West Shore Publishing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

WEST SHORE PUBLISHING, INC. 641
West Shore Publishing, Inc. and International Print-
ing 'Pressmen Assistants & Offset Workers Union
of North America, Local 183, AFL-CIO. Cases
22-CA-6223 and 22-CA-6261
November 13, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On September 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting bri ef, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in response to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,'
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
January 23, 1975 (Case 22-CA-6223), and another filed on
March 3, 1975 (Case 22-CA-6261), by International
Printing Pressmen Assistants and Offset Workers Union of
North America, Local 183, AFL-CIO, here called the
Union or Local 183. In the course of the hearing, the issues
presented by the first charge were resolved informally, as
will be explained below. The remaining issues are whether
the Respondent unlawfully discharged two employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and whether it also
otherwise coerced employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1). Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
West Shore Publishing, Inc., a New York State corpora-
tion, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of mats and graphic materials and related products, with
its principal place of business in Bogota, New Jersey.
During the calendar year 1974, a representative period, it
manufactured, sold, and distributed from the plant
products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products
valued in excess of $50,000,were shipped out of the State in
interstate commerce. I find that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board ' adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent West Shore Publish-
ing,, Inc., Bogota, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an 'Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We also find no merit in Respondent's contentions that the Administrative
Law Judge faded to objectively consider the evidence presented; improperly
shifted the burden of proof to Respondent; and engaged in improper and
hostile questioning of Respondent's witnesses
2 We also note that the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently found
that discriminatees Horace Belgrave and Ronald Berridge were born in
Jamaica, whereas the record reveals they were born in Trinidad
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held on July 14 and 15, 1974, at
Newark, New Jersey, on a consolidated complaint of the
General Counsel against West Shore Publishing, Inc., here
called the Respondent or the Company. The complaint
issued on April 28, 1975, and rests upon a charge filed on
221 NLRB No. 92
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that International Printing Pressmen Assistants
and Offset Workers Union of North America, Local 183,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. A Picture of the Case
Local 183 was certified by the Board in May 1974 as
bargaining agent for the employees in the Respondent's
camera and-printing departments in a single unit, includ-
ing, at the time, about six or seven employees. The parties
bargained and signed a collective-bargaining agreement in
November 1974. Horace Belgrave and Ronald Berridge
were cameramen and dues-paying members of the Union
in February 1975. They were discharged that month, and
the complaint alleges the reason for their dismissal was
because they refused the Respondent's request that they
abandon their adherence to the - Union. Denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices, in defense the
Respondent asserts the two men were dismissed because,
contrary to instructions, they left work for 2 weeks without
permission.
The whole case turns on a question of credibility. If the
testimony of Belgrave and Berridge, supported by that of
Ivan Balfour, a third cameraman, and Edward Treacy,
agent of Local 183, is believed, there remains absolutely no
doubt that they were discharged illegally. If instead Fred
Gilbert, the plant production manager, supported by
Thomas Redmond, Jr., vice president of the Company, is
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
credited, all evidence of unlawful motivation disappears
and the complaint must be dismissed.
B. The Conflicting Testimony
Berridge started with the Respondent in June 1973, and
Belgrave inn November of that year. They are natives of
Jamaica ^ and sometime during 1974 were invited to
participate in a musical festival to be held in Trinidad
during February 1975. Belgrave testified he first mentioned
the subject to Gilbert in a November talk and asked for a
vacation "in early February,", and that Gilbert told him
"there` would be no problem, I would have a vacation
.... Belgrave continued to testify that, in order to feel
sure in implementing his plans, early in January he
reminded Gilbert of the vacation request, and again the
manager literally gave him, his approval.
It was about this time in mid -January that Berridge also
asked Gilbert- if'he could have his vacation in, February.
Berridge's testimony is that Gilbert told him that, what
with Belgrave already having , been given approval,
"maybe" - Berridge "'should talk to Redmond, the vice
president. 'Berridge ',did that and, still -as- he testified,
Redmond sent him back - to Gilbert "because he knows
more about what goes on in the plant than anyone else."
When, Berridge did return to him, Gilbert said "he would
try to arrange something."
It is the testimony of both Belgrave and Berridge that at
about this point - a week or two before February 3, the
day they wanted to leave Gilbert started to tell each of
them that if he agreed to abandon the Union, all
"problems" in connection with his vacation desires would
disappear.
Belgrave : "...Mr. Gilbert came to me one night and
told me that . . . if I would write a statement that I no
longer want Local 183, there would be no problem. I then
told him that I thought my vacation was approved ... .
He just continued with, if you sign this statement, you
know, everything will be okay." "Nearly every night after
-that ' l worked - there,'he came out with that suggestion to
me. 'He also mentioned to me that I should try to convince
my other colleagues in the department to do the same."
"He told me' that if I write a statement stating that I no
longer want Local 183, there won't be any problems."
Berridge: "About ten days before I was supposed to go
on`my vacation, approximately ten days, he [Gilbert] came
to me and asked me about signing a petition saying that we
don't want the union in there .and he told me that it would
be easy for me to go on my vacation .. r .. He said that Mr.
Redmond 'was annoyed that the shop steward has issued a
card to amember of our department."
Q. Is this the last conversation that you had with Mr.
Gilbert about your vacation?
A. Well, he just kept 'repeating the same statement
about signing the paper until the last day that I
was there. . . .
JuDGE` Ricci : Not what it meant, did he say that the
paper had anything to do with the vacation?
Tim' WrriESS : He said, your vacation would become
easy.
Balfour also worked in the camera department; he did
the same kind of work as Berridge and Belgrave and was
the chapel chairman , orunion steward . Balfour's testimony
is that when Belgrave told him of Gilbert s demand for an
antiunion statement he, Balfour , spoke of that matter to
Gilbert. ". . . I told Mr. Gilbert that I had a conversation
with someone prior to that and what this was all about,
about signing some statement that they don't want the
union in. . . . And Fred Gilbert said , `Well, things are not
going right with the union,' and if I sign a union - if I sign
a letter stating that I don't want ' the union too, maybe he
can get me as a supervisor with at least twice the money."
At the hearing Gilbert said that he never gave either man
permission to leave. His testimony is that when the men
asked about vacation leave he told them-he, Gilbert, must
first consult Redmond, and that when he did Redmond
said "in no way would either man be allowed to go on
vacation.... He just said that we would 'be getting a lot
more work in." Gilbert continued that he then told the two
men they could not go on vacation , and then added, ".. .
I heard that they were going to - go on their vacation
anyway, and I, went and I told them, `Don't 'go. If you go, I
can't guarantee your jobs if you go.' " "I told them, you
know, several times, `Do not go, I can not guarantee your
jobs if you go.' " Gilbert denied having said anything to
the cameramen, Balfour included , about signing anything
to reject the Union, or about asking others to do so, or
promising an increase in pay as a reward to Balfour.
Redmond , apparently the son of an owner, corroborated
Gilbert with respect to what `conversations the production
manager said he had with Redmond . Redmond also
testified that he then told Berridge he could not go on
vacation because of "the increase in work volume that we
would have." And the third witness for, the Respondent,
Bob Prince (the Respondent only called three witnesses -
Gilbert, Redmond, and Prince), the man , in charge of sales
for the Company, said only that he was present and heard
Redmond tell Belgrave he could not go on vacation.
C. Credibility Resolution; Conclusion
I credit the testimony of the three cameramen and I find
the contrary testimony of Gilbert unbelievable . There are
many reasons for this credibility resolution, some directly
-related , to Gilbert and some based upon the affirmative
defense of discharge for cause generally. The very
demeanor -of the witnesses at the hearing tended , to make
Belgrave , Berridge , and Balfour more credible than
Gilbert.
1. Counsel for the Respondent correctly states that if a
man is told he may not leave hisjob for vacation purposes,
but does so in defiance of what then are really work orders,
it does not matter whether the pressure of work was or was
not heavy, normal or abnormal , or whether the inconven-
ience to the employer was great or small. But the
determinative question here is not whether the 2 weeks'
departure of the men causedinsoluble "problems." The
fact is that in one way or another the so-called problems
were resolved , the work was done. It may very well be,
therefore, that Gilbert did tell Belgrave and Berridge he
could take care of a possible problem, make their vacations
easy, if they obliged him by quitting the Union. But
WEST SHORE PUBLISHING, INC. 643
regardless of all this, the Respondent chose to assert that
there was a great increase in the volume of the business,
comparing the last 2 weeks of January with the first 2 of
February, when the men were away. In the attempt to
prove this self-serving factual assertion, its witnesses fared
very badly, and thereby cast a very serious doubt upon the
entire conversation of discharge for cause.
To start with, Gilbert said he told the men, and their
union agent, that in January there was added work
expected, with more than the usual amount of work to be
done . Later he and Redmond equivocated on whether they
really had , reason to expect any significant additional
customers . There is no evidence of any additional customer
ever arriving. Belgrave , Berridge, and Balfour each worked
on a different shift, the three of them around the clock. At
the start of the defense testimony, the implied argument
was that with two men gone how could only the remaining
one do all the work. The first question to Gilbert as a
defense witness was: ". . . how many people worked in the
camera department?" He answered: "Three," Balfour,
Bemdge , and Belgrave . This was a deliberate attempt to
deceive then and there. As he went on, Gilbert admitted
there was a fourth full-time cameraman in the department
- Ansis Kreslins - whom he called a working supervisor.
There is uncontradicted testimony by Balfour that the
Company regularly brings cameramen from its nearby
plant called Typetron to do work in this department.
Speaking of `the two locations , Redmond himself testified
about the transfer of employees between camera depart-
ments , ". . . Switching back and forth for business,
economic reasons, yes . . . . This has been the practice for
the last four years, I believe, since we have loaned
Typetron." The increase in business which Gilbert tended
to exaggerate at the hearing now after the discharges could
not have been too great. And finally, there are daily
records of the plant called logs; each lists in complete
itemization all the orders that must be completed-each day.
The Company' s witnesses talked a great, deal about these
logs, and of the great increase in volume; all they had to do
to prove the point was to produce them. The failure of the
Respondent to offer any of these logs, or indeed any other
kind of record to support the defense assertion , increases
the doubt as to the veracity of its witnesses.
2. As evidence that Belgrave and Berridge lied about
what Gilbert said, the Respondent contends there has
always been an established company policy of requiring
written printed form applications for vacations. The idea
here is that the two men necessarily knew Gilbert had no
authority to approve any requests, or, to make any tentative
arrangements for them. Gilbert said he never sees these
written requests every year, that they are all funneled to
young Redmond, and'then up to his, father, apparently the
higher' authority, who with others then decides these things.
In this matter , as, with' others, Gilbert was not consistent in
his testimony.'
Q. Are you consulted, as far as making out the
vacation schedule?
A. No, I am not.
Q• Are you ever consulted about the production
requirement or who can or cannot go on
vacation?
A few lines later:
A. Yes, I advise how many people can go.
The only "proof' of the asserted practice requiring written
requests is the oral testimony of Gilbert and a printed form
offered as an exhibit; the exhibit is an application that was
used in July 1975.
Berridge testified he had one vacation in July 1973 and
another in August 1974, and'each time only asked Gilbert,
who gave his personal approval . Belgrave said he too had
two previous vacations , both in 1974, and each time did no
more than talked to Gilbert who gave his direct consent.
Balfour also has worked there since 1973 and, like the
other two, said he never heard of a written request until
after the discharge of Berridge and Belgrave in 1975. Not
only did Gilbert not contradict all this testimony, but no
vacation forms of any kind from the Company's records
antedating these events were produced at the hearing.
Redmond Sr., who is said to be the one who decides these
things, did not come to the hearing. The General Counsel
called upon the, Respondent especially to produce any
forms that Berridge or Belgrave may have submitted in the
past ; Respondent's representatives responded that they
had none . Again, whether an employer has this or that
practice in its regular affairs does not necessarily decide an
unfair labor practice case, but this was outright lying by
Gilbert on this record.
3. Belgrave and Berridge started their vacation on
Monday, February 3, and remained away 2 weeks. By
letter dated February 10, Gilbert wrote to Edward Treacy,
business agent of the Union, that the two men "had been
fired." On February 14, Gilbert wrote separate letters
directly to the two men, saying : "Due to your failure to
report to work from February 3 to February 14, 1,975 and
after several warnings, I have no other course to take
except to dismiss you from your employment."
The defense being that the men were discharged because
they left work without permission , the General Counsel
asked on cross-examination when did Gilbert decide to fire
the men . The witness' varying answers to this question,
together with the inconsistent and irreconcilable notations
appearing in Company records - ostensibly made at the
time of the events - and other facts of record directly
related to the asserted positive intent to discharge , virtually
robs Gilbert of all credibility. The men apparently left
home during the weekend , for they did not come to work
on Monday , February 3. Gilbert started by saying he made
the decision to discharge them "probably the second day,
February 4," and then added , "February 5th I would say,
February 6." In support of the witness' testimony, the
Respondent had already placed into evidence two time-
cards; each permits clock entries for only 7 days. All that
appears , on the timecards is the name of the employee -
one for "Berridge , R." and the other for "Belgrave, H.,"
followed in type by "W/E 2/14," and the longhand , ink
writing across the face of each card "Fired 2/5/75," Tese
were not the cards for the first week of the men's absences,
which occurred during the week ending February 7. But
since the men were not there , and inasmuch as Gilbert
knew why they were absent, how long they intended to stay
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
away, and even exactly where they were going, there was
no reason for anyone to prepare timecards for them for the
next week. If these cards were prepared at all before the
day before the hearing, they surely were not prepared
before the "week ending" February 14. If a supervisor
wants to discharge a man because he is absent without
authorization, and wants to record the fact on the,man's
timecard, he makes the entry on .the employee's card for
that week, not on the one for the following week. It follows,
of course, that the entries "Fired 2/5/74" could not have
been made on Februarys! 1 When were these cards made?
In addition to this, there are two "Employment Re-
cords," again one for each man, taken from the Respon-
dent's files. On these there are written for each man:
"Fired 1/31/75." If Gilbert is to be believed, all he knew
the previous Friday, January 31, was that he had told the
men they could not go, and that was that. When asked at
this hearing why did he not decide to discharge the men on
February 3, the very first day of their absences, he
answered: "I was still hoping they would come in." Had he
"hoped" ,the previous Friday - before the men were
scheduled to leave - that maybe they might not go, there
would be some credibility in the production manager. But,
apparently, if the employment records are genuine, he had
no such hope the previous Friday. For him-to say that,
forewarned of their exact plans, he thought they might
come back the following week dust will not do. Redmond,
the vice president, testified he had been told " ... that
they were invited by the Government of their country to go
down and play in a band . . . that this was a big, you
know, a big event, a big - it is something out of the
ordinary for them." Redmond also said he had heard the
men were going to go "come hell or high water." He even
testified that in a conversation with a National Labor
Relations Board agent, who was investigating another case,
he, Redmond, "went on record" by telling the Board agent
"if they walked out of the plant, which would in my
opinion be a disruption of the business cycle, they will be
dismissed from their jobs immediately." With this, the
Employer's now asserted fixed determination not to stand
for insubordination, its failure to take any unequivocal
action against the men until the February 14 letter of
discharge proves the entire story in defense must be
rejected.
I find, as Belgrave and Berridge testified, that Production
Manager Gilbert told both of them he would approve their
vacation requests only on condition that they sign
documents rejecting the Union, and, as Balfour testified,
that Gilbert told him the employee might be given a better
job with a raise in pay if he agreed to put an end to his
union activities. By such conduct Gilbert restrained and
coerced the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, unfair labor practices chargeable to the Respondent.
The, only rational explanation for all of this is a
conclusion, which I reach with no qualifications whatever,
that Respondent 'seized upon the fortuitous circumstances
of the two men being invited to the "big event" in Trinidad
as the occasion to, compel them into resigning from the
1 From Gilbert's testimony
Q And did there come a time during that week when you acted with
regard to their absences?
Union. If Gilbert was uncertain, as of Monday, February
3, as to what their eventual reaction to his threat would be,
it was only because he hoped they would yield to the
Company's unlawful demands. They did not. This also
explains why the discharge did not come until later, and
why the confused and contradictory company records
must be discredited. I find on the record in its entirety that
the Respondent discharged Belgrave and Berridge because
they refused to disassociate themselves from their Union,
and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
This is not, as the Respondent's counsel argues in his brief,
a matter of inferring illegal' motivation and disregarding
objective indication of proper purposes. Rather, the unfair
labor practice is proved by direct evidence. It is a fact
Gilbert told the men he wanted union resignation from
them, and when they refused to quit the Union he fired
them. The many decisional precedents cited 'are therefore
inapposite.
THE REMEDY
To effectuate the policies of the Act the Respondent
must be ordered to cease and desist from commission of
such unfair labor practices as were committed here, and
from any other unfair labor practices. It must also be
ordered to remstate to their prior employment both
Belgrave and Berridge, and to make them whole for any
loss of earnings that they suffered in consequence of the
illegal discrimination against them, in accordance with F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 712 (1962).
As stated above, when the hearing started there were
refusal-to-bargain allegations in the complaint, charging
violations of Section 8(a)(5). In the light of information
first acquired by the General Counsel during the course of
the hearing, the parties agreed on the record to an informal
settlement of those portions of the complaint. Accordingly,
with the explicit agreement that the Respondent is not
found to have committed anyviolatio'ns of Section 8(a)(5),
and in implementation of the agreement of the parties, the
Respondent will be ordered to bargain in good faith with
Local 183 pursuant to the outstanding Board certification,
and to post a special notice to the employees pertinent to
the informal settlement.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set out in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
A. Yes Wednesday night when they did not come in, I wrote on their
timecards that they were let go for being absent
WEST SHORE PUBLISHING, INC. 645
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Horace Belgrave and Ronald Ber-
ridge in February 1975, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct, by telling employees that
their vacation requests would be granted only on condition
that they sign documents abandoning their interests in the
Union, and by promising employees increases in^ pay in
return for their abandonment of the Union, the Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2
The Respondent, West Shore Publishing, Inc., Bogota,
New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against its employees because of their union activities.
(b) Telling employees that their vacation requests would
only be granted in return for the abandonment of their
union or union activities , or promising employees increases
in pay in return for their abandonment of union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form, join, or assist International Printing
Pressmen Assistants and Offset Workers Union of North
America, Local 183, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Horace Belgrave and Ronald Berridge immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if
such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole both of the foregoing employees for any
loss of pay or any benefit they may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent 's discrimination against them, in
accordance with the Remedy herein.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Upon request, bargain in good faith with Internation-
al Printing Pressmen Assistants and Offset Workers Union
of North America, Local 183, AFL-CIO, as required by
law and pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board
certification issued in May 1974 with respect to employees
in the camera and printing department in the Bogota plant.
(e) Post at its plant in Bogota, New Jersey, copies of the
attached notices marked "Appendix 1" and "Appendix
2." 3 Copies of said notices on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed
by its representatives, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein 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
3 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX 1
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
hearing, that we violated the Federal Law by discharging
employees because of their union activities and by
committing other acts of illegal coercion:
WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against any employees for engaging in
concerted union activities.
WE WILL NOT condition the granting of vacation
requests to our employees upon their compliance with
our request that they abandon their union or union
activities.
WE WILL NOT promise promotion or increase in pay
to our employees as inducement for them to abandon
their union or union activities.
WE WILL offer Horace Belgrave and Ronald Ber-
ridge immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL pay Horace Belgrave and Ronald Berridge
for any earnings they lost as a result of our discrumina-
tion against them, plus 6 -percent interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to join or assist International
Printing Pressmen Assistants and Offset Workers
Union of North America, Local 183, AFL-CIO, or any
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other labor organization, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
WEST SHORE PUBLISHING
Co.
APPENDIX 2
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WE WILL bargain in good faith and pursuant to law
with International Printing Pressmen Assistants and
Offset Workers Union of North America, Local 183,
AFL-CIO, pursuant to the National Labor Relations
Board certification issued to that Union as bargaining
agent for employees in our Bogota plant camera and
punting department employees.
Throughout the period covered by our present
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 183, wE
WILL NOT use the service of Dario Molina as an
employee within the bargaining unit represented by the
Union in the Bogota plant.,. _
WE WILL honor any request that may be made by the
Union, in accordance with the provisions of our
contract now in effect, requiring membership in the
Union by David Housman.
The posting of this notice is not to be taken as an
admission by the Company that it violated the law in any
'respect, or as indication that the National Labor Relations
Board has found we committed unfair labor practices in
these respects.
WEST SHORE PUBLISHING
Co. -