Port Printing Ad and Specialities

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 7, 2007

15-CA-017976 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 7, 2007)

JD(ATL)-04-07
Lake Charles, LA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SEAPORT PRINTING & AD SPECIALTIES,
INC. D/B/A PORT PRINTING AD AND
SPECIALTIES
and Case No. 15-CA-17976
LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS
UNION, LOCAL 260 AFFILITED WITH
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC
Charles R. Rogers, Esq. for the General Counsel.
Edward J. Fonti, Esq. (Jones, Tete, Fonti & Belfour,
L.L.P.), of Lake Charles, LA, for the Respondent.
Mr. Vince Mott, of Lake Charles, LA, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
JOHN H. WEST, Administrative Law Judge: The charge was filed by Lake Charles
Printing and Graphics Union, Local 260 affiliated with Graphic Communications International
Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (Union) against Seaport Printing & Ad Specialties, Inc. d/b/a Port Printing
Ad and Specialties (Respondent) on March 31, 2006. It was amended on May 5, 2006. A
complaint issued on September 28, 2006, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act), by on October 17, 2005 laying off
four of its employees1 and by, beginning on or about October 2005, and continuing thereafter,
using non-bargaining unit employees and supervisors to perform bargaining unit work without

1 Vince Mott, Randy Soileau, Gail Courtney, and Renee Ellis. At the trial herein, the
complaint was amended to add the name of Joel Williams. The complaint alleges that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other employees of the Publisher operating
or assisting in the operation of the Employer’s printing presses, including gravure, offset and
letterpress printing presses and all other printing presses of whatsoever type or process of
printing operated by such Publisher. The Publisher further recognizes the Union as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged in the making of offset plates;
stripping, etching, opaquing and any and all functions prepatory to the making and/or
manufacture of offset printing plates.
And the complaint alleges that since at least February 1997 and at all material times, the Union
has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the above-described
unit, the Union has been recognized as the Representative by the Respondent, and this
recognition has been embodied in successive collective bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which was effective from February 28, 2003 to February 28, 2004.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with
Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct. Respondent denies
violating the Act as alleged.2
A trial was held in this matter on December 4 and 5, 2006, in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
On the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by Counsel for General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business in Lake
Charles, Louisiana has been engaged in furnishing printing and typesetting services. The
Respondent admits that annually in conducting its operations it purchases and receives at its
Lake Charles facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Louisiana. The Respondent admits, and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. The Union, at
all material times, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
In Port Printing Ad & Specialties, 344 NLRB No. 34 (March 7, 2005) the National Labor
Relations Board (Board) concluded that Respondent, by its conduct in 2003 and 2004,
unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union.
Mott, who has worked for the Respondent for about 24 years and has been President of
the Union for about 10 years "off and on" (on for the last 5 years), testified that his last day
working at Respondent was a couple of days prior to Hurricane Rita or about September 22,
2005; that Respondent is a commercial printer of brochures, business cards, letterheads, and

2 In its answer, filed October 6, 2006, to the complaint, Respondent asserts that on October
17, 2005 it notified all employees that the destruction occasioned by Hurricane Rita to the
Respondent's building and equipment and the resulting loss of business would not allow
Respondent to immediately recall employees to their jobs; that employees were separated from
employment because of the aforementioned effects of Hurricane Rita and the separation was
not the result of a unilateral decision by Respondent; that for short periods of time, sporadic in
nature, Respondent did utilize non-bargaining unit employees and supervisors to perform a
small amount of bargaining unit work for a brief time because conditions did not allow
Respondent to recall to work bargaining unit employees; that on October 17, 2005 Respondent
provided notice to the Union in a letter to Union President Mott, indicating that Respondent did
not know how long employees would be separated from employment and provided the reasons
why the separation would be for an unknown length of time; and that notwithstanding that the
notice provided an opportunity for the Union to request bargaining over the temporary
separation from employment, the Union did not request bargaining nor did it protest the notice.
Additionally, Respondent argues that the complaint allegation that Respondent did not provide
the Union the opportunity to bargain over the effects of the alleged misconduct should be
dismissed since it was not alleged in either the original charge or the amended charge. The
original charge does refer to Respondent laying off bargaining unit employees without notifying
and/or bargaining with the Union regarding the decision to layoff the employees "and the effects
of the layoff." (emphasis added)
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
envelopes; that at Respondent he operated and maintained the four offset presses3 and the one
letter press; that his main job was to work the big press and otherwise Joseph Soileau, Jr., who
was the production supervisor, would tell him what job to work; that he and Randy Soileau held
the position of pressman, and Joel Williams worked at this position on a part-time basis; that the
job classification position pre-press includes camera stripping (strip up negatives to make offset
plates), typesetting (set the forms by computer to do the layout of the job), and composing; that
the camera stripping position was held by Gail Courtney; that the classification of typesetter was
held by Jutta Zienow; that the classification of bindery involves the finishing of print jobs with
perforating, padding, folding, numbering, etc.; that Jane (Meche) Soileau and Ellis held the
classification of bindery employees, with Ellis holding less seniority than Jane (Meche) Soileau;
that he is the most senior full-time employee at Respondent, with (in terms of seniority)
Courtney, Jane (Meche) Soileau, Randy Soileau, Jutta Zienow, and Ellis following him4; that
when Hurricane Rita hit he evacuated to Pensacola, Florida, returning, as here pertinent, to
Lake Charles a couple of weeks after the Hurricane; that when he could not contact Joseph
Soileau, Jr., who is the production manager, Vice President and co-owner of the Respondent,
or Gloria Robinson, who is co-owner and President of the Respondent, while he was in Florida,
he telephoned Lannis Soileau and gave him his cell number and the name of the hotel in Florida
where he was staying; that Lannis Soileau told him that the facility leased by Respondent
sustained some damage and Joseph Soileau, Jr. and Robinson had a $1,000.00 check for each
employee; that a couple of days after he returned to Lake Charles he telephoned Joseph
Soileau, Jr., who told him that the building leased by the Respondent had some damage and it
did not have electricity yet; and that he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that if there was anything he,
Mott, could do to let him know.
On cross-examination Mott testified that his separation from employment with Port
Printing began on or about September 22, 2005 when Mayor Roach ordered the evacuation of
Lake Charles; that before the hurricane he worked primarily on the Heidelberg core, the Komori
two-color, and the Heidelberg letter press; and that the press that Randy Soileau usually
operated produced smaller jobs like envelopes and business cards.
Courtney testified that she worked at Port Printing for 29 years before Hurricane Rita;
that she worked in pre-press as a camera and press room stripper; that she evacuated Lake
Charles when Hurricane Rita hit, and she returned to Lake Charles the Tuesday after the storm;
that after she returned she went to Port Printing and she spoke with Robinson, asking Robinson
about her job status; that Robinson "said that she didn't know. We'd have to wait and see. There
was mold in the building, and they didn't want anybody there" (transcript page 86); that at that
time she saw people working there; that she saw (1) Jane (Meche) Soileau working in bindery,
pulling jackets off the shelf, and going through them, (2) Lannis Soileau working in her area and
the press area, and (3) Jutta Zienow doing typesetting, in addition to some people working in
the office; that she went back to Port Printing two or three times more to check on her job
status; that each time Robinson told her that she did not know anything and Robinson could not
give her any answers; that the second time she went to Port Printing she saw Lannis Soileau
operating two presses, going back and forth between the two, Zienow was doing the
typesetting, and Jane (Meche) Soileau was still cleaning up the bindery area; that subsequently
Joseph Soileau, Jr. telephoned her, asking her questions about how to get the camera working;

3 Mott testified that Respondent has two smaller presses, namely two Ryobi 2800s which
handle up to 11 inch by 17 inch sheets, a Heidelberg offset press which handles up to 18 inch
by 25 inch sheets, a two-color Komori that handles up to 26 inch sheets and can run two colors
at a time, and a letter press used for cutting holes in or perforating jobs.
4 As noted above, Joel Williams is a part-time employee.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
that she went to Port Printing and remedied the problem, and while she was at Port Printing she
saw Lannis and Jane (Meche) Soileau and Zienow working; that Zienow was doing the
typesetting, Jane was in the bindery and Lannis was in the camera room and the stripping area
where she normally worked; that when she was there to get the camera running, she again
asked Robinson about "our job status" (transcript page 89) and Robinson said that she did not
know anything, "they would have to wait and see" (Id.); and that she has been a member of the
Union ever since she started employment at Port Printing.
On cross-examination Courtney testified that two or three years before she testified
herein she stopped paying Union dues for about two or three months and then she signed back
on and became a union member again; that she was sure that she visited Port Printing in
October or November 2005 but "after the storm was a big blur. I was still … [living] in my
driveway, dealing with the death of my dad." (transcript page 90)
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that after Hurricane Rita she did not see
Courtney until January 2006; that Courtney came to Port Printing in October 2005 to pay for her
COBRA for November 2005 but Courtney did that with Respondent's bookkeeper; that in
November 2005 when the COBRA payment for December 2005 was due Courtney did not
come to Port Printing so Respondent's bookkeeper unsuccessfully telephoned Courtney; that
she tried to telephone Courtney for a couple of weeks but she never could get Courtney; that
she did not see Courtney in December 2005; that in January 2006 Courtney did come to Port
Printing; that she did not recall seeing Courtney on a number of occasions coming to Port
Printing and asking her about when she, Courtney, could return to work; and that while she did
not want to take Courtney off COBRA if Courtney wanted it, Respondent could not get in touch
with her and Courtney was eventually taken off insurance.
When called by Respondent Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he never had a
conversation with Courtney between October 17, 2005 and when he testified at the trial herein
on December 6, 2006.
When called by Counsel for General Counsel, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he
evacuated Lake Charles when Hurricane Rita hit in September 2005; that when he returned to
Lake Charles on September 28, 2005 he inspected the facility which Respondent leased and
found that it was damaged.
When called by Port Printing, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Port Printing closed on
September 22, 2005 when a mandatory evacuation was declared by the Mayor of Lake Charles
on that morning; that employees were advised that if they were out of town the following
Monday they should telephone and tell management where they were if they could not get back
to work; that Hurricane Rita was a category 3 when it hit Lake Charles; that he returned to Lake
Charles on September 28; that he went to Port Printing the next day to check the condition of
the facility; that Port Printing has a two-color Komori printing press, a one-color Heidelberg
press, two Ryobi presses, and a Heidelberg windmill, which is a die cutting press; that Mott
operated the two-color Komori, the one-color Heidelberg, and the letter press; that the Ryobi
presses were mainly operated by Randy Soileau and sometimes by Joel Williams, who retired
and works on a part-time basis; that he, along with Jane (Meche) Soileau, took photographs
which show the condition of the facility, Respondent's Exhibit 2; that after the hurricane he
contacted employees and told them that Port Printing did not have electricity, Respondent was
not sure when it would get power, there was some damage but until Respondent got electricity it
would not be able to get back online, and they just needed to stay in contact until further notice;
that Mott contacted him from Florida to let Respondent know where he was; that Randy Soileau,
who is his nephew, is the son of Lannis Soileau and is Mott's cousin; that Mott is his first cousin;
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
that Randy Soileau received the October 17, 2005 notice; that Randy Soileau resigned from
employment with Port Printing (See Respondent's Exhibit 6.); that Joel Williams, who was
working part-time and full-time before Hurricane Rita hit Lake Charles, was not asked to work at
Port Printing after Hurricane Rita because Respondent did not have any work for him; that
Williams mostly did deliveries and sometimes he would run the small or large press
(Heidelberg); that delivery work was not bargaining unit work but the press work was; that
Williams did contact Port Printing after Hurricane Rita; that he, Joseph Soileau, Jr., did not do
any work on the big press after Hurricane Rita, he did work beginning in 2006 on the small
press a couple of times a week, and he did not keep any records of how much work he did on
the small press; that there were times when he operated one small press and Lannis Soileau
operated the other small press; that he worked on the small press because "at the time we
didn't have anybody to do it" (transcript page 162); that Mott was not brought back to do the
work that Lannis Soileau was doing because Mott "indicated that he wasn't going to work under
these conditions," (Id.) which referred to mainly the mold; and that eventually Mott indicated that
he would be interested in returning to work at Port Printing even though conditions had not
really changed.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that the mold affected the majority of
the press room; that a lot of the small press plates which were kept in stock for repeat jobs were
damaged with mold and had to be redone; that it was Courtney's job to do the plates for the
small press; and that Respondent had about 5,000 plates from previous jobs, a small portion of
the plates were damaged, and it was not a great deal to redo the plates that were still needed.
On rebuttal Mott testified that he might have telephoned Joseph Soileau, Jr. from Florida
to find out the condition of the building Port Printing leased.
Robinson handles the financial area, maintains a client list, and supervises the sales
people, the customer service department, the receptionist and the bookkeeping department.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he and Robinson decided
to provide a $1,000.00 check to employees because Respondent was within a few days of
payroll and they knew that they would not be doing payroll for a while; that it took a few weeks
to get the checks to the employees since mail was not delivered yet and he and Robinson
delivered them to the employees; and that he thought that he delivered the check to Mott right
before the electric power was restored to Port Printing.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that the $1,000 checks were written on
September 28, 2005; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. delivered the checks to the employees in the
northern part of the city and she delivered the checks to the three employees in the south
because that is where she lives; that she was not able to get to Courtney's house, and later
when she could get to Courtney's house no one was there; that later Courtney refused the
$1,000 check when she was at Port Printing speaking with Respondent's bookkeeper after the
electrical power was restored to Port Printing; and that she did not actually see Courtney during
this visit to Port Printing.
On October 8, 2005 electrical power was restored to the facility Respondent leased.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that once Respondent got power it
started the clean up, tried to salvage any of the work it had in the facility, and contacted
customers to determine if they still needed the jobs which were being worked on at the time of
the hurricane; that on jobs which had already been printed all that was left was bindery work,
which would include either folding, numbering, padding, cutting, putting it in books with a staple
and cover, or binding with a spiral binding; that before the hurricane hit Jane (Meche) Soileau
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
and Ellis performed the binding work in the bargaining unit; that Jane (Meche) Soileau is
married to Lannis Soileau; that Jane (Meche) Soileau was called back to do the bindery work
right after the power was restored because she had worked for Port Printing for 15 years and
had more seniority than Ellis; that actually Jane (Meche) Soileau volunteered to help do some
cleanup; that Jutta Zienow was recalled pretty quickly to do graphic work or layouts on the
computer; that Port Printing needed the art or graphic work files to be able to send as much
work out as possible; that the art work department was not damaged; that the production area
suffered a lot of damage and the bindery area had to be moved back into the stock room area;
that within a short period after the power was restored both Jane (Meche) Soileau and Zienow
were working full time or 40 hours a week; that Loc and David Huddle owned the building which
Port Printing leased; that David Huddle agreed to have Service Masters work on the mold in the
building; that this work began a couple of weeks after the power was restored to the building;
that the Huddles put tarps on the roof but they leaked; that tarps had to be placed inside of the
building under the rafters to direct the flow of the water, and the printers had to be covered with
visqueen; that the roof leaked until August 2006 when it was replaced; that Courtney often
performed pre-press work for the Komori, one of the big presses which was destroyed; that the
majority of Courtney's pre-press work involved work that was going to move through the two big
presses that Mott operated; that the operation of the two little presses did not require as much of
Courtney's pre-press work because a lot of the small press work is repeat work so Port Printing
already has the plates and everything already made and they can be reused which means that
they do not have to go to pre-press; that on the small press jobs which do have to go to pre-
press they require minimal time to get ready for the press; that if it is a full-color job, there will be
a lot more time involved in stripping; that the Heidelberg press which Mott operated before the
hurricane is operable; that since the hurricane Port Printing has contracted out work that it
previously performed; that after the hurricane Port Printing had Zienow do the art work at its
facility so that its customers could see the proofs, and then Port Printing sends the art work to a
factory to have the printing work done; that the fact that Port Printing sent out production work
pretty much eliminated the work that Courtney would be doing; that the contracting out of work
after Hurricane Rita eliminated about 90 percent of the work that Mott produced before
Hurricane Rita; that after October 8, 2005 when power was restored the Heidelberg press was
not operated; that he did not operate the Heidelberg; that Lannis Soileau did operate the
Heidelberg after Hurricane Rita because Port Printing still had a few jobs that it was not able to
contract out; and that the jobs were one or two color jobs which could be done under the
conditions which existed at the time.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that after Hurricane Rita he did the
camera stripping work at Port Printing starting in November 2005, doing about 8 hours a week;
that after the electric power was restored he called Jane (Meche) Soileau, who with her
husband - Lannis - had helped with the clean up before the power was restored, and told her to
come into Port Printing to do bindery work; and that he telephoned Zienow to let her know that
he wanted her to come back to work.
Mott testified that after the electrical power was restored to the facility Respondent was
leasing, he went by the facility about once a week; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that he did
not know how long it would be before the building would be fixed and the employees could all
get back in there to go to work; that in the beginning of October 2005 he had a conversation
with Randy Soileau (not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show the basis
of Mott's subsequent action) in which Randy told him that he was not working at Port Printing
but his, Randy's, father, Lannis Soileau, was in there running the small presses, doing some
work, getting jobs out for customers; that the next day when he went to Port Printing to see for
himself, he saw Lannis Soileau operating the small press; that Lannis Soileau said the he was
getting some work out for the customers; that he then went and spoke with Joseph Soileau, Jr.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
and asked him what was going on; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that (a) they were just trying
to complete orders they already had for customers that needed the product, and (b) they were
probably going to be contracting out jobs since apparently they would not be able to do any
more work; that he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that if there was anything he, Mott, could do to just
let him know; that during every one of his weekly visits to the Port Printing facility from the
beginning of October 2005 until December 2005 he saw Lannis Soileau working the presses;
that on one of his visits he saw Lannis Soileau running the Heidelberg press; that not too long
after the electricity was restored to the Port Printing facility, Joseph Soileau, Jr. asked him,
during one of his visits to the Port Printing facility, if he would check the two-color Komori; that
he turned the power on to that press, realized that it was not working properly, and shut the
power off; and that when he turned the power on to the Heidelberg press he realized that the
three phase was hooked up backwards and the press was running in reverse, which had to be
fixed.
On cross-examination Mott testified that one Sunday after the electric power was
restored to the building Port City leased, he and his wife went to the building; that the
bookkeeper was in the building; that he told the bookkeeper that if they wanted him to work in
the building, they were going to have to get him a respirator, a mask to wear; that he said this
because when he turned on the light he could see all the mold and he could smell it in the air;
that a couple of weeks later he told Lannis Soileau the same thing because there still was a lot
of mold and an odor; that he believed that it would have been unsafe to work under those
conditions; and that he told Lannis Soileau that running the little press would not be his favorite
thing to do but he would do it.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he did not see Mott at Port
Printing in the production area once a week after power was restored; and that Mott never
asked him about Lannis Soileau operating the small presses.
On about October 10, 2005, according to the testimony of Joseph Soileau, Jr. when
called by Counsel for General Counsel, the employee who did the binding work, Jane (Meche)
Soileau, was brought back to work. Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Respondent completed
work which was not damaged and which customers needed, and that most of the work was sent
to another printing shop to have done; that Jane (Meche) Soileau is his sister-in-law; that while
the collective bargaining agreement refers to seniority governing layoffs and rehires, seniority is
determined on the basis of job classification seniority and there was no one other than Jane
(Meche) Soileau who was in the same job classification who could have done this work; that
employee Vince Mott, who was the most senior employee at Respondent, had done very little
bindery work; that Courtney, who was the second most senior employee at Respondent, had
done bindery work before; that Section 18 of the collective bargaining agreement, General
Counsel's Exhibit 5, indicates that layoffs and recalls should be done by seniority; that Section
15 of the collective bargaining agreement refers to change in the workforce and this section
specifies that employees should be recalled and laid off in order of seniority; that before
Hurricane Rita, Lannis Soileau, his brother, worked in sales and was not part of the bargaining
unit; that sometime in October Lannis Soileau began to run the presses, and he was still running
the presses at the time of the trial herein in December 20065; that prior to Hurricane Rita Lannis

5 His time cards were received as General Counsel's Exhibit 6. They begin with the two-
week pay period ending on October 31, 2005 and cover up to the pay period ending June 15,
2006. During this period, according to the time cards, Lannis Soileau's bimonthly hours went
from the low 40s to as high as 101.75 hours. His total hours worked during this period is
1,186.25. In other words, in this 35 week period Lannis Soileau worked an average of 33.86
Continued
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Soileau did not fill out time cards; that Lannis Soileau started filling out time cards in October
2005 because he was doing press work; and that Lannis Soileau's time cards show the amount
of time that Lannis Soileau was doing bargaining unit work after October 2005.
On cross-examination Mott testified that based on the collective bargaining agreement,
Jane (Meche) Soileau was not the person Respondent should have first called back after
Hurricane Rita; that since he had the most seniority with the Respondent, he should have been
recalled before Jane (Meche) Soileau to do the bindery work; that he never told Joseph Soileau,
Jr. or Robinson that he expected to be called back to do the binding work instead of Jane
(Meche) Sioleau; and that the one job at Respondent that he could not do was typesetting and
he did not tell Joseph Soileau, Jr. or Robinson that he should have been recalled to do the
typesetting work before Zienow was recalled.
When called by Counsel for General Counsel, Robinson testified that Lannis Soileau,
who is a salesman with Respondent, offered to work the presses in October 2005 because
sales were down and he had nothing else to do; that since October 2005 Lannis Soileau ran the
presses, cleaned up, checked jobs to see how much was damaged, and worked on parts of the
presses that were not working at the time; and that when Joseph Soileau, Jr. could do the press
work he did it and when Joseph Soileau, Jr. could not do the press work Lannis Soileau did it.
General Counsel's Exhibit 4 is a one-page document on Respondent's letterhead, which
is dated October 17, 2005. It reads as follows:
Joe [Soileau] and I [Gloria Robinson] tried very hard to be fair and generous in dealing
with the aftermath of Hurricane Rita. For pay period September 16th - 30th, we actually
worked 4 of the 11 days. You were paid for the hours you actually worked and then we
paid the balance at 100% of what your pay would have been had you worked those 7
days. This equaled 86 hours for production and 88 hours for the office. For pay period
October 1st - 15th, we paid one-half of what your hours would have been had you been
working for those 10 days. You were paid for 80 hours @ 1/2 pay or 40 hours @ full pay,
whichever way you prefer to look at it. We are fortunate to be able to pay you. Those of
you who received the $1,000.00 advance will have it deducted from your wages at a rate
of $250.00 over 4 pay periods for semi-monthly employees and $500.00 over 2 pay
periods for monthly employees. The payback time is equal for both.
It was a hard decision for Joe and I to lay-off employees, but we felt it was the fair thing
to do as the company cannot continue to pay you while we are waiting for this building to
be repaired and for inspectors to tell us it is safe for you to come back to work in [sic].
That being said, we are just waiting, and have no idea as to a time frame for this to be
completed. The best we can do is to allow you the opportunity to be paid something with
unemployment benefits. We also understand that some of you may find employment
elsewhere and we know you have to do what is best for you and your families.
Of course we will do our best to keep everyone informed. Please call at anytime if you
have questions.
Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he and Robinson decided that this was the best thing that they
_________________________
hours per week. The bimonthly pay periods end on the 15th and the 30th or 31st. General
Counsel's Exhibits 14 and 15 are the daily job logs which reflect the jobs worked by Lannis
Soileau on printing presses collectively from January 16, 2006 to November 15, 2006.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
could do; and that neither of the pressmen, Mott and Randy Soileau, were ever recalled from
layoff. Robinson testified that she was involved in the decision to lay off employees in October
2005; that she discussed the decision with Joseph Soileau, Jr.; that the decision was based on
the condition, after Hurricane Rita, of the building Respondent leased and the fact that they
were unsure the amount of work that they would have; that she never contacted the Union prior
to making the decision to lay off employees "because I wasn't aware that I needed to" (transcript
page 35); that she never contacted the Union to discuss with them the process that would be
used in the layoff; and that Respondent never initiated any sort of bargaining with the Union
about this decision.
Mott testified that he received the above-described layoff notice, General Counsel's
Exhibit 4, when he was at Port Printing picking up his last paycheck; that at the time he told
Robinson that she did not have to lay the employees off in order for them to be able to draw
unemployment because they would be able to draw unemployment under the emergency
disaster unemployment; that Robinson said that she did not know but it did not matter in that
she was still laying off the employees; that he had signed up for disaster assistance which
included disaster unemployment, and he was about to receive his first check under that program
when he received the layoff notice from Port Printing; that he then spoke with Joseph Soileau,
Jr. telling him that the employees could draw unemployment without getting laid off; that Joseph
Soileau, Jr. said that he did not know when the building was going to be fixed up; that $500.00
was taken out of this paycheck by Port Printing and he was told that a total of $500.00 would be
taken out of future paychecks to pay back the $1,000.00 loan that Port Printing made to the
employees; that Port Printing never contacted him about bargaining about the layoff in any way;
and that he is qualified to do every job at Port Printing except typesetting.
On cross-examination Mott testified that the Union did not file a grievance under its
collective bargaining agreement with Port Printing with respect to whether or not the company
should have followed Section 186 or Section 157 in regard to the layoff and recall of bargaining
unit employees because Port Printing was not recognizing the Union, Port Printing was not
willing to bargain with the Union.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that on the day Mott maintains
that he received the October 17, 2005 notice Mott did not approach him in the production area
and tell him that he told Robinson that Port Printing did not have to lay people off because they
could draw their unemployment compensation without being laid off.

6 Section 18 of General Counsel's Exhibit 5 reads, as here pertinent, as follows:
A. It is agreed that seniority shall be determined on the basis of job classification
seniority,
i.e. employee with the greatest seniority within his present job classification will first be
offered a choice or be given preference and other employees will follow in the order
of their length of service in such job classification, with their present Employer.
7 Section 15 of General Counsel's Exhibit 5 reads as follows:
1. In the event of a reduction in the size of the working force the last to be employed
shall be the first to be laid off.
2. In the event of a subsequent increase in the size of the working force employees
shall be re-employed in the reverse order.
3. Except in cases of discharge for cause, the employer shall give one week's notice of
intention to discharge or lay off employees. When any employee intends to leave the
employ of the employer he shall give one week's notice.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that she did not have a conversation
with Mott on the day that the October 17, 2005 letters (notice of layoff) were provided to
employees; that she heard Mott's testimony about him coming to her and telling her that there
was no reason to put people on layoff because they were already receiving unemployment
compensation, but it did not happen; and that with respect to the layoff:
Joe and I met several times during then, trying to figure out what we were going to do
and who we could bring back and who we couldn't bring back, and we just - - it was a
very hard decision for us, because we'd never had a layoff in the whole time that I had
been at Port Printing, and we realized finally that we would need to lay some people off,
because we didn't have the work. [Transcript page 193]
Robinson further testified that at that point in time they did not know when the work might return;
that they did not know when the building was going to be fixed; that they were not sure about
the safety of the building and asking people to work in that environment; that none of the
employees telephoned her about the October 17, 2005 letter notice; that she helped answer the
telephone at Port Printing after Hurricane Rita; and that
Before we wrote the letter up, we checked the union contract, an in Section 18, I believe
it is - - Sections 15 and 18 talked about layoffs, and it said that - - Section , I think, 18
says seniority is based on - - is deemed to be based on job classification.
….
That whoever works in that job classification and has the longest time with the present
employer shall be given preference and choice first, and that seniority shall govern in
layoffs and rehires. And so that's what the basis of the [October 17, 2005] letter was, but
he [Mott] never asked me about any of that. [Transcript pages 212 and 213]
Further Robinson testified that Jane (Meche) Soileau had the most seniority in the job
classification of bindery and so she was the first to be called back to work.
On rebuttal Mott testified that the day he received the layoff letter notice was the day he
was getting his last check from Robinson and he went into her office and sat down across from
her while she was at her desk and he told her "[l]ook Gloria, you didn't need to lay us off,
because we could still draw disaster unemployment without being laid off" (transcript page 229);
and that Robinson "wasn't too concerned" (Id.).
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Mott came to Port Printing
in the latter part of October 2005, after the electric power was restored to the facility; that Mott
asked him what was being done to fix the damage; that he told Mott that the owners were
waiting on the insurance adjuster to assess the damage, they were in the process of getting
someone to remove the mold, and there would have to be an air quality test to make sure that it
was safe for everyone to come back; that Mott told him that he could not work under those
conditions until it was all cleared, and the first time he came through the shop, about one week
earlier, he had problems with his breathing from all the mold.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that when he had his conversation
with Mott in late October 2005 about, among other things, waiting to have the mold removed,
there were people already working in the facility.
On rebuttal Mott testified that he was sure that after he received the layoff letter he
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
basically went to Port Printing about every week.
Mott testified that at the end of November 2005 he spoke with Robinson alone in her
office about Lannis Soileau operating the machinery; that he told Robinson that he did not think
it was right for Lannis Soileau to be doing his, Mott's, job; that Robinson said that there was not
enough work to be full-time; that he told Robinson that every time he comes into Port Printing
"there's always work back there … a table full of jobs …. he's [Lannis Soileau] always running
the press, and everything that I seen showed that there'd be enough work, more than just a day
or two a week" (transcript pages 53 and 54); that Robinson did not respond; that he told Joseph
Soileau, Jr. the same thing; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that the building was not safe for
people to work in; and that he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that the building must be safe for some
people but not everybody.
On cross-examination Mott testified that at some point he was told by Respondent's
management something to the effect that they did have some press work but it was sporadic
and to call him back for one day at a time might interfere with his collecting unemployment; and
that at that time he was receiving unemployment compensation.
On redirect Mott testified that before Hurricane Rita, Respondent paid the whole
premium for his medical insurance; that while he was on unemployment compensation he had
to pay the medical insurance premium; and that if Respondent would have paid his medical
insurance "and stuff like that," (transcript page 84), it would have benefited him to work part-
time with the Respondent.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Mott came to his office in
Port Printing in November 2005 to get an update on the progress of the building; that Service
Master had taken as much of the mold out as they could get and they took the moisture out; that
they were still waiting on the air quality test; that Mott said that he had a problem with the mold,
and the only way he would come back at that time was with a respirator; that he mentioned that
Port Printing was sending a lot of work out but it was also doing some small press work in the
shop; and that he told Mott that Port Printing still had to get a service person out to check the
equipment.
On rebuttal Mott testified that he did not say anything about needing a respirator to come
to work to Joseph Soileau, Jr. during their November 2005 conversation; that Joseph Soileau,
Jr. asked him if he would mind working in the building and he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that he
would not have a problem with it; and that Joseph Soileau, Jr. said that it did not look like they
were going to be fixing the building or he hadn't heard anything about them fixing the building.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that her first post Rita meeting with Mott
occurred in the latter part of October 2005; that Mott had come in about his COBRA insurance;
that Mott asked her why Joseph and Lannis Soileau had been running his press or running the
presses; that she told Mott that Respondent had some work before the storm that they were
trying to complete, and Respondent did not think that it could bring in someone on a permanent
basis; that Respondent felt that it would be harder for an employee if Respondent brought the
employee in for a couple of days, laid them off, brought them in for another couple of days and
again laid them off; that Respondent felt that the employees could sign up for unemployment
and receive a steady source of income; that this meeting alone with Mott took place in her office
at Port Printing; that her next meeting with Mott occurred in the middle to late November 2005;
and that at the November 2005 meeting Mott spoke about his 401(k) and he asked her about
the condition of the building (which he also asked about in the earlier meeting with her) and she
told Mott that they were still waiting on the air quality control test results and David Huddle had
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
yet to indicate whether he was going to repair the building.
On rebuttal Mott testified that Robinson's testimony that he never talked to her about the
getting his job back is not accurate; that in November 2005 he walked into Port Printing and
asked Robinson why Lannis Soileau was doing his, Mott's, job; that Robinson told him that she
could bring him back but it would only be for a day or two; that he told Robinson that it looked
like there was enough work to keep somebody busy because every time he came in there was
work; that Robinson did not offer to bring him back; and that several years back he served as
foreman, running the production department, handing out work assignments, and scheduling
jobs, which is now part of the duties of Joseph Soileau, Jr.; that part of his job was to repair
equipment, and he "probably worked on every piece of equipment that … [Port Printing] had in
that place at one time or another, except computers" (transcript page 233); that on big press
jobs Joseph Soileau, Jr. would follow his recommendation on which machine to use; and that
the Komori press had electrical and roller problems before Hurricane Rita and was used only
when Port Printing had to use it.
When called by the Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Respondent's Exhibit
4 is an invoice from Saunders Graphics for checking the Komori press on December 5, 6, and 7,
2005. The invoice lists the problems with the press and ends with "Conclusion: Condemn
machine to scrap." Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that this was one of the presses operated by
Mott; that a comparable operating machine would cost about $85,000 and a new machine of
this type would cost $300,000; and that Port Printing has not replaced this machine, which is still
inoperative.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that the Komori press was a 1981
model; and that the Heidelberg press was almost 50 years old and they last a long time.
According to the testimony of Joseph Soileau, Jr. when he was called by Counsel for
General Counsel, in December 2005 he did offer to recall Mott. Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that
he asked Mott if he wanted to come back part time8; that Mott told him that he would be
interested in coming back; that he, Joseph Soileau, Jr., has done some printing work running
the printing presses, and he has done some bindery work, which is the finishing work once a job
is printed, namely folding, padding, and numbering; that he has done pre-press work and he has
made deliveries; that before Hurricane Rita Respondent had a part-time worker, Williams, who
did delivery; and that pre-press work involves stripping up negatives and making plates to be
printed on the press, and before Hurricane Rita, Courtney did this work.
On cross-examination when he was called by Respondent Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified
that he did work on the small presses a couple times a week, sometimes more, sometimes less;
that in 2005 he worked on the small presses maybe 4 hours a week; that for the last three
months in 2006 before the trial herein he worked on the small presses 8 to 10 hours a week;
that when he had his conversation with Mott in December 2005 all of the work regarding mold
had been completed by then; and that he explained to Mott that all of the work had been done

8 It is noted that Lannis Soileau's time cards, General Counsel's Exhibit 6, show that Lannis
Soileau worked 88.75 hours for the two week pay period ending "12/15/05," he worked 67.75
hours for the pay period ending "12/31/05," he worked 75 hours for the pay period ending
"1/15/06," and he worked 101.75 hours for the pay period ending "1/31/06." Lannis Soileau's
hours had reached full-time status and it is not clear why Joseph Soileau, Jr. would be speaking
to Mott about part-time if Respondent was going to cease using a non-bargaining unit
employee, Lannis Soileau, and give those hours back to a bargaining unit employee, Mott.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
and all of the mold had been taken care of.
Mott testified that he had a conversation with Joseph Soileau, Jr. at Port Printing on
about December 10, 2005 on one of his visits to the facility; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him
that he would like to have him return to work, it did not look like the owners of the building Port
Printing leased were going to fix the building, and would he mind working in the building like it
was; that he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that he would be willing to work in the building; that Joseph
Soileau, Jr. told him that maybe Port Printing would get him back working in the building after
the holidays; and that he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that would be good because he really needed
to go back to work.
On cross-examination Mott testified that when Joseph Soileau, Jr. asked him if he would
be interested in coming back to work Joseph Soileau, Jr. did not limit it to part-time work; and
that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that Respondent's management was going to look at other
places to move because the owner of the building which Respondent leased may not repair the
building.
On redirect Mott testified that Joseph Soileau, Jr. did not give him a specific date that he
would come back to work; and that Joseph Soileau, Jr. said probably after the holidays.
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Respondent's business
records, specifically Respondent's Exhibit 5, shows that Ellis, who was a bindery helper, was
called back to work on December 15, 2005; that Ellis was called back when Port Printing had
some extra work in the bindery area; that Ellis had another job and she wanted to supplement
that income; that March 6, 2006 was the last day Ellis worked for Port Printing; and that Ellis
was supposed to come to work at Port Printing on March 7, 2006 but she never came in, and
while Respondent tried to contact her at the telephone number Ellis provided Respondent, she
never called back.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that he had Robinson telephone Ellis
to come back to work because they were friends; and that Ellis was paid the same amount
when she was recalled ($7.00 an hour) as she was paid before Hurricane Rita.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that Ellis had just become permanent
with Port Printing in 2005, she had not worked a full year as a permanent employee, and she
would have had to work a year before she received vacation and sick pay; and that Ellis did not
claim that she had accrued vacation and sick leave coming to her.
When called by Respondent Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that in the latter part of
December 2005, before the holidays, Mott came to his office at Port Printing; that Mott came in
to do some insurance paperwork and they discussed the building; that he told Mott that
Respondent was still waiting on the air quality test; that he told Mott that work was picking up,
Port Printing was having to do more and more because it was having trouble sending everything
out; that Port Printing was printing more jobs on the small presses and really needed to get
someone in there even though conditions were like they were; that Mott told him that he was
interested but because he was still working on getting his home fixed, he would prefer to wait
until after the holidays, the first of the year, before he did anything; that he told Mott "I could
guarantee part-time. I just couldn't guarantee that it would stay busy enough to stay full-time,
but for sure we had definitely part-time work" (transcript page 141); that the work would have
been on the small presses because at that point Port Printing was not doing anything on the
large presses, "[e]verything was still being contracted out" (Id.); and that while Mott told him that
he might let him know on the part-time work after the first of the year, Mott never let him know
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
that he wanted to come in.
On rebuttal Mott testified that in December 2005 Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that work
was picking up and he really needed somebody else in there; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. asked
him again if he did not mind working in the building and he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. "No, I need
to get back to work" (transcript page 228); and that he asked Joseph Soileau, Jr. when, and
Joseph Soileau, Jr. said "probably after the holiday, and he told Joseph Soileau, Jr. "Fine." (Id.)
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that in mid- to late December Mott met
with her and told her that he had received a cancellation notice on his COBRA; that she told
Mott Respondent had paid it and she would check into it; that Mott told her that he had been
offered a job elsewhere but he told the person offering the job to contact Randy Soileau; that
Mott told her "that Joe had offered him to come back to Port, but he had a lot going on at his
house. He was putting - - having to put a new roof on his house …." (transcript page 203); and
that Mott may have said that Joseph Soileau, Jr. had offered him part-time work but she was not
sure.
Mott testified that when he did not receive a telephone call from Port Printing by a few
days after New Years day, he went to Port Printing and spoke with Joseph Soileau, Jr.; that he
told Joseph Soileau, Jr. that he thought that he was going to be coming back to work after the
holidays; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. told him that "[w]ork had slowed down [and] [t]here wasn't
much going on" (transcript page 56); that after this he never had any other conversations about
his going to work for Port Printing; and that Port Printing never called him back to work.
On cross-examination Mott testified that he had a meeting with Robinson in late January
2006 at the facility that Respondent leased; that he asked her for his vacation and sick leave
because Randy Soileau told him that he had receive his vacation pay; that funds were getting a
bit low and he needed to collect the "time … [he] had on the books" (transcript page 70); and
that he discussed with Robinson the amount of sick leave and vacation pay that he had
accrued.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that she met with Mott in mid- to late
January 2006; that Mott told her that he had paid the COBRA in December 2005 for January
2006 and since he had gone on his wife's insurance in early January 2006, he wanted to be
reimbursed; that Mott requested his vacation and sick pay and he told her that he was working
for Chuck Ehlers at KMI; that Mott told her that Port Printing had not paid Randy Soileau enough
sick leave when he resigned from Port Printing in December 2005 to take another job; and that
she told Mott that she would get back to Randy Soileau about the sick leave pay.
On rebuttal Mott testified that the week prior to his birthday on January 29, 2006, he
started working for Ehlers at Knight Media; that earlier Ehlers telephoned him asking him for the
telephone number of Randy Soileau because Ehlers wanted to offer him a job; that he gave
Ehlers the telephone number and told him that if Randy, who had another job, was not
interested, maybe he could help Ehlers out since he was not working; that he told Ehlers that all
he could commit to would be temporary since he may be called back to Port Printing; that Ehlers
told him that he just needed somebody, that would be fine, and he would work with him; that he
spoke with Randy Soileau who told him that (a) Robinson made him sign a paper "saying that
he resigned before he could get [his vacation pay]" (transcript page 237) and (b) Robinson told
him that Port Printing quit paying sick leave9; that as a result of his conversation with Randy

9 This testimony was offered with respect to what Mott did after speaking with Randy
Continued
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
Soileau he went to Port Printing, spoke with Robinson, and requested his vacation and sick
leave pay; that Robinson asked him if he was resigning to which he answered "[n]o; you already
laid us off" (transcript page 238); that Robinson told him that she would give him vacation but
Port Printing no longer gave sick leave for some time, which set precedent; that he told
Robinson that if there was no way for the Union to find out about it then there was no precedent
set and the collective bargaining agreement specifies that when an employee leaves the
employee is entitled to all vacation and sick leave that has accrued; that he told Robinson that if
the collective bargaining agreement is enforceable, there is no dispute and he wanted his
vacation and sick leave; that he told Robinson that she should give Courtney and Randy
Soileau their vacation and sick leave when they request it; that Robinson acknowledged that
she had to give him his vacation and sick leave and that she would go back and give Randy
Soileau his; and that he then mentioned severance pay to Robinson as part of his attempt to
settle pending litigation over Port Printing's withdrawal of recognition of the Union.10
When called by Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that in late January 2006
Robinson came to him in production and asked him to meet with her and Mott; that he and
Robinson met with Mott who said he was not there as President of the Union and he wanted to
discuss his sick leave and vacation benefits; that the following week, about February 3, 2006,
he met with Mott and Robinson in Robinson's office to go over the paperwork regarding Mott's
sick leave and vacation; that he and Robinson asked Mott to take the paperwork home over the
weekend and make sure that it was correct; that the following Monday Mott returned to Port
Printing and he said that the figures were correct; that Mott accepted his vacation check; that he
did not have any contact with Mott after this; that from October 17, 2005 through the last time he
saw Mott in February 2006, Mott never objected to the October 17, 2005 notice of layoff; and
that Mott was upset that Jane (Meche) Soileau and Zienow were called back before him and he
said that he should have been called back before them at the January 2006 meeting.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that it is possible that Mott told him
earlier than January 2006 that he was upset that Jane (Meche) Soileau and Zienow were called
back before him; and that while Mott complained about Jane (Meche) Soileau and Zienow, he
never complained that Lannis Soileau, a non-bargaining unit salesman, was doing press work -
_________________________
Soileau.
10 As here pertinent, page 5 of the involved collective bargaining agreement reads as
follows:
SECTION 11
SEVERANCE PAY
In the event of merger, consolidation, or suspension of the employee's
pressroom operations, covered by this agreement, effective 1/1/97 all regular employees
shall be given five days severance pay for each year of employment with maximum
severance pay equaling ten (10) weeks of pay. No existing severance will be lost by
present employees. Vince - 30 weeks, Gail 24 weeks, Rhonda 12 weeks.
On brief Counsel for General Counsel renews his motion to strike that portion of Robinson's
testimony on transcript pages 205 - 208 which refers to Mott's statements to her about
severance. Counsel for General Counsel contends that Mott was attempting to settle all
potential and outstanding claims. In view of Mott's rebuttal testimony that he was attempting to
resolve the pending litigation regarding Respondent's withdrawal of recognition of the Union,
Counsel for General Counsel's motion to strike will be granted. More specifically, Counsel for
General Counsel's motion to strike the following portions of the transcript is hereby granted:
page 205, line 24; page 206, lines 1, and 13 - 17; page 207, lines 21 - 25; and page 208, lines 1
- 4.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
was doing his, Mott's, job.
Respondent's Exhibit 8 reads as follows: "Consider this my request to receive vacation
and sick leave that is due to me." The note is signed Courtney and is dated "01/26/06." When
called by Respondent Robinson testified that Courtney came to Port Printing on this date and
gave her this document; that Courtney came into her office and asked her about the condition of
the building and when it was going to be fixed; that Courtney said that she had enjoyed working
at Port Printing, it was the perfect job for her; that Courtney then asked about her vacation and
sick leave; and that Courtney received her accrued vacation.
On cross-examination Robinson testified that she asked Courtney to provide the
handwritten note "[b]ecause I didn't want it to be her word against mine if there ... [were] any
problems as to when it was asked for or whatever. I like things in writing. You know, if you're
asking me to do something, put it in writing so that we both have [a] record of it." (transcript
page 217 and 218)
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that around the first of February 2006
Respondent reviewed its vacation and sick leave records and determined that there were
mistakes; that Respondent ended up owing more money to Randy Soileau and Courtney, which
Respondent paid; that Respondent's records were not in agreement with Mott's records; that
Respondent got Mott to come to Port Printing, gave him the information Respondent had and
told him to take it home over the weekend and review it; that subsequently Mott came back in,
he indicated that Respondent's records were correct, and Mott was paid what he was owed; and
that she did not have any other conversations with Mott after this, except for contract
negotiations just before she testified at the trial herein.
On cross-examination Robinson testified that at the time of the trial herein Mott was on
temporary layoff from Port Printing. And on redirect Robinson testified that in the meetings she
had with Mott after January 20, 2007 he told her that he had gone to work with KMI.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that Abby Masterson, who works in
customer service and is not in the bargaining unit, did not come back to work at Port Printing
until January 2006. On cross-examination Robinson testified that Masterson telephoned her in
December 2005, saying the she was unhappy in her current job and she would consider coming
back to Port Printing; and that in January 2006 she telephoned Masterson and asked her to
return to Port Printing.
Counsel for General Counsel and the Respondent stipulated to the receipt in evidence of
General Counsel's Exhibits 7 through 12. Counsel for General Counsel indicated that the
exhibits are time records from pay periods beginning September 16, 2005 and ending
December 15, 2005; that General Counsel's Exhibit 7 indicates that employees were paid
through September 30, 2005 but because of Hurricane Rita they did not actually work the entire
pay period ending September 30, 2005; and that regarding General Counsel's Exhibit 8, which
is pay period ending October 15, 2005, the records will indicate that some employees were paid
for 40 hours of work but they did not actually work during that period of time, the Respondent
paid the employees because of Hurricane Rita, and the employees were Randy Soileau, Jane
(Meche) Soileau, Masterson, Ellis, Courtney, and Mott. Counsel for Respondent indicated that
all employees were paid in full through September 30, 2005. General Counsel's Exhibit 13 is
copies of time cards for employee Ellis for pay periods December 30, 2005, January 15, 2006,
February 15, 2006, and March 15, 2006. And General Counsel's Exhibit 16 is a computer
printout which shows hours worked by Respondent's employees from January 4, 2006 to
December 1, 2006. Counsel for General Counsel and the Respondent stipulated that the
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
following individuals held the following positions: Masterson, customer service; Gloria Robinson,
management; Joseph Soileau, Jr., management; Jane (Meche) Soileau, bindery employee;
Lannis Soileau, salesman; Betty Jean Verret, customer service; Zienow, typesetting; Jenelle
Beam, bookkeeping; Cathy Chapman, sales; Courtney, pre-press employee, Ellis, bindery
employee; Mott, pressman; and Randy Soileau, pressman. Additionally, Williams, who retired in
1996, would occasionally do part-time work for the Respondent through Hurricane Rita. And
Barbara Young worked as a bookkeeper for the Respondent until November 18, 2005. And
finally, Counsel for General Counsel and the Respondent stipulated that the following
employees are in the bargaining unit: Jane (Meche) Soileau, Courtney, Ellis, Mott, Randy
Soileau, Williams, and Zienow.
By letter dated March 3, 2006, Respondent's Exhibit 3, David Huddle advised Robinson
that he paid for the electrical work, for Service Master, he owed First General Service for tarping
the roof and taking air samples, and he did not 'intend to put another cent into this building and
plan[ed] to sell it "as is" '; and that he was willing to sell the building to Port Printing.
General Counsel's Exhibit 3 is the unpublished decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit filed July 27, 2006, on application for the enforcement of the Board
order in the above-described March 7, 2005 decision of the Board.11 The court affirmed the
judgment of the Board.
When called by the Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that Robinson purchased
the involved building in August 2006 and at that time she had the roof replaced.
When called by Respondent, Robinson testified that she purchased the involved building
in August 2006 and had the roof replaced, to the extent necessary, toward the end of August
and the first of September 2006; that Port Printing did not receive a copy from David Huddle of
the report, Respondent's Exhibit 9, about the outcome of the mold situation, the treatment of the
mold; that David Huddle had been asked on several occasions prior to that about the mold in
the building because there was an air quality test done; that she did not receive any information
before August 2006 in regard to the extent of mold and the mold problem inside the building;
that First General Services, the addressee on the report, is the contractor which David Huddle
spoke to about the repairs to the involved building; that she received Respondent's Exhibit 9,
which is dated November 10, 2005, when she was buying the building in August 2006; and that
while she underlined the part of the report which reads "[t]he only exception to these (spores
present) are the Aspergillus and Penicillium which are well above outside background," she did
not pursue this.
During cross-examination Robinson testified that before she received the report in
August 2006 she did not receive a verbal assurance from someone who was in a position to
know that it was alright to work in the involved facility; that she worked in the involved facility
from October 2005 until August 2006 without knowing whether it was dangerous or not; that the
employees who worked in the involved facility during this period never specifically asked if it
was okay to be working there; and that when Service Master was in the involved facility treating
the mold she asked them questions and she was told that once the mold was treated, if it was
not reactivated again, it became dormant; that she had discussions with the mold abatement

11 Counsel for General Counsel indicated in his opening statement at the trial herein that he
believed that as of September 2005 when Hurricane Rita hit Lake Charles, the Board's March 7,
2005 decision was before the Fifth Circuit on an appeal by the employer. Counsel for
Respondent did not challenge this assertion.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
personnel of Service Master as they were doing the work at the involved facility but they did not
specifically advise her that with the work they were doing, that it was safe for people who
worked in that area; and that the press room had the most damage.
Respondent's Exhibit 7 consists of numerous invoices for work that was sent out by
Respondent to other printers after Hurricane Rita up to the time of the trial herein. When called
by the Respondent, Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that the small press jobs were contracted out
because Respondent's envelope feeder was damaged and until it was fixed Respondent could
only do small quantities of envelopes; that "with one person doing small press work, we just
weren't capable of being able to handle everything in-house, [a]nd … there were days when it
was raining that eliminated us from being able to print … so… part of the problem was the
condition of the building" (transcript page 166); that all of the presses had to be covered with
visqueen and when it rained Respondent would essentially shut down the printing department
completely; that initially this work was subcontracted out because until Port Printing had all of
the equipment checked and repaired, it was not able to do any of this work; that until the roof
was fixed in August 2006 Port Printing was not able to do this work because of the amount of
rain and the "conditions just didn't allow us to" (transcript page 170); and that after the roof was
repaired some of this work which was contracted out could have been done in house at Port
Printing if it replaced some of its equipment but at the time of the trial herein it still had not been
able to replace the equipment.
On cross-examination Joseph Soileau, Jr. testified that his conclusion that there was not
enough work to recall Mott was based on the fact that Port Printing was not able to produce any
of that work - the work previously produced on the Komori press; that the time Mott used the
Komori press before Hurricane Rita varied in that sometimes he worked the full week on the
Komori and at other times maybe he would work one day a week on the Komori; that he usually
left it up to Mott to decide which large press he would use; that most of the work Port Printing
had could be run on either the Komori or the Heidelberg; and that he did not recall if prior to
Hurricane Rita Port Printing had tried to sell the Komori press.
On rebuttal Mott testified that about 2 years before Hurricane Rita Joseph Soileau, Jr.
had him show the Komori press to some people as part of an attempt to sell this press; that he
set the machine up and ran it for the prospective purchaser; that subsequently Joseph Soileau,
Jr. told him that Respondent would lose money on the sale because even if this press was sold
Respondent would have to pay the principal and interest on the outstanding loan on the
machine for the full term of the loan.
Analysis
Paragraphs 10, 12, and 13 of the complaint collectively allege that on or about October
17, 2005, Respondent laid off Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel
Williams without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct; and that
the layoffs relate to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the unit and
are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective bargaining.
General Counsel on brief contends that Respondent did not contact the Union to discuss
its decision to lay off employees without pay as of October 17, 2005; that the involved collective
bargaining agreement does not waive the Union's right to notification and to bargain about the
decision to lay off employees and the effects of the layoff; that Respondent does not dispute the
fact that it did not contact the Union to provide the Union an opportunity to bargain about the lay
off or the effects of the lay off; that it is not surprising that Respondent did not notify the Union
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
since Respondent had unlawfully ceased recognizing the Union, but Respondent acted at its
peril; and that Respondent's failure to notify the Union and to afford the Union an opportunity
bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent on brief argues that
The conflicts in the testimony between Mott and Robinson and Mott and Soileau
are unimportant to a resolution of the Complaint allegations because Mott … never
protested the … [October 17, 2005 layoff notice] and never requested that the company
bargain with the Union over the effects of the letter. [Emphasis added] [Respondent's
brief, page 18]
Respondent further argues that the Union cannot remain idle and wait five and one-half months
before challenging, with the March 31, 2006 unfair labor practice charge, alleged unlawful
actions by the employer, Haddon Craftsmen, 300 NLRB 789 (1990) and AT&T Corp, 337 NLRB
689 (2002); that "[c]ertainly this letter [the October 17, 2005 layoff notice] did not constitute or
announce a 'fait accompli' which excused the Union from requesting bargaining or excused it
from informing the Company it was protesting the announcement and wished to bargain over
the effects of the announcements" (Respondent's brief, page 19); that the employees were
placed "in 'layoff' status to assist in their application for and receipt of unemployment
compensation benefits" (Id. with emphasis in original); and that in the event that it is decided
that the October 17, 2005 letter did violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act still the General
Counsel's request of a make whole remedy should be denied since the Union was notified and
knew since October 17, 2005 that the separation from employment might continue for an
indefinite time, the Union did not timely protest or request bargaining and, therefore, waived any
claim for back wages.
Respondent failed to notify the Union in a timely manner of the October 17, 2005 layoffs
and Respondent failed to accord the Union an opportunity bargain with Respondent with respect
to this conduct and the effects of this conduct. Why? Simply put, Respondent was not going to
change course in mid-stream. Respondent unlawfully ceased recognizing the Union and that
matter was still the subject of litigation at the time of the October 17, 2005 layoffs. As Joseph
Soileau, Jr. testified, he and Robinson decided that the October 17, 2005 layoffs were the best
thing that they could do. And as Robinson testified, while she and Joseph Soileau, Jr. discussed
the decision to layoff employees, the Union was not contacted prior to the time this decision was
made because she was not aware that she needed to contact the Union.12 The Respondent had
earlier unlawfully withdrawn recognition from the Union and, therefore, from the Respondent's
viewpoint, the Union was not even in the picture. Contrary to Respondent's assertion on brief,
the October 17, 2005 layoff notice was a 'fait accompli.' The October 17, 2005 notice reads, in
part, as follows: "It was a hard decision for Joe and … [me] to lay-off employees …." In other
words, the decision had already been made. This was not notification to the Union of the

12 The fact that I am citing the testimony of Joseph Soileau, Jr. and Robinson about their
decision does not mean that I view them as credible witnesses. As pointed out by Judge Hand
in National Labor Rel. Bd v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F. 2d 749, 754 (2nd Cir. 1949) "[i]t is
no reason for refusing to accept everything that a witness says, because you do not believe all
of it; nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some and not all."
The testimony of Joseph Soileau, Jr. and Robinson regarding them making the decision on the
October 17, 2005 layoffs, and not contacting the Union before the decision was made is not
contradicted by any other evidence of record.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
contemplation of a decision which might be made some time in the future. On brief Respondent
argues that, after the employees were made aware of the Respondent's decision which had
already been reached without timely notification to the Union and without according the Union
an opportunity to engage in meaningful bargaining, the Union should have requested
bargaining, the Union should have protested the announced layoffs, and the Union should have
requested bargaining over the effects of the announced layoffs. This is the same Union that
Respondent unlawfully refused to recognize. Now Respondent's attorney, in effect, is arguing
that the victim should have shouted out in protest, and the victim should have demanded to be
treated lawfully. To what end? Such protestations would have fallen on deaf ears. A request to
be treated lawfully would have been met with the figurative back of the hand which had already
been shown with the unlawful withdrawal of recognition and the unlawful October 17, 2005
layoff notification. No real purpose would be served by requiring one to engage in an exercise in
futility. Respondent presented the Union with a 'fait accompli.' Respondent created the situation
when it decided to unlawfully withdraw recognition from the Union. Respondent continued to act
accordingly. Respondent has been hoisted on its own petard. And now Respondent is trying to
find some way to avoid suffering the consequences of its actions. In the aforementioned cases
cited by the Respondent on brief, the employers did not withdraw recognition from the involved
unions before the involved employment action, the employers did not present the unions with a
'fait accompli,' the employers gave the unions timely notification, and the employers accorded
the unions a meaningful opportunity to bargain. That is not the situation in the instant
proceeding. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 10,
12, and 13 of the complaint.
Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the complaint collectively allege that since about October
2005, and continuing thereafter, Respondent began using non-bargaining unit employees and
supervisors to perform bargaining unit work without prior notice to the Union and without
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and
the effects of this conduct; and that this conduct relates to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
General Counsel on brief contends that Respondent did not introduce any evidence that
the Union waived its right to bargain with respect to who performed unit work after Hurricane
Rita; that according to his time cards Lannis Soileau, who is Joseph Soileau, Jr.'s brother and
not a member of the bargaining unit, worked a total of "1,185.5" hours as a pressman for
Respondent during the pay periods beginning with "10/31/05" and ending with "6/15/06"; that
according to Respondent's daily job logs Lannis Soileau worked as a pressman on a constant
basis from January 26 to November 15, 2006; that Joseph Soileau, Jr. also worked as a
pressman since October 2005, he worked in the bindery area, and he performed delivery work
and cameras stripping work; that an employer violates the Act when it transfers work to non-
bargaining personnel, Citizens Publishing Co., 331 NLRB 1622 (2000), enforced 263 F. 3d 224
(3rd Cir. 2001); that the transfer of bargaining unit work to managers or supervisors is a
mandatory subject of bargaining where it has an impact on unit work, Regal Cinemas, 334
NLRB 304 (2001), enforced 317 F. 3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2003); that neither Mott, nor Randy
Soileau, nor Courtney, nor pressman/deliveryman Williams were ever recalled to work at Port
Printing notwithstanding the fact that there was work for these individuals and this work was
done by non-bargaining unit employees and at least one supervisor; that before December 27,
2005 Ellis' work was assigned to non-bargaining unit employees and supervisors; and that by
using non-bargaining personnel and supervisors to perform the bargaining unit work begun in
October 2005, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent on brief argues that in the event that it is decided that the performance of
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
bargaining unit work by a supervisor and a non-bargaining unit employee did violate Section
8(a)(1) and (5) still the General Counsel's request of a make whole remedy should be denied
since Respondent "had no idea that at some point in the distant future Mr. Mott would contend
that Lannis Soileau performing work on the small presses would be alleged to be a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act" (Respondent's brief, page 20); and that the closest Mott came
to protesting Lannis Soileau performing bargaining unit work is when he allegedly told Robinson
that it was not right for Lannis Soileau to be performing that work.
As noted above, in Respondent's answer, filed October 6, 2006, to the complaint,
Respondent's attorney asserts, as here pertinent, that "[f]or short periods of time, sporadic in
nature, Respondent did utilize non-bargaining unit employees and supervisors to perform a
small amount of bargaining unit work. Bargaining unit work was performed by non-bargaining
unit employees for a brief time because conditions did not allow Respondent to recall to work
bargaining unit employees" (paragraph 11 of page 3 of the "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT").
Respondent could have simply denied the allegation in the complaint. Instead Respondent's
attorney chose to make the above-described statement. As here pertinent, when Respondent's
answer was filed, non-bargaining unit employee Lannis Soileau, as demonstrated by evidence
of record (time cards and log sheets), had been doing bargaining unit work constantly for about
one year. Lannis Soileau continued to do bargaining unit work at the time of the trial herein.
Respondent did not call Lannis Soileau as a witness. Just before rebuttal the following occurred:
MR. FONTI: Your Honor, I have one more witness. He would have to come over
from where he is right now. He's over at the company. I'd like to put him on right after
lunch if it pleases Your Honor.
….
AFTERNOON SESSION
JUDGE WEST: On the record. Proceed.
MR. FONTI: Your Honor, the Respondent is not calling any further witnesses.
Respondent rests. [Transcript pages 225 and 226]
It is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when an employer layoffs bargaining
unit employees and replaces them with nonunit employees without giving timely notice to the
union and without according the union an opportunity to bargain about the decision and the
effects of the decision on unit employees. Torrington Industries, 307 NLRB 809 (1992) It is also
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when an employer transfers bargaining unit work
to a supervisor without giving timely notice to the union and without according the union an
opportunity to bargain about the decision and the effects of the decision on unit employees.
Land O' Lakes, 299 NLRB 982 (1990). Both situations negatively impacted bargaining unit work.
Both situations are mandatory subjects of bargaining. But as noted above, when Respondent
took these actions it had unlawfully withdrawn recognition from the Union, and that matter was
the subject of pending litigation at that time. Respondent acted at its peril and it now must face
the consequences of its actions. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as
alleged in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the complaint.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen, assistants, apprentices, and other employees of the Publisher operating
or assisting in the operation of the Employer’s printing presses, including gravure, offset and
letterpress printing presses and all other printing presses of whatsoever type or process of
printing operated by such Publisher. The Publisher further recognizes the Union as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent for its offset preparatory employees, including employees
engaged in the operation of cameras; employees engaged in the making of offset plates;
stripping, etching, opaquing and any and all functions prepatory to the making and/or
manufacture of offset printing plates.
4. Since at least February 1997, and at all material times thereafter, the Charging Party
has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit described in paragraph 3
above, based on Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By engaging in the following conduct, Respondent committed unfair labor practices
contrary to the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act:
(a) On or about October 17, 2005, Respondent laid off Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy
Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams without prior notice to the Union and without affording
the Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects
of this conduct.
(b) Since about October 2005, and continuing thereafter, Respondent began using non-
bargaining unit employees and at least one supervisor to perform bargaining unit work without
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with
Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct.
6. The unfair labor practices described above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent (a) laid off Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy Soileau,
Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union
an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this
conduct, (b) since about October 2005, and continuing thereafter, began using non-bargaining
unit employees and at least one supervisor to perform bargaining unit work without prior notice
to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with
respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct, and since the subjects described above
in (a) and (b) in this paragraph relate to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective bargaining, it is
recommended that Respondent bargain with the Union regarding the conduct and the effects of
the conduct described above in (a) and (b) in this paragraph and make whole Vince Mott, Gail
Courtney, Randy Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams for any loss of earnings and other
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
benefits they suffered because of Respondent's above-described unlawful conduct, computed
on a quarterly basis from date of layoff to date of recall, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended13
ORDER
The Respondent, Seaport Printing & Ad Specialties, Inc. d/b/a Port Printing Ad and
Specialties, of Lake Charles, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams
without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with
Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct.
(b) Using non-bargaining unit employees and at least one supervisor to perform
bargaining unit work without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and the effects of this
conduct.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) At the request of the Union, bargain with the Union with respect to (1) the October
17, 2005 layoffs and the effects of the layoff, and, (2) beginning in October 2005, the use of
non-bargaining unit employees and at least one supervisor to perform bargaining unit work, and
(3) the effects of the unlawful conduct described in (1) and (2) in this paragraph.
(b) Make Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Lake Charles,

13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”14 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since October 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 7, 2007.
____________________
John H. West
Administrative Law Judge

14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT lay you off without prior notice to LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS
UNION, LOCAL 260 AFFILITED WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC and without affording LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS
UNION, LOCAL 260 AFFILITED WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC an opportunity to bargain with us with respect to this conduct and the
effects of this conduct.
WE WILL NOT use non-bargaining unit employees and supervisors to perform bargaining unit
work without prior notice to LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS UNION, LOCAL 260
AFFILITED WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC
and without affording LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS UNION, LOCAL 260
AFFILITED WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC an
opportunity to bargain with us with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL at the request of LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS UNION, LOCAL 260
AFFILITED WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC,
bargain with LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS UNION, LOCAL 260 AFFILITED
WITH GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC with respect to
the October 17, 2005 layoff and, beginning in October 2005, the use of non-bargaining unit
employees and at least one supervisor to perform bargaining unit work, and the effects of this
unlawful conduct.
JD(ATL)-04-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
WE WILL make Vince Mott, Gail Courtney, Randy Soileau, Renee Ellis, and Joel Williams whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the fact that we did not give
LAKE CHARLES PRINTING AND GRAPHICS UNION, LOCAL 260 AFFILITED WITH
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC prior notice and an
opportunity to bargain with us with respect to the October 17, 2005 layoffs and with respect to
our use of non-bargaining unit employees and at least one supervisor to perform bargaining unit
work, and the effects of this conduct, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
Seaport Printing & Ad Specialties, Inc. d/b/a Port
Printing Ad and Specialties
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1515 Poydras Street, Room 610
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-3723
Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
504-589-6361.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 504-589-6389.