Harvey, the decision was made
higher up to discharge Kewley.
According to President Lawson, Kewley was laid off because the cost of his opera--
tion of the darkroom was excessive , and because after his transfer back to the press-
room he lacked sufficient experience to operate the Chief 20 press satisfactorily.
However, I have found that Kewley's transfer back to) the' pressroom was not due'
primarily to dissatisfaction with his work in the darkroom, but rather to the
Respondent's need for a press operator. After Kewley's return to the pressroom,
the Respondent assigned him only briefly to operate the Chief 15 press, upon which
he was experienced , and then assigned him to the larger and much more compli-
cated Chief 20 press upon which he had had no experience. Then the Respondent
learned its employees had become interested in the Union .2° Two and one-half
weeks later, the Respondent laid off Kewley and during the layoff purportedly
decided that Kewley would not work out on the Chief 20 press. This was after
Kewley had worked on the Chief 20 only about 3 weeks, although, as President
Lawson testified, it takes years for a man to become an experienced press operator.
Under all the circumstances, including the Respondent's demonstrated hostility to
the Union, I conclude that but for its suspicion that Kewley was a union supporter,
it would have given' him time to develop his skill on the Chief 20 press, and that
the Respondent's discharge of Kewley on May 1 was motivated by its animosity
toward the Union. -
c. The discharge of Kenneth Gray and Ralph Watkins on June 4
The Respondent contends that Gray was discharged for gross inefficiency and
that Watkins was discharged because he had completed the extra work which he
was temporarily hired to perform and because the Respondent had decided to hire
one man to perform the work of both Gray and Watkins. It will be remembered
that Gray was only working 4 hours a day at the time of his discharge. Watson
was not considered for the combined job, according to the Respondent , because of
his poor record with respect.to absenses and tardiness._ With regard to this latter
point, Watson admitted that he "missed a lot of time at work" and that he was
"late frequently ." The Respondent did, in fact , hire one replacement for both
employees. It had been the Respondent's practice in the past to have one employee
handle both'the truckdriving and janitorial duties.
Gray's own testimony concerning the numerous mistakes which he made on the
job tends to confirm testimony of the Respondent's supervisors as to Gray's many
shortcomings as an employee . Under all the - circumstances I conclude that Gray
was a very unsatisfactory employee.
While the record contains abundant evidence of the Respondent 's hostility to the
Union , in my opinion, in the cases of Gray and Watkins, such hostility was not a
20 As indicated above, the Respondent contends that the record fails to show knowledge
on its part that Kewley was active in the union movement . In addition to the circum-
stances alluded to in the discussion of the Respondent 's discriminatory extension of the
probationary periods of Ferreira and Taylor , it should be noted, as the Respondent states
in its proposed findings of fact, that during the interim between the filing of the Union's
petition and the election " that many members of management , particularly Lawson, Drew,
Harvey, and John, indulged their natural curiosity by asking questions of the employees
concerning the union ." In view of this questioning it would be surprising if the Respond-
ent did not learn something of the identity of active union supporters. Harvey's various
conversations with Kewley about the Union early in April strongly suggest that he, at
least, believed Kewley to be a union supporter. Under the circumstances, I conclude in
Kewley's case, as in the cases of Ferreira and Taylor, that the Respondent suspected that
he was a union supporter.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factor in their discharges . In fact, in the case of Watkins, I believe that President
Lawson took him at his word when he denied having voted for the Union in the
election . Hence, Lawson had no reason to take retaliatory action against him. In
sum, I accept the Respondent 's explanation for having discharged Gray and Watkins.
Accordingly, the allegations of the complaint based upon their discharge are hereby
dismissed.
d. The discharge of Antonio Ferreira and Helen Taylor
Respondent contends that both Ferreira and Taylor were discharged because of
the excessive costs of the jobs done by them and because they failed to become
sufficiently proficient on the presses operated by them to warrant their retention
after the expiration of their extended probationary periods. With respect to Fer-
reira, there is no evidence that any of the Respondent 's supervisors ever seriously
criticized his work during his original 60-day probationary period. Foreman Har-
vey's own testimony , quoted above, reveals that he regarded Ferreira as a satis-
factory employee at the end of his original 60-day probationary period. Ferreira's
undenied testimony is that the first time his work was criticized was 2 weeks before
the election on May 28. This was the instance in which Vice President Drew
criticized . Ferreira's work, after which Foreman Harvey reassured Ferreira that he
was a good worker and expressly attributed Drew's citicism to his animosity toward
the Union.
Regarding Taylor, Foreman Harvey was more articulate with respect to her
alleged shortcomings as a press operator . However, Harvey's testimony fails to
show that he effectively communicated to Taylor his dissatisfaction with her work.
While Harvey testified in response to an extremely leading question that he fre-
quently discussed with Taylor the making of adjustments on her press, Harvey's
testimony fails to show whether these discussion were of such a nature as to bring
home to Taylor his dissatisfaction with her work. Nor does Harvey's testimony
indicate whether these discussions were before or after the advent of the Union.
In these circumstances I credit Taylor's testimony that the first time her work was
criticized was a week before the election. In Taylor's case , as in the case of Fer-
reira, it was Vice President Drew, rather than Foreman Harvey who was much
more familiar with the quality of her work, who reprimanded Taylor for seeking
the assistance of Hurley in adjusting her machine.
I have found that the Respondent 's extension of the probationary periods of Fer-
reira and Taylor from 60 to 120 days was an act of retaliation against them, like
the layoff of Beverly Riggle , because of the employees ' decision to seek collective-
bargaining representation . I conclude that the Respondent 's discharge of Ferreira
and Taylor was of a piece with the Respondent 's extension of their probationary
periods and was motivated by the Respondent 's resentment against the fact that the
employees had chosen the Union to represent them in the election.
With the discharge of these two press operators , the previous discharge of Riggle
and Kewley , and the Respondent 's failure to call Emerson for further work dis-
cussed below, this made a total of five employees terminated one way or another
by the Respondent after it learned of the employees ' organizing activities . Taking
into ' consideration also the discharge of Gray and Watkins, the Respondent in the
2-month period after the advent of the Union effected the removal of a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
While Foreman Harvey gave some testimony. concerning the faults of Ferreira
and Taylor in the later stages of their employment , as found above, no complaints
were voiced to them by him before the advent of the Union . Particularly in a
trade like the printing trade where it takes 5 to 7 years to become a thoroughly
experienced operator , it is easy for a supervisor , in retrospect , to point out deficien-
cies in the work of employees having only a year or two of experience . And Fer-
reira had only several months' experience in the trade . While I do not discredit
Harvey's testimony concerning the difficulties which he had with the work of Fer-
reira and Taylor in its entirety , I conclude in view of the abundant evidence of the
Respondent 's union hostility , that Harvey exaggerated the shortcomings of these two
employees in an effort to cloak the antiunion motivation which lay behind these
discharges . Under all the circumstances of the case I conclude that the Respond-
ent's discharge of Ferreira and Taylor violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
e. The termination of Paul Emerson
As found above , commencing on June 1, the Respondent drastically curtailed
Emerson's working hours and discontinued using his services altogether after
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 789
July 13, 1965. Emerson, a journeyman compositor, had worked for the Respond-
ent for 10 years without ever having been laid off.
The Respondent contends that as a result of the development of the offset print-
ing process there gradually became less and less work available for compositors,
and that by the time of Emerson's termination the volume of work had dropped
to such a level that one man, Henry Clay, the working foreman in the composing
room, could handle it all. This contention is based solely on the general testimony
of President Lawson. No records of the comparative volume of work in the com-
posing room in 1965 and previous years were produced at the hearing. The only
records offered were records showing the number of hours each week Emerson had
spent in the last 3 years on composing jobs which could be charged to a specific
customer, called chargeable or productive time, and the number of hours spent on
nonproductive time The 3-year totals show that slightly less than half of Emer-
son's time during this period was spent on nonproductive or nonchargeable work.
These figures further show that despite the fact that a relatively high proportion of
Emerson's time was consistently devoted to nonchargeable work, the Respondent
nevertheless had Emerson work some overtime in about 1 week in 4 The amount
of overtime worked by Emerson in March and April 1965 was greater than that in
any other 2-month period coveted by the Respondent's records. In view of this
fact I cannot accept at face value the Respondent's claim that the situation in the
composing room suddenly got so much worse on May 28 as to warrant drastically
cutting Emerson's hours, and ceasing to use his services altogether 6 weeks later.
1 conclude, in view of timing of the Respondent's action against Emerson and the
Respondent's manifest hostility to the Union, that but for Emerson's role as observer
in the election, which singled him out above all others for the Respondent's atten-
tion, the Respondent would have found work for this experienced compositor, as it
had been doing for a number of years, even though it did not have sufficient
composing-room work to keep him busy full-time doing chargeable work. Respond-
ent's reduction in Emerson's hours and its refusal to call him for any work after
July 13, were violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By threatening employees with layoffs, cuts in wages, and the loss of employ-
ment benefits, by withdrawing hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits, by
extending the probationary periods of employees from 60 to 120 days, by taking
away from Robert Reynolds his title as bindery foreman, and by discontinuing its
transportation arrangement with Genevieve Andrews, all because its employees
decided to seek representation by the Union; and by questioning Ralph Watkins
concerning his vote in a Board-conducted election, thereby interfering with Board
processes, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2 By laying off Beverly Riggle on April 7, 1965, by extending the probationary
periods of all employees from 60 to 120 days on April 8, 1965, by laying off John
Kewley on April 23, 1965, and discharging him on May 1, 1965, by withdrawing
the employees' hospitalization, vacation and holiday benefits on May 28, by laying
off Antonio Ferreira for a half day on May 28 and discharging him and also Helen
Taylor on June 8, 1965, and by reducing the working hours of Paul Emerson on
May 28, 1965, and failing to recall him for any work after July 13, 1965, the
Respondent has discouraged membership in the Union by discrimination in regard
to their tenure or terms and conditions of employment, thereby engaging in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, my Recommended Order will pro-
vide that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent laid off or discharged Beverly Riggle, John
Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, and Helen Taylor, and reduced the working hours of,
and later failed to recall, Paul Emerson for any work, all in violation of the Act.
To remedy these unfair labor practices, my Recommended Order will provide that
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent offer each employee immediate and full reinstatement to his or her
former, or a substantially equivalent, position without prejudice to his or her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earn-
ings he or she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination, by payment to
each of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally would have earned
as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such period, with backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc.,
138 NLRB 716. Since I have found that the Respondent further unlawfully discrim-
inated against employees by extending the probationary periods of all probationary
employees from 60 to 120 days and by withdrawing the employees' hospitalization
-insurance, and vacation and holiday benefits, my Recommended Order will also
provide that, to the extent that the Respondent has not already done so, it shall
reinstate these benefits at least to the level prevailing before the Union requested
recognition and post notices to this effect, except to the extent that provision for
such benefits may be included in a collective-bargaining contract covering the
employees in question which has been executed in conformity with the Act. In
addition, my Recommended Order will provide that any employees who suffer
financial loss as a result of such discriminatory withdrawal of benefits be made
whole for such losses.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices herein found,
my Recommended Order will provide that, in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act, the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Lawson Printers, Inc., Battle Creek, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, Southwest Michigan
District Joint Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
laying off, discharging, or refusing to recall employees, by withdrawing employment
benefits or otherwise adversely changing terms or conditions of employment because
its employees have decided to seek union representation, or by discriminating
against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with layoff, discharge, or other reprisals because its
employees have decided to seek union representation.
(c) Questioning employees as to how they voted in a Board election.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions to Beverly Riggle, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Helen
Taylor, and Paul Emerson, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he or she may have
'suffered as a result of the discrimination, in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify any of the employees named in the preceding paragraph, if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Uni-
versal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC. 791
(d) If it has not already done so, reinstate its hospitalization, vacation and holi-
day benefits, at least to the levels prevailing before the Union requested recognition
on April 6, 1965, and reduce its probationary period for new employees to the
former level of 60 days, all as set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy,"
and post notices concerning these changes for at least 60 days, if it has not already
done so, on all bulletin boards in the plant where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. This requirement shall become inapplicable as to any term or
condition of employment which is specifically covered by a collective-bargaining
contract executed in conformity with the Act.
(e) Make whole employees who suffered any loss as a result of the Respondent's
change of any of the terms and conditions of employment mentioned in the pre-
ceding paragraph for their financial losses resulting therefrom.
(f) Post at its Battle Creek, Michigan,- plant, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly-signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith 22
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
:a In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Southwest Michigan District Joint
Council, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, or any other union by laying off, discharging, refusing to
recall any employee, by adversely changing the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of our employees, or by otherwise discriminating against any employee
because our employees have decided to seek union representation.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with layoffs, discharge, or other reprisals
because our employees have decided to seek union representation, question
employees as to how they voted in a Board election, or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Beverly Riggle, John Kewley, Antonio Ferreira, Helen
Taylor, and Paul Emerson immediate and full reinstatement with backpay.
WE WILL notify the above-named emloyees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as- amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
WE WILL, to the extent that we have not already done so, reinstate our hos-
pitalization and vacation and holiday benefits to at least the level prevailing
before the Union's request for recognition on April 6, 1965, and will revert to
a 60-day probationary period for new employees.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole any employees for their financial losses resulting from
our changing for the worse the terms and conditions of employment stated in
the preceding paragraph.
LAWSON PRINTERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
226-3244.
Northland Industrial Plastics Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-5334.
June 21, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices and recommended that such allegation of the complaint
be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision,' the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
1 We correct certain statements in the Trial Examiner's report which are not supported
by the record. However, these corrections do not affect our agreement with his ultimate
findings herein : (a) The Trial Examiner stated that after the layoff of Boguth and Sie-
benaller , Foreman Johnson cautioned the Koechles to be certain to punch in and out,
whereas the testimony revealed that such warning was issued to Diana Koechle and
Siebenaller; (b) the Trial Examiner's finding that the Koechles' practice of leaving the
plant without punching out was known to management is not supported by the record ;
and (c) the further finding that the employees met with Respondent's top officials on
September 20, whereas the record shows that this meeting occurred on September 21.
159 NLRB No. 71.