Bradford Printing & Finishing, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 2011

356 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC 899
Bradford Printing & Finishing, LLC and New Eng-
land Joint Board, UNITE-HERE. Case 1–CA–
45575
March 25, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
The primary issue in this case is whether the Respond-
ent, a successor employer, unlawfully refused to recog-
nize and bargain with the incumbent Union. The judge
found the violation, rejecting the Respondent’s reliance
on an employee petition opposing continued union repre-
sentation, because the petition was tainted by the Re-
spondent’s unlawful formation of a “Guiding Coalition”
to deal with employees’ terms and conditions of em-
ployment.1
We agree with the judge’s findings for the reasons he
gave.2 As discussed below, we also rely on an addition-
al, independent basis for finding the employee petition
tainted: the Respondent’s preceding and ongoing refusal
to recognize and bargain with the Union since becoming
1 On April 14, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green
issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief; the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
judge’s decision, limited exceptions, and a supporting brief; and the
Respondent filed an answering brief.
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
exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings, and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.
We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to provide for the
posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11
(2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini
Flooring, Member Hayes would not require electronic distribution of
the notice.
2 The Respondent has not excepted to the judge’s finding that its
formation of the Guiding Coalition violated Sec. 8(a)(2) of the Act.
The Respondent does argue that no employee witness testified that he
was motivated specifically by the Guiding Coalition to sign the em-
ployee petition. The record, however, clearly establishes the necessary
connection.
The Guiding Coalition was created by the Respondent’s chief execu-
tive, Nicholas Griseto. He informed employees that it would address
such issues as work hours, holidays, attendance, discipline, and griev-
ances. Griseto also emphasized, shortly before the petition was circu-
lated, that the Union was not “necessary” because the Guiding Coali-
tion “will be a perfect forum to get involvement from all ranks and . . .
will [be] able to address all issues and concerns in a timely and fair
manner.” Employee John Parker, who circulated the petition, testified
that he and other employees who signed it wanted to “give Nick [Grise-
to] a chance to prove to us what he . . . said he wants to do.” It may
fairly be inferred that Parker was referring at least in part to the Guid-
ing Coalition.
a successor under NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406
U.S. 272 (1972).3
I.
As set out in the judge’s decision, the Union represent-
ed a unit of production and maintenance employees at
the preexisting employer, Bradford Dyeing Association,
until that entity closed in November 2008. Prior to that
closing, some of Bradford Dyeing’s sales and managerial
employees created the Respondent and reached an
agreement with Bradford Dyeing to lease its facility and
equipment.
In November 2008, the Respondent’s chief executive,
Nicholas Griseto, met with Bradford Dyeing’s employ-
ees to recruit them for the Respondent’s prospective op-
eration. When asked if the new company would be un-
ionized, Griseto said the Respondent would not be a un-
ion company, but that it would be up to the employees to
decide if they wanted union representation. At a Decem-
ber job fair attended by many Bradford Dyeing employ-
ees, Griseto again said that the Respondent would not
open as a union company but that the question of union
representation would be decided by the employees.
The Respondent re-opened the facility on January 5,
2009,4 and held an orientation program for new employ-
ees that day. Griseto had prepared a document to use in
describing the new company to them. It stated, in perti-
nent part:

We are aware that some of the associates of the previ-
ous company were represented by a union. We do not
think one is necessary here. Personally I would like
you all to wait on thinking about this subject until we
see what kind of company we can achieve together.

Although the judge did not make a finding on whether Gri-
seto “read the entire document” verbatim, he found from the
record that “the probability is that Griseto told the employ-
ees that he believed that as a new company he did not have
to recognize the Union and that a union was unnecessary.”
This finding is consistent with Griseto’s other undisputed
public statements and actions.
By January 16, the Respondent had hired a representa-
tive complement of approximately 33 bargaining unit
employees, a large majority of whom were former Brad-
ford Dyeing employees. At the hearing, the Respondent
conceded that it was a successor employer within the
3 Member Hayes agrees with his colleagues that the employee peti-
tion was tainted by the Respondent’s preceding unlawful refusal to
recognize the Union, and that the Respondent consequently violated
Sec. 8(a)(5). He therefore finds it unnecessary to rely on the Respond-
ent’s unlawful creation of the Guiding Coalition as a basis for rejecting
the petition.
4 All subsequent dates are in 2009.
356 NLRB No. 109

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 900
meaning of Burns, supra. Also on January 16, the Union
requested recognition as the majority representative for
the same unit it had represented at Bradford Dyeing.
In a notice to employees posted on January 24, the Re-
spondent stated again, in pertinent part:

Ownership is aware that some of our associates previ-
ously worked at [Bradford Dyeing] and were repre-
sented by a union. Ownership does not think one is
necessary here. Nick Griseto, the President, CEO
would like to wait on thinking about this subject until
we see what kind of company we can achieve collec-
tively and give our new procedures, vision and cultural
change a chance.

Sometime between February 1 and 4, the Respondent
posted a notice informing employees of the Union’s de-
mand for recognition and stating, in pertinent part:

[The Respondent]’s position on this topic has been
clear. We believe a union is not necessary given Brad-
ford’s new vision, culture change and procedures.
. . . .
Unite Here seeks recognition as your union without the
benefit of election at which you can freely vote your
preference and determine for yourself whether a union
and/or Unite Here shall be your bargaining representa-
tive.
If you desire to have a role in this decision, you must
take immediate steps to make your opinions and views
known to Unite Here, the National Labor Relations
Board in Boston and Bradford. It is Bradford Print-
ing’s position that your views and opinions are the
most important on this issue. You alone should make
the decision on whether Unite Here becomes your un-
ion and the bargaining agent for employees.
Your opinion, however, can only be taken into account
if you make your wishes known to all parties involved.
If you do not take any action, a decision on this issue
could be made without any input from you. Bradford
urges you to become involved and exercise your rights
to have a sway on what happens in your workplace.

On February 5, after reading the above notice, employee
Parker circulated his petition opposing continued represen-
tation by the Union.
On February 20, the Respondent formally refused to
recognize the Union, asserting that it was not a successor
to Bradford Dyeing and citing Parker’s petition as evi-
dence that a majority of unit employees did not want the
Union to represent them.5
II.
The Respondent concededly was a Burns successor to
Bradford Dyeing. Thus, it was legally required to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union as of January 16, when
the Respondent had hired a representative complement of
unit employees, a majority of whom had worked for the
predecessor, and the Union formally demanded recogni-
tion. The Respondent, however, refused to do so.6
Moreover, the Respondent’s statements to employees,
both before and after that date, made clear that it would
not recognize and bargain with the Union. The Re-
spondent consistently took the position that union repre-
sentation was unnecessary and effectively communicated
to employees that it would not recognize and bargain
with the Union unless and until they reaffirmed their
support for it.
A challenge to an incumbent union’s majority support
“must be raised in a context free of unfair labor practices
of the sort likely, under all the circumstances, to affect
the union’s status, cause employee disaffection, or im-
properly affect the bargaining relationship itself.” Lexus
of Concord, 343 NLRB 851, 852 (2004). Here, the cir-
cumstances precluded any challenge to the Union’s sup-
port. The Respondent engaged in an ongoing refusal to
recognize and bargain with the Union. That conduct
tainted the employee petition, independently of the Re-
spondent’s unlawful creation of the Guiding Coalition.
See Lee Lumber, 322 NLRB 175, 178 (1996) (unlawful
refusal to recognize incumbent union creates a presump-
tion that refusal caused subsequent employee disaffec-
tion, which can be rebutted only by a showing that disaf-
fection arose after employer subsequently recognized and
bargained with the union), affd. in relevant part 117 F.3d
1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Consequently, the Respondent is
foreclosed from invoking the petition to defend its con-
duct.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
5 The Respondent also maintains before the Board that “numerous”
employees indicated to it before January 5, when the new operation
opened, that they did not want to be represented by the Union. Howev-
er, the Respondent did not attempt to show, and the record does not
establish, how many employees so indicated or that they comprised a
unit majority on or before that date. The Respondent’s employee wit-
nesses testified as to their sentiments toward the Union only as of Feb-
ruary 5, when they signed or refused to sign the petition.
6 The judge characterized the Respondent’s action as a “withdrawal”
of recognition. However denominated, the Respondent’s action was
unlawful.

BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC 901
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Bradford
Printing & Finishing, LLC, Bradford, Rhode Island, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b).
“(b) From refusing to recognize, or withdrawing
recognition from, the Union in the absence of a demon-
strated and untainted showing that the Union has lost its
majority status.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
facilities in Bradford, Rhode Island, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es including all places where notices to employees are
customarily 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
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since January 16, 2009.”

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.
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 refuse to recognize, or withdraw recog-
nition from, the New England Joint Board, UNITE-
HERE, in the absence of a demonstrated and untainted
showing that Union has lost its majority status.
WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with the Guiding Coa-
lition as a representative of our employees in relation to
their terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you of the exercise guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain collective-
ly with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and if an agreement is
reached, embody such agreement in a signed document.
The appropriate bargaining unit consists of:

All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Respondent’s facility, but excluding general of-
fice help, clerical employees, scientific employees,
foremen, department heads, watchmen, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.

BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC

Elizabeth A. Vorro, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael J. Murray, Esq., for the Respondent.
Anne R. Sills, Esq., for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in Providence, Rhode Island, on February 16, 2010. The
charge and the first and second amended charges were filed on
August 17, October 29, and December 21, 2009. A complaint
issued on December 31, 2009, and alleged as follows:
1. That the Respondent, after purchasing the business of
Bradford Dyeing, which had a collective-bargaining relation-
ship with the Union, operated the business in such manner as to
be considered a “successor” under the Act and therefore had an
obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union.
2. That since January 16, 2009, the Respondent has failed
and refused to recognize or bargain with the Union.
3. That in early January 2009, immediately upon commenc-
ing operations, the Respondent established the “Guiding Coali-
tion,” an internal entity comprised of employees, managers, and
supervisors that was designed to deal with the Respondent con-
cerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment. It is alleged that by establishing this organization,
the Respondent rendered assistance and support to and domi-
nated a “labor organization” in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act.
4. That in early February 2009, the Respondent posted a no-
tice with (a) the purpose of soliciting employees to abandon
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 902
their support for the Union and (b) which constituted a de facto
interrogation of employees.
The Respondent agrees that it was a “successor” to Bradford
Dyeing, but asserts that it nevertheless had the right to with-
draw recognition because a majority of the production and
maintenance employees signed a petition stating that they did
not want to be represented by the Union.
As to the 8(a)(2) assistance allegation, the Respondent con-
tends that the Guiding Coalition was established as a good-faith
effort to aid communications between the employer and the
employees and as a reasonable method to resolve issues. It
asserts that this was not formed for the purpose of undermining
the Union and it denies that the Guiding Coalition was a domi-
nated labor organization.
As to the allegation regarding the February notice to em-
ployees, the Respondent asserts that the contents of the notice
are protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
It is agreed and I find that the Respondent is an employer
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It also is agreed and I find that the
New England Joint Board, UNITE-HERE, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The New England Joint Board has had a long term bargain-
ing relationship with a company called Bradford Dyeing Asso-
ciation. The last contract ran from December 1, 2005, to No-
vember 30, 2008. The bargaining unit consisted of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees, but excluded general office
help, clerical employees, scientific employees, foremen, de-
partment heads, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Bradford Dyeing was engaged in the manufacture of cloth
having camouflage designs that are utilized by the Armed Ser-
vices. The designs are in part, covered by copy rights and the
manufacture of the cloth (and the uniforms by its direct cus-
tomers), are required by law to be made in the United States.
This company had been in business for many years but in 1997
there was a fire at its factory that adversely affected its opera-
tions.
In the ensuring years, business suffered and by 2008, there
were serious financial problems. At that time, the predecessor
company approached the Union to bargain about contract con-
cessions but no agreements were reached. On September 24,
2008, Bradford Dyeing formally notified the Union that it
would be permanently closing the facility and laying off the
entire work force as of November 24, 2008. At that time, there
were 71 bargaining unit employees. After that announcement,
Bradford Dyeing bargained with the Union about the effects of
the shutdown.
During this process, some of the sales and managerial em-
ployees of Bradford Dyeing, including Nicholas Griseto (previ-
ously the vice president of sales and marketing), decided that
they would like to purchase the assets of that company and
create a new company that was called Bradford Printing &
Finishing.1 In this regard, the parties stipulated as follows:

That about “December 23, 2008,” the Respondent entered in-
to a site access agreement with Bradford Dyeing Association
which agreement has been mutually extended several times
since then. Under that agreement, Respondent has leased
Bradford Dyeing Associations’ former facility and equipment.
Since about January 5, 2009, Respondent has been operating
the business formerly operated by Bradford Dyeing Associa-
tion in basically unchanged form, and has employed as a ma-
jority of its production and maintenance employees, individu-
als who were previously employees of Bradford Dyeing As-
sociation.

In November 2008, Griseto addressed a meeting of the em-
ployees (then employed by the predecessor), and in response to
a question about whether the new company would be union-
ized, he stated that it would not be a union company. The cred-
ible evidence also shows that at the meeting, Griseto added that
it was not within his control as to whether employees wanted a
union and that it was up to them to decide if they wanted union
representation.
In December 2008, the new owners held a job fair in Wester-
ly, Rhode Island. This was attended by many of the employees
of Bradford Dyeing and Griseto was again asked about whether
the new company was going to be unionized. Once again, the
credible evidence indicates that he told prospective employees
that the company would not open as a union company and that
the question of union representation would be decided by the
employees.
In short, the evidence indicates to me that Griseto was of the
belief that as a new company, he would not be encumbered by a
union relationship upon the commencement of operations and
that any question of unionization would be decided by the em-
ployees at a latter time. From these statements made in antici-
pation of the transition, it appears to me that Griseto was not, at
least at that time, familiar with the law regarding “successor-
ship” and was simply expressing his belief as to what would
happen when the new company took over the old company’s
operations.
Bradford Printing commenced operations on January 5,
2009. And by January 16, 2009, the Company was up and run-
ning after having hired about 33 bargaining unit employees, the
majority of whom had previously been employed by Bradford
Dyeing. It seems that before hiring its work force, the Compa-
ny established new terms and conditions of employment and
the complaint does not allege that the Respondent unilaterally
changed any of the terms of the predecessor’s contract.
There was an orientation program held on January 5 for the
new employees at which Griseto spoke. In preparation for his
talk, Griseto prepared a document which sets out how the new
1 Initially, the ownership of the new corporation was shared by
Nicholas Griseto, Vasco Ferrara, and Craig Nichols. Thereafter, Gri-
setto bought out the ownership interest of the other two individuals and
is now the sole owner.

BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC 903
company was going to be different and better than the prede-
cessor. Whether or not he read the entire document is not really
relevant because even if he didn’t, it represents his intentions at
the time. The document reads in part:

We intend to operate the business in compliance with all em-
ployment and labor laws. Our corporate position is that we
will strive to provide good jobs with good pay and benefits
that will enable all associates to provide for the future of their
families. . . .

We are aware that some of the associates of the previous
company were represented by a union. We do not think one is
necessary here. Personally I would like you all to wait on
thinking about this subject until we see what kind of company
we can achieve together. Please give our new procedures, vi-
sion and cultural changes a chance. I think the Guiding Coali-
tion will be a perfect forum to get involvement from all ranks
and the Guiding Coalition will be able to address all issues
and concerns in a timely and fair manner.

At the orientation meeting, Griseto asked for and got volun-
teers to act as employee members of the Guiding Coalition. He
also appointed the management members of the Coalition. Alt-
hough there is some ambiguity, the probability is that Griseto
told the employees that he believed that as a new company he
did not have to recognize the Union and that a union was un-
necessary. But the evidence also indicates that he told them that
having a union was their choice and not his.
With respect to the Guiding Coalition, which was effectively
established on the first day of the Respondent’s operations,
Griseto testified that he got this idea back in October 2008,
from an article in a Harvard Business School publication. He
testified that after reading the article, he thought that the crea-
tion of such an entity would more effectively facilitate commu-
nications and decision making between management and the
employees.
In any event, the Guiding Coalition was established and con-
sisted of employee and supervisory personnel including Grise-
to. Each member had a vote and the organization was designed
to deal with various employee or personnel issues such as hours
of work, holidays, attendance, and discipline. The Respondent
agreed that the Guiding Coalition as an entity, could deal with
and resolve employee grievance, albeit none had come to it as
yet. From its inception, the Guiding Coalition has met about
once every month although meetings were suspended after the
complaint in this case was issued. Employees who attend its
meetings were paid for their time in attendance.
The General Counsel asserts that the Guiding Coalition is a
dominated labor organization as defined in the Act and that its
formation was intended to discourage employees from joining
or supporting the Union. The Respondent, contends that the
Guiding Coalition was conceived of before any union activity
was present and that it was intended as a tool to help communi-
cations between management and the work force and was not
meant to influence employees regarding any issue of unioniza-
tion. For my part, I do not think that intent is all that relevant in
this situation.
By letter dated January 16, 2009, the Union asserted that it
was the majority representative of the production and mainte-
nance employees and asked for recognition and bargaining.
This letter was forwarded by the Company to legal counsel.
As indicated by an email dated Saturday, January 24, 2009,
the Respondent posted the following notice, presumably on the
next working day which would have been January 26.

Ownership intends to operate the business in compliance with
all employment and labor laws. . . . Ownership is aware that
some of our associates previously worked at BDA and were
represented by a union. Ownership does not think one is nec-
essary here. Nick Griseto, the President, CEO would like to
wait on thinking about this subject until we see what kind of
company we can achieve collectively and give our new pro-
cedures, vision and cultural change a chance. The Guiding
Coalition will be a perfect forum to get involvement from all
ranks and the Guiding coalition will [be] able to address all is-
sues and concerns in a timely and fair manner.

By a letter to the Union dated January 30, 2009, the Compa-
ny’s attorney stated that he would be studying the situation and
would get back to the Union in the near future.
At some point during the first week of February 2009, the
Respondent posted the following notice.

A couple of weeks ago, Bradford Printing & Finishing
received a letter from former Bradford Dyeing Associa-
tions’ union, UNITE-HERE. In that letter, the union de-
manded that it be recognized as the bargaining representa-
tive or union for all current Branford Printing employees
holding the type of positions that were formerly in the un-
ion at Bradford Dyeing Association.
Bradford’s position on this topic has been clear. We
believe a union is not necessary given Bradford’s new vi-
sion, culture change and procedures. Our new working
environment and practices will address all employees con-
cerns and issues. It is Bradford’s intent to provide stable
jobs with good wages and good benefits. We need your
help in making our company’s business succeed and meet
the serious challenges facing every new business in this
economy.
Unite Here seeks recognition as your union without the
benefit of election at which you can freely vote your pref-
erence and determine for yourself whether a union and/or
Unite Here shall be your bargaining representative.
If you desire to have a role in this decision, you must
take immediate steps to make your opinions and views
known to Unite Here, the National Labor Relations Board
in Boston and Bradford. It is Bradford Printing’s position
that your views and opinions are the most important on
this issue. You alone should make the decision on wheth-
er Unite Here becomes your union and the bargaining
agent for employees.
Your opinion, however, can only be taken into account
if you make your wishes known to all parties involved. If
you do not take any action, a decision on this issue could
be made without any input from you. Bradford urges you
to become involved and exercise your rights to have a
sway on what happens in your workplace.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 904
On or about February 3 or 4, 2009, John Parker, an employ-
ee, had his wife type up a petition that states:

We the employees at Bradford Printing and Finishing are
quite satisfied working as non-union employees. We do not
want nor do we need union support at this textile facility at
this time.

With respect to the above, Parker testified that after discuss-
ing the matter with a few of his fellow workers, he decided to
draw up this petition and solicit signatures. In substance, his
testimony was that he and the other people he spoke to, figured
that with the Guiding Coalition in place, there was no need for
union representation at that time. He also testified that his deci-
sion to solicit the petition was not the result of any statements
or actions by company managers or supervisors.
On or about February 5, 2009, Parker circulated the petition
on company premises and during working hours, but without
any direct assistance or involvement by supervisors or manag-
ers. He did ask his supervisor if he could go around the shop
with a petition and that his supervisor, who refused to read the
petition, said he could but to make if fast. This process took
about 45 minutes and Parker collected 31 signatures. There is
no indication that employees were coerced into signing the
petition or that the purpose of it was misrepresented to them.
After obtaining the signatures, Parker gave a copy to the Com-
pany and sent a copy to the Union.
By letter dated February 11, 2009, the Union’s counsel wrote
to the Company indicating that unless she received a response
to the previous request for recognition by February 20, 2009,
the Union would file unfair labor practice charges with the
NLRB.
By a letter to the Union dated February 20, 2009, the Re-
spondent’s attorney stated his opinion that the Company was
neither an alter ego nor successor to Bradford Dyeing. He as-
serted that the Respondent had no obligation to bargain with the
Union. The letter went on to note that it had been presented
with a petition showing that “an overwhelming majority of
Bradford’s production employees do not want Unite Here or
any union to represent them.”
III. ANALYSIS
There is no dispute that the Respondent is a “successor” to
Bradford Dyeing as that terms is used in Fall River Dyeing
Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987), affg. 775 F. 2d 425 (1st
Cir. 1985). Therefore, I conclude that when the Respondent
commenced its operations on January 5, 2009, and reached a
representative complement of employees within a matter of
days thereafter, it became a successor and therefore incurred an
obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union.
That the Respondent was a successor does not, however,
mean that it could not withdraw recognition if there was objec-
tive evidence that a majority of the employees in the bargaining
unit no longer desired union representation. In this regard, the
Respondent relies on the petition that was signed by 31 out of
35 employees in early February 2009.
The question here is whether that petition was tainted by un-
fair labor practices committed by the Respondent.
A. The February Posted Notice
The General Counsel contends that the February notice that
was posted at the facility violated Section 8(a)(1) because (a) it
solicited employees to abandon their support for the Union and
(b) it constituted unlawful interrogation. I don’t agree.
The content of this posted message was that the Union had
demanded bargaining; that the Company did not believe that a
union was necessary; and that if employees wanted their opin-
ions to count, they should contact the Union, the National La-
bor Relations Board and the Employer. There is no mention of
a decertification petition and the employees were told, as they
had been told in the past, that the decision to unionize was
within their own control and not the Employer’s. The notice
contained nothing that I would construe as a threat of reprisal or
a promise of benefit. There is no indication that if a union was
selected, the Company would refuse to bargain or that the se-
lection of a union would be futile.
As to the General Counsel’s theory that this constituted un-
lawful interrogation, I do not view these facts as remotely com-
parable to those cases where a supervisor or manager goes
around the plant insisting that employees take a vote-no button
or an antiunion T-shirt. See for example, Tappan Co., 254
NLRB 636 (1981), and Pillowtex Corp., 234 NLRB 560
(1978). Although asking employees to make their views
known to the Union, the Labor Board or the Company, this
notice did not invite employees to report to management, which
employees were in favor of the Union. First Student, Inc., 341
NLRB 136, 137 (2004). In short, I view the contents of this
notice as being protected by Section 8(c) of the Act and I there-
fore shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
B. The 8(a)(2) Domination Issue
In Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992), the Board did
an exhaustive review of the law regarding alleged 8(a)(2) viola-
tions involving situations where employers establish commit-
tees to discuss and “deal with” issues relating to terms and con-
ditions of employment. In reaffirming settled law, the Board
held that Electromation violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act by setting up certain “action committees,” composed of
management and employee representatives that sought to re-
solve matters such as pay progressions, bonuses, and absentee
rules. The Board concluded that these were labor organizations
as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act and that they dealt with the
employer as that term is used in Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
(Electromation dealt with a situation involving an employer
that did not have a collective bargaining relationship with a
union).
In E. I. Du Pont & Co., 311 NLRB 893 (1993), the Board
concluded that employee committees and management can be
found to be dealing with each other either in situations where
management representatives function outside of a committee or
as members within a committee. In this case the Board held
that joint safety committees were labor organization that dealt
with management because they made proposals to the Compa-
ny about incentive awards. As these committees were estab-
lished by the Employer and were set up despite the fact that
BRADFORD PRINTING & FINISHING, LLC 905
there was an incumbent labor organization, the Board held that
the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.2
In the present case, the Guiding Coalition was established by
management on January 5, 2009, the day that the Respondent
opened for business. It consisted of an equal number of em-
ployee and supervisory representatives and was presided over
by the Company’s president who also set the agenda for the
meetings. As a committee consisting of employee and manage-
rial representatives, each having a vote, the group was estab-
lished as a forum in which employees dealt with Respondent’s
management with respect to employment issues such as hours
of work, holidays, pensions, and lunch breaks. The entity was
also admittedly set up to deal with employee grievances, albeit
this did not happen during the time that meetings were held.
In light of the above, I conclude that the Guiding Coalition
was a “labor organization” within the meaning of the Act; that
it dealt with the Employer regarding terms and conditions of
employment; and that it was dominated by the Employer in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
C. The Withdrawal of Recognition
It was stipulated that the Respondent was a successor be-
cause of its continuity of operations with Bradford Dyeing and
the fact that a majority of its employees had previously been
employed by the predecessor. Therefore, the legal obligation to
recognize and bargain with the Union attached to the Respond-
ent at the time it commenced operations with a representative
complement of employees. In this regard, I note that even
though the Respondent, as a successor, inherited the obligation
to bargain, it did not have any obligation to adopt or assume the
collective-bargaining agreement that the Union had with the
predecessor. See NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S.
272 (1972).
Nevertheless, although there was an obligation to recognize
and bargain with the Union at or about the time that the Re-
spondent commenced operations, there was no extant collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and the Employer would be legally
entitled to withdraw recognition if it could demonstrate that the
Union had, in fact lost its majority status. Levitz Furniture Co.
of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001).
In this case the Respondent relies on the petition that was
signed by a majority of the bargaining unit employees on or
about February 5, 2009, to show that the Union lost its majority
status. (The General Counsel conceded that the signatures on
the petition were authentic.) The General Counsel counters that
this petition cannot be the basis for a lawful withdrawal of
recognition because it was tainted by the Respondent’s other
unfair labor practices. Atlas Refinery, Inc., 354 NLRB 1056
(2010); Penn Tank Lines, 336 NLRB 1066, 1067–1068 (2001);
Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp., 322 NLRB 175, 177
(1996).
In Master Slack, 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984), the Board set
forth the factors to be considered in determining whether a
2 For a thorough discussion of this subject see chapter 8, sections II
and III of The Developing Labor Law, published by the Bureau of
National Affairs.
causal relationship exists between unfair labor practices and
employee disaffection. These are:

(1) the length of time between the unfair labor practice and
the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of illegal acts,
including the possibility of their detrimental or lasting effect
on employees; (3) any possible tendency to cause employee
disaffection from the union; (4) the effect of unlawful conduct
on employee morale, organizational activities and member-
ship in the union.

There is, in my opinion, no doubt that there was a direct
causal relationship between the creation and maintenance of the
Guiding Coalition and the employee petition. In my opinion,
the question as to whether or not the Guiding Coalition was
originally established in order to discourage union membership
is essentially irrelevant. For even if it wasn’t, the fact is the
Employer on or about January 24, 2009, notified the employ-
ees, soon after the Union made a demand for recognition, that
union representation was not necessary and that the Guiding
Coalition could serve as an alternative means to discuss and
resolve employment issues.
Indeed the testimony of John Parks was that he created the
petition in early February 2009 because he wanted to give the
Employer a chance. He testified that in his discussions with
other employees, “we said, let's give Nick a chance to prove to
us what he wants to do, what he said he wants to do.”
In light of the above, I conclude that because the employee
petition was tainted by the maintenance of an illegally dominat-
ed “labor organization,” the Respondent’s refusal to bargain
with the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By creating and maintaining the Guiding Coalition as a
joint employee-management committee that was authorized to
“deal with” terms and conditions of employment, the Respond-
ent dominated a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
2. By withdrawing recognition from and refusing to bargain
with the Union, the Respondent, as the successor to Bradford
Dyeing Association, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
in the absence of a demonstrated showing that the Union had
legitimately lost its majority status.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Having concluded that the Respondent unlawfully dominated
the Guiding Coalition, it is recommended that it be ordered to
cease dealing with it as a representative of its employees.
In relation to my conclusion that the Respondent has not
demonstrated that the there was an untainted loss of majority
status by the Union, I shall also recommend that the Respond-
ent be ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union con-
cerning wages, hours, and all terms and conditions of employ-
ment.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 906
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Bradford Printing & Finishing, LLC, Brad-
ford, Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist
(a) From recognizing and dealing with the Guiding Coalition
as a representative of its employees in relation to the terms and
conditions of employment of its employees.
(b) Withdrawing recognition from the Union in the absence
of a demonstrated and untainted showing that the Union has
lost its majority status.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the
New England Joint Board, UNITE-HERE, as the exclusive
representative of its employees with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an
agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a signed doc-
ument. The appropriate bargaining unit consists of

All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Respondent’s facility, but excluding general office help, cleri-
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
cal employees, scientific employees, foremen, department
heads, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Bradford, Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, or sold the business or
the facilities involved herein, 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 Respond-
ents at any time since January 5, 2009.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

4 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.”