Blue Earth Digital Printing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 2019

368 NLRB No. 99 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 99
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc. and Graphic Com-
munications Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 140-N. Case
31–CA–133542
October 18, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL
On April 9, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Ariel L.
Sotolongo issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed a limited exception pertaining only to the
recommended Order. There are no other exceptions to
the judge’s decision.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exception and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified
below2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified
and set forth in full below.3

1 On May 6, 2019, Fernando Bonada, the Respondent’s president
and owner, submitted a document to the Region that appears to set forth
exceptions to the judge’s decision. The document was not filed with
the Board; there is no indication that it was served on the General
Counsel and Charging Party; and, even allowing for the Respondent’s
pro se status, the contents of the document fail to substantially comply
with the requirements of Sec. 102.46(a)(1) of the Board’s Rules. We
therefore disregard it.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s finding that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by discharging Vivian Escalante
because she engaged in protected concerted activity.
In his Conclusion of Law 3, the judge concluded that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(3) by discharging Escalante; in his decision, howev-
er, the judge found that this conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(1). We have
amended the conclusions of law to correct this inadvertent error.
3 In his recommended remedy, the judge directed the Respondent to
compensate Escalante for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving a lump sum backpay award in accordance with AdvoServ of
New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), and to remove any refer-
ence to her unlawful termination from its files. The judge, however,
failed to include these remedies in his recommended Order. Therefore,
we grant the General Counsel’s limited exception and modify the
judge’s recommended Order accordingly. In addition, although the
judge's decision included a broad order requiring the Respondent to
cease and desist from violating the Act “in any other manner,” we find
that a broad order is not warranted under the circumstances of this case.
Therefore, we have revised the order to require the Respondent to cease
and desist from violating the Act “in any like or related manner.” See
Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). Further, we modify the
judge’s recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard reme-
dial language. Finally, we substitute a new notice to conform to the
Order as modified.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 3.
“3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discharging its employee Vivian Escalante on or about
June 26, 2014.”
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc., also
known as Bonada Enterprises, Inc., Culver City, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they engage in
protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Vivian Escalante full reinstatement to her former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Vivian Escalante whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against her, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the judge’s decision.
(c) Compensate Vivian Escalante for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and file with the Regional Director for Region 31,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge,
and within 3 days thereafter, notify the employee in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the discharge will not
be used against her in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Culver City, California facility copies of the attached
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since June 26, 2014.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 18, 2019
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for engaging in protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Vivian Escalante full reinstatement to her
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Vivian Escalante whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from her discharge,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest, and WE WILL
also make Escalante whole for her reasonable search-for-
work and interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Vivian Escalante for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum back-
pay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director
for Region 31, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate
calendar years.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharge of Vivian Escalante, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against her
in any way.
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC., ALSO
KNOWN AS BONADA ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-133542 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of
the decision from the Executive Secretary, National La-
bor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC. 3
Nicholas Gordon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Fernando Bonada, Pro Se for the Employer-Respondent.1
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARIEL SOTOLONGO, Administrative Law Judge. At issue in
this case is whether Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc. (Respond-
ent) unlawfully discharged employee Vivian Escalante (Es-
calante) because she was seeking to enforce a provision of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and
Graphic Communications Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 140-N (Union), or because
she was otherwise engaged in protected activity.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Union filed the underlying charge in case 31–CA–
133542 on July 25, 2014. On October 31, 2014 the Acting
Regional Director, at the request of the Union, determined that
further action in the case should be deferred pursuant to the
grievance-arbitration procedure in the collective-bargaining
agreement under the Board’s Collyer Insulated Wire2 doctrine.
Thereafter, on October 20, 2016, after learning that the dispute
was no longer being processed under the grievance-arbitration
procedure, the Regional Director re-opened the investigation
and processing of the charge. The complaint in the instant case,
which alleges that Respondent discharged Escalante in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, was finally issued by the
Region on July 9, 2018, and thereafter the Respondent filed an
answer and later an amended answer.3 I presided over this trial

1 Fernando Bonada (Bonada), Respondent’s president and owner, is
not an attorney. He was duly advised of his right to counsel and pro-
vided with ample opportunity to obtain one, but he declined and chose
to represent Respondent. As is the custom and practice in this situation,
I sent Bonada (and the other parties) a “Pro Se” letter advising him of
the proper procedure to be followed in NLRB hearings. (GC Exh. 1(o).)
2 192 NLRB 837 (1971).
3 There is no explanation in the record as to why this case took so
long to process. Thus, it isn’t clear why it took 2 years for the Region
to learn that the Union’s grievance about Escalante’s discharge was
“dead in the water” and no longer deferrable under Collyer, nor is it
clear why it took the Region an additional 2 years to issue complaint in
this matter. It appears that this case simply fell through the proverbial
cracks and disappeared from the radar screens. Without pointing fin-
gers, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the old maxim “jus-
tice delayed is justice denied” is very much applicable in this case.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome in this case, both Escalante and
Respondent have been unfairly and unjustly impacted by this delay.
Escalante, should I find her discharge to be unlawful, has too long been
delayed being made whole, and Respondent unnecessarily been sub-
in Los Angeles, California, on September 18–19, 2018.
II. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all material times, it
has been a corporation with an office and place of business in
Culver City, California, where it has been engaged in the busi-
ness of commercial digital printing and dye sublimation print-
ing services. It further admits, and I find, that during the 12-
month period preceding September 2018, a representative peri-
od, it has derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased and received at its Culver City facility goods valued
in excess of $5000 from enterprises located within the State of
California, enterprises which in turn have received these goods
directly from points outside the State of California.4 Accord-
ingly, I find that at all material times Respondent has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent also admits, and I find, that at all material times
the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Respondent’s Operations and Other Background Facts
As briefly described above, Respondent operates a print shop
in Culver City, California, which typically employs a total of 4-
5 employees excluding Bonada, who is Respondent’s president
(and CEO), and sole supervisor. Respondent produces bro-
chures, catalogs and sublimation products for its clients, to
whom it delivers these products. Respondent’s shop is located
in a building where it shares space with another printing com-
pany, although the spaces are separate or compartmentalized.
Its shop consists of a press room, a digital room (which is
shares with another company), a binding department, and office
space, all totaling about 4 thousand square feet. (Tr. 47–57.)
Prior to 2013, Respondent was a nonunion company. In
September 2013, the Union became the collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent’s employees, and Respondent and
the Union entered into a collective-bargaining agreement at that
time, effective by its terms from September 16, 2013 to Sep-
tember 1, 2015 (GC Exh. 2; Tr. 61–63).5 The agreement cov-

jected to compounded interest charges on any backpay due. On the
other hand, should Respondent prevail, it has been unduly delayed in
being cleared from the cloud hanging over its head, and Escalante has
been unduly delayed from receiving a final answer as to the merit of
her case, thus allowing her to go on with her life. Simply put, this
delay has been most unfortunate and regrettable.
4 See Stipulation of Facts (Jt. Exh. 1). It should be noted, the record
is not entirely clear as to what, exactly, is Respondent’s true and valid
legal name. Thus, although the pleadings and stipulations on record
reflect Respondent’s name as “Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc.,” its
president and sole owner, Bonada, stated on the record that the entity’s
registered legal name was “Bonada Enterprises, Inc.,” with no designa-
tion as it doing business as “Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc.” (Tr. 311;
315–316). Thus, when referring to “Respondent,” I make clear that I
am referring to Bonada Enterprises, Inc. and/or Blue Earth Digital
Printing, Inc., which are one and the same, according to Bonada (Tr.
48).
5 How the Union became the employee’s representative is a mys-
tery, as no Board election or card (or other majority status) check ap-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
ered the positions of digital pressman, offset pressman, feeder
and general helper, which comprised all 5 of Respondent’s
employees, except for Bonada. Escalante began working for
Respondent in March 2013. She testified that she was initially
hired as a graphic web designer, although this is disputed by
Respondent.6 It is undisputed, however, that she worked pri-
marily in the office and that she gradually took on different
responsibilities, including that of bookkeeper, after the then
bookkeeper resigned.
B. The Events Preceding and Leading to Escalante’s Dis-
charge
Escalante testified that her bookkeeping duties included pro-
cessing payroll (after approval by Bonada), entering bills, and
paying vendors ant taxes. As part of her duties in the office,
which she shared with Bonada, Escalante scheduled jobs to be
performed, the priority of which were determined by Bonada,
and relayed instructions and directives form Bonada to the oth-
er employees. This including making sure that employees had
proper instructions in the “job tickets” prepared by Bonada for
job orders. These job tickets typically contained information
such as the client’s name and delivery address, order or invoice
numbers, and the job “specs” detailing specific instructions for
the pressmen to perform their duties.7 Escalante testified that
she had meetings with other employees and the Union president
at the time, Ronnie Pineda (Pineda), who explained the terms of
the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) that Respondent
had signed with the Union. Escalante explained that her under-
standing of the CBA was based on these meetings with the
Union, as well as her having looked at the agreement before it
was actually signed. Sometime around December 2013, ac-
cording to Escalante, Pineda told her that she would be the
“union representative” at the shop, and as such would be the
go-between or liaison between Adan Ramirez (Ramirez) who
was the shop steward, and the Union.8

pears to have been held. Rather, it appears that Bonada simply decided
that being a union company would be beneficial to Respondent’s busi-
ness and informed his employees that he was going to enter into an
agreement with the Union (Tr. 60–61). Needless to say, this would
appear to be a classic “sweetheart” deal that would be unlawful under
Sec. 8(a)(2) of the Act. This issue is not before me, however, since it
has not been alleged—indeed such allegation might undermine the
central premise of the General Counsel’s case—so I will accordingly
make no findings or each any conclusions in that regard.
6 Both Bonada and his son, Sheldon Bonada (“Sheldon,” in order to
avoid confusing him with his father, a principal witness in this proceed-
ing), testified that Respondent did not offer or used graphic web de-
signs, and denied that Escalante was hired or used as such. Thus,
Bonada testified that he hired Escalante as a “pre-press trainee.” This
issue is ultimately irrelevant to the resolution of the issues in this case,
however, so I will not discuss it further.
7 As will be discussed below, on occasion when a “rush order” came
in, Bonada would issue verbal instructions to allow the pressman to
begin working on a job, and would then follow-up with a printed
“hardcopy” job ticket with more specific information shortly afterward.
8 This arrangement of having Escalante as a “liaison” would be unu-
sual, indeed odd, and the credibility of the testimony in this regard is
difficult to ascertain, for many different reasons. First of all, it would
be highly unusual for a shop with only 5 employees to have 2 union
representatives. Most importantly, 3 other employees who testified
Escalante testified in her capacity as “union representative,”
one of her duties was to make sure the CBA was adhered to,
and to report any violations to the Union. As the bookkeeper in
the office, she began noticing Respondent was not following
the CBA with regards to paying overtime or paying employees
their correct wages, not paying payroll taxes in a timely fash-
ion, and not giving employees “job tickets” in order to allow
them to perform their duties in correct fashion.9 For example,
in January 2014 Escalante noticed that an employee named
“Osberto” (last name unknown), who was (or should have
been) classified as a “feeder” under the CBA was being paid
$15 an hour, rather than $16 as required by the CBA. She
brought this to Bonada’s attention in the office, and Bonada
responded that Osberto was a part-time probationary employee
who was not going to stay, so he need not be paid $16 per hour.
Escalante also testified that during this time period, in early
2014, she also brought to Bonada’s attention the fact that
Ramirez, Sheldon, and Guillermo (Fonseca), were not paid
overtime for working more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per
week, as mandated by the CBA. On each of these occasions
Bonada rebuffed her, in essence telling her to pay these em-
ployees what he directed—which was at the regular rate, not
the overtime rate required by the CBA. Escalante testified she
reported these violations to the Union, but did not know wheth-
er the Union had ever grieved these alleged violations or had
taken any other action in this regard.
Escalante also testified, regarding the job tickets, that she
would often remind Bonada that he needed to prepare job tick-
ets for employees to do their jobs. Bonada would inform her
that he would do this later. Instead, Bonada would give em-

(Ramirez, Sheldon and Fonseca) denied ever being told by anyone in
the Union, or by Escalante herself, that she was a union representative.
Neither Pineda nor anyone other union representative or agent testified
to corroborate Escalante’s claim, which raises a reasonable inference
that had they been called to testify, they would not have supported
Escalante’s testimony in this regard. After all, the Union, which is the
charging party, would normally be expected to proffer testimony favor-
able to Escalante, and the failure to testify and thus corroborate her is
notable. In an additional strange twist, Bonada testified that he (along
with Pineda), appointed Ramirez as the shop steward, although that
story makes some internal sense given Bonada’s active role in making
his shop unionized. Indeed, Escalante testified that Bonada himself had
attended some of the union meetings between Pineda and the employ-
ees. Adding a final bizarre twist, Ramirez testified that no one ever
informed him he was the shop steward. In light of all of this, I do not
find Escalante’s claim of being a “union representative” to be credible.
As will be discussed below, however, whether Escalante was a “union
representative” or not is ultimately not material in determining whether
she was engaged in protected activity at the time of her discharge.
9 Escalante testified that it was her understanding that the CBA re-
quired the employer to provide employees with job tickets, based on
what she had been told by Pineda during a Union meeting (Tr. 221).
To be sure, there is nothing in the CBA (GC Exh. 2) that directly or
indirectly refers to job tickets—or for that matter, payroll taxes. None-
theless, as discussed below, the General Counsel asserts that under
Article II of the CBA, which requires employees, inter alia, “to perform
their duties in a professional manner focusing on quality, efficiency and
safety. . . ,” Respondent is obligated to provide employees with the
proper equipment and information to perform their duties. Notably,
Bonada admitted such was the case (Tr. 74).
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC. 5
ployees verbal instructions to allow them to begin their jobs,
which according to Escalante, would be extremely upsetting to
the employees. Escalante suggested that Bonada would do this
a little too often, when he didn’t feel like preparing job tickets,
and simply told employees to “get it done” based on his verbal
instructions.
On June 26, 2014, Escalante arrived at the office around 9:00
a.m., her usual starting time. She testified that shortly after she
arrived, Bonada, who was out of the office, phoned her and
instructed her to prepare a delivery receipt for the “Mexico
job,” a sublimation job involving sheets printed on an offset
press, sheets which would later be transferred into fabric.10
Escalante told Bonada that she would prepare the delivery re-
ceipt, which involved instructions of where to deliver the order
for the client. Escalante then looked for the job ticket, which
would have the pertinent information needed to prepare the
delivery receipt, but could not find one. She looked for the job
ticket in the rack where they are normally kept, as well as on
the computer where they are created, to no avail. She went to
see Osberto, the offset pressman, and asked him if he had the
job ticket. Osberto, who according to Escalante looked “pretty
upset,” replied that he didn’t have one, that Bonada had given
him verbal instructions instead. Escalante then approached
Ramirez and asked him if he had the job ticket, and Ramirez—
who Escalante also said looked upset—said he did not have
one, and did not have instructions on how to do the job. Es-
calante replied that she would call Bonada on the phone. She
then phoned Bonada and told him she couldn’t find the job
ticket and therefore could not prepare a delivery receipt. Ac-
cording to Escalante, Bonada replied “Don’t worry about it, I’ll
be there (shortly), I am coming.” Bonada further instructed her
(to inform Ramirez) to leave “2 inches of white space” all
around, and to tell Sheldon he wanted him to deliver the Mexi-
co job to the client. After they hung up, Escalante proceeded to
give Ramirez the instructions regarding the 2 inches of white
space, and then went to see Sheldon regarding the delivery.
Sheldon told Escalante he was too busy, so she went back to
Ramirez to tell him he would have to deliver the job. He asked
her where, and she said she did not have that information yet,
and went back to the office. (Tr. 226–238.)
When Bonada arrived in the office, sometime between 11:30
a.m. and 12, Escalante told him she could not get the delivery
receipt prepared. Bonada asked why, and Escalante said, “I am
still waiting for you to give me the info, there is no job ticket,
nobody knows what is going on.” Bonada replied that he knew
where the job was going to be delivered and wanted Sheldon to
do it. Escalante replied that Sheldon told her he was too busy,
so that she had asked Ramirez to do it. Bonada said that he did
not want Ramirez to deliver it, that Sheldon knew where and
that he wanted him to do it. Escalante, who stated that by this
point she and Bonada were beginning to raise their voices, then
said to Bonada that it would be nice if they would all have that
information, because no one knew what was going on, there

10 The “Mexico job” involved making a print for tee-shirts for (or in
celebration of) the Mexico soccer team, which at the time—I take judi-
cial notice—was about to play in the round of 16 at the FIFA World
Cup event in Brazil.
were no job tickets and that she and the others has been unable
to fulfill their jobs or duties because of the lack of information.
Bonada replied that there was a job ticket, not to worry about
it—that he would take care of it. Escalante then said, “I don’t
think that you really care about our jobs or what we are doing
because you are not allowing us to do our jobs.” At this point,
according to Escalante, Bonada said, “well, if you don’t like the
way I manage my company, you can get the fuck out of here.”
Escalante interpreted Bonada’s statement to mean that he was
firing her, and then she said hoped he would not deny her un-
employment (benefits), and that she was going to inform the
Union of what had just occurred. Escalante then gathered her
belongings, and Bonada wrote her a check for a few hours she
had worked that day—not for the entire week. She then left
Respondent’s facility. According to Escalante, this exchange
between her and Bonada occurred inside the office, with no one
else present, while she was sitting in her desk and Bonada was
standing a few feet away. Bonada texted her later that day
requesting that she return the (office) keys, to which she re-
sponded that she would do so when she received the rest of her
paycheck. (Tr. 240–251).
Bonada, called as an adverse witness by the General Coun-
sel, did not contradict or rebut Escalante’s testimony on many
material facts, although their version of events differed at
times.11 I will therefore summarize his testimony only to the
extent that it differs in any significant way from Escalante’s in
those facts that I consider material or relevant. For example,
contrary to Escalante, Bonada testified that she never informed
him at any time that she was the shop’s “union representative,”
nor did the Union inform him of this.12 He also testified that
Escalante never complained to him about job tickets or brought
any other complaints to him regarding other employees. Bona-
da, however, admitted that Escalante had complained to him
that Osberto was not being paid the correct wages under the
CBA, and confirmed her testimony that he explained that Orb-
erto was only a probationary or temporary employee. Bonada
did not “recall” a conversation with Escalante regarding over-
time issues with regard to any employees, including Escalante
herself, Ramirez or Sheldon, his son. Likewise, Bonada did not
initially recall Escalante, prior to the incident that led to her

11 Because Bonada represented himself and was called as a witness
initially before Escalante testified, he could not easily rebut Escalante’s
testimony regarding their one-on-one conversations without offering
testimony in the narrative, which I allowed him to do to some extent,
over the General Counsel’s objections. Throughout the record, I often
had to instruct or “coach” Bonada in the fine art of asking questions in
a proper fashion, as his questions consistently drew objections from the
General Counsel. This training effort on my part unfortunately fell
short on many occasions, and I had to resort to asking many questions
that would normally have been asked by counsel, illustrating the diffi-
culty—and inherent imbalance--of conducting hearings were parties are
not represented by counsel. While perhaps my frequent interventions
might be considered unfair in an adversarial proceeding, I believe my
ultimate duty as an adjudicator is to make sure that as complete a rec-
ord as possible exists under the circumstances, in order to permit me—
or ultimately the Board or a court—to make accurate factual findings
and reach proper legal conclusions.
12 Indeed, as mentioned above, Bonada testified that he—along with
then Union president Pineda—chose Adan Ramirez as shop steward.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
termination, discussing problems with job tickets or lack of job
tickets (Tr. 90–91; 95–98; 100–103).13
Regarding the events of June 26, 2014, the day Escalante
was discharged, Bonada’s testimony differs somewhat from
Escalante’s, although he confirmed many of the salient points.
According to Bonada, he initially created a ticket on the com-
puter for the “Mexico job” at 6:21 that morning, as reflected by
a ticket introduced in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (R.
Exh. 1). According to Bonada, the ticket contained sufficient
information to get the job started, and he gave the ticket to the
“guys,” although he did not say exactly to whom. He then left
the office, long before Escalante arrived. He denied that Es-
calante (or any other employee) called or talked to him while he
was gone, and then he arrived back at the office between 11 and
11:30 a.m. At that time, he testified, Escalante started “insult-
ing” him. Initially, Bonada denied that Escalante had said any-
thing to him about her or other employees not having a job
ticket or job number that day. He was then read a portion of the
affidavit he had given the Board (in 2014) where he admitted
that Escalante had complained to him that she lacked a job
number in order for her to complete her job—but nevertheless
testified that he could not recall Escalante saying that.14 What
Bonada recalled was that Escalante was raising her voice (actu-
ally yelling), and saying that he did not care about what was
happening to the operation of his business. According to
Bonada, “. . . that’s what started it right there. She was yelling
at me—and saying those things.” He took it as “an insult big
time,” and got upset. At that point Bonada, who had also raised
his voice, told Escalante to “get the fuck out of here.” Escalante
then left the office (Tr. 101–104; 138–147).15
Bonada testified that he meant to discharge Escalante when
he told her to get “the fuck out of here,” and said there were no

13 Bonada frequently appeared to be evasive in his testimony, often
answering questions with questions of his own. Whether this was due
to fear that he was being “tricked” by an attorney (in this case, the
General Counsel), or simply part of his persona, or lack of candor, it is
difficult to tell. Nonetheless, because of his lack of certainty or recall
on many issues, I credit the testimony of Escalante over his regarding
her complaints to him that he was not complying with the CBA on
several different fronts, including complaining to him about job tickets
not being prepared prior to the start of jobs. In this regard, I note that
Bonada admitted that at least once a week, he would issue verbal in-
structions before he created a ticket with more detailed specifications,
because certain jobs were “rush jobs.” Accordingly, I believe that it is
more likely that Escalante had previously complained to Bonada about
lacking sufficient information for her or others to perform their jobs.
14 In these circumstances, I cannot credit Bonada’s testimony that
Escalante did not say anything to her about a job ticket when he arrived
at the office. I credit Escalante’s testimony that she told Bonada that
she—and the others—could not do their jobs without the proper ticket
information.
15 Bonada also claimed that at the time Escalante was saying the
things described above, she was also “gesturing,” which he took as a
curse. In his Board affidavit, however, Bonada had stated that Es-
calante made no gestures on that occasion, but rather on other occasions
in the past when they had argued. Additionally, Bonada claimed that
Escalante was “verbally violent,” and “yelling in (his) face,” yet did not
rebut Escalante’s testimony that she was sitting in her desk while he
was standing a few feet away when this encounter occurred. In light of
the above, I credit Escalante’s version of events.
further communications between them until he had a termina-
tion letter hand-delivered to her on July 3, 2014, by Ramirez.
Bonada also testified that although the principal reason for
Escalante’s termination was her “abusive and offensive” com-
ments on June 26, 2014, he also indicated it was the result of a
cumulative effect of other arguments they had had, culminating
with their June 26 confrontation. Bonada additionally testified
that Respondent did not have a progressive disciplinary policy,
no written discipline policy, and no employee handbook or
written guidelines regarding discipline. He added that he had
never disciplined an employee for “insubordination” before,
because it had never occurred previously (Tr. 157–158; 160–
162; 168–170; GC Exh. 3).16
Respondent additionally called 4 other individuals as wit-
nesses, whose testimony I will briefly summarize because in
the final analysis their testimony is ultimately not crucial or
necessary to the analytical framework I need to employ in
reaching a decision as to the merits of the allegations in this
case. These witnesses are: Julio Guerrero (Guerrero) an em-
ployee of Britannica Press, a neighbor company that Respond-
ent shares the premises with; Guillermo Fonseca (Fonseca)
employed as a pressman by Respondent; Sheldon Bonada
(“Sheldon,” to avoid confusion with Bonada), who is Bonada’s
son and is employed by Respondent as a digital press operator;
and Adan Ramirez (Ramirez), employed by Respondent as a
driver and general helper. Guerrero testified that sometime in
March or April 2014 he heard Bonada and Escalante arguing
(with raised voices), and although he could not hear much of
what was said, he saw Escalante make a gesture with her hand,
opening and closing her fingers and hand, as she said “you talk
too much.” (Tr. 336; 341–346; 355–356.)
Fonseca testified that he was never told by Escalante or any-
one else that she was a union representative or shop steward,
and also testified that he never discussed any problems related
to wages, overtime or any other such matters with Escalante.
Like Guerrero, he also testified that he had heard Escalante
arguing (raised voices) with Bonada sometime in March-April
2014, although he could not hear what was being said. Finally,
Fonseca helped clarify Respondent’s practices regarding job
tickets. He thus testified that he normally has job tickets at hand
before he starts a job, although not always—explaining that he
sometimes receives verbal instructions (from Bonada) to start a
job, but that he needs a ticket before he can complete the work.
On those occasions when he receives verbal instructions, he
receives a job ticket shortly afterward—usually within minutes,
at most 30 minutes.17 He recognized a job ticket for the “Mexi-
co job” created early in the morning of June 26, 2014, and rec-
ognized a handwritten entry he made on that ticket regarding
the number of prints to be made that day. He did not recall
having a conversation with Escalante—or complaining to her—
about a not having job ticket that morning (Tr. 372–377; 382–

16 Escalante’s termination letter states the following as the reason
for the termination: “Insubordination, making abusive and offensive
comments to an officer of the company.” (GC Exh. 3.)
17 Fonseca did relate, however, that not having a job ticket at hand is
uncomfortable and made things difficult, because it’s easier to “mess
up” a job without the written specifications contained in a job ticket.
(Tr.409–410; 413.)
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC. 7
383; 386–387; 389–391; 393–397; 405–410; 413; 422–424;
426–428; 433–434; 438–439).18
Sheldon testified that he never discussed wage issues or
overtime pay with Escalante or any other employees and was
not aware or ever informed that Escalante was a union repre-
sentative at any time. He also testified that he had observed
interactions or arguments between Escalante and Bonada (his
father), and opined that Escalante was argumentative, unprofes-
sional and disrespectful, without providing any specific infor-
mation examples or specific instances of these occurrences (Tr.
448–451; 454–456; 46; 458).19
Finally, Adan Ramirez (Ramirez) testified that he had no
knowledge that Escalante was a union representative; indeed,
he testified that he had no knowledge that he was the Union
shop steward, as both Escalante and Bonada asserted. Ramirez
also testified that Escalante never discussed wages or anything
related to the CBA with him, which he was unfamiliar with,
and that she never discussed job tickets with him (Tr. 495–496;
498–501; 505).
The General Counsel argues that I should discredit Guerrero,
Fonseca, Sheldon and Ramirez for various reasons.20 While the
testimony of Sheldon may be questionable because he is Bona-
da’s son and possibly biased, I see no reason to discredit the
testimony of Fonseca and Ramirez, the two other employees of
Respondent to testify. There was nothing in the demeanor that
would reveal lack of candor, and there were no contradictions
or inherently unbelievable assertions on their part. While their
recollections were sketchy at times—these events occurred
almost 5 years ago, in 2014—I see no basis for discrediting
their testimony. In that regard, I credit their testimony that they
were never informed that Escalante was a Union representative,
and that they did not discuss wages, hours, or anything related
to the CBA with Escalante, including job tickets.21

18 Both during the hearing and in his brief, the General Counsel in-
sinuated that this document (R. Exh. 1) had been fraudently fabricated
or created recently, apparently because its existence would appear to
undermine Escalante’s testimony that there was no job ticket for the
“Mexico job” that morning—which lead to her fateful confrontation
with Bonada. Fonseca’s handwritten entry on the ticket, however,
fatally undermines this argument, unless I conclude that Fonseca was
also part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy—which I find completely
unpersuasive. As discussed below, however, whether there was actual-
ly a ticket in existence that morning ultimately does not impact the
conclusion of whether Escalante was engaged in protected activity.
19 For example, asked what he meant by “unprofessional” he said:
“Just the way she talked to him. So, if you were my boss, I would not
argue with you and say that you were wrong or insult you in certain
kinds of, like, backhanded compliments that way.” (Tr. 544.)
20 The General Counsel also requests that I dismiss the testimony of
Guerrero as largely irrelevant, and I concur in that assessment.
21 The General Counsel asserts that I should make an adverse infer-
ence regarding Ramirez’ failure to address Escalante’s testimony that
on June 26, 2014 she asked him if he had the (Mexico job) ticket and
that he said he did not, and that he did not have instructions on how to
do the job. Ramirez, however, denied ever speaking to Escalante about
job tickets in general, which in my view is sufficient to preclude a
negative inference, particularly taking into account Bonada’s lack of
formal training in conducting examinations. More importantly, it isn’t
clear why Ramirez would even have to have a ticket, since Ramirez
was the driver and general helper—and delivery instructions could
In sum, I do not credit Escalante’s testimony that she was the
appointed “union representative” at the shop, something appar-
ently not known to anyone else in the shop, as credibly testified
by the other witnesses—including Bonada.22 I also do not cred-
it Escalante’s testimony that she discussed wage and overtime
issues with other employees, something that was also denied by
the credited testimony of other witnesses. On the other hand, I
credit Escalante’s testimony that she brought up and discussed
with Bonada wage, overtime and job ticket issues that affected
her and other employees, on multiple occasions, as admitted by
Bonada—albeit reluctantly, after having his memory refreshed
time and again with his Board affidavit—an affidavit provided
in 2014, soon after these events occurred. In particular, I credit
Escalante’s testimony that on June 26, 2014, she told Bonada
that she and the other employees could not fulfill their job du-
ties because they did not have the proper (or sufficient) infor-
mation, and that accordingly no one knew what was going on.
After Bonada told her not to worry about it, I credit her testi-
mony that she said, “I don’t think you really care about our jobs
or what we are doing because you are not allowing us to do our
jobs.” This is the what I find led Bonada to then say “well, if
you don’t like the way I manage my company, then get the fuck
out of here,” in essence discharging her.23
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The General Counsel contends that Escalante was discharged
while engaged in raising groups concerns under the CBA when
she complained about the lack of information that would permit
her and other employees to do their jobs. Accordingly, the
General Counsel asserts, Escalante’s conduct while engaged in
protected activity was the direct and immediate cause of her
termination, and thus the analytical framework applicable is
that employed by the Board in Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB
814, 816 (1979), ant its progeny. Respondent, who did not file
a brief, nonetheless admits that Escalante was discharged as a
result of what transpired during the June 26, 2014 encounter
between Escalante and Bonada. As discussed above in the
Facts section, I concluded that on that date Escalante com-
plained to Bonada that she and other employees could not
properly perform their jobs because Bonada had failed to pro-
vide them with sufficient information. She then told Bonada
that she did not believe that he cared about their jobs or what
they were doing, since he wasn’t allowing them to do their jobs.
Bonada found this last statement disrespectful, offensive and
insubordinate, and discharged her, telling Escalante to “get the

easily be given verbally. It was Fonseca, the pressman, who needed the
ticket most of all in order to fulfill the customer’s order-and he testified
he had one that day, testimony that I credited. Accordingly, I reject the
General Counsel’s suggested credibility findings in this regard.
22 As discussed earlier, the failure of anyone from the Union—
which was the Charging Party—to testify and corroborate Escalante’s
claim of being the appointed union representative, raises a negative
inference in these circumstances
23 In Bonada’s version of this conversation, Escalante told him that
he “did not care about what was happening to the operation of his busi-
ness.” Although the two versions are fairly similar, I credit Escalante’s
version as being more specific and consistent in the context of what
was occurring. Thus, I find that Escalante made reference to how
Bonada’s actions were impacting her and the other employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
fuck out of here.”
The initial issue to be decided, in determining whether the
Atlantic Steel analysis is applicable, is whether Escalante was
engaged in protected activity at the time she was discharged. I
conclude that she was. Although I have found that she had not
been designated as the “union representative,” nor discussed
wages, overtime or job tickets (or lack thereof) with other em-
ployees, in bringing up the issue of the lack of information on
June 26 she was arguably bringing up an issue covered under
the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA). Although there is
no explicit provision in the CBA covering job tickets, or for
that matter specifically addressing the employer’s duty to pro-
vide information, the duty to provide employees with the prop-
er equipment and information to perform their jobs is implicit
under Article II of the CBA, which obligates employees, inter
alia, to “perform their work in a professional manner…,” as
was admitted by Bonada. Moreover, I credited Escalante’s
testimony that her belief that the CBA required employers to
provide employees with job tickets (and related information)
was based on a meeting with Union president Pineda, who in-
formed her and other employees that employers had that obliga-
tion. The Board has long held that employees who raise an
issue which they in good faith believe involves a contractually-
bargained right are engaged in protected activity. Interboro
Contractors, Inc., 157 NLRB 1295 (1966), enfd., 388 F.2d 495
(2d Cir. 1967). This doctrine was later affirmed by the Su-
preme Court in NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. 822
(1984). It matters not if the employee is correct in his/her good
faith assertion of a contractual right, or whether the claim is
legally valid, or whether the employee makes an explicit refer-
ence to the collective-bargaining agreement; such conduct is
protected nonetheless. Id. at 839–840. I find, under these cir-
cumstances, that Escalante, in confronting Bonada about the
lack of a job ticket—or the lack of information about the job—
was invoking a right which she believed in good faith to be
governed by the provisions of the CBA.24 Accordingly, I con-
clude that Escalante was engaged in protected activity at the
time she was discharged, and because Respondent’s defense is
that Escalante engaged in misconduct at the time, the Atlantic
Steel analysis is the appropriate framework.25
In considering the lawfulness of the discipline under Atlantic
Steel, the Board looks at four factors, which are considered in

24 Although it appears that a job ticket had been created by Bonada
earlier in the day, before he left the premises, Escalante could not find
it, and could therefore not perform her assigned duty—which was to
prepare a delivery receipt. Moreover, as Fonseca admitted, and as
reflected by the job ticket in evidence (R. Exh 1), much of the infor-
mation needed to prepare a delivery receipt, such as an order or cus-
tomer number, and a delivery address, was missing from the ticket.
25 Par. 6(b) of the complaint alleges Escalante’s alleged protected
activity in January and April 2014 as part of the reason for her eventual
discharge. In my view, this allegation is unnecessary under the Atlantic
Steel framework, since it is her conduct at the time immediately preced-
ing the discharge that brings it under Atlantic Steel’s fold. Indeed, it
could be argued that by raising other protected activity in the past, the
General Counsel risks forcing a Wright Line analysis instead, which the
General Counsel correctly argues is not the proper framework in this
instance—and might in fact be detrimental to its theory of a violation,
since animus is not clear.
the aggregate: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject
matter; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst; and (4)
whether the outburst was in any way provoked by the employ-
er’s unfair labor practice. For the following reasons, I conclude
that all 4 factors, in the aggregate, favor a finding that Escalante
was discharged unlawfully: First, the encounter between Es-
calante and Bonada took place in the office, away from the
production area, and only the two of them were present. Even
though other individuals or employees may have been in the
immediate vicinity of the office at the time, there is no evidence
that anyone heard or saw what transpired between Escalante
and Bonada. This factor thus favors Escalante, as no other
employee witnessed her alleged transgression or “disrespectful”
behavior, if such was the case. Second, the subject matter was
job tickets and the lack of information Escalante and her fellow
employees needed in order to perform their duties correctly.
The evidence strongly suggests not only that this was an issue
or theme that Escalante had a right to raise under the CBA and
demand corrective action by the employer, but also that it was a
recurring problem that was frustrating Escalante and others.
Third, Escalante’s “outburst” consisted of her accusing Bonada
of not caring about his employees or their work. Arguably, this
statement could reasonably be considered disrespectful of
Bonada, but that is not the end of the inquiry, however. The
Board, in examining the employee’s alleged misconduct, in-
quires whether the conduct is “sufficiently egregious or oppro-
brious” to remove it from the protection of the Act. Atlantic
Steel, supra; Meyer Tool, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 32, slip op at 1,
fn. 2, (2018); Postal Service, 360 NLRB 677, 683 (2014). In
that regard, the Board has long distinguished remarks consid-
ered “intemperate” but simple, brief and spontaneous, from
more deliberate, premeditated, abusive or threatening remarks,
finding the former protected, but not the latter. See, e.g., Kiewit
Power Constructors Co., 355 NLRB 708, 711 (2010), enfd. 652
F. 3d 22 (D.C. Cir 2011), citing Prescott Industrial Products
Co., 205 NLRB 51, 51–52 (1973). Likewise, the Board distin-
guishes conduct which is “true insubordination,” which is be-
yond the Act’s protection, from that which is only “disrespect-
ful, rude and defiant.” See, e.g., Goya Foods, Inc. 356 NLRB
476, 479 (2011), citing Severance Tool Industries, 301 NLRB
1166, 1170 (1991), enfd. mem. 953 F. 2d 1384 (6th Cir. 1992).
I find that Escalante’s remarks, while arguably disrespectful,
were intemperate but not truly insubordinate, and her conduct
was thus not egregious or opprobrious. Finally, I note, with
regard to possible provocation for Escalante’s conduct, that
while Bonada’s failure to provide Escalante and others with
sufficient information to enable them to perform their work
appropriately was not an “unfair labor practice,” in was argua-
bly in violation of the CBA, and a repeated source of frustration
for Escalante and the others. In the circumstances presented
here, Escalante’s choice of words, although intemperate, could
reasonably be seen as having been provoked, at least to some
extent.
Considering the above 4 factors in the aggregate, I conclude
that they favor Escalante, since her alleged misconduct was not
was not of the type or nature to deprive her of the Act’s protec-
tion. Accordingly, and for these reasons, I conclude that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged, for
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC. 9
terminating Escalante on June 26, 2014.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc., also known as Bonada
Enterprises, Inc. (Respondent) is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. Graphic Communications Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 140-N (Union) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
discharging its employee Vivian Escalante on or about June 26,
2014.
4. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent, as
described above, affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
The appropriate remedy for the Section 8(a)(1) violation I
have found is an order requiring Respondent to cease and desist
from such conduct and take certain affirmative action con-
sistent with the policies and purposes of the Act.
Specifically, the Respondent will be required to cease and
desist from: from discharging s employees because they are
engaged in concerted protected activity.
Respondent shall also cease and desist, in any other manner,
from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Es-
calante, Respondent must offer Escalante reinstatement to her
former job or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. The Respondent
shall make Escalante whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.
The make whole remedy shall be computed in accordance with
F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance with King Soopers,
Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), the Respondent shall compen-
sate her for search-for-work and interim employment expenses
regardless of whether those expenses exceed their interim earn-
ings. Search-for-work and interim employment expenses shall
be calculated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
In accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Cha-
vas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), the Respondent shall compensate
Escalante for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
lump sum backpay awards, and, in accordance with AdvoServ
of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), the Respondent
shall, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed
either by agreement or Board order, file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 31 a report allocating backpay to the appro-
priate calendar year for Escalante. The Regional Director will
then assume responsibility for transmission of the report to the
Social Security Administration at the appropriate time and in
the appropriate manner.
Respondent shall also be required to remove from its files
any references to the unlawful termination of Escalante and to
notify her in writing that this has been done and that her termi-
nations will not be used against her in any way.
Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as
described in the attached appendix. This notice shall be posted
in the Employer's facility or wherever the notices to employees
are regularly posted for 60 days without anything covering it up
or defacing its contents. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since June 26,
2014. When the notice is issued to the Employer, it shall sign it
or otherwise notify Region 31 of the Board what action it will
take with respect to this decision.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the follow-
ing recommended26
ORDER
Respondent Blue Earth Digital Printing, Inc., also known as
Bonada Enterprises, Inc., Culver City, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in any of the conduct described immediately
above in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) In any other like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in their exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, if it has not
already done so, offer Escalante full reinstatement to her former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Escalante whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay

26 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all its
facility in Culver City, California, where notices to employees
are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”27 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since June 26, 2014.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 31, a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington D.C. April 9, 2019
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.

27 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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.”
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify employees
that:
WE WILL NOT discharge you or otherwise discriminate
against you because you have engaged in protected concerted
activity such as trying to enforce your rights under the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL within 14 days of the date of the Board’s Order, of-
fer Vivian Escalante full reinstatement to her former job, of that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Escalante whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from her termination, less any interim
earnings, plus interest.
BLUE EARTH DIGITAL PRINTING, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-133542 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the deci-
sion from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by
calling (202) 273–1940.