Quality Color Graphics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2000

330 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

330 NLRB No. 195
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Quality Color Graphics, Inc. and American Heatset
East Printing, a Single Employer and Local
One-L, Amalgamated Lithographers of Amer-
ica, Graphic Communications International Un-
ion, AFL–CIO Cases 29–CA–23263 and 29–CA–
23301
April 28, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Local
One-L, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Graphic
Communications International Union, AFL–CIO (the
Union) in Case 29–CA–23263 on January 18 and March
9, 2000, respectively, and a charge filed by the Union in
Case 29–CA–23301 on February 9, 2000, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
consolidated complaint (complaint) on March 9, 2000,
against Quality Color Graphics, Inc. and American Heat-
set East Printing, Inc., the Respondents, a single em-
ployer, alleging that they have violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Although properly served copies of the charges and the
complaint, the Respondents failed to file an answer.
On March 31, 2000, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Default Summary Judgment with the Board. On
April 4, 2000, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted. The Respondents
filed no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within
14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, until on about November 19,
1999, Respondent Quality Color Graphics, Inc. (Respon-
dent Quality), a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business located at 31 Crossways
East, Bohemia, New York (the Bohemia facility), was
engaged in the printing business. During the 12-month
period ending on about November 19, 1999, Respondent
Quality, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions described above, provided services valued in excess
of $50,000 to customers located within the State of New
York, which customers met a direct test for the assertion
of jurisdiction. We find that at all material times Re-
spondent Quality has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
At all material times, Respondent American Heatset
East Printing, Inc. (Respondent American), a New York
corporation with its principal office and place of business
located at the Bohemia facility, has been engaged in the
printing business. During the 12-month period preceding
issuance of the complaint, which period is representative
of its annual operations in general, Respondent Ameri-
can, in the course and conduct of its business operations
described above, provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to customers located within the State of New
York, which customers meet a direct test for the assertion
of jurisdiction. We find that at all material times Re-
spondent American has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
We find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, Respondent Quality and Respon-
dent American have been affiliated business enterprises
with common officers, ownership, directors, manage-
ment, and supervision; have formulated and administered
a common labor policy; have shared common premises
and facilities; and have held themselves out to the public
as a single integrated business enterprise. Based on their
operations described above, we find that Respondent
Quality and Respondent American constitute a single
integrated business enterprise and a single employer
within the meaning of the Act.
At all material times, the following individuals have
held the position set forth opposite their names and have
been agents of the Respondents acting on their behalf
and/or supervisors of the Respondents within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act:

Paul A. Pappas President of Respondents
Roland Colombo Foreman

The following employees of the Respondents (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
All full-time and regular part-time lithographic produc-
tion employees in the sheet-fed, electronic prepress and
preparatory/prepress departments excluding sales, pro-
fessional, office and clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.

Since about 1995, the Union has been the certified col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit and since
then has been recognized as the representative by the
Respondents. This recognition has been embodied in a
series of collective-bargaining agreements between the
Union and Respondent Quality, the most recent of which
is effective by its terms for the period September 30,
1998, to June 30, 2002.
At all material times, the Union, by virtue of Section
9(a) of the Act, has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The 1998–2002 collective-bargaining agreement de-
scribed above contains provisions, set forth in section
12(a), which require, among other things, the Respon-
dents to notify the Union of their intentions to discharge
or change the regular work shift of a shop delegate, and
to give the Union a reasonable opportunity to confer with
the Respondents about that discharge or change in work
shift.
On about December 31, 1999, the Respondents dis-
charged William Santiago, a unit employee and a shop
delegate for the Union, and since that date, the Respon-
dents have failed and refused to reinstate Santiago to his
former position.
The Respondents discharged and refuse to reinstate
Santiago because (1) Santiago engaged in union activi-
ties and support for the Union, (2) he did not select Local
72, National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions
(Local 72) as the bargaining representative of the unit,
and (3) Santiago gave testimony to the Board in the form
of an affidavit in Cases 29–CA–23136 and 29–CA–
23164.
Further, the Respondents discharged Santiago without
notifying the Union of their intentions to discharge him
and without giving the Union a reasonable opportunity to
confer with the Respondents about this discharge, in vio-
lation of section 12(a) of the collective-bargaining
agreement described above.
The parties’ 1998–2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment also contains provisions, set forth in section 7,
which provide that accredited representatives of the Un-
ion shall have access to the Respondents’ Bohemia facil-
ity, with the permission of the Respondents. In January
2000, the Union, by its officer Harold Davidhoff, re-
quested permission from the Respondents for access to
their Bohemia facility pursuant to section 7 of its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Respondents. Since
January 2000, the Respondents have refused to grant
access to the Union to the Respondents’ Bohemia facil-
ity.
The Respondents’ discharge of Santiago and the re-
fusal to reinstate him, their failure to notify the Union of
their intentions to discharge Santiago, and the refusal to
grant the Union access to the Bohemia facility pursuant
to the collective-bargaining agreement all relate to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the unit, and are mandatory subjects for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By discharging and refusing to reinstate William
Santiago because of his union activities and support for
the Union, and because he did not select Local 72 as the
bargaining representative, the Respondents have dis-
criminated in regard to hire and tenure and terms of con-
ditions of employment of their employees, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, and have
therefore engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
In addition, by discharging and refusing to reinstate
Santiago because he gave testimony to the Board, the
Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the
Act.
Further, the Respondents have refused to bargain col-
lectively with the exclusive representative of the unit
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by fail-
ing and refusing to (1) notify the Union of their inten-
tions to discharge Santiago, (2) give the Union a reason-
able opportunity to confer with the Respondents about
this discharge, and (3) grant the Union access to the Bo-
hemia facility.
The Respondents’ unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) by dis charging William
Santiago, we shall order the Respondents to offer him
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed. We also shall order the Re-
spondents to make Santiago whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him. Backpay shall be computed in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondents
also shall be required to remove from their files any ref-
QUALITY COLOR GRAPHICS 3
erence to Santiago’s unlawful discharge, and to notify
him in writing that this has been done.
Further, having found that the Respondents have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order
the Respondents to comply with the terms of the 1998–
2002 collective-bargaining agreement, including by noti-
fying the Union of their intentions to discharge or change
the regular work shift of a shop delegate, by giving the
Union a reasonable opportunity to confer with the Re-
spondents about such a discharge or change in work
shift, and by granting the Union’s accredited representa-
tives, at their request, access to the Respondents’ Bohe-
mia facility.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Quality Color Graphics, Inc. and American
Heatset East Printing, Inc., Bohemia, New York, a single
employer, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their union activities and support
for Local One-L, Amalgamated Lithographers of Amer-
ica, Graphic Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO, and because they do not select Local 72, National
Organization of Industrial Trade Unions as the bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time lithographic produc-
tion employees in the sheet-fed, electronic prepress and
preparatory/prepress departments excluding sales, pro-
fessional, office and clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.

(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because they give testimony to the Board.
(c) Failing and refusing to comply with the 1998–2002
collective-bargaining agreement between the Respon-
dents and Local One-L by failing to notify the Union of
their intentions to discharge or change the regular work
shift of a shop delegate, by failing to give the Union a
reasonable opportunity to confer with the Respondents
about such a discharge or change in work shift, and by
refusing to grant the Union’s accredited representatives,
at their request, access to the Respondents’ Bohemia,
New York facility.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exe rcise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
William Santiago full reinstatement to his former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make William Santiago whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of his unlaw-
ful discharge, with interest, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from their files any and all references to the unlawful
discharge of William Santiago, and within 3 days there-
after notify him in writing that this has been done and
that the discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
(d) Comply with the terms and conditions of the 1998–
2002 collective-bargaining agreement described above,
including the provisions regarding notification to the
Union concerning the intention to discharge or change
the regular work shift of a shop delegate, and requests by
the Union’s accredited representatives for access to the
Respondents’ Bohemia, New York facility.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
their facility in Bohemia, New York, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix”.1 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
29, after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondents 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 Respondents to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondents have gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondents
shall duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondents at any time since Decem-
ber 31, 1999.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondents have taken to
comply.

1 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 28, 2000

Sarah M. Fox, Member

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you because of your union activities and support
for Local One-L, Amalgamated Lithographers of Amer-
ica, Graphic Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO, and because you do not select Local 72, National
Organization of Industrial Trade Unions as the bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time lithographic produc-
tion employees in the sheet-fed, electronic prepress and
preparatory/prepress departments excluding sales, pro-
fessional, office and clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you because you give testimony to the Board.
MWE WILL NOT fail and refuse to comply with the
1998–2002 collective-bargaining agreement between us
and Local One-L by failing to notify the Union of our
intentions to discharge or change the regular work shift
of a shop delegate, by failing to give the Union a reason-
able opportunity to confer with us about such a discharge
or change in work shift, and by refusing to grant the Un-
ion’s accredited representatives, at their request, access
to our Bohemia, New York facility.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exe rcise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
offer William Santiago full reinstatement to his former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make William Santiago whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of his
unlawful discharge, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files any and all references to the
unlawful discharge of William Santiago and, within 3
days thereafter notify him in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against him
in any way.
WE WILL comply with the terms and conditions of the
1998–2002 collective-bargaining agreement described
above, including the provisions regarding notification to
the Union concerning our intention to discharge or
change the regular work shift of a shop delegate, and
requests by the Union’s accredited representatives for
access to our Bohemia, New York facility.

QUALITY COLOR GRAPHICS, INC. AMERICAN
HEATSET EAST PRINTING, INC.