Lithography Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

LITHOGRAPHY SERVICE, INC.
Lithography Service, Inc. and Theodore Urbansky and
Theodore Skeba. Cases 13-CA-15730 and 13-
CA-15734
June 2, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
On February 7, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Eugene George Goslee issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Lithography
Service, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry) Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Respondent contends that the Administrative Law Judge was biased in
that at the hearing he denied Respondent certain courtesies while extending
similar courtesies to the General Counsel. After careful consideration of the
record we find the Respondent's contentions without merit and that the
Administrative Law Judge accorded Respondent a full and fair heanng.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE GEORGE GOSLEE, Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases came on to be heard before me at
Chicago, Illinois, on December 13 and 14, 1976, upon a
complaint t issued by the General Counsel of the National
The consolidated complaint in these matters was issued on September
30, 1976, upon charges filed on August 19 and 23, 1976, and said charges
were duly served on the Respondent.
229 NLRB No. 175
Labor Relations Board and an answer filed by Lithography
Service, Inc., hereinafter sometimes called the Respondent.
The issues raised by the pleadings relate to whether or not
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act by conduct hereinafter
specified. At the conclusion of the hearing all parties
waived oral argument and the filing of briefs.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and having
observed the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE AND JURISDICIION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
(1) Respondent is engaged in the lithographic production
of printed materials at its plant at Chicago, Illinois; (2) the
Respondent's operations satisfy the Board's standards for
the assertion of jurisdiction; and (3) Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE STATUS OF THE UNION AS A LABOR
ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges that Graphic Arts International
Union, Local 8-Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and the Respondent's answer
pleads lack of knowledge to admit or deny the allegation.
The record reflects that the Union admits employees to
membership, including employees of the Respondent, and
that the Union bargains collectively with employers
concerning wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment. Upon this evidence I find that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
The complaint alleges that on about August 18 or 19,
i976,2 the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by creating the impression of surveillance of its employees'
union activities, and threatened its employees with closure
of its plant if they became or remained members of the
Union. The complaint also alleges that, on August 18 and
19, the Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) of the Act by
discharging its employees Theodore Skeba, Theodore
Urbansky, and David Urbansky because of their union
and protected concerted activities. The Respondent's
answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practic-
es, and affirmatively alleges that Skeba and the Urbanskys
were discharged for cause.3
Theodore Skeba was hired by the Respondent on April
22 and was employed until August 18. Skeba worked in the
Respondent's bindery department as a stitcher operator,
2 All dates hereinafter are in 1976, unless specified to the contrary.
3 1 find no merit in the Respondent's plea that David Urbansky is not a
party to this proceeding because he was not a signatory to a charge.
1157
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and also worked occasionally as a folder operator. Skeba
was previously employed by Geis Printing and was hired
by the Respondent through Stephen Basinski, its incum-
bent plant superintendent, and also a former employee of
Geis Printing.
Skeba had been a member of the Union since 1950, and
in early August he commenced a campaign to organize the
Respondent's bindery department employees. About Au-
gust 4, after some preliminary conversations with other
employees, Skeba made a telephone contact with John
Weglarz, business representative for the Union. Weglarz
agreed to send Skeba some union literature and suggested
that he try to obtain the employees' signatures on a
petition. About August 13, after receiving the literature,
Skeba contacted some of the employees to obtain signa-
tures. The contacts took place generally during nonwork
hours and included among others Theodore Urbansky and
his son David.
Sometime after 2 p.m. on August 18, the Respondent's
general manager, Allan Steinberg, approached Skeba at his
work station and, after motioning Theodore Urbansky to
move out of the area, told Skeba, "Get your fucking tools.
You're fired." Skeba asked what it was all about and
Steinberg replied, "We don't want no fucking union in here
because we'll close the place down first." Steinberg also
told Skeba that he had people working for him for a long
time, and they let him know what was going on. Skeba
walked over to retrieve his tools, and Steinberg prodded
him on with the warning, "Hurry up before I blow my
fucking fuse." Skeba turned over his keys and left the plant.
Theodore and David Urbansky observed the conversa-
tion between Allan Steinberg and Skeba and corroborated
Skeba's testimony that Steinberg appeared angry and that
he spoke in a loud voice.
Theodore Urbansky was hired by the Respondent in
May 1975 and worked in the bindery department as a
folder operator and cutter. Urbansky was hired at a rate of
$6 per hour and received two wage increases, the first after
approximately 2 weeks of employment and the second in
the late fall of 1975.
Theodore Urbansky had conversations in August with
Skeba about organizing a union in the plant, and on
August 13 he signed the petition for union representation.
Shortly before closing time on August 18, Allan Steinberg
approached Theodore Urbansky in the bindery and told
him, "I want you to know that before I join the Union, I
will close this plant down." On the morning of the
following day, August 19, Steinberg again approached
Urbansky and instructed him, "Pack your tools and get
out. You are through." Urbansky asked for a reason, and
after some hesitation Steinberg replied, "Well, let's put it
this way. Lack of work."
David Urbansky was initially hired by the Respondent
as a helper in June 1975, but was laid off on July 28, 1975.
Apparently Urbansky was employed on a part-time basis
after his layoff, and he was recalled to work on a 40-hour
basis in January 1976. The check given to David Urbansky
on the date of his discharge reflected that he had received a
25-cent-per-hour wage increase.
Like his father, David Urbansky talked to Theodore
Skeba about the benefits of a union in the plant, and on
August 13 he signed the petition for union representation.
At or about 10 a.m. on August 19, Allan Steinberg came up
to David Urbansky and, without offering any explanation,
told him to get out. David Urbansky left the premises with
his father who had already been fired.
In addition to the testimony of the three alleged
discriminatees, the General Counsel adduced evidence
through employee David Lowe and Union Business
Manager John Weglarz. Lowe testified to conversations
with Skeba about the Union and acknowledged that he
signed the petition. On August 19 Lowe approached Allan
Steinberg and his mother, Eudyce Steinberg, and asked if
he would be fired because he signed the petition. Allan
replied in the negative, but also told Lowe that before they
would go union, they would close the bindery.
Weglarz met with the members of the Steinberg family at
the plant premises on October 27 to request the reinstate-
ment of Skeba and the Urbanskys. The plea for reinstate-
ment was denied by the Respondent's management on the
grounds that the employees were not qualified journeymen.
Some conversation followed about organizing the Respon-
dent's plant, and all members of management present
threatened that they would close the plant before permit-
ting the shop to be organized.
The Respondent's defenses to the allegations of discrimi-
nation involving Skeba and the Urbanskys are multifarious
and, like the Yankee peddler's britches, designed with
sufficient elasticity to clothe both minimal and maximal
exposures. Common to all three of the allegations of
discrimination is the Respondent's denial of any knowl-
edge of union activities among its employees until it had
been served with copies of the charges in these cases. For
the reasons explicated below, I do not credit the Respon-
dent's denials, and I find that the Respondent had
knowledge, or sufficient information, to support a suspi-
cion of union activities in advance of the terminations of
Skeba and the Urbanskys.
Upon the testimony of Skeba and Theodore Urbansky,
which I credit, Allan Steinberg informed the employees
that he would close the plant before he would allow a
union to organize the employees. In the case of Skeba, the
threat was uttered by Steinberg coincidental with the
notice of his termination and was coupled with an
acknowledgement by Steinberg that other people in the
plant had let him know what was going on. While the
record does not provide the source of Steinberg's informa-
tion, there is evidence that Skeba had telegraphed his union
sympathies to the Respondent well in advance of his
discharge. As a witness for the Respondent, Stephen
Basinski testified that about 1 week before his termination
Skeba threatened to bring in the Union if he did not
receive the wage increase he had requested. Basinski is the
Respondent's plant superintendent, admittedly has super-
visory authority, and his knowledge is attributable to the
Respondent. In addition, upon the testimony of Allan
Steinberg, Basinski threatened to quit his employment if
Skeba and Theodore Urbansky remained on the payroll, so
that Basinski's knowledge is directly coupled with his
animus toward Skeba.
In the case of Theodore Urbansky, Steinberg's threat to
close the plant was uttered the day before Urbansky's
1158
LITHOGRAPHY SERVICE, INC.
discharge, but hard on the heels of the threat to Skeba.
Urbansky's discharge was effected the following day. As in
the case of the threat to Skeba, Steinberg's threat to
Urbansky to close the plant is evidence of knowledge,
animus, and motive. Furthermore, the evidence of the
Respondent's knowledge and unlawful motivation is not
limited to the incidents related by Skeba and Theodore
Urbansky. Employee David Lowe testified that, on August
19, he was told by Eudyce and Allan Steinberg that rather
than go union they would close the bindery. Eudyce
Steinberg testified in this proceeding and categorically
denied that she had any conversation with Lowe. Allan
Steinberg also testified at length in this proceeding, but was
never questioned about the conversation with Lowe. In the
absence of clearly available corroboration, I do not credit
Eudyce Steinberg, but I do credit the testimony of Lowe. In
addition to the Lowe incident, Business Manager Weglarz
testified that on October 27 he discussed with the Steinberg
family the possibility of organizing the plant. Each member
of the Steinberg family replied that they would close the
plant before they would allow the shop to be organized.
There is no reference in the testimony of Allan and Eudyce
Steinberg to the conversation with Weglarz, and his version
of what was said is credited.
I find and conclude, accordingly, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(aX)( of the Act by threatening employ-
ees Skeba, Theodore Urbansky, and Lowe with closure of
its plant because of their union activities, sympathies, and
interests. In the case of the threat expressed to Weglarz, the
incident was not alleged, Weglarz is not an employee, and
the threat cannot serve as a basis for finding a violation of
the Act. Nevertheless, the threat expressed to Weglarz is
corroborative of other proof of the Respondent's intent to
visit retribution and reprisals on those of its employees who
aided or assisted in the organization of its plant, and serves
as further corroborating evidence of the Respondent's
animus and motivation for the terminations of Skeba and
Theodore Urbansky. In addition, I find and conclude that
the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)() of the Act
by Allan Steinberg's comment to Skeba concerning the
source of his information of Skeba's interest in and
activities for the Union.
In the case of David Urbansky there is no direct
evidence that the Respondent knew of his union activities
and interests, and the issue was not raised in the context of
his actual termination. Nevertheless, there is ample
evidence in the record to support a finding that the
Respondent at least supposed David Urbansky was
sympathetic to the Union, and that its animus and motive
extended to David Urbansky, as well as to his father and
Skeba. Allan Steinberg recited various and sundry reasons
for the termination of David Urbansky, but he also
acknowledged that David Urbansky was discharged
because of his blood relationship to Theodore Urbansky.
Steinberg's acknowledgement in this respect was couched
in terms that upon Theodore Urbansky's discharge no one
remained in the plant to train and supervise the son. There
is no evidence in the record to support a finding that
Theodore Urbansky had any responsibility for training and
supervising his son, and Allan Steinberg's explanation is
rejected as inherently incredible. Notwithstanding the
rejection of Steinberg's explanation, I do find that blood
relationship was the motivating factor in David Urbansky's
termination. The Respondent knew, or had positive reason
to believe, that David Urbansky's father was an active
supporter of the Union and, accordingly, had equally
positive reason to believe that David Urbansky's interests
and sympathies would assume a like character. The finding
that the Respondent harbored such a suspicion is accentu-
ated by its other and equally specious excuses that David
Urbansky was discharged for cause.
As to its pleas of discharge for cause, the Respondent
adduced testimony through Allan Steinberg and Basinski
that Theodore Skeba was incompetent to perform the work
assigned him; unable to adjust his stitcher machine; had
spoiled a number of jobs at great expense to the
Respondent; was a constant critic of Respondent's equip-
ment and his fellow employees; was equally critical of
management, violated the no-smoking rule; and was
generally abrasive, unpleasant, and uncooperative. On top
of all these accusations, the Respondent further contends
that Skeba should be discredited because he attempted to
bribe Basinski in return for favorable testimony.
With regard to Skeba's alleged shortcomings as a bindery
operator, I find little reason to credit any of the testimony
of Basinski in the light of his frank acknowledgement of his
inexperience in bindery operations and lack of knowledge
of bindery equipment. There is evidence that Skeba
performed part of the work on certain jobs which turned
out bad and had to be rerun or were rejected by the
customer. There is considerable question in this record,
however, as to whether the faulty product was Skeba's
fault, the fault of the equipment, or attributable to both.
Skeba did complain about his equipment, as well as about
some of his fellow employees, and the record reflects that
in some of these instances Skeba's complaints were
justified. There is also evidence, which I credit, that Skeba
had trouble adjusting his stitching machine, and sometimes
required the help of other employees. The evidence must be
contrasted, however, with equally persuasive evidence that
Skeba's inability to adjust his machine existed from the
outset of his employment. Basinski admitted that he hired
Skeba with full knowledge that he had not operated a
stitcher for 9 years, and the Steinbergs were equally aware
of Skeba's inexperience. As the record plainly reveals,
Skeba's alleged shortcomings and insufficiencies as a
workman only became a cause for concern after the
Respondent discovered his predeliction for organizing a
union.
Allan Steinberg testified to a course of warnings, counsel,
and criticism of Skeba, as well as the Urbanskys concern-
ing their work performance. Contrasted with the employ-
ees' denials of such incidents, and their testimony of
compliments from management, I credit the employees.
Allan Steinberg's testimony, considered in its entirety, as
well as its respective parts, is replete with unresponsive
assertions and self-serving declarations. I have, according-
ly, credited his testimony only where clearly corroborated
by other testimony or documentary evidence.
As to Skeba's alleged violations of the smoking ban, I
similarly credit the evidence that at the insistence of the fire
marshall, and having experienced a disastrous fire, the
1159
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent imposed a ban against smoking in the plant.
There is certainly more than a remote possibility here that,
contrary to specific instructions, Skeba, like some of his
fellow employees, occasionally smoked in nonsmoking
areas. Smoking in a building filled with paper and
flammable chemicals is without doubt a genuine reason for
discharge, but what negates the Respondent's plea of
discharge for cause is the evidence that it waited from June
until the third week in August to impose any discipline on
Skeba because he refused to observe the smoking ban.
Nor do I find better reason to adopt the Respondent's
contention that Skeba's character is faulty and his
credibility nil because of a call he made to Basinski on
November 14. The record does reflect that Basinski hired
Skeba from Geis Printing, and that the owner of that
concern later threatened to file suit because Basinski
pirated his employees. As an offer of proof to an objection,
the Respondent offered to show that, in the conversation
with Basinski, Skeba agreed to testify favorably in the Geis
matter if Basinski would testify favorably in this proceed-
ing. The Respondent's offer does not equate with record
proof. Skeba admitted having a telephone conversation
with Basinski, but denied any conversation about testimo-
ny in the Board hearing. Basinski testified that Skeba
called him on a number of occasions, and on November 14
he told Skeba that he was mentioned in a law suit filed by
Geis Printing against Basinski. According to Basinski,
Skeba replied that if Basinski would be on his side in this
case, Skeba would help Basinski in any suit filed by Geis.
Even if I credited Basinski, and there is small reason for so
doing, it would not support the Respondent's contention of
bribery or the solicitation of perjury by Skeba.
The Respondent's asserted reasons for the discharge of
Theodore Urbansky are similar in most respects to those
proffered in Skeba's case. The Respondent adduced
evidence that Urbansky was slow, unable to adjust the
folder machines, hypercritical of the Respondent's equip-
ment and his fellow employees, and responsible for large
losses to the Company. As in the case of Skeba, Urbansky
worked on some jobs which were rejected or had to be
rerun, but Urbansky's contribution to the bad results must
be weighed in the light of faulty equipment and the
mistakes made by others. Furthermore, the contention that
Urbansky was totally unqualified to perform his work and
had to be replaced must be viewed in the total context of
his employment history. Theodore Urbansky was em-
ployed by the Respondent for approximately 18 months
and, according to the testimony of Allan Steinberg,
Urbansky's performance was clearly inferior from the
outset of his employment. Basinski testified that 2 months
after his employment by the Respondent, or prior to June
1976, he recommended to Allan Steinberg that Urbansky
be discharged.
The Respondent contends, nevertheless, that it intended
for 18 months to replace Theodore Urbansky, but in spite
of newspaper advertisements it was unable to attract a
replacement. The record, however, does not support the
contention. The Respondent placed an ad in May for a
folder operator, and within a short time received an
application from Miguel Cintron. Notwithstanding the
availability of a qualified operator at the time when its
asserted problems with Urbansky had reached a critical
stage, the Respondent did not hire Cintron until early
August, and then only after Urbansky had gone on
vacation. Allan Steinberg admitted, moreover, that he was
asked by Urbansky if the advertisements for a folder
operator were to be construed as an intent to replace him.
Steinberg replied that there was no intent to replace
Urbansky, and that an additional folder operator was
needed because of the workload. I have no reluctance to
credit Steinberg's admission as it solidifies other evidence
that Urbansky's alleged shortcomings were condoned until
he became interested in union representation. Finally,
there is unrebutted evidence that Theodore Urbansky was
given two wage increases of 50 cents each, which
substantially belies the assertion that the Respondent
intended to replace him from the initial day of his
employment.
In asserting the reasons why David Urbansky was
discharged for alleged cause, the Respondent moved from
the purely specious to the utterly ridiculous. Allan
Steinberg testified that he had complaints that David
Urbansky brushed his teeth in the drinking fountain, flirted
with the female employees in the bindery department,
wandered about the plant, and was generally incapable.
When these sins of omission and commission transpired is
an issue largely ignored by the Respondent's evidence. The
Respondent's assertion of incompetence and misconduct to
the contrary, David Urbansky was given a 25-cent-per-
hour wage increase which showed up in the check given
him on the date of his discharge. Duly considered, the
Respondent's grant of a wage increase to David Urbansky
cannot be said to support its contention that he was
terminated for incompetence and misconduct. The evi-
dence to be credited is that, as Allan Steinberg admitted,
David Urbansky was discharged because he is the son of
Theodore Urbansky, and the latter was a known or
suspected union adherent.
I find and conclude therefore that Theodore Skeba,
Theodore Urbansky, and David Urbansky were terminat-
ed from their employment with the Respondent for reasons
proscribed by Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actions to remedy the unfair labor practices
and to effectuate the policies of the Act. As to the
affirmative actions necessary, I shall order that the
Respondent offer Theodore Skeba, Theodore Urbansky,
and David Urbansky immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs are no longer available, to
substantially equivalent positions, together with all seniori-
ty and rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
discharging, if necessary, any employees hired after the
date on which the said employees were discharged. I shall
further order that the Respondent make Skeba and the
Urbanskys whole for any loss of earnings they may have
sustained from the date of their discharge to the date of the
Respondent's unconditional offer to them of reinstatement,
1160
LITHOGRAPHY SERVICE, INC.
said backpay to be computed in the manner prescribed by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and shall bear interest as provided in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Finally, as the
Respondent's unfair labor practices go to the very core of
its employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act, I shall
order that it cease and desist in any other manner from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent, Lithography Service, Inc., is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Graphic Arts International Union, Local
8 - Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening its employees with plant closure
because of their union activities, sympathies, and interests,
the Respondent violated Section 8(aX i) of the Act.
4. By creating the impression that its employees' union
activities were under surveillance, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By discharging Theodore Skeba, Theodore Urban-
sky, and David Urbansky because of their union activities,
sympathies, and interests, the Respondent violated Section
8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 4
The Respondent, Lithography Service, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with plant closure because
of their union activities, sympathies, or interests.
(b) Creating, or giving to its employees, the impression
that their union activities are under surveillance.
(c) Discharging its employees because of their union
activities, sympathies, or interests.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions to remedy the
unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Theodore
Skeba, Theodore Urbansky, and David Urbansky to their
former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, to
substantially equivalent positions, together with all seniori-
ty and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
discharging, if necessary, any employees hired on or after
the date said employees were discharged, and make
Theodore Skeba, Theodore Urbansky, and David Urban-
sky whole for any loss of earnings they may have sustained
in the manner prescribed in the "The Remedy" section
hereof.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze and compute the amounts of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its facility at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by the Respondent
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 other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
s In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant
closure because of their union activities, sympathies, or
interests.
WE WILL NOT create or give our employees the
impression that their union activities are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because of
their union activities, sympathies, or interests.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Theodore Skeba, Theodore Urbansky, and David
Urbansky to their former jobs, and WE WILL make the
said employees whole for any loss of earnings they
incurred by reason of our discrimination against them.
LITHOGRAPHY SERVICE, INC.
1161