New Haven Register

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2006

346 N.L.R.B. 1131 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

NEW HAVEN REGISTER
346 NLRB No. 98
1131
Journal Register East d/b/a New Haven Register and
Laborers’ International Union of North Amer-
ica, Local Union No. 455, AFL–CIO. Cases 34–
CA–11070 and 34–CA–11085
April 28, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND KIRSANOW
On August 31, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Wal-
lace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2
and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Journal Register East d/b/a
New Haven Register, New Haven, Connecticut, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
2 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s memorandum
asking employees to report to management the union activities of other
employees violated Sec. 8(a)(1), Members Schaumber and Kirsanow
find it unnecessary to rely on Tawas Industries, 336 NLRB 318 (2001),
cited by the judge. In that case, the employer’s notice was in response
to employee reports of actual threats and coercion and invited employee
reports of threats or coercion by any party to the election. Here, the
Respondent’s memo was issued in direct response to union activity and
solicited reports of only prounion activity. Moreover, here there is no
evidence that any employee, prounion or otherwise, had engaged in
such threats or coercion.
Member Schaumber notes that he disagrees with the analysis applied
in Tawas Industries and would have found no violation in that case. He
would overrule Tawas to the extent that it held an employer violates
Sec. 8(a)(1) when, in response to reports of threats and coercion of
employees, the employer issues a facially neutral prohibition against
such conduct and/or requests that employees report such conduct to
management and/or the Board. In Member Schaumber’s view, the term
“coercion,” which appears in the statute, is not so inherently ambiguous
that employees would reasonably construe it to apply to Sec. 7 activi-
ties. He suggests the Board reconcile its divergent precedent in this
area and issue clear guidelines for the Board’s constituents to follow.
Having found above that Tawas Industries is inapposite on these
facts, Member Kirsanow finds it unnecessary to comment on the future
vitality of that decision.
Thomas E. Quigley, Esq. and Lindsey E. Kotulski, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Michael J. Rybicki, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respon-
dent Employer.
Thomas M. Brockett, Esq., of East Hartford, Connecticut, for
the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Hartford, Connecticut, on June 15–17, 2005.1 The
charge in Case 34–CA–11070 was filed by Laborers’ Interna-
tional Union of North America, Local Union No. 455, AFL–
CIO (the Union) on January 18, 2005. The charge in Case 34–
CA–11085 was filed by the Union on February 1, 2005. An
order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and notice of
hearing (the complaint) issued on April 28, 2005. The com-
plaint, inter alia, alleges that Journal Register East d/b/a New
Haven Register (Respondent) has engaged in conduct in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). The Respondent filed timely answer to the com-
plaint, admitting, inter alia, the jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint. The following employees of Respondent are super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Kevin Walsh Publisher/CEO
Tom Muessel Production Manager
Richard Bolognese Pressroom Manager
Hope Mezzomo Mailroom Manager
Ralph Lucibello Press Electrician Supervisor
Bob Huchison Pressroom Supervisor2
Richard Kevorkian Pressroom Supervisor
Neil Davis Mailroom Manager
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated the Act by:
1. on or about August 2, 2004, by Kevin Walsh, ask-
ing Respondent’s employees to report on the Union activi-
ties of other employees;
2. on or about August 18, 2004, issuing a written
warning to employee Robert Camposano; and on or about
January 7 2005, suspending Camposano.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, engages in the publication of
a daily newspaper at its facility in New Haven, Connecticut.
During the 12-month period ending March 31, 2005, Respon-
dent has derived gross revenues in excess of $200,000 and has
purchased and received at its New Haven facility goods valued
in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of
Connecticut. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an

1 All dates are in 2004, unless otherwise noted.
2 Huchison retired on July 29, 2004.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1132
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Camposano’s Union Activities
Respondent prints and distributes a daily newspaper in New
Haven, Connecticut. Truckdrivers at the facility have long
been represented by the Teamsters, but the approximately 180
press and mailroom employees have evidently never been un-
ionized. In early to mid-2004, a small group of pressroom em-
ployees, led by 67-year old Robert Camposano, attempted to
bring a union into Respondent’s facility. This union organizing
effort by Camposano is alleged to have been the reason he re-
ceived first a written warning in August and then a 5-day sus-
pension in January 2005.
1. Camposano’s employment duties and union activity
Camposano has been employed by Respondent as a night-
shift electrician for about 3 years. Throughout his professional
career, he has been employed in a variety of positions related to
electronics. His work hours are supposed to be 9 p.m. to 4
a.m., however, he can leave earlier if the paper is printed ear-
lier. The daily newspaper is printed during the night shift. In
2004, his supervisor was Ralph Lucibello. Camposano’s job
duties were primarily related to fixing any electrical problem
that occurred with the printing presses. There were no other
electricians on the night shift. During parts of 2004, Lucibello,
Chris Petolla, and Larry Rogers worked as electricians on the
day shift, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 or 4 p.m. In the summer of 2004,
Camposano was supervised at one time or another by Bob Hu-
chison, Richard Kevorkian, and Lucibello. As Lucibello did
not work nights, he would leave notes giving Camposano job
assignments or a note asking him to call. In the material part of
2004, Rick Bolognese was pressroom manager and reported to
Production Manager Tom Muessel. These two managers
worked some nights until the paper was printed. Otherwise
they worked days.
Respondent operates two printing presses on the second floor
of Respondent’s facility and the pasters are on the first floor.
The pasters are machines which paste rolls of newsprint to-
gether so a press run need not stop when a roll of paper is de-
pleted. From the testimony in the case, they are fairly prone to
breaking. Respondent also has a separate mailroom to which
the printed papers are carried by conveyors. Respondent has
from 25 to 30 employees working in the pressroom and from 15
to over 100 employees working in the mailroom. These em-
ployment levels are dependent on the number of papers that
need to be printed on a given day. At all times material to this
decision, Camposano was the only electrician working at night.
As noted above, in the summer of 2004, the only employees
of Respondent who were unionized were the truckdrivers who
were represented by the Teamsters. Camposano testified that
beginning in 2004, some of Respondent’s employees expressed
to him their dissatisfaction with certain of Respondent’s man-
agement and their desire to unionize and join the Teamsters.
According to Camposano, the Teamsters were not interested in
organizing any more of Respondent’s employees. Camposano
knew the business manager for the Laborers’ Local Union No.
455 and took it upon himself to tell this individual of the em-
ployees’ desire to be unionized. The business manager said
that the Union would attempt to organize if there was sufficient
support. Camposano talked with other employees about the
Union and secured signed authorization cards. Camposano first
targeted Respondent’s full-time permanent employees who
numbered about 37. He secured enough signed cards to support
a petition which was filed on July 1, 2004. After the filing,
Respondent’s attorney contacted the Union’s attorney and in-
formed him that the number of employees shown in the petition
was substantially incorrect as it did not include part-time em-
ployees. The Union withdrew the initial petition on July 12.
Camposano then began securing signed cards from part-time
employees. A second petition was filed on July 23, this one
reflecting that 160 employees would be in the proposed unit. A
third petition was filed on August 2 seeking representation of
some 35 employees. Elections were held on September 2 as a
result of these two petitions and in both elections the Union
lost. Camposano was the union observer in the election held as
a result of the petition filed August 2. First-shift mechanic
Harry Friedlander testified that Camposano was the most visi-
ble union supporter. He added that though Camposano works
nights, he came around Respondent’s facility on the day shift
seeking signatures on authorization cards.
2. Respondent’s supervisors’ comments to Camposano
about his union activities
Prior to the filing of the July 1 petition, about mid-June,
Camposano spoke with Supervisor Huchinson. Camposano
was outside the Respondent’s facility at about 10:30 p.m., hav-
ing a cigarette break with Supervisors Richard Kevorkian,
Hope Mezzomo, and Huchinson. Employees Sal Rascatti and
George Stranz were also present. According to Camposano,
Huchison said that he did not know if he could say it, but that
Respondent knew that the employees were trying to get a union
in Respondent’s facility. Huchison said that Respondent’s
CEO would not let a union in and would fight it by every
means available. According to Camposano, Huchison added
that even if a union did get in, the Respondent would not honor
it. Camposano testified that Huchison was looking at him when
he made these remarks and told him that he, Huchison, knew
Camposano was involved. According to Camposano, he at-
tempted to convey the impression that he was unaware of the
organizing attempt.
During this smoke break or another one in the same time-
frame, Supervisor Mezzomo called him “Union Bob” and a
“troublemaker.” Camposano testified that in response, he said,
“not me,” and the other persons on break would laugh. Campo-
sano testified that Mezzomo said this to him on more than one
occasion.
At yet another break, Huchison asked Camposano why the
employees were seeking representation by the Laborers’ Union.
Both the Respondent and the Union produced literature in
support of their respective positions. Camposano would post
this literature around Respondent’s facility. At some point
Supervisor Mezzomo berated Camposano for this activity, not-
ing that she had to stay late each night removing all the litera-
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1133
ture he had posted that evening. She told Camposano that she
knew he was the person doing the posting. Although Campo-
sano testified that Mezzomo was his friend, he further testified
that her anger at him on this occasion frightened him.
In late June or early July, Supervisor Davis told Camposano
that Respondent knew that Camposano was “the ring leader”
and “you’re involved.” According to Camposano, Davis added,
“[T]hey’re going to get you.”
In June, Camposano’s Supervisor Lucibello gave him a writ-
ten evaluation which Camposano testified was good and he
signed it. Then a few days later, Lucibello told Camposano that
he had been instructed by Production Manager Tom Muessel to
redo the evaluation. The redone evaluation dropped Campo-
sano’s job performance from good to fair. He did not sign the
second evaluation.
Camposano testified that before the evaluation, Lucibello
called him “Sponge Bob” and told him, “[T]hey are out to get
you, they’re going to get you.” Lucibello added that Muessel
was out to get him. Lucibello had not called him Sponge Bob
in the previous year.
Camposano’s testimony about these conversations with su-
pervisors is not disputed and I accept it as fact.
By letter dated July 23, the Union’s attorney informed CEO
Walsh of the organizing campaign and named employees on the
organizing committee. The employees named were Campo-
sano, Ana Diaz-Alvarez, Sal Rascatti, George Stranz, and Alan
Martindale.
Shortly after this letter was received by Respondent, Campo-
sano was in the mailroom standing with Rascatti and Stranz
when Muessel approached them. According to Camposano,
Muessel commented, “[I]s it safe to come near you guys, I hear
you guys are the ones going to be blamed for trying to get a
union in here or if this place becomes union.” Stranz recalled
Muessel saying, “You guys are going to make a name for me.”
Stranz was under the impression that Muessel was talking about
the Union. I credit Stranz and Camposano with respect to this
testimony.
During at least part of the union campaign, Neil Davis was
Stranz’ supervisor. Davis asked Stranz, “George, how did you
get involved in this union business? You don’t seem the type.”
Stranz replied that he wanted to hear both sides. Stranz did not
attend any of the company-employee meetings and was never
asked to participate in one-on-one meetings the Respondent had
with other employees. Davis’ successor, Hope Mezzomo,
spoke with Stranz after the election. In a conversation about
the Union evidently initiated by Stranz, she told him that she
did not want a union because it would make her job harder.
Camposano testified that in August, Respondent hired out-
side consultants to run Respondent’s campaign against the or-
ganizing effort. According to Camposano, he called the con-
sultants “union busters” and it angered them. These consultants
held meetings with employees, but Camposano was not invited
to attend them. He testified that he walked into one after it had
started. According to Camposano, the speaker referred to one
of Respondent’s executives calling him a wonderful guy and
relating that the executive took care of workers in Ohio who
voted down a union. The speaker said that the Ohio workers
were now better off than they were before they voted. Campo-
sano testified that he got turned off and left. Lead mechanic
Harry Friedlander testified he attended some meetings Respon-
dent held during the campaign and that Respondent’s position
was that it did not want a union.
B. Respondent’s CEO Distributes an Antiunion
Memorandum to Employees
On August 2, 2004, CEO Walsh distributed to employees a
memorandum which reads:
As most of you know, the Laborers’ Union is trying to
organize our company and become your sole and exclu-
sive bargaining representative, even though it knows noth-
ing about the newspaper business. I want to make the
company’s position on this matter clear. We do not want
or need this union here at the New Haven Register.
There may be a few individuals who, for various rea-
sons, are supporting this union. They could be promoting
this union for their own selfish reasons without regard to
the negative consequences that I believe could result from
unionization for your families.
I am sure that once the truth about this union is known,
everyone will see that having a union will simply make
things more difficult for all of us. I am also sure that eve-
ryone will also recognize this union’s promises: for what
they are—just empty promises like the ones the politicians
often make to get our vote.
Some of you may have been approached to sign union
cards or a petition. You have a legal right to refuse to
support this union. For those of you who have signed un-
ion cards or a petition, you should know that you are not
obliged to support or vote for this union.
If you are threatened or coerced by anyone to support
this union, please notify your supervisor so proper action
to protect you can be taken. We will handle any such
complaints as confidentially as possible.
In the coming weeks, we will give you information
about your rights, the union and the election. We encour-
age everyone to ask questions and get the facts. Only then
will you be able to make an informed decision.
Remember . . . the union is a business, and they will
say anything to convince you to support them. Before
they can start taking your money, they need you to vote
for them.
C. The August Written Warning to Camposano
On August 19, Camposano reported for work and Supervisor
Kevorkian called him into Pressroom Manager Rick
Bolognese’s office.3 Fearing he was about to be disciplined,
Camposano asked for a witness. Another employee, John
Benedetti was called into the office. Bolognese then read a
written warning dated August 18, that was being issued to
Camposano. It reads:
This is a written warning due to your unacceptable be-
havior on Friday August 6. You were involved in an al-
tercation with me, your manager. This altercation was a

3 Bolognese left the New Haven Register in May 2005 to be produc-
tion manager for another newspaper.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1134
result of me questioning what you were doing, since you
were just sitting in a chair on the press floor between the
supervisor’s office and the conveyor drive panels. You
turned a simple question from a manager to an employee
into a confrontational situation. Not only were you argu-
mentative, but you also approached me in a confronta-
tional manner. At that point I should have sent you home,
but I did not. I returned to my office, and about two (2)
minutes, I heard you ranting and raving on the pressroom,
floor, at which point I instructed you to go home. You
asked me the reason, and I stated that you were out of con-
trol and you need to leave immediately. At that point you
asked if you would be paid for the time, which I told you
to just go home.
This behavior will not be tolerated at the New Haven
Register. This will serve as a written warning, and any
further incidence will result in either suspension or termi-
nation of employment at the New Haven Register.
When Bolognese finished reading the warning, Camposano
asked if he could challenge the warning. Bolognese said no.
Camposano refused to sign the warning. Bolognese admitted
knowing that Camposano was an active union supporter.
Bolognese testified that on August 6, following the press run
that night, he went to the supervisors’ office to speak with Su-
pervisors Rich Kevorkian and Ken Howley. He looked out and
saw Camposano come up and take a seat in a chair in the mid-
dle of the floor between the control panels and the office. Cam-
posano had a book in his lap. After a while, Bolognese became
curious about what Camposano was doing. Bolognese testified
that he approached Camposano and asked what he was doing.
According to Bolognese, Camposano became irate and asked,
“Are you paranoid?” He jumped out of the chair and said he
would not sit there if he could not sit there. Bolognese replied
that he did not say Camposano could not sit in the chair, he was
asking what Camposano was doing. Bolognese told Campo-
sano that he was his manager and had a right to know what he
was doing. Bolognese testified that Camposano was yelling at
the top of his voice. According to Bolognese, he backed away
and Camposano then walked away.
Bolognese went back into the supervisors’ office for a few
minutes, then decided to see what Camposano was doing. He
walked to the electrical shop which served as Camposano’s
office and entered. He found Camposano and Sal Rascatti.
According to Bolognese, he asked Camposano what was going
on. Camposano started yelling and told Bolognese that he was
“the biggest fucking prick in the place” and then, “. . . come on,
we’re just pizanos—we can yell at each other and we can talk
this way.” Bolognese testified that Camposano then came up to
him and put his finger in his face. Bolognese testified that he
felt threatened and backed away telling Camposano that he
better watch himself. Bolognese testified that Camposano was
out of control and started to leave. Bolognese testified that
Camposano asked him if he was threatening him. Bolognese
replied he was not threatening him, and that he needed to calm
down. Bolognese then returned to his office. About 5 minutes
later, he heard Camposano yelling at the top of his voice and
went to see what it was about. According to Bolognese, Cam-
posano was ranting and raving, so Bolognese sent him home.
Camposano asked if he were going to be paid for the night. He
was paid.
Camposano offered his version of the events of August 6.
Upon arriving for work, he read a note from his supervisor
telling him that a change had been made to the wiring of the
mailroom conveyor system, including one to the alarm system.
Although his testimony is confusing on this point, he evidently
feared the alarm would go off and he wanted to know how to
disconnect it. After the press run that night, he went to the
control panel for the alarm, opened it and began reading the
manual for the system, sitting in a chair that was close by. This
location was less than 20 feet from the supervisors’ office.
Bolognese was in his supervisors’ office at the time. Bolognese
saw Camposano, came out and asked what he was doing. Cam-
posano replied that he was trying to see the change that had
been made in the alarm system. According to Camposano,
Bolognese turned and partially closed the door to the office.
Then he opened it and again asked why Camposano was sitting
there. Camposano then said he would leave and that he did not
want Bolognese to go paranoid on him. He closed the control
panel, picked up the manuals and started back to his office,
even though he had not yet found the change made to the alarm
system.
According to Camposano, Bolognese came out of his office
and followed him. Camposano testified that Bolognese was
ranting and raving that Camposano had to respect him because
he was the pressroom manager. Camposano testified that he
was repeatedly saying, “Yes, Rick,” all the way to his office.
When the two arrived at Camposano’s office, Bolognese de-
manded respect and pointed a finger at him. Camposano said,
“Buddy, don’t point your finger at me.” “What do you want me
to do, Rick, talk soft to you . . . you want me to bow down to
you . . . I’m not going to kiss your ass.” Employee Sal Rascatti
was in the office and at this point left. Bolognese followed him
out and slammed the door shut. Camposano opened the door
and went out. Bolognese turned and told him to watch himself
and I am going to get you or we are going to get you. Campo-
sano replied, “Rick, please don’t do that, you’re going to make
me paranoid.” Camposano then walked to the area where Ris-
cati was working and Bolognese came after him, telling him he
is ranting and raving and to go home. Camposano denied this
and asked if he would be paid. Bolognese did not reply and
Camposano went home. This was the first time Camposano
had been sent home from a job.
On cross-examination, Camposano recalled that Muessel
called him the next morning. Camposano testified that Muessel
was very nice and told him that he and Bolognese had to work
out their problem. Camposano testified that he told Muessel
that he would treat Bolognese with respect. He also testified
that Muessel ended the conversation by saying, “I’ll be glad
when this union shit is over, because it’s putting stress on eve-
rybody.”
Employee Sal Rascatti testified that he was walking toward
Camposano’s office when Camposano joined him and started
telling him about an argument he had had with Bolognese. The
two men entered the office and were soon joined by Bolognese.
Bolognese was demanding respect and Camposano got angry,
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1135
and walked up to Bolognese. According to Rascatti, both men
were pointing fingers at the other. Camposano told Bolognese
that if he were going to fire him, fire him. Bolognese replied
that he was not there to fire Camposano, but to get some re-
spect. At this point Rascatti left the office. He was joined in a
while by Camposano and then Bolognese came up. Campo-
sano and Bolognese got into another argument, and Bolognese
sent Camposano home. Rascatti testified that he did not see
Camposano rant and rave. I credit Rascatti’s testimony in this
regard.
With respect to the August 6 incident, Bolognese was asked
by Muessel to document the incident with statements from
witnesses as harsher discipline was being contemplated. The
matter was taken all the way to CEO Walsh. The only state-
ment taken was from Supervisor Kevorkian some 6 months
after the event. Kevorkian’s statement in pertinent part reads:
On the morning of August 6th 2004 Rick Bolognese, Ken
Howley and myself were sitting in the supervisors’ office dis-
cussing pressroom issues, when we observed Bob Campo-
sano sitting directly outside of the office with a note book in
his hands. Rick asked both myself and Ken what he was do-
ing out there. Neither one of us knew, so Rick opened the
door and simply asked him what he was doing. Which was
completely his right to do so seeing that Rick is the pressroom
manager and the electricians fall under his supervision. Im-
mediately Bob’s response to Rick was “what are you para-
noid?” in a sarcastic manner. Rick’s response was, I am the
manager of this department and I have the right to ask my
employees what they are doing. Rick simply asked a question
and in my opinion as a pressroom supervisor Bob’s response
was both disrespectful and uncalled for. A clear cut example
of insubordination by an employee and his department head.
All Bob needed to do is answer the question presented him
and it would have the end there.”
Nothing in Kevorkian’s memo speaks to Camposano ranting
and raving. As will be discussed at more length in the conclu-
sions section of this decision, Bolognese was prone to exagger-
ate and either change his testimony from time-to-time or add in
his testimony details adverse to Camposano that do not appear
in any documentation generated at the time of the August inci-
dent. Because of this tendency on the part of Bolognese, I find
that Camposano’s testimony, corroborated in part by Kevorkian
and Rascatti, is the more credible. Thus, to the extent that
Bolognese’s testimony conflicts with that of Camposano, I
credit Camposano’s version.
The record also reveals that other employees whose behavior
borders on insubordination are not given written warnings. On
September 9, 2004, Production Manager Muessel prepared and
placed in employee George Stranz’ file a note. It reads:
I sent George Stranz home at 12:30 am for insubordination.
He told me that he “didn’t [want] anyone else busting his
balls,” after I said 1 word to him, which was “infeed.” After
he said that he went off to his corner of the machine. I went
over to him and said, “I’ll give in to the fact that maybe you
are frustrated tonight, but if you ever speak to me like that
again, I’ll fire you.” Then he started to blame the people we
hire for his problems/frustrations, including the guy he got
into a fight with. I told him I saved his ass from being fired
then, and I touched his leg, when he looked at me with
Charles Manson eyes and said, “don’t ever touch me again.”
I told him to go home.”
Stranz remembered the events of September 9 essentially as
related in the note, except he did not remember the touching
part. He was sent home, but was paid for the entire night. As
he was changing to leave that evening, Muessel again ap-
proached him and told Stranz that he was to come to Muessel’s
office the following day. Stranz snapped back saying, “I don’t
come in here on my own time.” Muessel reiterated his request
and Stranz left the facility. Stranz went in early the next day
and met with Muessel. According to Stranz, the two men
apologized and then Muessel said, “Look, George, I know
we’ve all been under stress with this union thing, but, it’s over
now. We have got to [sic] this behind us and move on.” Stranz
agreed and the meeting ended. Stranz was unaware that a note
of this incident was in his personnel file.
D. The January 7, 2005 Suspension of Camposano
1. The written suspension memorandum
Camposano received another discipline in January 2005.
The written 5-day suspension dated January 6, 2005, reads as
follows:
The purpose of this letter is to formally address your
performance and execution of duties as an electrician of
the New Haven Register, which is unacceptable.
On Thursday (12/23) we had reelstand #6 go hard
down due to an electrical problem. As per my instruction,
Harry Friedlander4 called you and stated that the motor
was not working and needed to be changed, and if you
could come in since we needed the repairs completed be-
fore that nights run. You told Harry that you could not
come in now but would come in earlier than your sched-
uled shift and make the repairs before press start.
That night I received a call @ 12:30 am from the Press
Supervisor stating that we were only producing papers off
one press because “A” press was hard down due to #6
reelstand being out of service. At this time you did not
even have the motor changed, and your scheduled shift
start was at 9:00 pm. By the time the new motor was in
place and the reelstand supposedly back in service it was
too late to run the press. We lost a night of production on
“A” press.
The last time I spoke with you that night was at ap-
proximately 2:00 am, and was told that the reelstand has
been tested and was electrically operational, but was leak-
ing fluid and the machinists would have to fix in the morn-

4 Friedlander is the first-shift lead mechanic. It was stipulated that he
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Friedlander testified
that he told Bolognese about the problem in the afternoon of December
23. He described the problem to Bolognese saying that reel 6 was
making a chattering noise and seemed like an electrical problem.
Friedlander testified that Bolognese told him to call Camposano and to
have him come in early. He called Camposano and asked him to come
in early. He testified that Camposano said he would be in later that
day. Friedlander did not specify a time for Camposano to come in.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1136
ing. The first thing Friday morning the machinists
checked on the leak and immediately discovered that reel-
stand #6 was rotating in the opposite direction. Harry had
to swap the electrical connection to make it work properly,
which cost us valuable production time.
You did not demonstrate any urgency in getting the job
done, even when you were told we needed to have this
reelstand up and running. Also, you did not verify that
once the repair was completed that the reelstand was oper-
ating correctly, by checking for proper rotation. Your ac-
tions for this one problem twice jeopardized production.
During our follow-up conversation on 12/28 about this
incident, you verified you [sic] no sense of urgency or on
time production attitude when you stated that you figured
it was only a fuse and there was no need to come in early,
you would take care of it when you came in for your nor-
mal shift. Also, during this conversation you stated that
you turn your beeper off as soon as you leave work, at that
point you were relieved of your beeper.
On Tuesday night (01/04)5 we were running reelstand
#5 and had a paster go off the core.6 You checked the unit
and found a blown fuse on that unit, which you replaced. I
went back downstairs when the next paster on 5 was get-
ting somewhat close to going into cycle and you were not
there to monitor. The reel did not go into position and
would have gone off the core, losing valuable production
time, if the press was not stopped. I had to find where you
were in order to let you know that the problem still exists
and question why you were not monitoring the reel. I
found you sitting in the machine shop, at which point I
told you we had another problem with the reel and ques-
tioned why you were not there watching it. I also said that
I have spoken to you before about doing your job, which
means being there to monitor and troubleshoot when we
are having a problem. You had no answer, and just stated
that I was right and you should have been there.
You discovered that this paster on #5 did not go into
cycle because when you were troubleshooting the previous
paster you removed a relay and did not put it back into
place, it was laying on the bottom of the cabinet.
You are not meeting the expectations of your position,
and it cannot continue. This job demands a sense of ur-
gency, commitment and the understanding that we are
production facility that has a daily obligation to our cus-
tomers.
This letter is to notify you that due to your unaccept-
able performance you have been suspended for five (5)
days without pay. Lack of improvement will result in ad-
ditional discipline up to and including discharge. I do not
take this step lightly, but you have left me no other option.
Upon arriving for work on January 7, 2005, Camposano was
summoned to Bolognese’s office where he was given the sus-
pension. Camposano read it and said he disagreed with it. He
refused to sign it.

5 The letter obviously is in error and the correct year is 2005.
6 Camposano testified that going off the core means the paster ran
out of paper. He denied that this occurred on the night in question.
2. The events of December 23–24
Camposano offered his version of the events covered by the
suspension. He testified that on December 23, he arrived at
work at 8:20 p.m., some 40 minutes early. He testified that he
had been called at home about 2 or 3 p.m. by day-shift group
leader, Harry Friedlander, who related that there was brake
chattering on reelstand 6.7 Friedlander asked Camposano to
come in early and Camposano replied he would come in as
early as he could. He also told Friedlander that the problem
sounded like a blown fuse which would be easy to fix. Campo-
sano testified that Friedlander did not tell him the problem was
urgent or that “A” press was inoperative. He denied that Fried-
lander indicated in this call that the motor for reelstand 6 had to
be replaced. Based upon all of the record evidence, I believe
this to be true. The written memorandum suspending Campo-
sano asserts that Camposano was told by Freidlander to change
the motor when he came in. This is patently false. If this was
the case, the motor would have been changed on the day shift.
For someone, such as me, who has no experience with the
printing of a newspaper, the terms used can be confusing. The
following two paragraphs are intended to set out some basic
facts needed to understand what Camposano was about on the
night in question. As noted earlier, Respondent has a 2-story
facility. On the second floor are the paper’s two Goss Metro-
liner press, called press “A” and press “B.” Each press has its
own crew. The New Haven Register is published daily and
printed at night. The reelstands which contain the rolls of blank
paper on which the paper is printed are situated on the first
floor. When the papers are printed they are moved from the
presses by a conveyor to the mailroom. There advertising in-
serts are mechanically placed in the papers. During the day
shift, jackets for the inserts are printed. Also parts of the Sun-
day paper are printed on day shift during the week preceding
the Sunday edition. Items printed during the day are not time
sensitive as is the nightly press run.
Feeding rolls of blank paper into position to feed to the
presses is an apparatus called a “spider.” The spider feeds the
rolls of paper to the paster. Each reelstand has a paster, which
is a mechanical device that pastes the end of one paper roll to a
new roll so that production is continuous and each roll does not
have to be separately guided through the spider. What is called
a “web break” occurs when the continuous feed of paper is
ripped apart. When this happens the presses automatically stop.
Depending on where the break occurred, the process to reweb
the paper from the rolls to the presses upstairs can be difficult
or easy. A common cause of a web brake is when the paster
fails to paste. When one reel is not working, it is possible to
bypass the malfunctioning reel. Though this bypass is possible
and has been accomplished at the Respondent’s facility, there
are times when the effort fails. Such an effort failed on the
night in question.

7 Camposano testified about his normal work and rest routine. He
usually leaves work at 4 a.m., goes to a coffee shop and then gets home
about 5 a.m. He then goes to bed. After he awakens he goes about his
business, then takes a nap for about 2 hours at some point between 3
and 5 p.m. He then reports for work before 9 p.m.
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1137
When Camposano arrived for work that evening, he went to
the paster area for press “A.” He testified that no one was at
work at this time and he had to turn on the lights.8 Press “A”
has seven pasters, though one is totally inoperative and is used
for spare parts. He checked reelstand 6 and found that the
brake was chattering. The brake has to be fully operational for
the paster to function. It is part of the motor which runs the
paster. After getting his equipment he began trying to find the
problem. He determined that it was not a blown fuse and de-
cided the problem was with the brake. By the time he made
this determination, it was after 9 p.m. and the night-shift em-
ployees were coming in to work. He decided he needed a me-
chanic to assist him and went to find George Stranz, the mail-
room mechanic.9 The night-shift mechanic for the pressroom
was on vacation that evening. He found Stranz and the two
went back to reelstand 6.
Camposano showed Stranz the problem and Stranz agreed
with him that the problem was with the brake. They began
trying to take the brake off the motor, a job neither man had
done before. When they got the brake off, fixing the problem
looked more complex than they had thought. Camposano at
this point called Friedlander and gave the phone to Stranz.10
Either Friedlander or Stranz or both decided that the entire
motor would have to be replaced.11 Friedlander advised them
to be careful because oil in the motor had to be drained first or
a real mess would occur when the motor was removed.
The two men removed the motor over a 1-1/2 hours period of
time and found a hole for a pin and believed the missing pin
was the cause of the problem. Stranz found a replacement pin
and they put the motor back in place, only to find that the prob-
lem with the chattering brake still existed. They had to replace
the motor oil they had drained when they removed the motor.
This proved to be time consuming. By this time it was after 11
p.m. The press crew had already started printing on press “B.”
Another crew was working trying to bypass reelstand 6 so that
press “A” could function. They were not successful and the
only papers printed on press “A” that night were from the roll
of paper already on the press.12 Camposano and Stranz at this
point decided to replace the motor. Camposano went to see if

8 Bolognese also testified that there was no one at the facility be-
tween 8 and 9 p.m. Even if Camposano had reported earlier, it would
have saved little time as he would have needed help to fix the problem.
9 There is no question about the job involved requiring two persons
because of the size and weight of the motor involved.
10 Camposano’s phone records show two calls to Friedlander that
evening, one at 9:23 p.m. and the other at 9:45 p.m. The first lasted 4
minutes and the second 3 minutes.
11 At one point in his testimony, Camposano stated in regard to a call
to Friedlander, “Oh, Harry gave me advice that, I guess I did talk to
Harry now first, because I says we decided we’re going to change the
whole motor. (Tr. 76.) This would have been at about 9:45 p.m.
12 Press records reflect that press “B” ran 61,612 papers for distribu-
tion and press “A” ran 8,625 papers. The total number of papers that
Respondent wanted printed that night were printed in time to be dis-
tributed normally. Optimally, both presses would be used at night, each
printing about half of the number of papers needed. At some point in
the evening, press “A” had a water problem. I do not think it is clear in
the record whether this caused the press to shut down. This problem
was unrelated to the one being addressed by Camposano and Stranz.
he could find a replacement. He found one and they began the
replacement process beginning at 11:30 to 11:45 p.m. They
finished around 2 a.m.13
Camposano testified that Bolognese called twice that eve-
ning. The first was while they were replacing the motor and the
second was when they had finished. He characterized both
calls as brief and testified that Bolognese was not upset in ei-
ther call. Bolognese testified that he talked with Camposano
once that evening, at about 2 a.m.14 When the job was com-
pleted, Camposano and Stranz noticed that the motor had a
small oil leak. Camposano testified that he did test the re-
placement motor and it was working. He did not know or real-
ize when he tested it that it was running in the wrong direc-
tion.15 Neither did Stranz. Friedlander testified that when the
press is started, a member of the press crew is supposed to
watch the reelstands and cut off the machinery if there is a
problem. But he also testified that some people on the press
crew itself might not know the machinery was running in re-
verse until something went wrong.
After finishing the replacement, Camposano went home. He
was awakened about 8:30 a.m. by a call from Friedlander.
Friedlander told him the leak had been fixed but that the motor
was running in the wrong direction. According to Camposano,
he offered to get dressed and come to the facility. Friedlander
said he would make the correction if Camposano could tell him
what to do. The repair simply called for two of three wires to
be reversed. Friedlander completed the repair in 10 or 15 min-
utes. When he finished he reported that the reel was fixed to
Bolognese. Friedlander testified that Bolognese did not seem
upset. That evening, Camposano reported for work and nothing
was said about the previous night’s problems. There was no
lost production time on press “A” during the day on December
24.
3. Camposano’s meeting with Bolognese and Muessel
about the December event
On the night of December 28, Camposano was called to
Bolognese’s office. Awaiting him there were Bolognese and
Muessel. According to Camposano, Bolognese began the
meeting by telling him he did not like Camposano’s attitude
about the problem with reelstand 6 and that Camposano’s per-
formance on the night of December 23–24 was bad. With re-
spect to the matter of attitude, the managers were displeased
with Camposano’s lack of a sense of urgency in solving the
problem that evening. Camposano told them that he and Stranz
worked their butts off. The managers reiterated their concern
about his attitude. Camposano then complained that when they
hired back another electrician who had previously quit the Reg-
ister, they paid him $2 more an hour than they were paying
Camposano. He also complained that Respondent had sent this

13 Stranz testified that a press run that ends before 3:30 a.m. is a
good run.
14 Bolognese testified that he asked why the job had taken so long
and Camposano told him that it was a big job. He added that Campo-
sano told him that the motor was fixed and tested, but was leaking
fluid.
15 The pasters are not intended to run in reverse and to do so might
cause an immediate web break and perhaps damage the machinery.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1138
employee to school to learn about new equipment being in-
stalled and they had not sent Camposano. He then complained
about what he believed the case with the beeper he carried. He
told management that other employees get paid to carry a
beeper, but that he was not being so paid. He volunteered that
he turned the beeper off as soon as he left work. Muessel then
took away Camposano’s beeper. The meeting ended soon after
this. He was not disciplined in this meeting. Camposano de-
nied that at this meeting, the matter of the motor running back-
wards was raised.
Bolognese testified that at this meeting, he asked Camposano
why the job had taken so long and why Camposano had not
come in earlier.16 According to Bolognese, Camposano told
him that he had believed the problem was only a blown fuse
and could be fixed quickly. He added that if he had come in
earlier, there would have been no one to help him until the start
of the shift at 9 p.m. Bolognese testified that there was a late
crew on Thursday nights and there would have been someone
to help. Bolognese then asked why the motor was not just
changed out immediately. Camposano told him that he had to
troubleshoot the problem and that it was a time-consuming job.
Bolognese testified that Camposano complained about not
being paid for carrying a beeper, noting that he only used it in
Respondent’s facility and it was turned off at all other times.
Bolognese told him that was not the intended use for the beeper
and the beeper was taken away from Camposano.
Upon prompting from Respondent’s counsel, Bolognese re-
membered the matter of Camposano’s incorrect wiring of the
motor came up, but could not remember what was said.
4. The January 4, 2005 event involving reelstand 5
On January 4, 2005, when Camposano reported to work,
Bolognese informed him that the paster on reelstand 5 was not
working. Camposano checked into the problem and found a
fuse that could be the problem. However it appeared to be
good to Camposano. He testified that Bolognese was standing
next to him and told him that he had checked the fuse and it
was good. Camposano then went to get his tools so he could
troubleshoot the problem. After working at it for a while he
came back to the fuse, checked it with his equipment, and
found that it was defective. He reported what he had found to
Bolognese. Then Camposano got a replacement fuse and in-
stalled it. He turned the machine on and it ran. He left the
machine at this point and went to his office. He testified that he
intended to return in a 20 or 30 minutes when the machine
would have to perform its function as a paster. He testified that
a press operator is on duty to make sure the pasters are work-
ing. About 10 minutes after the repair had been made,
Bolognese came in and asked where he had been. Bolognese
said reelstand 5 was not working and had been stopped.
Bolognese told him he should have stayed with the machine
until he was sure it was working properly. Camposano testified
he agreed with Bolognese to avoid a conflict. Bolognese told

16 On cross, Bolognese testified that he was not really upset about
the time it took to make repairs to reelstand 6, he was upset that Cam-
posano did not leave the stand operational when he left.
him that he was not doing his job, that he should have stayed
with the machine until it performed the paster operation.
Camposano went to the paster and opened the control panel.
He found a necessary relay lying at the bottom of the panel
instead of being installed. He put it in its proper place and the
paster was operational. He showed Bolognese the problem and
according to Camposano, Bolognese left without saying any-
thing. Camposano testified that the press run was successful
that evening. Camposano had no explanation as to why the
relay had been removed, implying that he had not removed it.
At a later point in his testimony, Camposano denied removing
the relay. About 2 hours later he went by Bolognese and told
him the paster was working correctly. According to Campo-
sano, Bolognese said, “good.”
According to Bolognese, after Camposano completed the ini-
tial repair, he returned to his office. When it was close to the
time for the paster to go into action he went back to see if it
worked properly. Camposano was not there. The paster did
not go into cycle and Bolognese stopped the press. He left to
find Camposano and found him in the machine shop. He told
Camposano that he had told him before that when a repair is
made to wait to make sure the machine does work and the re-
pair had been correctly made. Camposano agreed. Bolognese
waited and watched as Camposano discovered the relay which
had been unplugged. Bolognese testified that he had seen Cam-
posano pull out relays while finding the bad fuse. He assumed
that this unplugged relay was one that Camposano had removed
but did not remember him unplugging the particular relay.
When the relay was plugged in the problem was solved.
In internal e-mails written by Bolognese about the suspen-
sion of Camposano, the January 4 incident is not mentioned.
5. The January 5, 2005 meeting where Camposano
embarrasses management
On January 5, 2005, Bolognese held a meeting with the
night-shift press employees. He asked the employees whether
they wanted the night shift to begin at 9 or 9:30 p.m. He asked
for a showing of hands and all but three employees, including
Camposano, voted for the later start time. Bolognese an-
nounced that the new start time would be 9:30 p.m. The three
displeased employees argued with the others pointing out the
merits of starting earlier. One of employees who had voted
with the majority asked for another vote. Bolognese said no.
Camposano then said that it has been 6 months since the union
activities and 4 months since the elections. He continued that
during the time before the elections, the employees were telling
Camposano that the Respondent’s consultants had made prom-
ises to the employees and nothing had happened yet. He
pointed out that nothing had changed with Respondent’s sick
day policy. According to Camposano, Bolognese said he did
not know why there were no changes and that he thought some
had been made. Camposano testified that Bolognese asked him
if the employees had gotten nothing, and Camposano replied
that that was correct. The meeting ended.
Camposano testified that he was told that CEO Walsh came
to other employees and told them that he did not make any
promises and the consultants had no authorization to make
promises.
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1139
6. Camposano’s “Rebuttal” letter to the suspension
Two nights later, he received the suspension and was sent
home. On his way out, he gave George Stranz a sandwich he
had bought for him and was telling him about work problems
that Stranz would have to deal with. Bolognese came up and
told him to leave and he did. He then wrote up a “rebuttal” to
the letter suspending him and delivered it to Bob Lee, Respon-
dent’s head of personnel. Camposano asked that Lee give cop-
ies to Walsh, Muessel, and Bolognese.
The rebuttal is addressed to Bolognese and reads:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my per-
formance as an electrical technician at the New Haven
Register.
On Thursday (12/23) Harry Friedlander called me at
home and did not state motor was not working, and needed
to be changed. Harry stated that the brake was making a
chattering sound. He said, “if I wanted to come in early,
get overtime, start working on reel #6. I said I would get
in as early as I can. My sleep schedule is from 4 pm to
approximately 7 pm. I was only able to go in one-half hour
early. Any earlier I would be in the pressroom alone
working on 480 volt control on a oil slick floor. OSHA
says noooo.
That night was a good run, B press handled the load.
Run finished at 2 am. The problem wasn’t changing a mo-
tor. The problem was an intermittent problem. Your letter
makes it sound like a hand held motor. At no time do you
mention the mechanical aspect of changing the motor.
Electrically, it involved only six wires to disconnect and
re-connect: there was also a mechanic involved in this
“MOTOR CHANGING”. You and Tom never consulted
with him.
Friday morning the machinist (Harry) called me
around 9 am and told me about the wrong direction. I of-
fered to come in. It only involved reversing two out of
three wires. Harry stated he had to change the gasket to
the gear box, that he could swap the wires. I told what had
to be done, and that the main disconnect beside the paster
disconnect was located in the drive control panel for #6.
By the way, no one showed or told me that. I found that
out the hard way.
Follow up conversation:
Yes I turn off beeper which was understood by Ralph
(my supervisor) and the previous production and mailroom
managers. New Haven Register’s personnel get extra pay
for having a beeper. By taking my beeper, increased my
response time within the register.
Tuesday night (01/05) my time of reel expiring was
off. Also involved in monitoring of reel #5 was a me-
chanic and operator.
At no time troubleshooting previous paster #6 involved
swapping relays from #5. Reel #4 is spare parts reel. The
relay that was removed had to do with paster speed. (the
problem with #5) My guess is that yourself or someone on
first shift did. N.H.R. Personnel are noted for going in
electrical panels. I have brought this to your attention,
Tom’s and mailroom management. It will be stopped
someday when someone gets hurt or killed.
I feel my performance at the New Haven Register is
exceptional only being with the register for two and one-
half years. I have received minimal training, on old and
new equipment. I have been working alone for the past
six months, with no one to consult my electrical and elec-
tronic problems with. I have been doing, trying to do elec-
trical problems that have normally been done on the first
shift. My reviews from my supervisor, Ralph Lucibello
have been favorable except for the last one, which Tom
made him change. (not union related)
Camposano testified that he had not been trained to change a
motor like the one he changed on December 23 and 24.
7. The disparate treatment of Camposano vs.
other employees
Harry Friedlander testified that he was surprised about Cam-
posano’s suspension and asked Bolognese about it a day or two
after it took place. According to Friedlander, Bolognese told
him that it had something to do with the incident of December
23 and 24, but would not elaborate. As Camposano was leav-
ing the facility to begin his suspension, Stranz asked Bolognese
if the suspension was about the events of December 23 and 24.
According to Stranz, Bolognese said it was, but there were
other things as well. Bolognese then told Stranz he could not
discuss it.
Dell Varney is vice president of production for the newspa-
per, the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. He was shown to have
extensive knowledge of every phase of the production of a
newspaper. He testified that if a reelstand is down because a
brake motor is down, the problem should be checked out and if
the problem can be found relatively quickly, it should be fixed.
If the source of the problem cannot be found, the motor should
be changed. Varney testified that it is theoretically possible to
bypass a downed reelstand, but it is not always simple to ac-
complish. Indeed on the night in question, the press crew on
press “A” tried to bypass reelstand #6 unsuccessfully. Fried-
lander testified that it has been done on occasion at the New
Haven Register. Varney testified that if an electrician working
for him had incorrectly wired a reelstand motor as Camposano
did, the electrician would be suspended. Except for Campo-
sano, that is evidently not the case at the New Haven Register.
Respondent’s printed performance warning form reflect a
progressive discipline system with the steps being verbal warn-
ing, written warning, final warning, suspension, and discharge.
Bolognese testified that in the vast majority of cases, discipline
is issued quickly in order to correct the problem. For example,
documentation in the record reflects that three employees were
disciplined on April 5, 2004, for an infraction occurring April
3, 2004. Another employee received a written warning on
March 16, 2004, for conduct on March 11, 2004. Another em-
ployee was issued a verbal warning on March 19 for conduct on
March 19.
Bolognese claimed to have spoken to Camposano many
times and maintained files on all of his activities and problem
he was having with Camposano, but the only written memo-
randa of problems with Camposano are the August written
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1140
warning and the January 2005 suspension. All discipline given
to Camposano postdate his union activity.
With respect to the incident on December 23, Stranz testified
that Bolognese never talked with him about it. There is nothing
in the Respondent’s document to indicate that Bolognese inter-
viewed Stranz, or Friedlander, or Rascatti about the incident.
The only internal e-mails between management relating to dis-
cipline are ones relating to incidents involving Camposano.
Mussel testified that he played a role in deciding to give
Camposano a 5-day suspension. His explanation for this deci-
sion was: “We have an obligation to produce a daily newspaper
every day. We take that obligation obviously seriously. The
problem that we had in this particular case was that while we
use two presses every night except one generally to produce
that newspaper not having one operation and facing the fact of
a failure on a second one would basically put us without a
newspaper on the street which is just absolutely an unaccept-
able consequence.” His counsel then prompted him with a
question about whether the fact that Camposano had not
checked his work, and Muessel responded, “Well we certainly
expect our employees to verify and check the work that they do
for accuracy and in this particular case it was something that
was not done well.”
He testified that Stranz was not disciplined because the prob-
lem of December 23 and 24 was electrical and Stranz was sim-
ply helping the electrician.
The record reflects that a number of employees engaged in
conduct which cost production or lost revenues, but did not
result in suspensions. The only other suspensions involved two
employees who engaged in a fight. These examples are set out
in the conclusions section of this decision.
D. Findings and Conclusions with Respect to the Alleged
Violations of the Act
1. The Walsh memorandum violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
As noted above, on about August 2, 2004, in the midst of a
contested union campaign, Respondent posted at its facility a 1-
page memorandum from its top official, Publisher Walsh. The
following portion of this memo violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, as the language highlighted has the dual effect of encour-
aging employees to report to Respondent the identity of union
card solicitors and of discouraging card solicitors in their pro-
tected organizational activities. W. F. Hall Printing Co., 250
NLRB 803 (1980). The offending language is highlighted be-
low:
Some of you may have been approached to sign union
cards or a petition. You have a legal right to refuse to
support this union. For those of you who have signed un-
ion cards or a petition, you should know that you are not
obliged to support or vote for this union.
If you are threatened or coerced by anyone to support
this union, please notify your supervisor so proper action
to protect you can be taken. We will handle any such
complaints as confidentially as possible.
The highlighted language violates Section 8(a)(1) for several
reasons. First, it is well established Board law that employer
notices alerting employees to union “coercion” in the context of
organizing campaigns are suspect. In CMI-Dearborn, Inc., 327
NLRB 771, 775–776 (1999), the Board upheld the judge’s
analysis of the following employer statement (emphasis in the
original):
CMI will protect you from any threats, coercion or
scare tactics used by the union pushers to get you to join
the union.
If anyone tries these tactics on you, we urge you to re-
port it to me or any other member of Management imme-
diately. We will protect your right to be left alone.
Citing W. F. Hall Printing, supra, the judge reasoned that
“[a]lthough requests to employees to report only threats may
not constitute a violation of the Act, Respondent’s request to its
employees included every contact that the employee might
subjectively regard as ‘scare tactics’ or ‘coercion.’” Id. at 776
(emphasis added). The Board upheld the finding of a violation
of Section 8(a)(1), as the employer’s conduct in that case
amounted to a request that employees report to management
contacts that include lawful organizational campaign activities.
In Tawas Industries, 336 NLRB 318 (2001), another “threats
and coercion” case, the Board extended this reasoning to an
employer notice related to a union affiliation vote. In Tawas,
the employer posted a notice on a bulletin board that stated:
It has been reported that employees feel they are being
subjected to threats and coercion because they are express-
ing their views (either pro or con) regarding the affiliation.
If you feel that you are being subjected to such actions,
please report such incidents to the Company and we will
take the appropriate action, or you may directly contact the
Regional office [of the NLRB].
The Board carefully analyzed the above-quoted statement,
and found that it violated Section 8(a)(1), noting that although
“the notice speaks of ‘threats and coercion,’ rather than ‘pres-
sure,’ ‘harassment,’ or other more general conduct, the Board
has found unlawful an employer’s request to employees to re-
port ‘coercion’ in the context of union activity.” Id. at 322,
citing CMI-Dearborn, supra. The Board observed that because
the notice in Tawas alluded to “subjectively offensive conduct”
occurring in the context of union activity, it “was likely to en-
courage employees to report protected conduct to manage-
ment.” Id.
Second, the Tawas Board buttressed its finding by noting
that: “By singling out purported threats and coercion arising
only from such conduct, rather than threats and coercion gener-
ally, the Respondent made it clear that it was interested only in
finding out and taking ‘appropriate action’ against employees
who exercised their rights under the Act.” 336 NLRB at 323.
See also Bloomington-Normal Seating Co., 339 NLRB 191,
193 (2003) (finding unlawful an employer speech telling em-
ployees feeling “threatened or harassed about signing a union
card” to report such conduct to management, where the em-
ployer made the statement in the context of an antiunion mes-
sage and only targeted “harassment” involving the protected
activity of soliciting union authorization cards); Niblock Exca-
vating, Inc., 337 NLRB 53, 61 (2001) (finding unlawful an
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1141
employer letter to employees urging them to report feeling
“threatened or harassed” to sign a union card, noting lack of
any credible evidence that any union supporters “employed any
unprotected tactics in soliciting support for the Union”). In the
instant case, Respondent singled out only prounion “threats or
coercion,” and there is no evidence or claim that Camposano or
any other union supporter engaged in any unprotected conduct
in soliciting union support.
Finally it appears undisputed that a notice such as the Walsh
memo had never been previously posted by Respondent. Fur-
ther support for the finding of a violation is seen by the fact that
Respondent’s notice appears to have been created strictly for
the Union’s campaign of 2004, a factor noted by the Board in
Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In
that case, the Board analyzed a range of employer workrules,
including a rule prohibiting “harassment.” In finding that the
employer rule prohibiting general harassment did not violate
Section 8(a)(1), the Board majority specifically noted that there
“is no evidence that the challenged rules have been applied to
protected activity or that the Respondent adopted the rules in
response to protected activity.” Id. at 647. Here, by contrast, it
is undisputed that Respondent adopted or promulgated the
“rule” in direct response to union activity. Moreover, as in the
cases cited above, the Board noted in Lutheran Heritage Vil-
lage-Livonia, that it was “clear that the rule is not targeted at
union supporters, but rather directed to all employees, regard-
less of their position on the issue of unionization.” Id. at 648
(emphasis added).
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by warning
Camposano on August 19, 2004, and suspending him
on January 2, 2005
a. Applicable law
The Board held in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), that
once the General Counsel makes a prima facie showing that
protected conduct was the motivating factor in the employer’s
action against an employee, the burden shifts to the employer to
demonstrate that it would have taken the same action even in
the absence of the protected conduct. The employer cannot
carry this burden merely by showing that it also had a legiti-
mate reason for the action, but must “persuade” that the action
would have taken place absent the protected activity “by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence.” Dentech Corp., 294 NLRB 924,
956 (1989). A violation may be found when the employer fails
to satisfy its burden of persuasion. Id. The Wright Line analy-
sis also applies where the employer’s purported reasons for the
action are pretextual in nature. Jefferson Electric Co., 271
NLRB 1089 (1984).
The fundamental Wright Line inquiry is one of motivation,
the state of mind of the employer’s decisionmaker. Illegal mo-
tive has been found supportable by a number of factors which
make up the General Counsel’s prima facie case, such as em-
ployer knowledge of the employees’ union activity, timing of
the union activity in relation to the adverse action, and anti-
union animus. Once the prima facie showing is made, the em-
ployer may rebut the prima facie case by persuading that it
would have still disciplined the employee even absent his union
activity. If the Board rejects the employer’s reasons as pretex-
tual, a violation of the Act may be found. Thus a finding that
the employer’s given reason for the discipline are pretextual
leaves intact the discriminatory motive established by the Gen-
eral Counsel.
Illegal motive has been held supportable by a number of fac-
tors other than employer knowledge, animus and timing, such
as disparity of treatment, evidence indicating that the employee
engaged in no misconduct, the failure to adequately investigate
the circumstances surrounding the discipline, the failure to
allow the employee to explain the accusations against him, and
where the employer offers shifting and contradictory reasons
for the discipline. All these factors are present in the instant
case, as described more fully below.
b. The written warning of August 2004
Given the strong evidence of Camposano’s union activity,
Respondent’s conceded knowledge of same, its antiunion ani-
mus (demonstrated by the Walsh memo and by the numerous
unrebutted statements by supervisors to Camposano reflecting
animus), the timing of the warning (coming just 2 weeks before
the union election) and documented instances evincing dispa-
rate treatment contained in the record, I find that counsel for
General Counsel has presented a strong prima facie case of
unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the Act. The
burden then shifts to Respondent to persuade by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that it would have taken the same action
absent Camposano’s protected activities. Respondent has
failed to meet this burden.
First, I have found that Bolognese’s version of their August
6, 2004 confrontation is less credible than Camposano’s. It is
implausible that in the midst of a hotly contested union cam-
paign, Camposano, who was well aware that he was viewed as
the chief union activist and the possible target of retaliation
(based on the numerous statements from supervisors that Re-
spondent was out to get him) would park himself down on a
chair in the middle of a room directly next to the supervisor’s
office, where all three supervisors were meeting, and then
openly defy Bolognese by “just sitting there” for 5 minutes,
doing nothing. I credit Camposano’s explanation that he was
reading a manual to understand some electrical changes made
earlier the day before.
I believe what transpired is that Bolognese questioned Cam-
posano and received a response he did not like (“don’t get para-
noid”), causing Bolognese to lose his temper. Camposano’s
response, though less desirable than a straight answer, did not
amount to insubordinate conduct sufficient to justify being sent
home and receiving a written warning. The rest of the confron-
tation was caused by Bolognese continuing to push the issue. I
also believe that Bolognese began the confrontation without
any reason other than a desire to harass Camposano. At the
time of the incident, the paper had been printed and there was
no showing that Camposano had any assigned task to accom-
plish.
A memo drafted some 6 months later by Supervisor Richard
Kevorkian, who observed the confrontation at its outset, fails to
corroborate Bolognese’s version in significant aspects. In the
memo, Kevorkian wrote:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1142
On the morning of August 6th 2004 Rick Bolognese, Ken
Howley and myself were sitting in the supervisor’s office dis-
cussing pressroom issues, when we observed Bob Campo-
sano sitting directly outside of the office with a note book in
his hands. Rick asked both myself and Ken what he was do-
ing out there. Neither one of us knew, so Rick opened the
door and simply asked him what he was doing. Which was
completely his right to do so seeing that Rick is the pressroom
manager and the electricians fall under his supervision. Im-
mediately Bob’s response to Rick was “what are you para-
noid?” in a sarcastic manner. Rick’s response was, I am the
manager of this department and I have the right to ask my
employees what they are doing. Rick simply asked a question
and in my opinion as a pressroom supervisor Bob’s response
was both disrespectful and uncalled for. A clear cut example
of insubordination by an employee and his department head.
All Bob needed to do is answer the question presented him
and it would have the end there.
Bolognese’s testimony conflicted in critical areas with both
his written memorandum on the night in question and with the
above-cited portion of Kevorkian’s memo for the following
reasons.
First, in the August 18 warning, Bolognese informed Cam-
posano that:
You turned a simple question from a manager to an employee
into a confrontational situation. Not only were you argumen-
tative, but you also approached me in a confrontational man-
ner. At that point I should have sent you home, but I did not.
I returned to my office and in about two minutes, I heard you
ranting and raving on the pressroom floor, at which point I in-
structed you to go home.
But Bolognese’s testimony was not consistent with his
memo, even though the document was in front of him when he
testified. Rather, he testified that when he first asked Campo-
sano what he was doing, Camposano “just went into a tirade
and walked off.” Nowhere in his memo does he accuse Cam-
posano of going into a “tirade” when they first spoke. Rather,
Bolognese wrote that when he first approached Camposano, he
(Camposano) was “argumentative” and “confrontational,” two
highly subjective terms. If Camposano had truly launched into
a “tirade” at that point, it is highly doubtful that the incident
would have been allowed to escalate, as, given his demeanor at
trial, it is probable that Bolognese would have dealt with the
matter on the spot—given that two fellow supervisors were
within earshot. Nothing in Kevorkian’s memo speaks of a “ti-
rade” outside the supervisor’s office.
Second, it became clear at hearing that Bolognese added sev-
eral negative details in an e-mail he sent to his superior Mues-
sel, in this time period, claiming that he supposedly felt threat-
ened by the much smaller, lighter, and older Camposano,
claiming that Camposano said that “I treat him like shit and are
always busting his balls.” In Bolognese’s testimony, he added
that Camposano supposedly called him a “fucking prick.”
Again these seemingly nontrivial details did not find their way
into the typed written warning which Bolognese took 2 weeks
to prepare. I find that Bolognese exaggerated Camposano’s
behavior to buttress a questionable management action. In fact,
Muessel, even took the unusual step of personally contacting
CEO Walsh about this routine disciplinary matter. The record
reveals that no other disciplinary matter beyond this and the
suspension that followed have ever received this kind of atten-
tion.
Third, the relevant portion of the Kevorkian memo does not
corroborate Bolognese’s factual version of events. Bolognese’s
warning clearly states that at the start of the incident Campo-
sano “also approached me in a confrontational manner. At that
point I should have sent you home, but I did not. I returned to
my office. . . .” Thus, according to Bolognese, Camposano
approached him in a confrontational manner from the start.
Yet, Kevorkian’s memo makes no mention of Camposano hav-
ing approached Bolognese in a confrontational manner. It like-
wise makes no mention of Camposano ranting and raving or
engaging in a tirade.
Kevorkian did not testify. Since Kevorkian remains em-
ployed by Respondent as a pressroom supervisor and Respon-
dent offered no explanation for his absence, I will draw the
inference that Kevorkian’s testimony would not have supported
Bolognese’s version of events. Grimway Farms, 314 NLRB 73
fn. 2 (1994).
An e-mail Muessel wrote to Bolognese on August 9 reveals
that Respondent initially wanted even harsher discipline for
Camposano, as Walsh apparently instructed Muessel to “Get
statements from the witnesses. If they corroborate Rick’s ac-
count we will suspend Camposano.” But Respondent did not
suspend Camposano over this incident. In fact, it failed to take
a timely written statement from Supervisors Hawley or
Kevorkian at all. Respondent eventually did take a statement
from Kevorkian, but not until February 4, 2005, after both un-
fair labor practice charges had been filed, and even then his
statement does not support Bolognese. Bolognese admitted at
hearing that he did not hear a single word that Camposano ut-
tered when he was allegedly “ranting and raving” at the other
end of the pressroom, behavior which caused Bolognese to
confront Camposano again that morning.
Respondent provided no evidence that it conducted a proper
investigation. The only supporting documentation apparently
created was the Kevorkian memo of February 2005, months
after the discipline issued. I believe that Respondent did not
take harsher action against Camposano as Walsh had author-
ized because Respondent discovered that Bolognese’s account
of the incident was exaggerated. I further believe based on the
credible facts surrounding this incident as well as the subse-
quent suspension that Bolognese was attempting to create a
situation that would justify disciplinary action against Campo-
sano. On the morning of August 6, when the incident occurred,
Camposano’s shift was almost over and everyone involved
must have been tired and could well have been on edge. To
repeatedly confront Camposano three separate times over the
span of 15 or so minutes does not sound like a supervisor trying
to let one sarcastic comment not escalate into a confrontation.
It sounds much more like a supervisor trying to escalate the
event so that discipline could be issued.
Respondent’s disparate treatment of Camposano and another
employee, Stranz, in the same timeframe also supports a find-
ing that the August 18 written warning was motivated by anti-
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1143
union animus rather than the stated reason. Although
Bolognese admitted that Respondent follows a progressive
discipline system that he tried to enforce fairly, the record re-
veals wide differences in the disciplines previously issued to
unit employees and the discipline Camposano received in this
case. The record reveals that Bolognese issued discipline to
many other employees in the relevant timeframe, and that in all
of the other cases, he issued discipline in a timely manner (all
within a few days of the incident). Here, by contrast Bolognese
inexplicably waited for an inordinate amount of time to issue
discipline for behavior, if true, calls for immediate correction if
correction was the goal.
With respect to the August 18, 2004 written warning for
“unacceptable behavior” on August 6, it appears from the tes-
timony and supporting documentation that the warning is es-
sentially for alleged insubordination. Indeed, the Kevorkian
memo calls Camposano’s actions “a clear cut case of insubor-
dination.” Yet the record reveals that not all insubordination is
treated equally. Stranz provided credible testimony in this
regard.
In September 2004, just weeks after the Camposano written
warning, Stranz had a confrontation with Production Manager
Muessel, Bolognese’s direct supervisor. Stranz testified with-
out contradiction that Muessel approached him in September
about the speed of a “hopper loader” when Stranz told him, “I’d
appreciate it if you wouldn’t break my balls,” then walked
away. Muessel returned to him and told him he appreciated his
frustration with the way things are running, “But don’t ever talk
to me again like that, or I’ll fire you.” Later that day, Muessel
told Stranz to report to his office the next morning, but Stranz
“snapped back at him, I says, I don’t come in here on my own
time.” On his way home that evening, he phoned Camposano,
who advised him to do as Muessel said, adding, “Why blow
your job?”
Stranz heeded Camposano’s advice, and met with Muessel
the next day on his own time. Stranz testified that they mutu-
ally apologized to each other, and that Muessel added that “I
know we’ve all been under a lot of stress with this Union thing,
but it’s all over now. We got to get this behind us and move
on. Respondent did not discipline Stranz over this incident.
However, unbeknownst to Stranz (and only discovered pursu-
ant to General Counsel’s trial subpoena) it was revealed that in
fact Muessel had recorded his version of the incident in a short
memo, which largely corroborates Stranz’ version. Thus
Stranz, who had far less union activity than Camposano, was
sent home 4-1/2 hours early and merely received a secret memo
to his personnel file for telling Muessel to stop busting his
balls.
Moreover, Stranz’ testimony is consistent with Camposano’s
testimony that Muessel made a similar sounding remark to him
following the August 6 incident: “I’ll be glad when this Union
shit is over, because it’s putting stress on everybody.” Muessel,
present throughout the hearing, did not rebut any of this testi-
mony.
For the reasons set forth above and for those set out below, I
find the motivation for the warning and sending Camposano
home in August was not for the reasons asserted by Respon-
dent, but the result of animus toward Camposano because of his
union activism, and thus a violation of the Act.
c. Respondent suspended Camposano in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
As reflected by the entire record, including a review of Re-
spondent’s prehearing position statement, it is clear that the
suspension was primarily based on the events of December 23–
24, 2004. In spite of this, no discipline issued until January 7,
2005. Respondent argues on brief that this delay was necessary
to take the time and steps to ensure that it was on sound legal
grounds before imposing discipline. I agree with General
Counsel that it appears that the time was taken to build a case
against Camposano and for no other reason. Neither Stranz nor
Friedlander was questioned about the December 23–24 inci-
dent, although both played leading roles. Bolognese never
bothered to even ask how long it took Stranz and Camposano to
fix the motor. Instead, Respondent seized on Camposano’s
minor wiring error as an excuse, or pretext, to issue harsh disci-
pline. There is a total lack of evidence that an in-depth good-
faith investigation ever occurred.
In the suspension notice, Respondent blamed Camposano for
“failing to demonstrate any urgency in getting the job done” on
December 23–24, and claimed that his “actions for this one
problem twice jeopardized production.” These claims are not
correct. Moreover, Respondent attempted to show during its
cross-examination of Camposano that if his wiring mistake had
gone undetected serious consequences would have followed.
On this point, Respondent introduced no direct evidence of its
own, relying instead on the cross-examination of Camposano
and Friedlander.
Respondent’s counsel suggested in his cross-examination of
Camposano that if the rotation direction had gone undetected,
the reel “would have rotated, it would have stopped, and the
knife blades would have come down and crashed into the reel
and broken.” Camposano considered this suggestion and then
answered that “a web up on top would have picked up the slack
and it would have shut down. The knife would never have
come down.” Freidlander testified that had he not caught the
wiring error the morning of December 24, the pressmen almost
certainly would have. As Friedlander credibly explained, “So,
assuming they (the pressmen) know which button they were
pushing, they would automatically know it’s going the wrong
way.” In the “worst case scenario,” in which the pressmen
failed to check the press before running it, only then would the
web break—but only if the pressmen failed to hit the stop but-
ton right away. Freidlander testified that so-called “web
breaks” though not desirable, are not uncommon.
Freidlander also testified that pressroom problems occur fre-
quently, and employees are not normally suspended for trying
to fix them. Moreover, it is not disputed that Bolognese left
work as late as 6 p.m. on December 23, having made no effort
to ensure that the problem motor was repaired beyond having
Friedlander call Camposano to come in early. If the problem
could have catastrophic consequences, why not correct it well
before the night’s run? Respondent’s expert witness, Del
Varney, admitted that it would make more sense to correct such
a problem in the day time rather than leaving it to chance at
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1144
night during a press run. Friedlander was not asked to stay over
his shift, evidence revealing that the motor problem was not
initially deemed such a serious one by either management or its
lead mechanic.
What happened was that the motor was much harder to re-
pair and ultimately replace than anyone had anticipated. Fur-
ther, the night press crew ran into unexpected problems trying
to bypass the broken reel. Somehow this was all Camposano’s
fault.
What was the exact reason for Camposano’s discipline? The
suspension memo cites a number of reasons, yet in his testi-
mony, Bolognese initially focused on the length of time it took
to attempt to fix and then replace the problem motor.
Bolognese’s testimony that he spoke with Kevorkian at 12:30
a.m. on December 24 is not supported by Kevorkian and is not
credible. Bolognese claimed that Kevorkian called him at
12:30 a.m. and told him that “the unit was still hard down and
that they were not running the press.” But Respondent’s press
report for the shift contradicts this alleged statement by
Kevorkian: the press report shows that the involved press, press
A began running at 12:46 a.m. and ran several thousand papers.
Similarly, Bolognese’s claim that Kevorkian told him that
Camposano and Stranz had not even begun to change the motor
is simply unsupported by the credible evidence. All such evi-
dence indicated that by 12:30 a.m., Stranz and Camposano
were engaged in the process of changing the motor, which by
all accounts took them over 2-1/2 hours. Even Freidlander, the
only person involved who had actually changed such a motor
until this event, testified that even if a mechanic knew how to
do the job, it would take up to 3 hours.
If the time it took to solve the problem of the motor was such
a big deal, one would think a manager would have inquired
about the facts of what Stranz and Camposano did on the in-
volved evening. But Bolognese did not. He did not question
Freidlander or Stranz.
It is undisputed that Camposano made an honest mistake in
wiring the motor late in the shift and after hours of work. The
mistake caused no problem other than taking Friedlander 10 or
15 minutes to correct. However, until a portion of Bolognese’s
direct testimony, the primary concern outlined in the suspen-
sion memo and in his meeting with Camposano on December
28 was why it took so long to change the motor. Bolognese
returned to this theme in his testimony: “Then I asked why he
took so long. Why the motor wasn’t just changed immediately
and it was stated that he had to troubleshoot it and that it’s not
an easy job.” Clearly at the time of the suspension the matter
of the length of time Camposano took was the primary concern
of Bolognese. However, if that were true, then there can be no
rational explanation of why Camposano’s partner in the repair
and replacement process, Stranz, was not even spoken to about
the events of that night, much less disciplined.
Perhaps realizing this blatant disparate treatment of the two
workers, Bolognese’s reasoning began to shift. On cross-
examination, he provided a new version of the problem with
Camposano’s work: “The problem is that it (the motor) was
left running in reverse. That’s the problem.” When asked how
that problem, which was not even revealed to be a problem
until 6 or 7 hours later that morning, could have cost the crew a
night of production, Bolognese answered, “We run two presses
every night. When you don’t run one press for some reason
you’re losing a night of production.” Aside from the fact is
wrong as Respondent did run press A for a portion of the De-
cember 23–24 run, there was no lost production or any other
adverse consequence resulting from Camposano’s wiring error
or the time it took to replace the broken motor.
Respondent failed to keep a consistent story with respect to
the reasons for the harsh discipline issued to Camposano, and
Respondent’s internal documents do not support its version of
the events. There is a clear emphasis in the written suspension
notice concerning Camposano’s lack of “urgency,” as it is men-
tioned three times in various places. Yet Respondent, likely
aware of the problems in urging this theory given that Stranz
was not disciplined at all and Freidlander effectively negated
the notion that the time Camposano took was out of line, at-
tempted to subtlety shift its defense at hearing. If Camposano’s
wiring error was the “real problem,” why then is there but one
such reference to it in the suspension notice, where there are
numerous references to his supposed “lack of urgency?” If this
was the “real problem,” how is it that Bolognese could recall no
discussion of that critical matter in the December 28 meeting to
chastise Camposano about his “attitude?” And, why are em-
ployees, except for Camposano, not being routinely suspended
for honest mistakes? Determining the proper direction of the
reelstand is not something that Camposano knew nor did
Stranz.
With respect to this suspension, the record is rife with exam-
ples of disparate treatment. The record reveals that Respondent
only suspends employees under very rare circumstances, and
then only for multiple infractions, such as repeated fighting
with coworkers. In fact, other than the well-documented fights
between pressman John Benedetti and two coworkers, the re-
cord is devoid of any evidence of any other employee sus-
pended by Respondent.17
Employees receive written warnings, not suspensions, for
routine performance mistakes. Thus Arleen Claudio received
only a written warning for making a mistake which caused five
advertisers to be left out of the March 11, 2004 paper.
Bolognese issued the warning on March 16, only 5 days after
the incident.
Quintin Ying failed to check his work and missed an insert
on July 1, 2004; Respondent issued him a written warning on
July 7. On April 26, 2004, Robert James disregarded safety
procedures (driving too fast moving skids) endangering other
employees; he received a warning on April 28. Moreover,
company records reveal that employee James had earlier com-
mitted “negligence” in his duties and only received a warning
for the February 2004 incident. Other employees have left
work without notice, caused significant amounts of down time,
or waste, yet received only verbal or written warnings.

17 See GC Exhs. 23, 24. The record reveals that Respondent sus-
pended the two employees in September 2004 after one employee “spit,
pushed and kicked” the second, and the second employee “pushed and
struck” the first employee. The first employee was suspended for a
partial day and 4 full days, while the second employee was suspended
for a partial day and 2 full days.
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1145
Even when actual, not hypothetical, production is lost, em-
ployees are not routinely suspended. Thus, employee Handy
caused a loss of 4 hours of production on June 15, 2004;
Bolognese noted in the June 17 written warning that “this is not
the first time we have plates with the wrong page imposition,
and this is not the first time you had to be called in to correct
the problem.” Finally, the record reveals that Bolognese issued
timely warnings to three employees on April 5, 2004, over an
incident of April 3, clearly showing that his practice was to
timely discipline all employees involved in production prob-
lems, including Supervisor Kevorkian. Of course, this was
months before the union campaign had begun.
In the instant case, no production was lost as the result of
Camposano’s and Stranz’ work trying to fix the broken motor
and ultimately replacing it. No production was lost by the error
in rewiring the replacement motor, an error that took only 10 to
15 minutes to fix. Even Friedlander, no supporter of the union
effort, was surprised to hear of the harsh discipline meted out to
Camposano over this matter. Respondent made no effort to
explain the differences in its treatment of Camposano vis a vis
other employees as noted herein. The glaring disparate treat-
ment of Camposano supports the inference that the real motive
for his discipline was an unlawful one. Med West Health Care
Mgt. Corp., 276 NLRB 1300, 1302 (1985). Respondent simply
failed to convincingly show that it has followed a consistent
pattern of enforcing its rules of conduct, and other employees
accused of far more serious misconduct, incidents involving
actual production loss, waste, and loss of advertising, were
treated far more leniently. See Scott Lee Guttering Co., 295
NLRB 497 (1989).
Respondent had no good reason for placing all the blame for
the December 23–24 incident on Camposano. I believe and
find that it did so and punished him harshly, to send a clear
message to anyone else contemplating supporting a union orga-
nizing effort at its newspaper. If Respondent was truly inter-
ested in treating employees fairly and correcting workplace
misconduct, rather than seizing on any excuse to discipline the
leading union activist and “troublemaker,” surely it would have
at least interviewed Stranz to find out the truth of the events in
question.
Timing of the discipline also supports my finding that it was
unlawfully motivated, as Camposano engaged in protected
concerted activity just 1 day before Respondent drafted the
suspension notice.18 Respondent offered no plausible reason
for the 2-week delay in “correcting” Camposano’s “attitude”
problem. It has long been observed by the Board that charac-
terizations of an employee’s attitude must be viewed with cau-
tion, and that “employer complaints about ‘bad attitude’ are
often euphemisms for prounion sentiments, particularly where
there is no alternative explanation for the perceived ‘attitude’
problem.” Boddy Construction Co., 338 NLRB 538 (2003).
The Board has similarly found that calling an employee a
“troublemaker” is evidence of animus. See United Parcel Ser-
vice, 340 NLRB 776 (2003).

18 The January 5, 2005 meeting where in Camposano inquired about
alleged promises made during the union campaign and complained that
nothing had changed.
The January 5, 2005 “reel #5” incident is a red herring, a vir-
tual nonevent. Unlike the December 23–24 incident, this inci-
dent generated no storm of e-mails, no internal memos, and did
not even merit a mention in Respondent’s prehearing position
statement. Bolognese admitted that he would not have sus-
pended Camposano over this incident alone, testimony indicat-
ing that Respondent only added this to the mix to try to buttress
a questionable management action. Clearly, if Respondent was
intent on correcting what it perceived to be an “attitude” prob-
lem, it offered no legitimate reason for having waited until
January 7, 2005, over 2 weeks from the events of December 24,
2004, to issue corrective discipline. The only intervening event
was Camposano’s protected conduct in the meeting of January
5. Although Bolognese admitted twice in his testimony that he
really does not know whether or not Camposano removed the
relay at reel 5 and left it laying in the bottom of the electrical
panel, that fact did not stop him from accusing Camposano of
having done precisely that. In any event, Respondent evidently
felt compelled to add this matter to bolster its case. The intro-
duction of minor unsubstantiated matters that would not war-
rant discipline standing alone is a further indication of unlawful
motive. Master Security Services, 270 NLRB 543 (1984).
Based on all of the above, I find that Respondent has failed
to rebut the General Counsel’s prima facie case. Respondent
offered various reasons for suspending Camposano, yet, as
shown above, none of them withstand scrutiny. The Board has
long observed that relevant in determining motivation is an
employer’s “use of a multiplicity of alleged reasons for disci-
plinary action.” Master Security Services, supra. And, as the
Board has noted, “[w]here an employer’s stated motive for
discharging an employee is false, the inference is justified that
the employee desires to conceal the true motive and that the
true motive is unlawful, at least where, as here, the surrounding
facts tend to reinforce the inference.” Triple H Electric Co.,
323 NLRB 549 fn. 2 (1997). Here, the surrounding facts and
circumstances, timing of the suspension, and disparate treat-
ment, more than adequately reinforce the inference of unlawful
motive. Accordingly I find that Respondent’s suspension of
Camposano was motivated by antiunion animus and that the
reasons it advance were pretextual. Thus Respondent’s actions
in this regard violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Journal Register East d/b/a New Haven Reg-
ister, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Laborers’ International Union of North Amer-
ica, Local Union No. 455, AFL–CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by issuing
a memorandum asking employees to report to management the
union activities of other employees.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
issuing a written warning to its employee Robert Camposano
on August 18, 2004, and by suspending him on January 7,
2005, because he engaged in union or other protected concerted
activities.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1146
5. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent af-
fect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily suspended its em-
ployee Robert Camposano, it must 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 rein-
statement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
I shall also recommend that the Respondent be required to
remove from its files any reference to the unlawful written
warning issued Camposano on August 18, 2004, and the unlaw-
ful suspension given Camposano on January 7, 2005, and notify
Camposano in writing that this has been done and that it will
not use these adverse actions against him in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended19
ORDER
The Respondent, Journal Register East d/b/a New Haven
Register, New Haven, Connecticut, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Issuing memorandums to employees asking them to re-
port on the union activities of other employees.
(b) Issuing written warnings to employees because they en-
gage in union or other protected concerted activities.
(c) Issuing suspensions to employees because they engage in
union or other protected concerted activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days of this Order, make Robert Camposano
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 this decision.
(b) Within 14 days of this Order, remove from the file of
Robert Camposano any reference to his unlawful written warn-
ing and suspension and within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
writing that this has been done and that his unlawful written
warning and suspension will not be used against him in any
way.

19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended 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.
(c) Preserve, and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place as 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.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in New Haven, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous 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 employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since January 18,
2005.
(e) 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.
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights.
More specifically,
WE WILL NOT ask that you report to us the union activities of
your fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT issue written warnings to you because you en-
gage in union or other protected concerted activities.

20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
NEW HAVEN REGISTER 1147
WE WILL NOT suspend you because you engage in union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL remove from the file of Robert Camposano any ref-
erence to his unlawful written warning and suspension and
notify him of this fact in writing.
WE WILL pay him for any wages and benefits he lost as a re-
sult of his unlawful suspension.
JOURNAL REGISTER EAST D/B/A NEW HAVEN REGISTER