Mays Printing Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 11, 2010

07-CA-052247 (N.L.R.B. May. 11, 2010)

JD-30-10
Detroit, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
MAYS PRINTING COMPANY, INC.
and Case 7-CA-52247
LOCAL 2/289-M, GRAPHIC COMMUNICATONS
CONFERENCE, DISTRICT COUNCIL 3, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Patricia Fedewa, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael J. Robinson, Vice President, Information Technologies,
Mays Printing Company, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, Pro Se, for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit,
Michigan, on March 22, 2010. The Union filed the original charge on July 20, 2009. The
General Counsel issued the complaint on September 19, 2009.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the brief filed by the General Counsel and letter submitted by Respondent, I
make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, Mays Printing Company, Inc., is in the printing business in Detroit,
Michigan. During calendar year 2008, Respondent had gross receipts in excess of $500,000
and purchased and received natural gas valued in excess of $10,000 from DTE Energy, whose
natural gas originates outside of the State of Michigan. Respondent admits and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The General Counsel alleges that on July 9, 2009, Respondent laid off employee Jeffrey
Krejci in retaliation for his activities as union steward in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. He also alleges that Respondent permanently closed all or part of its camera department
without providing the Union an opportunity to bargain over the closure or its effects in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Respondent hired Jeffrey Krejci in April 2005. On his third day as Respondent’s
employee, Krejci was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and missed work.
When he showed up for work on the fourth day, Krejci told his supervisor, production foreman
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
James McTere that he had not been at work the day previously because he had been arrested
for DUI.
Krejci was the only permanent employee in Respondent’s stripping or “film and plates”
department. Respondent’s graphic designers, usually Kenon Cross and Paul Altese, performed
typesetting work on computers. Then they sent the work that could not be processed digitally to
Krejci. He reviewed their work and then processed it into film which he used to produce plates
for a printing press. After making proofs which are reviewed by Respondent’s customers, Krejci
transmitted the plates to press operators who produced Respondent’s books, magazines,
posters, business cards, etc.
The majority of Respondent’s work, such as funeral programs, is run on a digital press,
which does not require any stripping work. However, not all Respondent’s products, particularly
large products and work requiring many copies, can be produced digitally.
The Union, Local 2/289, Graphic Communications Conference, has been the authorized
collective bargaining representative of Respondent’s designers, strippers, press employees,
bindery employees, operators and production employees since at least November 2006. At all
times material to this case, Jeffrey Krejci was the Union’s steward at Respondent’s facility.
Respondent and the Union have been parties to two collective bargaining agreements,
the latest of which is effective from November 2, 2007 until October 31, 2010. Article 42 of this
agreement provides for dues check-off and transmission of dues by Respondent to the Union.
Sometime in the spring of 2009 or earlier, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges
against Respondent alleging that Respondent unilaterally terminated the health insurance
benefits provided in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, and that Respondent
unilaterally reduced employees’ wages. The General Counsel filed a complaint based on this
charge. Respondent failed to file an Answer. Therefore, the Board issued a default judgment
which was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In early to mid-2009, production foreman James McTere told Krejci that Company
President James Mays was upset about the charges and wanted Krejci fired. Soon afterwards,
Krejci found out that Earl “Butch” Chambliss, a cousin of James Mays, who was not a
bargaining unit member, was performing work on Respondent’s typesetting computers. Krejci
reported this to Daniel Courtney, the Union’s Vice President/Staff Representative. Courtney
called Mays who told him Chambliss would not work on the typesetting computers any more.
Shortly thereafter, an employee informed Krejci that Chambliss was working on the
company computers again. Krejci immediately called Courtney. Courtney called James Mays
and told him that he wanted to meet with him.
Mays, Krejci and Courtney met on June 29, 2009, at the union office in Warren,
Michigan. Mays presented a letter from Chambliss to the effect that Chambliss would not
perform any more work on Respondent’s computers. Courtney also raised an issue regarding
Respondent’s remittance of union dues. He informed Mays that until Courtney determined
Respondent’s status regarding the remittance of union dues, it was no longer authorized to put
a small union insignia, commonly called a “union bug,” on his products. 1 Without this bug

1 Two “union bugs” appear at the bottom of G.C. Exhibit 7.
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Respondent could not produce a number of different types of documents, such as posters for
City of Detroit elections.
Courtney spoke with Mays again on June 30. He informed Mays that Respondent owed
the Union $3,200 in dues. Courtney offered Mays a payment plan of $200 a week and told
Mays that if he complied with the payment plan, he could use the “union bug.” Soon afterwards,
however, Krejci informed Courtney that Chambliss was again working on the typesetting
computers. Courtney called Mays and told him he was no longer authorized to use the “union
bug.” Mays told Courtney that if that was the case, he was going to have to lay off some
employees.2
On July 1, 2009 Respondent gave Krejci and graphic designers Paul Altese and Kenon
Cross letters informing them they were to be laid off effective July 9. Respondent also faxed the
letter to Courtney.
On or about July 7, Press Operator Michael Camilleri and Production Foreman James
McTere told Krejci that Mays had told them that if Krejci resigned as union steward there would
not be any lay-offs. Thursday, July 9, was the last day Jeffrey Krejci worked for Respondent.
On Monday, July 13, Respondent recalled Cross and Altese to work.
On or about July 15, Daniel Courtney spoke with K. B. Stallworth, who had been on
Respondent’s committee negotiating with the Union for a collective bargaining agreement in
2007. Stallworth had also negotiated on Respondent’s behalf regarding grievances. Stallworth
informed Courtney that Respondent was shutting down its stripping department. Courtney told
Stallworth that Respondent had to bargain with the Union over the effects of the shutdown. On
about July 20, Courtney spoke with James Mays and informed him that if he was shutting down
the stripping department, Respondent must engage in effects bargaining with the Union.
Respondent apparently operated the stripping department for some time after July 15.
The work in that department diminished and ultimately ceased due largely to Respondent’s loss
of the ability to use the union bug.
Analysis re: discriminatory discharge/lay-off of Jeffrey Krejci
In order to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the Board generally requires
the General Counsel to make an initial showing sufficient to support an inference that the
alleged discriminatee’s protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the employer’s decision.
Then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of protected conduct, Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 889 (lst Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation
Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399-403 (1983) ; American Gardens Management Co., 338
NLRB 644 ( 2002).
In the instant case, I conclude that Respondent laid off Jeffrey Krejci in retaliation for his
union activities, specifically his activity as union steward in attempting to get Respondent to
comply with its collective bargaining agreement. Thus, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) in laying off Krejci and refusing to recall him.

2 Respondent had to subcontract some work already in-house to companies authorized to
utilize the “union bug.”
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
G.C. Exhibit 17, a statement given to the Board by Michael Camilleri on September 8,
2008 establishes the degree of Respondent’s animus towards Jeffrey Krejci’s union activities.
Camilleri apparently gave this statement during an investigation of earlier unfair labor practice
charges or to the Union. Camilleri stated that he overheard a conversation between
Respondent’s President James Mays and employee Louise Rising. Rising asked Mays what
she should do about Krejci calling her and discussing her work situation with her. Mays advised
Rising to file or threaten to file a sexual harassment charge against Krejci. There is absolutely
no evidence that would suggest that Rising would have had any reason to file a sexual
harassment complaint against Krejci.
Moreover, the record establishes that Respondent laid off Krejci in direct response to the
Union’s removal of its authorization to use the union bug. That action was taken by the Union
because Krejci had informed the Union Staff Representative about “Butch” Chambliss
performing unit work in violation of the parties collective bargaining agreement and
Respondent’s failure to abide by the agreement with regard to the remittance of union dues.
Having found that the General Counsel met his initial burden under Wright Line, I also
conclude that Respondent did not meet its rebuttal burden of showing that it would have laid off
or discharged Krejci in the absence of his union activity, Kieft Bros, Inc., 355 NLRB No. 19
(March 25, 2010). Respondent merely made a bald assertion that this was so; it introduced no
evidence to support this contention.
Failure to bargain over closure of the stripping department
The Union filed a grievance on July 13 regarding the lay-off of Krejci. James Mays
responded by sending Daniel Courtney a letter, G.C. Exh. 10, which denied that Krejci’s lay-off
was discriminatory. He claimed that he had shut down the film, stripping and plate department
for business reasons. Courtney called Mays at a later date in July and told him that he had to
bargain over the effects of shutting down the department. This is the factual basis for the
allegations in Complaint paragraphs 12-15 and 17.
For some time after Krejci’s lay-off, Respondent continued to do a significant amount of
stripping or film work. This was usually done by Martin Griffin, who otherwise worked in the
bindery department. However, over time the amount of film work decreased and by the time of
the instant hearing virtually no film/stripping work was being performed by Respondent.
This decrease in film work may be due in large part to the Union’s revocation of
authorization to use the “union bug.” James Mays has asked the Union to provide Respondent
with a stripper other than Krejci, but the Union has refused to do so. Mays made it clear at the
hearing that if he were to regain the authorization to use the union bug, he would reactivate the
film/stripping department.
In light of the above, I conclude that Respondent has not permanently closed down the
stripping department. Thus, this decision did not involve a change in the scope and direction of
Respondent’s enterprise. Therefore, Respondent was obligated to provide the Union an
opportunity to bargain over the decision to temporarily shutdown its stripping department and
the effects of that decision, Rahco, Inc., 265 NLRB 235, 255-56 (1982). However, since the
Union only requested bargaining over the effects of the shutdown, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) only in its failure to respond to the Union’s request.
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Respondent’s objections to reinstatement on the basis of Krejci’s alleged misconduct
About a week after his last day at work, Krejci called Michael Camilleri, a press operator,
who had been the Union’s assistant shop steward. Krejci asked Camilleri if any work was being
done in the stripping department. Camilleri, who became the production supervisor a month
later upon the resignation of James McTere, refused to give Krejci any information about what
was going on at Respondent’s facility. Krejci told Camilleri that if he would not give him such
information, Krejci would call the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(MIOSH) about the guards on Respondent’s presses.
Krejci called MIOSHA, which apparently called Respondent about the complaint and
then did an on-site inspection. It is not clear how long after the agency’s telephone call, the
inspection took place. However, Camilleri testified the inspection took place in about
September 2009. In February 2010, MIOSH did a second inspection and found no OSHA
violations. It is not clear from this record whether MIOSHA issued any citations as the result of
the first inspection or why it conducted the follow-up inspection.3 Thus, there is no basis for
concluding that Krejci called MIOSHA without a good faith belief that the guards on
Respondent’s presses were not in compliance with OSHA regulations.
Respondent also contends that it need not reinstate Krejci because of his DUI conviction
in 2005. However, I credit Krejci’s uncontradicted testimony that Respondent, through
production manager James McTere, was aware of this conviction when it occurred and took no
action with regard to this conviction for several years.4
When an employee is unlawfully discharged, reinstatement and backpay are appropriate
remedies unless the employer can show subsequent conduct, or discovery of conduct, that
would have resulted in a lawful discharge. Under well established Board precedent, if an
employer establishes that an employee engaged in misconduct for which the employer would
have discharged any employee, reinstatement is not ordered and backpay is terminated on the
date that the employer first acquired knowledge of the misconduct, Berkshire Farm Center, 333
NLRB 367 (2001); Marshall Durbin Poultry Co., 310 NLRB 68, 70 (1993); John Cuneo, Inc., 298
NLRB 856–857 (1990).
Respondent has not shown that it would have discharged any employee for a DUI
conviction. Moreover, had it discharged Krejci for calling MIOSHA, that discharge may have
violated Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the OSH Act’s anti-
discrimination provisions.
Finally, Respondent argues that there is no job at the facility for Krejci. However, that is
a direct result of Respondent’s violation of Section 8(a)(3) and its failure to comply with the

3 Camilleri testified that MIOSHA found Respondent in compliance during the first inspection
and that the second took place because the first inspector’s boss had to look the guards on the
press. Due to Respondent’s failure to introduce any documentation regarding the first
inspection, I decline to credit Camilleri’s self-serving testimony regarding the first inspection. By
the time of his testimony at the instant hearing, Camilleri was an agent of Respondent and most
likely a supervisor pursuant to Section 2(13) of the Act. He acted as Respondent’s
representative at the hearing.
4 Krejci’s testimony is inherently credible on this issue. He testified that he was not able to
come to work at Respondent’s facility on his third day on the job. Thus, he had to explain his
absence to McTere.
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
terms of the collective bargaining agreement. I leave it to compliance to determine whether or
not there would be a job in which to reinstate Krejci had Respondent not violated the Act and
failed to comply with the collective bargaining agreement.
Alleged Johnnie’s Poultry Violations
The Board in Johnnie's Poultry, 146 NLRB 770 (1964) specified the following safeguards
regarding employer interviews of employees in preparation for trial in an unfair labor practice
proceeding:
[T]he employer must communicate to the employee the purpose of the questioning,
assure him that no reprisal will take place, and obtain his participation on a voluntary basis;
the questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization
and must not be itself coercive in nature; and the questions must not exceed the necessities
of the legitimate purpose by prying into other union matters, eliciting information concerning
an employee's subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering with the statutory rights of
employees.
146 NLRB at 775.
Three days before the start of the hearing in this matter, Respondent solicited affidavits
from employees Kenan Cross and Paul Altese without telling either that their willingness to
provide an affidavit was strictly voluntary and that if they chose not to do so, there would be no
reprisals. Thus, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in soliciting these affidavits
without providing the information required by Johnnie’s Poultry.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Jeffrey Krejci, it must offer him
reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a
quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Mays Printing Company, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Local
2/289-M, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
or any other union.
(b) Questioning employees about pending unfair labor practices without adhering to the
following safeguards:
Communicating to the employee the purpose of the questioning, assuring him or her that
no reprisal will take place, and obtain his or her participation on a voluntary basis; the
questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization
and must not be itself coercive in nature; and the questions must not exceed the
necessities of the legitimate purpose by prying into other union matters, eliciting
information concerning an employee's subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering
with the statutory rights of employees.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Union over the effects of a temporary shutdown of the
stripping department.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Jeffrey Krejci full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Jeffrey Krejci whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge or lay-off, and within 3 days thereafter notify the Jeffrey
Krejci in writing that this has been done and that the discharge/lay-off will not be used against
him in any way.
(d) Bargain over the effects of any decision to temporarily shut down its stripping
department.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
JD-30-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Detroit, Michigan facility,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
July 1, 2009.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 11, 2010.
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the 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.”
JD-30-10
Detroit, MI
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting Local
2/289-M, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT question you about pending unfair labor practice charges without adhering to the
following safeguards:
Communicating to the employee the purpose of the questioning, assuring him or her that
no reprisal will take place, and obtain his or her participation on a voluntary basis; the
questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization
and must not be itself coercive in nature; and the questions must not exceed the
necessities of the legitimate purpose by prying into other union matters, eliciting
information concerning an employee's subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering
with the statutory rights of employees.
WE WILL NOT temporarily shut down any segment of our operations with giving the Union an
opportunity to bargain over the effects of such a decision.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Jeffrey Krejci full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Jeffrey Krejci whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge/lay-off of Jeffrey Krejci, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge/lay-off will not be used against him in any
way.
JD-30-10
Detroit, MI
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of unit employees with respect to wages, hours and other
terms and conditions of employment.
MAYS PRINTING COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
313-226-3200.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
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. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 313-226-3244.