Sayers Printing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 837 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY
Sayers Printing Company and Local Union No. 252,
Lithographers-Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-5107 and 14-RC-6194
October 1, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On May 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations' of
the Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner's findings regarding the supervisory status of
Maxwell and Hardy are well supported by the record as a whole In
view of the exclusion of Maxwell and Hardy from the unit, we find
it unnecessary to pass on the unit placement of employees Evans and
Schutz
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent 's conduct, which
included threats to the employees , interrogation , and discriminatory lay-
offs, most of which occurred subsequent to the demand for recognition
and the filing of the election petition , has undermined the Union 's majority
status and impeded the election process Therefore a bargaining order
is warranted to remedy the unlawful refusal to bargain Further, we
find that the Respondent 's unlawful conduct was of such a pervasive
character as to require a bargaining order even in the absence of an
8(a)(5) violation to remedy the other unfair labor practices in this case
NLR B v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S 575,615-616.
The Charging Party, in its brief to the Board , requests ,the Board
to require the Respondent to make whole the employees included in
the bargaining unit for the collective benefits they have lost as a result
of Respondent 's refusal to bargain This request is denied in view of
the recent Decision in Ex-Cell-O Corp, 185 NLRB No 20 Member
Brown would grant the requested remedy for the reasons stated in the
dissenting opinion in that case.
The Charging Party has also requested the Board to require the Respond-
ent to make the Charging Party whole by paying it the membership
ORDER
837
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Sayers Printing Company,
St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
dues it has lost and the expenses it has incurred as a result of Respondent's
unlawful refusal to recognize and bargain with it We deem it inappropriate
in this case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial
orders in cases involving violations of Sec 8 (a)(5) and therefore deny
the said request
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: This consolidated
proceeding was tried before me at St Louis, Missouri,
between December 1 and 3, 1969, on an amended complaint
filed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board and an amended answer thereto filed by Sayers
Printing Company, herein called the Respondent.' Joined
herewith are objections to an election conducted among
an appropriate unit of Respondent's employees on June
13, 1969,2 which were filed by Local Union No. 252,
Lithographers-Photoengravers International Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Union, and challenges to the ballots
of five individuals whose votes are determinative of the
results of that election The issues raised are whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
Act by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter; or whether,
absent affirmative findings on the foregoing issues, Respond-
ent's preelection activities, as alleged in the Union's objec-
tions, so impinged upon the employees' freedom of choice
as to warrant the scheduling of a second election All
parties were afforded full opportunity to present evidence,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to argue orally
at the close of the hearing, and to file briefs. Oral argument
was waived by all parties. Briefs have been received from
the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union, which
have been duly considered.'
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the
briefs filed with me, and upon my observation of the
demeanor of each witness while testifying, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a Missouri corporation, maintains a printing
plant in St. Louis, Missouri. During the annual period
' The second amended complaint,, which issued on November 12,
1969, is based upon charges and amended charges which were filed
and served on May 16, June 9, July 8, .and August 11, 1969, respectively
' Unless otherwise indicated , all dates fall in 1969
The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the record
in certain respects is hereby granted
185 NLRB No. 120
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
material to this proceeding, Respondent purchased paper,
ink, and other materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points located directly outside the State of Missouri which
were delivered to said plant The complaint alleges, the
answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE
CHALLENGES , AND THE OBJECTIONS
A. The Contentions
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through its super-
visors and agents, on various dates between May 1 and
July 11, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). It further
alleges that Respondent discharged Al Polster on June
9, and Carlos Busackino and Thomas Carney on August
11, because they joined and assisted the Union or because
they otherwise engaged in concerted, protected activities
and that, by this conduct, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) Finally, the complaint charges that, at all times
since May 2, and continuing to date, Respondent has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated
majority representative of an appropriate unit of Respond-
ent's employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.'
For its part, Respondent denies the commission of any
labor acts proscribed by the Statute.
B. Procedural Background
Following an organizational campaign which the Union
launched among Respondent's offset and letterpress employ-
ees around Christmas 1968, the Union obtained 10 signed
authorization cards by April 9. Believing that this figure
represented a majority showing, Union Vice President Mar-
vin Mantei drafted a letter on May 2 addressed to Respond-
ent President Herbert M Sayers, Jr., demanding recognition
as the collective agent for those employees. Armed with
this letter and a short typewritten recognition agreement,
Mantei and Union President Walter Creole visited Respond-
ent's plant on the latter date and called upon the receptionist
where they introduced themselves and requested an audience
with Sayers, Jr. The receptionist contacted her superior
and then notified the union officials that Sayers, Jr., was
too busy to entertain them and that they should make
' It was stipulated and I find that the following unit is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec
9(b) of the Act-
All offset and letterpress department employees employed at Respond-
ent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding all bindery department
and warehouse (including shipping , receiving and truckdrivers)
employees , office clerical and professional employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
an appointment to see him Mantel thereupon presented
the letter and agreement to the girl and asked her to
deliver the documents to Sayers, Jr. She did so and, shortly
thereafter, returned with the documents and handed them
back to Mantei with the comment "Please take them back."
Mantei and Creole immediately proceeded to the Board's
Regional Office where they displayed the authorization
cards to a Board agent and filed a petition for a representa-
tion election in Case 14-RC-6194 on May 2. Pursuant
to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
which the parties executed and which the Regional Director
for Region 14 approved on May 22, an election was conduct-
ed on June 13 among the unit employees. The resultant
tally of ballots showed that, of approximately 21 eligible
voters, 8 cast their ballots in favor of the Union, 3 were
against that labor organization, and 10 ballots were chal-
lenged, a number sufficient to affect the outcome of the
election ' On June 19, the Union filed objections to conduct
affecting the election results.
Thereafter, the Regional Director caused an investigation
to be made of the challenges and the objections In a
report which he issued on July 29, the Regional Director
recommended that certain challenges raised substantial and
material issues which could best be resolved by a hearing
thereon, that other challenges be overruled and the ballots
opened and counted, and that another challenge be sus-
tained. With respect to the Union's objections, he recom-
mended that some of the objections be overruled and others
be referred for hearing.
Both parties appealed the Regional Director's recommen-
dations to the Board in Washington, D.C In its Decision
dated November 3, that tribunal sustained the challenge
to the ballot of Mylus T. Powell, thus reducing the number
of the eligible unit voters to 20. The Board also remanded
the proceeding to the Regional Director with instructions
to open and count the ballots of Dale J. Hardy, Milton
G. Schmidt, Calvin Isringhaus, and Tom Knudson, and
to prepare a revised tally of ballots. If the tally as revised
failed to disclose that the Union had achieved a majority
of the votes, the Regional Director was advised to conduct
a hearing to resolve the issues raised by the challenges
to the ballots of Robert E. Evans, David E. Schutz, John
A. Maxwell, and Earl W. Hardy, as well as to resolve
the viable issues contained in the Union's objections. The
Board further directed that the challenge to the ballot
of Al Polster, if ultimately determinative of the election,
be held in abeyance until such time as the charges filed
in Case 14-CA-5107 on his behalf were adjudicated.'
Pursuant to the Board's mandate, the Regional Director
opened and counted the pertinent ballots. His order dated
November 12 contained a revised tally which revealed
that the Union had garnered eight votes and had lost
seven. Inasmuch as the remaining five challenged ballots
continued to shape the outcome of the election, that order
' Nine of the ballots were challenged by the Union and one, that
of Al Polster, by Respondent.
' As indicated elsewhere , the General Counsel alleges that Polster
was discharged on June 9 for reasons proscribed by the Act Respondent
contends that he was stricken from its payroll on lawful grounds and
therefore he was not an eligible unit employee on the election date
of June 13
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY 839
consolidated the hearing on these five votes, as well as
the outstanding objections, with the hearing on the alleged
unfair labor practices launched against Respondent by the
Union.
C. The Union's Majority Status on May 2-The Challenges
As heretofore chronicled, the complaint avers that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the offset
and letterpress departments on May 2 and that the Respond-
ent's refusal to accord it exclusive recognition and to bargain
with it on that date offended Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
The General Counsel introduced into evidence 10 authoriza-
tion cards signed by employees whose inclusion in the
unit on May 2 is not in dispute. Moreover, the authenticity
of these designations has not been attacked by Respondent
and I therefore find that they constitute valid authorizations
in favor of the Union. The names of the signers, together
with the dates of execution, are as follows:
Al Poster, Jr. - January 17
Richard G. Brown - March 23
David J. Poole - March 12
James J. Krupp - March 26
Charles M. Brown - April 9
Carlos Busackino - March 23
Melvin A. Lahmann- March 23
Wesley H. Daggett - March 12
Thomas Carney - March 29
Jerry J. Offerman - March 28
As the Board in its decision of November 3 sustained the
challenge to Mylus Powell's ballot and thus reduced the
number of unit employees to 20, the propriety of
Respondent's admitted rejection of the Union's recognitory
demand on May 2 therefore rests upon a determination as
to whether Robert E. Evans, David E. Schutz, John A.
Maxwell, and Earl W. Hardy appropriately belong in the
unit, and, consequently, whether their ballots should be
opened and counted. I turn to a consideration of the voting
status of these individuals.
1. Robert E Evans
The Union urges that the challenge to Evan's ballot
be sustained on the ground that he was essentially a bindery
worker and therefore should be excluded from the unit
for which the Union petitioned' It is uncontroverted and
I find that Evans was first employed by Respondent on
January 15 as a "pressman" for the offset and letterpress
departments, having applied for the position of "offset
pressman feeder " Respondent President Herbert M Sayers,
Jr., testified without contradiction and I find that, during
Evans' entrance interview, the former told Evans that,
due to his inexperience, Evans "was going to have to
learn first of all, all the mistakes on the press in the
bindery and from that point the first chance we have
an opening and when we have a little bit of time when
we're not quite as busy as we are now, this was in January,
you will get all the instructions that you will be able
' The General Counsel takes no position as to the unit placement
of Evans
to receive." Evans was thereupon dispatched to the bindery
room where his apprenticeship began.' For the last half
of January, he worked in the pressroom on 2 days for
a total 2.5 hours In February, Evans toiled for 4 days
in that department, logging a total of 11.2 hours. The
record further establishes that in March and April, Evans
labored in the pressroom approximately 33 and 24 hours,
respectively In May, Evans worked there only 1.5 hours.
However, it is uncontroverted that work became unusually
slack during that month and he spent the vast bulk of his
time working in the bindery This was not an uncommon or
isolated happenstance, for the record shows that
experienced pressmen such as Busakino, Isringhaus, and
Offerman spent between 25 and 38 hours in the bindery
during May. The record also shows that, as business
increased in the ensuing months, Evans returned to the
pressroom to continue his apprenticeship on an enlarged
basis Thus, in June, Evans spent almost 48 hours in the
offset and letterpress departments and was working as a full-
time feeder on a two-color press a few months later
Accordingly, I find that Evans was hired by Respondent
on January 15 with the assurance and expectation that
he would be employed in the pressroom on a regular
basis after undergoing an apprenticeship program. I also
find that Evans was initially assigned to the bindery depart-
ment, in conformity with Respondent's normal policy of
schooling new employees from the bindery end of its opera-
tions, and that his educational progress was programmed
on the basis of business exigencies and the availability
of work I further find that Evans commenced to perform
the duties of a pressroom feeder some 9 to 10 months
after his hire, and returned to work during this period
in the bindery, along with other experienced pressroom
personnel, only during slack printing business conditions
In Berea Publishing Company,' the Board announced
that "a dual-function employee devoting less than 51 percent
of this time to unit work may have sufficient interest
in the unit's conditions of employment to be included
in the unit " Prior to the date of the election, Evans,
while spending a majority of his time working in the
bindery, nevertheless performed duties with increasing lon-
gevity in the pressroom in anticipation of achieving full-
time employment in that area as Sayers, Jr., had promised
when Evans was hired. Based on the foregoing factual
considerations, I find that, during the critical period between
May 9 and June 13,'° Evans possessed a sufficient interest
in the terms and conditions of employment of the men
in the unit to warrant his inclusion therein. I shall therefore
overrule the Union's challenge to his ballot.
' The testimony of Sayers , Jr , regarding Respondent 's recruitment
and training of employees for the pressroom was corroborated by the
General Counsel 's witnesses Thus, Jerry Offerman testified that "I was
told [when hired by Respondent] that they didn 't have a position right
away in the offset department so I had to start in the bindery " Approxi-
mately 6 weeks later , he was transferred to work as a feeder on a
two-color press
" 140 NLRB 516,519
° To be eligible to vote, an employee must occupy a unit position
between the payroll eligibility date (which was May 9 in this proceeding)
and the date of the election See Williams and Marcus Co., 120 NLRB
211
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. David E. Schutz
The Union contends that Schutz should be excluded
from the unit, and that its challenge to his ballot should
be sustained, because he lacked a sufficient community
of interest with the other offset and letterpress employees
to warrant his inclusion." Schutz was first employed by
Respondent in 1965 as a shipping clerk, the only employee
who occupied that job classification. Schutz' testimony is
undenied and I find that, on an occasion prior to February,
he conversed with Sayers, Jr., regarding the possibility
of a transfer to a job in the pressroom In February,
Schutz once again pressed his request for the transfer,
pointing out that a vacancy existed in that department.
Sayers, Jr , consented to the transfer and Schutz initially
received training on a stamping machine in the pressroom
when his shipping duties permitted." On April 14, Schutz
formally began his stamping duties and worked at that
job for 15 6 hours during the month. During May and
June, Schutz' working time in the pressroom escalated
to 67.7 and 49 3 hours, respectively, despite the fact that
he frequently returned to the shipping department during
this period due to Respondent's inability to obtain or retain
a replacement as a shipping clerk. Although Schutz
expressed his displeasure over the circumstance that his
training as a stamper was interrupted by the circumstance,
he continued to fulfill his apprenticeship to become a
qualified stamping machine operator.
As in the case of Robert Evans, I find that Schutz
was at the very least, a "dual-function" employee during
the eligibility period who had previously embarked upon
a program of training in the pressroom with a view toward
becoming an accomplished stamper, a classification conced-
edly in the unit Working in such a capacity, and with
this objective in view, I conclude that Schutz had a sufficient
interest in common with the other employees in the unit
to justify his inclusion therein. I shall therefore overrule
the Union's challenge to this ballot."
3. John A. Maxwell
The General Counsel and the Union maintain that Max-
well should be excluded from the unit on the ground
that he is a supervisor within the purview of Section 2(11)
of the Act. The Respondent argues that Maxwell is simply
a "senior pressman" or "leadman" who possesses none
of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority.
Maxwell has been employed by Respondent for 33 years.
Until the middle of 1968, Maxwell worked as a pressman.
Thereafter, he was taken off press work and assigned duties
which included overseeing the general quality of the work,
making layouts for printing, supervising register, approving
the position of materials, checking for mashes which mar
the printing, and purchasing items for the printing process.
Henry Schmidt, who has the title of plant superintendent
" The General Counsel is silent as to the unit placement of Schutz
The record establishes that Schutz had worked in the pressroom
for a few days in 1968
" See in 9, supra.
and who concededly is a supervisor under the Act, also
monitors work quality, performs layouts, and inspects impo-
sition. Vice President Evans denied on the stand that Max-
well possessed or exercised any authority to assign jobs
to the men or responsibly direct their work, claiming that
this was solely his responsibility. However, Evans admitted
that Maxwell, as well as Schmidt and Hardy, "tends the
store" when Evans is absent from the production floor
for extended periods Indeed, Evans characterized Maxwell
as a man who "is moved about where we need help and
supervision to maintain quality, production standards. I
quite often take up with him the order in which we want
jobs moved out of the shop," adding that "I couldn't
possibly be at all these places every particular moment
when somebody is needed there to do the thing and it
is necessary for somebody to circulate all the time "
Jerry Offerman, who was hired in June 1968, testified
that he was informed by Sayers, Jr., during his entrance
interview that "my immediate supervisor would be John
Maxwell," and that he was also informed by management
that Maxwell was the "assistant superintendent" at the
plant. James Krupp testified that, at the time Maxwell
was relieved of his full-time pressman's duties, Krupp was
told by Sayers, Jr., that Maxwell "was the boss of the
whole shop." Wesley Daggett averred that he understood
that Maxwell was the "assistant superintendent" in the
plant Melvin Lahmann similarly characterized Maxwell
as the "assistant superintendent," predicating this characteri-
zation on the fact that, sometime in 1968, he observed
a card lying in a desk which bore the name of Maxwell
and the title of "assistant superintendent," and the fact
that Maxwell received mail at the plant addressed to him
in that capacity
Offerman further testified that, in September, he was
absent from work due to illness and he telephoned the
plant to report this circumstance. Earl Hardy answered
the call and Offerman asked to speak to Maxwell. When
Maxwell was summoned, Offerman explained that he was
indisposed and would not be able to come to work, to
which the former replied that "that was O.K." In his
testimony, Maxwell remembered the telephone conversation
with Offerman in which the latter "said he was sick,
that he wouldn't be able to make it in, and my reply
was that I hoped it was not serious " According to Maxwell,
"That was the full reply that I made." While Maxwell
later claimed in his testimony that notifications of this
nature were normally transmitted to Vice President Evans
or Plant Superintendent Schmidt, his testimonial utterances
fail to disclose that he followed this course with respect
to Offerman and Evans had no recollection of having
received this intelligence regarding the employee's absence.
Offerman also credibly testified that, when he ran out
of work, he always asked Maxwell "if they had something
for me to do" and Maxwell "would put me on a job,"
normally without consulting with any other member of
management. Busackino credibly testified that Maxwell
assigned him to paint the roof, and Polster recounted
that he had been transferred to different presses by Maxwell
on numerous occasions
In addition to performing the same duties as Plant Super-
intendent Schmidt, Maxwell shares an office with Schmidt.
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY
When Schmidt takes his month's vacation each year, Max-
well assumes all of Schmidt's duties and responsibilities.
Moreover, Maxwell attends daily supervisory meetings at
which scheduling is accomplished, and his judgment on
scheduling matters is accorded respect. While the highest
paid unit pressman receives $4.72 per hour," Maxwell
receives an hourly rate of $5.65.
On the basis of the foregoing, I am persuaded and
find that Maxwell is a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, and I shall consequently sustain
the challenge to his ballot and exclude him from the unit 15
4 Earl Hardy
It is the contention of the General Counsel and the
Union that Hardy should be excluded from the unit on
supervisory grounds. The Respondent urges Hardy's inclu-
sion because he is a "senior pressman" without supervisory
authority.
Hardy has been employed by Respondent for 33 years.
His forte is offset press work. Hardy, who only operates
an offset press during emergencies, described his duties
as inspecting sheets for proper color, register, and spots,
and, as the occasion arose, he would obtain the necessary
inks and stock, check quality control on the offset presses,
and perform maintenance work Like Maxwell, Hardy
attends the daily supervisory scheduling meetings from
which rank-and-file employees are excluded where his judg-
ment has been accepted and followed. Although Vice Presi-
dent Evans maintained that Hardy had no voice in assigning
or directing men in their work, Hardy testified that he
ordered pressmen to clean their machines when they had
no printing work to perform, and he designated individuals
to mow the lawn or paint the exterior of the plant and
monitored their performance
Wesley Daggett testified that Hardy acted as his foreman.
According to Daggett, Hardy informed Daggett on numer-
ous occasions of this supervisory status. Whenever Daggett
experienced any production difficulties, he would report
them to Hardy who would assist in solving them. James
Krupp also testified that, upon his hire, he was told by
Hardy that the latter was a foreman and Hardy thereafter
repeated that he occupied this classification on many occa-
sions Melvin Lahmann testimonially related that on occa-
sions Hardy would independently assign overtime work
to these employees, and that Vice President Evans described
Hardy as the offset foreman. Lahmann described the circum-
stances which led to this identification. Sometime in 1968,
a job had been completed which Hardy believed should
be covered with plastic and he ordered Lahmann to perform
the chore. Lahmann challenged Hardy's right to issue the
order, as a result of which Hardy escorted Lahmann to
Schmidt's and Maxwell's office. Present also was Vice Presi-
dent Evans Lahmann asked Evans "if Mr. Hardy was
the foreman, and he said that he was and I said 0 K.
if he is I will treat him like one." During his examination,
" Milton Schmidt was paid an hourly wage of $5 20 However, I
would note that he is the son of Plant Superintendent Henry Schmidt
" See Stratford Lithographers, Inc., 168 NLRB No 8
841
Hardy did not deny that he apprised his men that he
was their foreman and, in fact, corroborated Lahmann's
recital of the incident in 1968. In Hardy's words, "He
[Lahmann] didn't cover the job with plastics and I merely
asked him to cover the job with plastic and he said, 'I
will absolutely not do it,' and I then said, `Let's go and
speak to Mr. Evans.' We went in and spoke to Mr. Evans
and Mr. Evans said, 'You will follow orders, Mr. Hardy. "
Finally, Hardy described his status as the same as Maxwell's.
Viewing the record as a whole, I am convinced and
find that Hardy occupied the status of a statutory supervisor
during the times material herein.16 I shall therefore sustain
the challenge to his ballot and exclude him from the voting
unit.
As previously found, there were 20 members in the
appropriate unit on May 2 when the Union pressed its
demand for recognition and Respondent concededly rejected
it. On that date, the Union possessed 10 validly executed
representational designations . I have heretofore sustained
the challenges to the ballots of John A. Maxwell and
Earl W Hardy based on my findings that they were supervi-
sors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act, and I have excluded them from the unit.
I have also overruled the challenges to the votes of Robert
E. Evans and David E. Schutz and have found that they
belong in the unit . And, as chronicled below, I have found
that Respondent discharged Al Polster on June 9 because
of his activities on behalf of the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3), and that he therefore maintained his status
as an employee during all salient periods affecting this
litigation and appropriately was part of the voting unit.
Accordingly, I find that, on May 2, the Union represented
10 of the 18 employees in the appropriate unit. I therefore
conclude that the Union was the majority designee of
the unit employees on that date. With respect to the election
results, the Regional Director in his order of November
12 determined that the Union had obtained eight votes
and had lost seven, without considering the challenged
ballots of Polster, Robert Evans, and Schutz. Having found
that Polster, Evans, and Schutz were eligible voters whose
votes should have been counted, I would, under normal
circumstances, recommend that their ballots be opened
and tallied. However, I have hereinafter found that Respond-
ent indulged in a series of acts of interference, restraint,
and coercion between May 2 when the Union represented
a majority of the unit employees, and June 13 when the
election was conducted, which, in my opinion, were suffi-
ciently serious and extensive to make it presumptively likely
that, even if they had voted against the Union, their negative
and determinative votes were molded by Respondent's
unlawful conduct. Consequently, I deem it unnecessary
to recommend the counting of their ballots. Rather, as
indicated below, I shall recommend the imposition of a
bargaining order to remedy the effects of Respondent's
misconduct."
4 Ibid
" In view of this recommendation, I find no need to consider whether
the few objections to election filed by the Union, which do not find
their parallel in the allegations of the complaint , warrant setting aside
the election and conducting another
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
It is undisputed and I find that, in December 1968,
some of Respondent's employees, including Al Polster and
James Krupp, became concerned with the large volume
of overtime work imposed upon them as well as the assign-
ment of inexperienced employees to work with them on
potentially dangerous presses, and their thoughts turned
to the possibility of unionizing the shop Before undertaking
any steps in this direction, Polster and Krupp approached
Herbert W. Sayers, herein called Sayers, Sr , who is the
chairman of the board of Respondent, and laid their com-
plaints before him. Sayers, Sr., agreed that the employees
had a valid grievance and promised to look into the matter
About a week later, the issue again arose. However, on
this occasion, Sayers, Sr , informed the men that they
could "either take it or leave it" and added that "If you
don't like it, you are not shackled here "
The abruptness of Sayers, Sr.'s response prompted the
concerned employees to dispatch one of their body to
the Union's offices in early January to inquire into the
possibility of enlisting the Union's assistance . On the evening
of January 17, employee Al Polster met with Union Presi-
dent Walter Creole and Vice President Marvin Mantei
at a local restaurant where they discussed the subject of
organizing the employees in the offset and letterpress
departments. Mantei explained to Polster that it was neces-
sary for the Union to obtain signed authorization cards
from a majority of employees in these departments in
order to qualify for exclusive recognition. In consequence
of this meeting, Polster executed a designation on that
date. Between January 17 and April 9 Mantei conducted
private meetings with other employees and, by the latter
date, was in possession of 10 signed cards.
On May 1, Respondent's employees held a picnic after
work in the parking lot which was also attended by Respond-
ent's officials. James Krupp testified that, after he and
Respondents President Sayers, Jr., had eaten, Sayers, Jr.,
complimented Krupp for the "good show" he and Polster
had "put on," an apparent reference to the fact that these
two employees had staged the affair. At this juncture,
Sayers, Jr , remarked that "All I have been hearing all
night is union talk . . . If this place turns union I'll
close this building down and take a few of my loyal
employees and move to the country." Shortly thereafter,
Sayers, Jr., again approached Krupp and inquired as to
why the employees "would want a union to represent
them." When Krupp replied that "Maybe they need more
money," the conversation terminated.
Sayers, Jr, testimonially asserted that, on the day of
the picnic, he had no specific knowledge of the union's
activities among his employees However, he admitted that
he was aware that the Union had been in negotiations
for several months with his friends in the trade Initially,
Sayers, Jr., professed that he did not inform Krupp that
the plant would be closed in the event of its unionization.
He then brought himself to acknowledge that he told Krupp
that "I would find it much easier to move the plant"
if the Union were successful In his description of the
discussion with Krupp, Sayers, Jr., related that "Mr. Krupp
I made the comment that I had heard from other of
my friends in the graphic arts business who had union
plants that the amount of things that they put up with
in the time it took them was rough on them, and then
if I personally . . . had to go through the various things
that these of my other friends were going through, I would
find it a heck of a lot easier to forget this Manchester
Road location [where the plant was situated] and move
this plant down into the Ozarks and take anybody that
wanted to go with me down there and run a print plant."
Finally, Sayers, Jr., did not deny that he questioned Krupp
regarding the reasons for the employees' adherence to the
Union.
Accordingly, I credit the testimony of Krupp, which
is not essentially disputed, and find that on May 1, after
Sayers, Jr , overheard his employees discussing the advent
of the Union at the plant, Sayers, Jr., stated to Krupp
that Respondent would terminate operations in St Louis
and remove the plant to another area if the employees
selected the Union as their bargaining agent I also find
that Sayers, Jr., questioned Krupp as to why the employees
believed they needed the assistance of the Union. By this
conduct, I am persuaded and conclude that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.1e
Employee Richard Brown testified that he, too, had
attended the picnic on May 1 He recounted that the
subject of the union's campaign was bandied about at
the barbecue. As he entered his automobile to leave the
parking lot, Supervisor John Maxwell approached and
opened a discussion about the Union. In the course of
the conversation, Maxwell remarked that "there probably
would be no more bonus if the Union came in "
As heretofore chronicled, the Union made its demand
for recognition upon Respondent on May 2 Maxwell con-
cededly became aware of the Union's recognitory claim
on that date because, in his words, it was "common knowl-
edge in the shop."
Brown further testified that, on May 3, and for the
first time in more than 20 years of employment with
Respondent, he received a telephone call at his home from
Maxwell. During the ensuing colloquy, Maxwell reported
that Respondent had compiled a list of those employees
who leaned toward or away from the Union and that
Brown and his brother Charles were on that roster. Maxwell
repeated the observations which he made to Brown on
May 1 to the effect that a union victory at the polls
would result in the loss of existing production bonuses,
a reduction in the workweek to 35 hours, the institution
of an undesirable two-shift system, and layoffs during slack
periods rather than assignments to odd jobs as had been
the past custom and practice. Brown was firm in his denials
that Maxwell told the former that the foregoing changes
would come about only as a consequence of the terms
of a union contract which Respondent might execute.
In his testimony, Maxwell admitted having a conversation
with Brown at the picnic on May 1 concerning the Union.
According to Maxwell, he and Brown were good friends
and, on this occasion, Maxwell "stopped [Brown] and I
and I were on the parking lot during the picnic and " See Fontana Bros., 169 NLRB No 56.
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY
asked him if he heard anything about union activity. He
showed surprise and I told him that I heard some of
the boys were in favor of the union representation. He
told me at the time that he didn't hear anything about
it . I had no way of knowing then that he knew
more about it than I did, so that was the end of that."
Maxwell also confessed that he telephoned Brown on the
evening of May 3 "after I found out that all this union
activity was true and that some of the boys were interested
in organizing. I called him to see how he felt about it."
Maxwell explained that he posed this inquiry to Brown
and other employees because, being opposed to the unioniza-
tion of the plant, and believing that he was a member
of the voting unit, he was "interested in finding out who
was for or against [the Union] . . I like to know how
things were going." Maxwell conceded that he mentioned
in his telephonic communications that Respondent would
cut back the workweek if the Union was successful, that
a two-shift operation would be mandatory, and that Brown
and other employees could not be kept on during slack
periods "if they could not perform other jobs" which they
normally performed in such periods, such as painting and
mowing the lawns. Maxwell also allowed as how he told
the men that Respondent would eliminate production bonus-
es because "I have heard that the Union doesn't allow
production bonuses." At one point in his testimony, Maxwell
flatly denied that he ever told Brown that the Respondent
had a list of employees who were for or against the Union.
When questioned further on the matter, he responded,
"Not a list, per se, but we were talking back and forth.
Actually, as I recall it now, I was doing most of the
talking. He [Brown] was listening and leading from that,
but I mentioned a few of the fellows who I thought would
be interested in the Union, having the union organization."
I credit the testimony of Brown, not only because he
impressed me as a sincere and forthright witness, but also
because his averments on the stand were not at substantial
variance with those of Maxwell. I find that, on May 1,
Maxwell questioned Brown concerning the latter's knowl-
edge of union activities and threatened that production
bonuses would no longer be awarded if the Union achieved
representational status at the plant." I further find that,
on May 3, Maxwell informed Brown that the Respondent
maintained a list of employees who favored the Union
or the Respondent, told Brown that he and his brother
would be laid oft rather than be given other work during
slack period at the plant if the employees selected the
Union as their bargaining agent, cautioned Brown that
the employees might not receive the customary production
bonuses which Respondent afforded them if the Union
prevailed in its organizational drive, and warned that the
advent of the Union as the bargaining representative of
the employees would prompt Respondent to cut back the
workweek to 35 hours and to institute an undesirable
two-shift operation, and that the men would be laid off
19 While the misconduct ascribed to Maxwell on May I is not expressly
alleged in the complaint , it was fully litigated and offered no element
of surprise to Respondent I therefore find that Maxwell's activities
in this regard form a proper basis for an unfair labor practice finding
See Stokely-Bredo Co, 130 NLRB 869, 872-873.
843
during slack periods rather than be assigned to odd jobs,
as had been Respondent's wont, in the event of unionization
By these activities, I conclude that Respondent thereby
intruded upon rights of its employees guaranteed in Section
7 of the Statute and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).20
Wesley Daggett had been employed for 8 years by
Respondent and performed the duties of an offset pressman.
He testified that, on May 9, Supervisor Earl Hardy
approached his press and a conversation regarding the
Union commenced. Hardy inquired "why I [Daggett]
thought I would like to have the Union represent us."
Daggett unfolded his reasons which favored unionization
and Hardy advanced his bases of opposition to collective
representation Following this exchange, Daggett expressed
the belief that any further discussion of the matter was
useless because he "felt that the Union either got in or
I would be out." Hardy rejoined, "If the Union doesn't
get in there may be some people go, but they should
have been gone a long time ago "
Hardy testimonially related that he had engaged in a
conversation with Daggett on May 9 during which Hardy
"asked him why he wanted a union" and Daggett replied
that he desired an equivalency of pay rates for the offset
pressmen, whereupon Hardy exclaimed "I do know if a
union gets in here some of the guys are going to leave "
Having uttered this remarkable, corroborative statement,
Hardy then essayed to explain away its meaning . According
to Hardy, it was his view that the men who voted for
the Union did so out of spite and, because of this, they
would voluntarily quit their employment in shame over
this dastardly act after the successful organization of the
plant. I deem it incredible that Hardy could have genuinely
harbored the belief that men such as Daggett, with extensive
tenure in the plant, would have relinquished their employ-
ment at the very time they had achieved their representation-
al goal, or that Hardy's comment to Daggett was premised
upon such a belief. Accordingly, I find that, on May
9, Hardy interrogated Daggett as to why the latter desired
union representation, and warned this employee that there
would be'a dimunition of the work force if the unit comple-
ment selected the Union. By this conduct, I find and
conclude that Respondent offended the provisions of Section
8(a)(1).
James Krupp testified that, on or about May 9, Sayers,
Jr., approached the former's machine while he was working
on a printing job and remarked that "If the Union goes
through you wouldn't get a job like this, because the
only people that do it are [Respondent] and Donnelly
Printing." A few hours later, Sayers, Jr., returned to the
machine and again stated that "if you go through with
your plan you won't get work like this," meaning that
the customers would not have their jobs performed in
a unionized shop. Sayers, Jr., did not deny Krupp's testimo-
ny on this issue and I find the facts to be as Krupp
reported them I conclude that the utterances of Sayers,
Jr. in this regard were violative of Section 8(a)( 1).21
20 The Technical Maintenance, Inc, 172 NLRB No 60; Brennan's,
Inc., 147 NLRB 1545
" Ibid.
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Continuing the narrative, the Union conducted a meeting
of employees on May 15 at the Chatterbox cafe in St
Louis. It is undisputed and I find that, when Polster arrived
for work on the following morning, Plant Superintendent
Henry Schmidt came over to Polster and inquired, "How
did the union meeting go last night?" It is also uncontrovert-
ed and I find that, on the same morning, Schmidt sought
out employee Charles Brown, who had absented himself
from the Union gathering on the previous evening, and
stated, "I understand you missed the meeting last night."
It is further undemed and I find that, around this time,
Schmidt informed employee Carney, "You know you guys,
if this goes through and these guys keep persisting on
having the Union, this letterpress department will probably
be done away." On the basis of the foregoing undisputed
facts, I find that Respondent thereby created the impression
of surveillance of its employees' legitimate union activities
and unlawfully threatened that its letterpress operations
would be terminated if the men exercised their statutory
rights. I conclude that this conduct fell within the proscrip-
tive ambit of Section 8(a)(1).
Between May 16 and 29, Respondent's employees in
the offset and letterpress departments conducted an infor-
mal poll to elect a shop steward and other committeemen.
This election was openly held in the plant during working
hours through the use of slips of paper on which the
employees registered their choices. Following the conclusion
of the balloting, Al Polster was chosen as the steward
The parties stipulated and I find that, after the election,
Alex Evans, Respondent's vice president, learned or was
advised by an employee that Polster had achieved the
office and that, upon acquiring this intelligence, Evans
approached Polster and commented, "Congratulations, Al,
I hear you have been elected queen of the May " It is
undisputed and I find that, on the same day, Sayers, Jr ,
visited employee Daggett at his press and stated "I hear
you have elected Al Polster your leader," to which Daggett
gave an affirmative response.
The General Counsel takes the position that the comments
of Evans and Sayers, Jr., to Polster regarding his election
to the office of shop steward created the impression of
Respondent's surveillance of its employees' engagement in
union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). I am unable
to agree. Neither Polster nor the other employees who
assisted him in obtaining or tallying the votes made any
secret of their efforts to select a shop steward or to fill
other intraunion posts during working time. While Polster
did not make any general announcement concerning his
elevation to this post, it is clear on the record that all
of the employees were informed of the results of the balloting
and that Respondent had received word of what was com-
mon knowledge in the offset and letterpress departments.
Accordingly, I am not convinced that the utterances of
Evans and Sayers, Jr., under the circumstances presented
herein, ran afoul of Section 8(a)(1). I shall therefore dismiss
this allegation in the complaint
It is undisputed and I find that, on or about May
29, Polster and Krupp heard that employee Robert Evans
was to be assigned to their crew as a "feeder" on the
press. Because of his persistent concern regarding the dan-
gers posed by the assignment of inexperienced personnel
to work on his five-color press, and believing that Evans'
assignment to this machine had already been decided upon
by Respondent and that it would create safety problems,
Polster telephoned Union Official Mantei to register his
fear that the impending transfer of Evans to the large
press would be hazardous. Thereupon, Mantei contacted
the Missouri Division of Industrial Inspection which resulted
in a visit to the plant by an inspector named Chartrand
on May 29
Polster and Krupp testified without contradiction and
I find that, on the morning of May 29, Chartrand, in
company with Sayers, Sr , and Sayers, Jr., approached
their press and Sayers, Jr., ordered Krupp to stop the
machine. The younger Sayers then asked Krupp whether
"there are any inexperienced help on the presses" and,
when Krupp answered in the negative, the former remarked,
"That's all we have to know." At this point in time ,
Polster was stationed a short distance away on a catwalk,
apparently out of sight and hearing The Sayers and Chart-
rand then proceeded to leave the scene. However, spying
the presence of Polster, the management party and Chart-
rand returned to the press, picking up employee Mel Lah-
mann on the way and informing him that "You are on
this job." Approaching the press, Sayers, Sr., pointed to
Polster and inquired, "Who made these alleged charges?"
and angrily proclaimed to Chartrand and the assemblage
that "I think this is where you can find out about these
alleged charges " While Polster attempted to interject that
he was not solely responsible for summoning Chartrand,
Sayers, Sr, exclaimed, "Well, here's the man that made
these alleged charges, that's all you need to know." Sayers,
Sr., added that "this wasn't safety business, this was union
business." Sayers, Sr., continued his castigation of Polster
by stating, "Here is a man. He has a fine home, He
has two fine cars He is never satisfied I used to like
this man, but I am beginning not to like him." Polster
protested that the inspector had been called to the plant
because of the fact that three serious accidents had occurred
at the presses in which some men severely injured their
fingers Polster thereupon identified Carlos Busackino as
one of the injured employees and Busackino was directed
to join the group where he related that he had seriously
injured a finger in the press As Busackino returned to
his work area, Sayers, Sr., retorted, "Well, there's a man
who is doing a woman's job back there, and if the Union
comes in here I have to lay him off and take a chance
of losing him." Following this discussion, Chartrand advised
Krupp and Polster that it was the duty of his agency
to investigate complaints regarding industrial safety and
he encouraged them to report any instances of hazardous
working conditions. Rounding out the undenied testimony
on this issue, Sayers, Sr., visited Krupp later that day
and commented,, "You might not know it, but I am prounion
where union is needed, but I am just disgusted" and,
with this, the former turned and walked away.
The complaint alleges that Respondent unlawfully interro-
gated employees when Sayers, Jr., questioned them as to
who had lodged the charge with the state agency concerning
unsafe conditions, and I so conclude on dual grounds.
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY 845
First, the uncontroverted testimony discloses that, when
the elder Sayers investigated the matter, he made it clear
that the inquiry was prompted by his belief that charge
was inspired by the Union and he sought to establish
the identity of the Union-oriented employee who triggered
the inspector's visit to the plant. Second, safe working
conditions in the plant were of utmost concern to the
employees in light of the history of injuries which certain
employees had sustained. Affecting their terms and condi-
tions of employment, as it did, the action of the employees
to insure the elimination of potential hazards constituted
a protected, concerted activity within the purview of the
Act. Accordingly, I find that the questioning of employees
to ascertain the identity of the instigators of such activity
intruded upon their nghts guaranteed under Section 7 to
engage in that endeavor I therefore conclude that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the foregoing conduct.
The General Counsel asserts that, on two occasions in
early June, Sayers, Jr., illegally threatened to discharge
Al Polster if he left his work station to talk with other
employees while, at the same time, Respondent permitted
other employees to absent themselves from their work to
converse with employees; that, on June 9, Respondent
Sales Manager Richard Thomas once more uttered this
threat to Polster; and, that, on June 9, Respondent unlawful-
ly discharged Polster because of his union activities and/
or because he engaged in concerted activities protected
by the statute.
Polster had been employed by Respondent for 9 years
prior to his discharge on June 13. So far as this record
stands, he had never been criticized by his superiors for
any work deficiencies and had never been the subject of
disciplinary action previous to June. As chronicled earlier,
Polster drew the wrath of Sayers, Sr., in December 1968
when the former complained about the excessive volume
of overtime work and the utilization of inexperienced person-
nel by Respondent, with Sayers, Sr., retorting that "If
you don't like it, you are not shackled here " Polster
was the first to enlist in the Union's ranks when he signed
a union card on January 17. That Respondent's officials
gained early knowledge of Polster's prominence in the
union's organizational campaign is made manifest by Super-
visor Maxwell's statement to Richard Brown on May 3
that Respondent had compiled a list of the known union
adherents and those who remained loyal to the company.
Any doubt as to Respondent's knowledge that Polster was
the prime movant of the union cause is dispelled by the
comments of Respondent's Vice President Alex Evans some-
time between May 16 and May 29 when the latter congratu-
lated Polster upon his accession to the office of shop
steward, and by the statement of Sayers, Jr., to Daggett
that Sayers, Jr., had heard "you have elected Al Polster
your leader."
Upon learning of Polster's efforts to inject the Union
as the bargaining agent in the plant, Respondent did not
take kindly to this intelligence. I have heretofore found
that, on May 29, when Polster caused the inspector of
the Missouri Division of Industrial Inspection to visit the
shop to survey safety conditions, Sayers, Sr , charged that
this happenstance was occasioned by "union business" and
the elder Sayers wryly observed that "I used to like this
man [Polster], but I am beginning not to like him." Further-
more, Sayers, Sr , confessed that he was "just disgusted"
by these union activities in which Polster indulged. Accord-
ingly, I find that, prior to June 9, Respondent knew that
Polster was the most active union protagonist in the plant
and was strongly opposed to his union activities.
Within a few days following Inspector Chartrand's visit
to the print shop on May 29, Polster noticed that Sayers,
Jr., was engaged in a lengthy conversation with employee
Charles Brown whose work station was located about 100
feet from Polster's press. When the discussion ended, and
out of curiosity, Polster ventured to Brown's workbench
and inquired into the topic of the latter's conversation
with Respondent's president. After Polster returned to his
machine, which was operating under the guidance of James
Krupp, the senior pressman, and Dale Hardy, a junior
pressman, Sayers, Jr, and Alex Evans approached and
Sayers, Jr , told Polster that "You are not allowed to
leave the press and you are not allowed to campaign."
Polster asked whether it was permissible to go to the bath-
room, and Sayers, Jr., repeated that "You are not allowed
to leave the press. You are not allowed to campaign
This is your first warning " According to Polster, this
was the first time in the 9 years of his employment that
he had ever been criticized for leaving his machine, and
he expressed a total unawareness that the Respondent had
ever previously maintained a rule forbidding conversations
between employees on company time Indeed, Sayers, Jr.,
admitted on the stand that Respondent initially formulated
and enforced its rule against talking and leaving the presses
in May only after it had been apprised that the Union
sought recognition, that it had union leaders in its midst,
and that the employees were discussing the topic of unioniza-
tion.
About a week later, Polster and his crew experienced
a breakdown on his press which was caused by a faulty
feeder mechanism. With the machine stopped, Polster
removed a part and proceeded to another area to obtain
a piece of emory cloth with which he intended to smooth
the surface of the part and make the press once more
operable. While he was engaged in this mission, Sayers,
Jr., appeared and summoned him back to the press where
Sayers, Jr., warned that "You are not allowed to leave
the press. You are not allowed to campaign." So far as
appears, Sayers, Jr., made no inquiry into the reason for
Polster's absence from his work station either before or
after giving this second warning. In this connection, Polster
testified without contradiction and I find that, in the past,
he had left his machine, even while it was operating,
to obtain materials and that some of the absences on
these chores were as a result of Respondent's edict
The next day, June 9, Polster heard the call of nature
and repaired to the bathroom. As he emerged from that
room, he was beckoned by Charles Brown who worked
near the door to that enclosure. Brown informed Polster
that the former had received a telephone call the preceding
evening from a Board agent who inquired whether Brown
felt he was being harassed by Respondent. Brown stated
that he had informed the agent that this was not the
case, and Polster commented, "Charley, that's the best
way Stick to the truth and we will be ahead " Following
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the conversation, which lasted 30 seconds, Polster proceeded
back to his machine. As he did so, Respondent Sales
Manager Richard Thomas called to Polster, "Hey aren't
you going to be by your presses. This is your third warning.
Get back to your press" Polster resumed work and, a
few minutes later, Sayers, Jr., Thomas, and Alex Evans
approached the machine. Sayers, Jr., immediately informed
Polster that "You were warned not to leave your press.
You are fired?" Drawn to anger, Polster retorted that
"I don't care what that little [foul word] said [a reference
to Thomas], I wasn 't away from the press unnecessarily."
Whereupon, Polster changed clothes, clocked out, and left
the premises.
It is undenied and I find that, later that day, Sayers,
Jr., summoned all unit employees to the lunchroom where
he informed them of Polster's discharge. In the younger
Sayers' words, "I wanted everybody to know what was
going on, how this had come about, and also we got
a lot of valuable employees at this plant and turning out
the work we have we can't afford to lose many more
of them, and I wanted everybody to know that this had
happened and how it had happened, and these warnings
that he had received that they had been told that this
is very, very serious, and this is how Mr. Polster was
fired was because of the third warning being away from
his work station " James Krupp testified without denial
that, at this meeting, Sayers, Jr., told the assembled men
"that Al Polster was fired for campaigning and was advised
by their attorney to fire him." It is Krupp's further uncon-
tradicted testimony that, after the gathering broke up, Say-
ers, Sr., ventured to Krupp's press and remarked that
"we had one bad [one] there he dust hoped they didn't
have any more." Charles Brown related on the stand that,
during the meeting, he informed Sayers, Jr., that he, not
Polster, had originated the conversation which led to Pol-
ster's termination, exclaiming to Sayers, Jr., that "I would
neither cheat, lie nor steal and that I had stopped Mr.
Polster." Sayers, Jr., while not admitting that Brown had
uttered such a statement, confessed that it would have
made no difference in Respondent's decision to discharge
Polster even if Brown had so advised Sayers, Jr. Moreover,
it is clear on this record that none of Respondent's officials
made any inquiry into the reasons for the absence of
Polster from his work station on this or any other occasion."
The General Counsel contends that Polster was selected
for discharge because of his known union activities. Alterna-
tively, the General Counsel urges that the discharge stemmed
from the application of a no-solicitation rule which was
discriminatorily devised and/or applied. Respondent defends
its action with respect to the separation of Polster solely
on the ground that he consciously and persistently violated
the "no-talk" and "no-walk" rule whose origin was bottomed
on Respondent's demonstrated need for maintaining
increased production standards. I find no merit in this
defense
Sayers, Jr., testified that, after the Union made its repre-
sentational demand in May, the employees spent a considera-
" Respondent's officials admitted on the stand that, notwithstanding
the "no-talk" and "no-walk" rule, it was permissible for employees to
absent themselves to visit the bathroom.
ble amount of their time roaming around the offset and
letterpress departments discussing the pros and cons of
unionization rather than working. This activity led Vice
President Evans to check his cost sheets at which juncture
he noted that production "was going down pretty bad."
Evans brought this to the attention of Sayers, Jr., and
a joint decision was made to formulate the "no-talk" and
"no-walk" rule in order to escalate productivity in the
departments However, not only did Respondent fail to
support this thesis by the introduction of the cost sheets,
but Respondent's own officials controverted the thesis by
testifying that business had so fallen off for economic reasons
in May and June in the offset and letterpress departments
that unit employees were assigned to mowing the lawn,
painting, or working in the bindery so that time would
not lie heavy on their hands
In short, I am convinced on this record that the rule
was not promulgated in furtherance of a legitimate interest
of maintaining production standards. Moreover, Respondent
does not claim that the rule was necessary to uphold
discipline in the plant or preserve order. In light of the
fact that Respondent admittedly promulgated the rule only
after it became aware of the Union's incursions in the
plant, and solely to curb employee-discussions of the Union,
I conclude that the rule was devised specifically for the
purpose of defeating union organization and was utilized
to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act. By the promulgation
and enforcement of the rule, I find and conclude that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) 21 Furthermore,
I am also convinced that Polster was discharged, not only
pursuant to a rule which was formulated and applied to
defeat unionization of the plant and thus frustrate rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, but also because
he was an active, known adherent of the Union. I therefore
conclude that, by Respondent's termination of Polster, it
violated Section 8(a)(3).
It is uncontroverted and I find that, on June 11, 2
days before the election and 2 days after Polster's illegal
discharge, Sayers, Sr., delivered a speech to assembled
employees in the unit and, on the same day, this address
was mailed to the employees. Couched in the jargon of
the sea, the elder Sayers recounted the history of the
"good ship Sayers" and then launched into the following
observation:
So much for the past! It's the present and the future
we'll dwell on nowt Each of you crew men has received
the loyalty, the trust and the respect due you from
the men on the bridge. But this is a two way traffic
lane The men on the bridge must command that
same loyalty, trust and respect in return.
A questionable undercover harbor pilot, underwritten
by a questionable foreign element, under federal law,
has hailed us down to question our ship's operating
policy.
The men on the bridge know their legal rights under
domestic and international law. Those rights will be
preserved and exercised to the full extent of the law.
" See The Wm. H. Block Company, 150 NLRB 341, 342-343.
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY 847
i
Luckily for all of us, we have been hailed down in
a democratic society port where the secret ballot is
secret and its results will be honored and upheld by
the good laws of this land. I hope each of you will
show his colors proudly by voting out of existence
the mutinous small element attempting to convert this
happy flagship into one of those ordinary line hulls.
Man your guns, men! Use your fire power! Vote these
misguided mutineers off our ship' You will have earned
renewed loyalty, trust and respect from every man
on the bridge.
And finally, NOW HEAR THIS- now is the chance
for any squeamish sailors to walk down the gang
plank and sign on to a new berth. Temporarily, the
waters ahead may be a bit choppy for the good ship
"Sayers." However, the barometer is rising and the
bridge forecasts smooth and more profitable sailing
coming up for all loyal members of her fine crew
The General Counsel and the Union argue that the
aforementioned final paragraph of the speech held out
the promise of benefits to those employees who voted
against the Union in the forthcoming election and was
violative of Section 8(a)(1) Viewing the contents of this
paragraph against the backdrop of Respondent's antecedent
conduct, I find this argument persuasive As heretofore
found, Respondent made no bones about its opposition
to the unionization of the plant or its antipathy toward
the union protagonists. Sayers, Jr., admittedly told the
employees that Respondent would move its installation
rather than deal with the Union as their bargaining agent.
Other supervisors, notably Maxwell, warned the men that
economic retribution would be visited upon the employees
if they chose to embrace the Union in the election of
June 13. Moreover, Maxwell made it known that Respondent
was in possession of the names of the union adherents
and Sayers, Sr., openly manifested his dislike for the leading
union adherent in the plant, namely, Polster, going so
far as to discharge him for his union activities. On this
state of the record, it is not difficult to define the identity
of the "mutineers" or reasonably to deduce that, when
Sayers, Sr, predicted "smooth and more profitable sailing
coming up for all loyal members" of his crew, he had
reference to the award of more lucrative economic benefits
if his "sailors" sank the raider "Union " Viewing this
aspect of the case as I do, I conclude that the speech
of Sayers, Sr., taken in context, violated Section 8(a)(1).2°
The complaint alleges that, on June 13, Respondent
refused to allow an employee to serve as an observer
in the Board election held that day, and interrogated an
employee as to how he cast his ballot. While the facts
surrounding these allegations are not presented on this
record with the desired degree of clarity, I glean them
to be as follows.
Prior to the election Polster had been designated by
Union Vice President Mantei to act as a union observer
during the balloting. On the morning of June 13, Polster
accompanied Mantei to the plant where they were ushered
'• See Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc, 170
NLRB No 39.
into a conference room. Present were the Sayers, as well
as an employee named Schott who had been selected to
serve as the Respondent's observer. After the parties assem-
bled, the Board agent in charge of the election requested
that they present their poll watchers The Respondent pro-
posed Schott to whom the Union registered no objection
The Union thereupon presented Polster on its behalf. How-
ever, Sayers, Jr., objected to Polster's service on the ground
that he had been lawfully discharged on June 9 and therefore
was not an employee of Respondent and was thus disquali-
fied. Following a discussion of the matter, Sayers, Jr.,
suggested that it might be wise for the Board agent to
speak with Respondent's counsel in Phoenix, Arizona. Say-
ers, Jr , and the agent left the room and the former tele-
phoned his counsel and turned the phone over to the
agent. Sayers, Jr., returned to the conference room while
the agent conversed alone with counsel When the agent
concluded his conversation, he, together with Mantei, tele-
phoned Union President Creole. After this communication,
the agent and Mantei entered the conference room where
Mantei voluntarily agreed to substitute employee Krupp
as an observer in lieu of Polster. Polster thereupon was
instructed to leave the premises until the vote was taken.
When the balloting commenced, Polster walked back
into the plant to cast his ballot and, as he passed by
the office of Sayers, Jr., the latter told Polster that "I
[Po]ster] didn't have to be on the wrong side all the
time." After Polster voted, he proceeded to leave the plant
and again passed by the office. Observing Polster, the
younger Sayers inquired, "Which way did you go?" Polster
replied, "What do you think?" and to make himself abun-
dantly clear he retorted "I voted for the Union."
The General Counsel takes the position that Respondent
possessed no right to debar Polster from serving as a
union observer because he remained a statutory employee
on the election date, and counsel urges that Respondent's
conduct in this regard was offensive to Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. I am not so persuaded. When Polster appeared
at the plant on June 13 to serve his turn as a union
poll watcher, a genuine question existed as to his employ-
ment status with Respondent. After the Respondent regis-
tered its objection to the designation of Polster, the Union
was fully consulted, interposed no objection to the substitu-
tion of an alternate, and voluntarily agreed to utilize the
services of Krupp. Under the circumstances here presented,
I am not convinced that this is the stuff out of which
interference, coercion, and restraint in the statutory sense
is made. I therefore conclude that Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) by refusing to accede to Polster's
selection as a union observer and I shall therefore dismiss
this allegation in the complaint.
On the other hand, I am not persuaded that Sayers,
Jr , was legally privileged to inquire into Polster's voting
propensities. Whether in political or labor elections, the
secrecy of the ballot is the touchstone of a free choice.
In my opinion, questioning an employee regarding his union
leanings is just as coercive when done after balloting as
it is when the question is posed before the vote. Accordingly,
I conclude that Sayers, Jr., offended the provisions of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by asking Polster how he voted.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties stipulated and I find that, on or about
June 30, Respondent increased the medical, dental, and
vacation benefits for its bindery department employees,
while at the same time it did not do so with respect
to the unit employees and, that in the past, both unit
and bindery employees shared mutual insurance benefits.
The parties further stipulated and I find that, on or about
July 11, Respondent failed to grant the unit employees
a pay increase which normally was afforded in July of
each year. According to Respondent, it withheld these
benefits until the majority status of the Union had been
finally resolved by the Board and because it feared that
it would be the target of additional unfair labor practices
if it awarded these emoluments on those dates. At the
hearing, Respondent offered and the Union accepted a
stipulation whereby Respondent agreed to grant the employ-
ees in the unit the pay increase normally afforded in July
and to make it retroactive to July 1 Respondent also
offered and the Union accepted the Respondent's immediate
extension of the medical, dental, and vacation benefits to
the offset and letterpress employees In return for these
offers, the Union pledged not to file unfair labor practice
charges against Respondent based upon these awards. In
light of this compromise, I deem it unnecessary to pass
upon the General Counsel's contention that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by withholding these
benefits from the unit personnel.
On August 11, and without prior notice, Thomas Carney
and Carlos Busackino were summoned into Vice President
Alex Evans' office where, in the presence of Sayers, Jr.,
they were discharged. Carney had been employed by
Respondent since 1966, and Busackino was hired in 1967,
and I find based on their undenied testimony that neither
had previously experienced a reduction in force during
the course of their employment. Both had executed union
authorization cards in March, with Carney signing his
at a union meeting at the Chatterbox cafe and Busackino
at a gathering in the Flaming Pit lounge. That Respondent's
officials knew that these men were union members is amply
demonstrated by findings, heretofore made, that Supervisor
Maxwell informed Richard Brown on May 3 that Respond-
ent had compiled a list of the union supporters. Moreover,
Respondent's antipathy toward Busackino, predicated upon
its belief that he was involved in the "union business"
which prompted the visit of a safety inspector to the plant
on May 29, is exemplified by the comment of Sayers,
Sr., on that date that Busackino was "a man who is
doing a woman's job back there, and if the Union comes
in here I have to lay him off and take a chance of losing
him." Furthermore, Plant Superintendent Schmidt made
a point of warning Carney and Busackino prior to the
election that "if this union business went through-he
knew that we belonged to the Union and they were signing
cards to the Union-he said if this went through, they
would probably do away with the letterpress department
altogether," a warning which Schmidt delivered on three
different occasions
It is undisputed and I find that, immediately prior to
August 11, Respondent utilized two Heidelberg cylinder
presses for letterpress work and Busackino and Carney
were assigned to those machines. Due to the slackness
of letterpress work, Respondent sold one of the presses
that day Respondent asserts that the loss of the press,
in conjunction' with deteriorating business conditions,
prompted the discharge of Carney and Busackino, and
that they were selected for termination based upon "sen-
iority." I am not convinced that his defense stands up
under scrutiny of the facts unfolded on this record. Carney
had toiled in the printing industry for 24 years and he
credibly testified that, when he was hired by Respondent,
Sayers, Jr., assured him that, if business became slack
Respondent "would always have something for you to
do, either painting the ceiling, clean the floors, or clean
the presses, but there wouldn't be any layoff." During
slack periods, he was assigned to duties in the bindery,
painted the pipes and ceilings, painted the presses, and
performed odd jobs. Carney also averred and I find that
he was capable of running the stamper and that he had
in fact done so during a stretch of 3 months Busackino
credibly testified that, when there was a shortage of letter-
press work, he was delegated to perform tasks in the
bindery, paint the premises, and cut grass. Moreover, during
1 year, he worked as a feeder on an offset press without
assistance.
In the course of his explanation for the separation of
Carney and Busackino, Sayers, Jr., commenced to dance
a testimonial quadrille. Thus, upon being queried as to
the criteria utilized to select men for a reduction in force,
Sayers, Jr , initially responded that he decided to sever
the "two junior men in the letterpress department" based
upon their seniority in that department When reminded
that Carney had greater seniority in the pressroom than
Schutz, who was retained by the company, Sayers, Jr.,
altered course and claimed that "companywide" seniority
was determinative of the retention of employees and Schutz
was retained because he had been in Respondent's employ
for a longer period of time. Hence, an analysis of the
testimony of Sayers, Jr., logically would lead to the conclu-
sion that, under either of the criteria advanced by him,
Evans should have been discharged. Furthermore, utilizing
"companywide" seniority, Evans and Busackino, rather than
Carney and Busackino, should have received exit interviews
on August 11 Finally, both Carney and Busackino possessed
greater seniority that Schutz in the letterpress department.
While I am prepared to and do find that Respondent's
letterpress work decreased and that it sold a Heidelberg
press on August 11, I am convinced that some criteria
was used by Respondent other than that which it suggests.
In light of Respondent's unconcealed animosity toward
unionization of its offset and letterpress department, its
pronounced antipathy toward the employees who were union
boosters, its knowledge that both Carney and Busackino
had joined and embraced the union's cause, and its estab-
lished policy of assigning other work to employees during
slack periods, I find that Respondent selected these men
for discharge, not because of lack of work, but because
they joined and assisted the Union. I accordingly conclude
that, by this conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
Finally, I turn to a consideration of the General Counsel
contention that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain
with the Union as the majority representative of the unit
employees on May 2 On that date, the Union represented
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY 849
10 of the 18 employees in the appropriate unit Faced
with a valid recognitory demand , Respondent concededly
rejected it. Between May 2 and the holding of the election
on June 13, Respondent loosed a massive barrage of interfer-
ence, restraint , and coercion against its employees which
offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) and , almost on
the eve of the balloting , it discriminatorily discharged Pol-
ster , the shop steward and most ardent supporter of the
Union in the plant. Against the backdrop of Respondent's
flagrant disregard of its employees ' statutory rights freely
to accept or reject a bargaining agent in an unfettered
election , it is no wonder that the union 's majority status,
early gained , was seemingly dissipated or lost in the voting
booth on June 13 In his brief, the General Counsel urges
the the ballots of Polster , Evans, and Schutz be opened
and counted and, in the event the Union does not receive
a majority of the votes , its objections to election be sustained
and the election be set aside and a new balloting take
place Alternatively, he requests that a bargaining order
should run against Respondent because its preelection mis-
conduct made it impossible for the employees to express
their true sentiments on behalf of the Union . I deem it
unnecessary to indulge in the suggested administrative hop-
scotch The Union had an uncoerced majority on May
2. In my judgment , even if the foregoing ballots were
opened and tallied and the Union was shown to have
been defeated in the election , a bargaining order would
nevertheless be warranted because of Respondent 's extensive
preelection misconduct . Accordingly , I conclude that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on May
2 when it rejected the Union 's demand for recognition."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent set forth in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Al Polster, Carlos Busackino, and Thomas Carney. I will
therefore recommend that Respondent offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or , if those
jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions
and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
them , by payment to them of a sum equal to that which
11 Cf N.LR.B v Gissel Packing Company, 395 U S. 575
they would normally have earned from the date of the
discrimination to the date of reinstatement , less net earnings
during said period, if any The backpay provided herein
shall be computed in accordance with the Board 's formula
set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum
computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to
bargain with the Union on and after May 2, 1969, when
the latter represented a majority of Respondent's employees
in an appropriate unit , and having found that Respondent's
engagement in a series of unfair labor practices prior to
the election of June 13 which caused inconclusive results
of the balloting, I shall recommend the issuance of an
order directing Respondent , upon request , to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the unit herein found appropriate I shall also recommend
that the petition filed in Case 14-RC-6194 be dismissed.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices engaged in by Respondent, which evince an attitude
of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, I
deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease
and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the
rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions upon the entire record in the case, I hereby
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and the union activities of their fellow
employees; threatening employees that the plant would
be closed and moved to another location if the employees
selected the Union as their representative ; threatening
employees with loss of employment during slack periods
in the event they voted for the Union; threatening employees
with loss of production bonuses and other benefits if they
chose the Union in the election, threatening employees
with discharge in the event of a union victory; creating
the impression of surveillance of its employees ' union activi-
ties; threatening to eliminate the letterpress department
in the event of unionization ; threatening to discharge
employees under color of a rule which was devised and
applied solely to restrain and coerce employees in the
exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act; coercively
interrogating employees as to how they voted in the election;
and promising employees enhanced economic benefits if
they voted against the Union, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Al Polster, Carlos Busackino, and
Thomas Carney because they assisted and supported the
Union, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment , in order to discourage membership
in and activity on behalf of the Union, Respondent has
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. All offset and letterpress department employees
employed at Respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant exclud-
ing bindery department and warehouse (including shipping,
receiving and truckdrivers) employees, office clerical and
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the duly designated collective-bargaining representative
of its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Sayers Printing
Company, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
I Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and the union activities of their fellow
employees
(b) Threatening employees that the plant will be closed
and moved to another location if the employees selected
the Union as their bargaining agent.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of employment during
slack periods in the event they voted for the Union.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of production bonuses
and other benefits if they choose the Union in a Board
election.
(e) Threatening employees with discharge in the event
of a union victory.
(f) Creating the impression of surveillance of the employ-
ees' union activities.
(g) Threatening to eliminate the letterpress department
in the event the plant becomes unionized.
(h) Threatening to discharge employees under color of
a rule which is devised and applied solely to restrain
and coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory
rights.
(i) Coercively interrogating employees as to how they
voted in Board elections
(1) Promising employees enhanced economic benefits for
voting against the Union
(k) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other
labor organization, by discharging employees of otherwise
discriminating in respect to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment.
(1) Refusing to bargain, upon request, with Local Union
No. 252, Lithographers-Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit-
All offset and letterpress department employees
employed at Respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, plant,
excluding bindery department and warehouse (includ-
ing shipping, receiving and truckdrivers) employees,
office clerical and professional employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(m) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Al Polster, Carlos Busackino, and Thomas
Carney immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Al Polster, Carlos Busackino, and Thomas
Carney if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Union
No. 252, Lithographers-Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order
(e) Post at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
14, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
36 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec
102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board, the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended
Order here shall , as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations! Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board."
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election conduct-
ed on June 13, 1969, be declared a nullity and that the
petition filed in Case 14-RC-6194 be dismissed.
IT IS ALSO FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, except as
hereinabove found, all other allegations in the complaint
be dismissed.
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
about their union activities or the union activities
of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant and
move it to another location if our employees select
Local Union No 252, Lithographers-Photoengravers
International Union, AFL-CIO as their bargaining
agent.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss
of their jobs during slack business periods if they
vote for the above-named Union
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the
loss of production bonuses or other benefits if they
choose the Union in a Board election.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
if they select the Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are
spying upon the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to eliminate the letterpress
department if the plant is unionized.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees under
color of a rule which is formulated and applied solely
to restrain and coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights under the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
as to how they voted in Board elections.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees better wages
and conditions of employment for failing to support
the Union.
851
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from joining
or helping Local Union No. 252, Lithographers-Pho-
toengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other union, by discharging them or otherwise making
their working conditions worse.
WE WILL NOT, upon request, refuse to bargain with
Local Union No 252, Lithographers-Photoengravers
International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit at
the plant.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, or to join or assist Local Union No. 252, Lithogra-
phers-Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Al Polster, Carlos Busackino,
and Thomas Carney immediate and full reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions and we will pay
them for any wages lost when we discharged them
forjoining and assisting the Union.
WE WILL notify Al Polster, Carlos Busackino, and
Thomas Carney if presently serving in the Armed
Services of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from
becoming members of the above-named Union or any other
labor organization
Dated By
SAYERS PRINTING COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
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 Board's Office, 1040
Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis,
Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.