Dayton Typographical Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 1205 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE 1205
Dayton Typographical Service, Inc. and Jack A.
Hoendorf. Case 9-CA-16957
14 December 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND H UNTER
On 4 November 1982 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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 brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions i and to adopt the recommended
Order.
We agree with the judge's finding that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging
employee Hoendorf. In so doing we have consid-
ered the Respondent's contention that Hoendorf
was not engaged in concerted activity in light of
the Board's lecent decision in Meyers Industries,
268 NLRB 493 (1984). In Meyers the Board over-
ruled Alleluia Cushion Co. 2 and held, inter alia, that
it would require that for an employee's activity to
be concerted it must "be engaged in with or on the
authority of other employees, and not solely by
and on behalf of the employee himself."3
The finding that Hoendorf was engaged in con-
certed activity is based on credited record evidence
that four employees in the Respondent's customer
service department (Hoendorf, Long, Fugate, and
Runck) jointly presented certain complaints to Su-
pervisor Southam in November 1980. Among these
complaints was the three full-time salaried employ-
ees' (Hoendorf, Long, and Fugate) expressed dis-
agreement with the Respondent's policy in assign-
ing Saturday work without compensation. Hoen-
dorf s complaints to Supervisor Logan (Southam's
replacement) in December 1980 and January 1981
involved this same Saturday uncompensated work
policy.
The Respondent's contention that Hoendorf was
engaged in individual griping is based on the ab-
sence of evidence that Hoendo rf was an authorized
spokesman and the asserted albsence of legitimate
1 In item 3 of his Conclusions of Law, the judge inadvertently named
Hoendorf as the subject of the Respondent's unlawful interrogation Con-
sistent with his findings on this Issue, we correct this Conclusion of Law
to name employee Fugate as the individual involved
2 221 NLRB 999 (1975)
3 Meyers, supra
concern by the other employees. This latter asser-
tion is predicated on the Respondent's further
claim that Long and Fugate decided not to pursue
the Saturday work without compensation matter
after Southam told them that nobody would re-
ceive compensation unless Saturday work became a
regular occurrence.
There is no affirmative evidence that Long and
Fugate told the Respondent that they were no
longer concerned about the Saturday work without
compensation matter. Nor does the record show
that the Respondent took any affirmative steps to
resolve this complaint. The matter continued to be
a common concern to the three employees and was
recognized as such by Supervisor Logan. Thus, the
judge found that in January 1981 "Logan himself
plainly recognized that Hoendorf was speaking for
the other full-time service employees, when he pro-
tested to Hoendorf that the decision he had to
make about Saturday overtime was going to affect
three other people." In the circumstances here, in
which the November 1980 meeting with Supervi-
sor Southam plainly represented concerted activity,
we find that Hoendorf s December 1980 and Janu-
ary 1981 complaints to Supervisor Logan concern-
ing Saturday work without compensation were a
continuation of the concerted activity.
Having found that Hoendorf was engaged in
protected concerted activity we turn to the reason
for his discharge. The judge found that the Re-
spondent's stated reason for Hoendorf s discharge
was pretextual and that the real reason was Hoen-
dorf s role as the principal spokesman for the serv-
ice representative in demanding compensation for
working on Saturdays. We agree. Accordingly, we
adopt the judge's finding that Hoendorf s discharge
violated Section 8(a)(1).
The judge also found that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employee
Fugate concerning matters related to the pending
unfair labor practice case without observing the
necessary safeguards and by asking Fugate for a
copy of his affidavit given to the Board. In so find-
ing the judge relied on the principles set forth in
Johnnie's Poultry Co. 4 and its progeny.
In its exceptions the Respondent relies mainly on
the Sixth Circuit's decision in Anserphone that re-
fused enforcement of an earlier Board decision. We
4 146 NLRB 770 (1964) See also Kyle & Stephen, Inc , 259 NLRB 731
(1981)
In finding the violations involving Fugate Member Hunter adopts the
Judge's reliance on Johnnre's Poultry Co and its progeny Accordingly, he
finds It unnecessary to pass on his colleagues' additional rationale for
finding these violations
Member Zimmerman also adopts the judge's reliance on Johnnie's Poul-
try Co. but he further agrees with the distinction drawn between the
present case and Anserphone, Inc v. NLRB, 632 F 2d 4 (6th Cir 1980)
273 NLRB No. 151
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
note that the court did not expressly pass on the
standard applied by the Board. Instead, the court
considered the circumstances as a whole and con-
cluded that no coercion had occurred.
The circumstances in Anserphone differ from the
instant case. There the court relied on affirmative
evidence to show that no fear of reprisal occurred
in connection with the interrogation. It cited one
employee's refusal to be interviewed and found
that another employee submitted a copy of his
Board affidavit not out of fear but in a spirit of co-
operation.
There is no such affirmative evidence of refusal
to be interviewed here. Further, the fact that
Fugate responded to the solicitation of his affidavit
by the Respondent's counsel by asking if it was
legal to give the affidavit to the Respondent is at
odds with a finding that Fugate provided the affi-
davit in a spirit of cooperation.
It is also significant that the Respondent did not
limit its interview to matters raised in the com-
plaint, which made no mention of Fugate, but
sought Fugate's affidavit which potentially covered
matters outside the complaint and which would not
have been available to the Respondent unless and
until Fugate was called to testify at the hearing.
For these reasons we find that the circumstances as
a whole give rise to a finding that the interview of
Fugate, including the request for his affidavit, con-
stituted coercive interrogation and our finding of a
violation conforms to the Sixth Circuit's standard.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Dayton Ty-
pographical Service, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried at Dayton, Ohio, May 5-6, 1982. The
charge was filed by Jack A. Hoendorf on June 10, 1981,1
and the complaint was issued July 16. The primary issue
is whether the Company, the Respondent, 2 unlawfully
laid off and/or discharged Hoendorf in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Compa-
ny, I make the following
1 All dates are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated
2 The name of the Company was amended at the trial
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, processing, and nonretail sale of typesetting
at its facility in Dayton, Ohio, at which it purchased and
received products, goods, and materials in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio,
during the calendar year ending December 31, 1980. The
Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES3
A. Background
The Respondent is a long-established typesetting com-
pany, having been in business for over 50 years. One of
its departments, and the only one involved in this case, is
the customer service department At all times material to
this case, there were four employees in this department
Jack Hoendorf had been hired in 1962, George R. Long
in 1966, Paul Fugate in 1972, and Wava Runck in 1978.
All but Runck were full-time employees, and none of
them belonged to a union. 4 The immediate supervisor of
these four employees in 1980 was William Southam. Wil-
liam C. Taylor was the president and chief executive of-
ficer of the Company, and his father, John N. Taylor,
was chairman of the Board, and partially retired.
Hoendorf, the charging party, at the time of his hiring
in 1962 started to work as a typesetter in the plant. In
1966 Hoendorf had been promoted to the position of as-
sistant foreman in the hot metal department. Because of
technological changes from hot metal type to computer-
ized photographic composition in about 1976, Hoendorf
was transferred to the phototronic department for train-
ing as a print-out reader. Hoendorf did not attain enough
skill in this position and in about 1977, gave up his union
affiliation, and was placed in the customer service de-
partment on a salary.
A customer service representative serves as a middle-
men between the salesman who secures the printing job
and the customer. After the salesman brings the printing
job to the department, the service representative marks
up the job for the composing department, and then sees
it through the plant to completion. At times he must tele-
phone customers to straighten out various printing mat-
ters. As President William Taylor testified, the job re-
quires a highly skilled person with experience in the in-
dustry, as this person must deal with the Company's over
500 different styles of printed letters, which come in 19
different sizes. The nature of the business often subjected
3 The testimony was substantially free of direct evidentiary conflict
The facts as found are based on a composite of the testimonial and docu-
mentary evidence in the record
4 The employees in the plant composing room where the typesetting
took place were members of a union, but they are not involved in this
case However, the general foreman of this department, Curtis Couch,
had constant contact with the customer service representatives as will be
set forth hereafter
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE 1207
the work force to slack periods of 10 days to 2 weeks.
As testified to by Wava Runck without contradiction,
"It's an extremely unpredictable business."
In August 1980 Tom Alexander was hired for the pur-
pose of subsequently becoming sales manager He
worked as a trainee in various departments and in Sep-
tember worked in the customer service department. 5 Al-
exander testified that m late October or early November,
while he was training as a salesman, he and the Compa-
ny's Toledo salesman brought to the customer service
department a large "bear" of a job, a real "toughie" He
sat it down on Hoendorf s desk and Hoend orf stated that
he would not do the job, that he would quit first Alex-
ander became upset and walked upstairs to his office.
Here, after he asked the Toledo salesman, "Is this what's
been going on?", Alexander testified as follows:
And, he said, "We have constant battles with the
service department as a whole," of which Jack rep-
resented, in trying to get work in the plant of diffi-
cult jobs of any work. That there was always a
reason why of—they needed more of this or more
of that or whatever the way of information, which
could be—could be fair. But, it—there was this con-
flict between the sales and the service department in
bringing in difficult jobs
After Alexander cooled off, he went back to the service
department, saw that Hoendorf had settled down, the
two reviewed the difficult job, and the job was pro-
duced. Alexander admitted that after the job was fin-
ished he complimented Hoendorf on a job well done.
Hoendorf admitted that he had words with Alexander
about the "atrocious" condition of a job Alexander had
brought in the department, and had told him that he
would not work on it. However, after both cooled off,
Hoendorf did the job. Alexander did not reprimand him,
and the first time he subsequently heard the job dis-
cussed was on the day he was terminated Hoendorf fur-
ther testified that "messy" jobs came in at least once a
week.
B The Events of November
In early November, the Company had completed a dif-
ficult job for a major customer on time. When this cus-
tomer thanked the Company for doing so, Couch, the
composing room foreman, stated that this had been ac-
complished in spite of the customer service department.
The four service representatives had been at loggerheads
with Couch for some time, regarding his treatment of
them as inhuman and demeaning Immediately following
his caustic remark about the major job being done in
spite of the service department, the four service repre-
sentatives, Fugate, Hoendorf, Long, and Runck, gath-
ered in their area and decided to take their complaints to
their supervisor, Southam. Fugate told the other three
5 Alexander testified that during this period he had a "perception" that
Hoendorf watched the clock Since Hoendorf worked until 7 p m and
Alexander worked until 5 p m, it is evident that Alexander could not
have observed Hoendorf watching the clock so as to leave work right on
the minute, or a few minutes before his scheduled time for leaving
employees to jot down their grievances, and he would
secure a meeting with Southam.
On a following Saturday the four representatives met
with Southam in his office. Fugate was the lead speaker
telling their supervisor that there was constant friction
between the service department and Couch, and they
wanted something done about it, or they would go to the
owners. The employees also complained about the physi-
cal working conditions in their department, contending
that it was too crowded and outmoded
Hoendorf brought up the problem of working on Sat-
urdays, and was joined in this discussion by Fugate and
Long. Formerly, the practice of having one employee
work on Saturday had not been a problem, as Southam
himself had worked them, or Wava Runck was given the
assignment. Unlike the other service representatives,
Runck worked a 5-1/2-hour day, and was not on salary,
but received an hourly rate. Thus, when she had worked
Saturdays, she had been paid at her hourly rate Howev-
er, when either of the three men worked on Saturdays,
they received no additional pay for such time, or were
not given a corresponding amount of time off Southam
listened to their complaint about working on Saturday
without compensation, and advised that he would try to
take care of the problem. Working conditions did im-
prove substantially after the meeting, but no word was
received as to their demand for compensation for Satur-
day work.
C. The Events of December
In mid-December Tom Alexander called a meeting of
the full-time service representatives to announce a reor-
ganization that would require some personnel changes in
their department. Southam did the initial talking, and no-
tified the employees that he was moving upstairs to be
the director of typography. Alexander then made what
he knew to be a very controversial announcement, by
stating that Paul Logan, a former employee, had been
hired to return to work in Southam's place as the service
manager. 6 The announcement caught all three service
representatives by surprise. Hoendorf said that he did not
think he could work for Logan as he had had "a hell of
a time just working with him" Fugate stated that he did
not know if he could work for Logan or not, but he
would take it one day at a time.
6 Logan had first started to work for the Respondent in 1973, as a cus-
tomer service representative Fugate and Long had worked side-by-side
with Logan during this period, but Hoendorf had not as he was still in
the hot metal department In 1975, Logan became the sales representative
for the Dayton area In March 1980 he ceased working for the Respond-
ent to take a job out of town Nine months later he was hired back as the
customer service manager Logan admitted that he and Hoendorf did not
get along "very well" when he was the Dayton salesman He also testi-
fied that when he took jobs to Hoendorf that he had sold, he received
complaints about the status of the job, sometimes with threats that he
would not do the job In Hoendorfs opinion, Logan had been an agitator
and a big mouth during their relationship Logan also admitted that he
had some "verbal misunderstanding" with Fugate when he would bnng
to him a job he classified as a "bucket of bolts" or "can of worms"
Fugate testified that he and Logan had had many shouting matches over
the work Logan brought to him in the department, and that he had a
personality conflict with Logan
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Following that meeting, Alexander recommended to
Logan that he hold a breakfast meeting with each of the
full-time customer representatives. Logan did take Hoen-
dorf to breakfast about December 21, and here he tried
to iron out their differences. Logan admitted that when
he asked Hoendorf to express his concerns, Hoendorf
brought up the subject of Saturday overtime, "out of the
clear blue sky." Logan advised Hoendorf that he was not
going to work every Saturday like Southam had done,
but he would think about the problem. 7 Logan also took
Fugate to breakfast, where they exchanged views in
trying to straighten things out so as to benefit the Com-
pany. Logan did not take Long to breakfast, as Long's
hours of work were from 2 to 10:30 p.m. Also, Logan
and Long had always gotten along, and had a good
working relationship.
D. The Events of Early January
Early in January, Alexander took over as sales manag-
er, heading up the sales force, customer service depart-
ment, and shipping. Logan assumed the duties of manag-
er of the customer service department. A few days there-
after, Hoendorf and Logan had a discussion about work-
ing on Saturdays, and overtime pay. Logan's description
of the meeting is more detailed than Hoendorf and is set
forth as follows:
I had a confrontation with Jack. I walked in the
Service Department one morning and—it was one
evening because George Long was still there It
was possibly, you know, 3.00 o'clock, and Jack, at
that time, he says, "Hey", He says "You know, Sat-
urday is coming up." He says, "What are you going
to do about Saturday work?"
And I said, "Well, Jack, I have not made that de-
cision yet." I said, "You know", I says, "I'll let you
know."
He says, "Well, it's Saturday. You had better
make a decision now."
And I said, "Look, I will work this Saturday. I'll
be here." You know, I said, "Don't worry about it
Jack." I said, "You know, you're making a moun-
tain out of a mole hill." I said, "I will make that de-
cision. But, I said, you know, I don't really feel
that, you know, it's a concern to discuss out here in
front of George Long's presence." You know, I
said, "The door is open. If you want to go in and
talk."
And at that point, he pointed his finger at me and
he says, "Well, I'll tell you one thing, I'm not work-
ing Saturdays without being compensated for it."
At that point, I said, "Jack, I'm not going to dis-
cuss this any further."
I turned around, went back in my office and
closed the door.
On cross-examination when Logan again recounted
this same conversation he stated that he had also told
7 On rebuttal Hoendorf testified that Logan said he was not going to
work any Saturdays. It is not necessary to rule on credibility in this in-
stance, as both parties agree that the problem of Saturday overtime was
discussed
Hoendorf the decision he had to make on Saturday over-
time was "going to affect those other people," and that
"It's not an item to discuss right out here in front of
Long."
Hoendorf also testified to a second conversation that
he had with Logan within about the same week, about
Saturday overtime. Logan, while walking through the
plant, stated that he had yet to make up his mind as to
which employee would work Saturday. Hoendorf replied
that it was not going to be him unless he received time
off, or was paid for the time. Logan thereupon replied
"Well, there's no if s and's or but's about it. You're not
going to get paid for it." Hoendorf then reminded Logan
that he had an awful short memory, as he used to work
on Saturdays, and got Mondays off. 8 Logan contended
that his receiving Mondays off was different, as he had
worked on Saturdays on a regular basis. As the argument
progressed Logan became angry and loud, but Hoendorf
maintained his position that "If you work on a Saturday,
you get off on a Monday or you get paid for it." Fugate
corroborated Logan's account of this meeting as he re-
called Hoendorf arguing that the service representatives
should not have to work Saturdays without compensa-
tion, because Logan had been compensated when he
worked Saturdays. He also recalled that Logan had said
that situation was different, as he had worked every Sat-
urday. Hoendorfs and Fugate's testimony was uncontra-
dicted and is credited.
A week or so later, towards the middle of January,
Hoendorf testified that he had another conversation with
Logan, as it was approaching the time when the Compa-
ny normally made evaluations of its employees so as to
determine which employees were going to receive a
raise. Hoendorf asked Logan if he was going to evaluate
the employees, or if Alexander was going to do it, so as
to see if there were to be raises. Logan replied that he
was not going to answer the question at that time, and
Hoendorf did not "push it." Logan admitted that he re-
membered a conversation in which Hoendorf brought up
raises and evaluations, but he could not pinpoint the
time. I credit Hoendorf s uncontradicted testimony that
this conversation took place toward the middle of Janu-
ary
E. The Layoff of Jack Hoendorf
1 According to Hoendorf
Hoendorf testified that on the afternoon of January 19,
William Taylor called him to come to the president's
office. After Hoendorf arrived, William Taylor told him
to sit down and then the following conversation took
place.
And he said, "I've got some bad news for you,
Jack. I'm going to have to lay you off."
And I said, "Why me?"
And he said, "Well," he said, "Work's slow," and
he said, "Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired."
Q. Uh-huh.
8 Hoendorf was obviously refernng to Logan's 3 years' employment
with the Company as a customer service representative
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE 1209
A. And—
Q Did—
A. —"All this stink that you've been putting up
about working Saturdays."
And I said, "Well, I don't think I put up any
more complaint about that than the other people"
And he—his opinion was that I did put up more
stink about it
Q. Uh-huh
A. And he said there's—he said, "We just don't
have the work."
And I said, "Well", I said, "am I being laid off or
fired?"
He said, "No, you're being laid off."
Hoendorf s paycheck had already been made out and
on receiving it, he left.
Several hours prior to Hoendorf s layoff, Wava Runck
had had a conversation with Logan, in which he had in-
formed her that Hoendorf was to be laid off that after-
noon. She then asked, "If I quit, will that save Jack's
job," and was told that it would not. When she left work
at 2 p.m. Logan told her that maybe the layoff was not
going to happen.
2. According to Respondent
President Taylor testified that in "April, May, June of
1980," he was working on the largest single job the Re-
spondent had ever produced, working on it himself an
average of 6 hours a day. He further testified:
On a couple of instances, I would ask for Jack's co-
operation and his cooperation was not cooperative.
I do remember an instance in which I asked him to
come into the conference room and help me and he
said it would be a lot smarter, Bill if you had one of
the girls take this and—and reorder it and shuffle—
and transfer some mark-up over to it. I said okay,
Jack, fine Let's get that done. I have got to get the
job done
At this time W. Taylor told himself, "I want this
turkey out of here," and made up his mind "that he had
to go." When asked on direct examination why he did
not terminate Hoendorf at that time he testified:
A. Well, because I wanted to reorganize the
company. I knew I had a gentleman coming on staff
to reorganize the company and to—in the commerr-
cial area, now And, I feel as a manager or as a
management technique, that I shouldn't go around
and start shuffling all of these things around. I
should give him the opportunity to come in and
make some evaluations himself.
And, the customer service department—the com-
mercial customer service department, during that
year of 1980,—it wasn't just Jack. Paul Fugate was
going to be next if he didn't change his attitude.
And, I—I came in and worked with some of those
people at that time. And, I, myself, had had that
confrontation kind of—I don't like doing this and
whatever
I had a company that sales were declining. I had
a company, and with that department, I felt those
people were unmotivated and I didn't think it was
the best thing for me to go in there and fire some-
body out of the—right away.
The president further testified that in the first of the
year 1981, the quarterly and annual budgets were being
prepared. From these he determined that it was neces-
sary to reduce the force in the service department. As he
had already made his mind up that Hoendorf was "going
to go," he had no problem deciding that it was Hoendorf
who would be terminated.
W. Taylor then called Alexander to the office and told
him that they both knew they wanted Hoendorf termi-
nated, but he thought they should call Logan in and get
his concurrence. When Logan arrived, he was told the
Company wanted to eliminate a full-time customer serv-
ice representative, and asked for his recommendation.
Logan promptly responded "Hoendorf," for the reasons
that he had the least departmental seniority, he would
have less customer impact, and he thought Jack had a
bad attitude.
W. Taylor, in accordance with company policy as to
discharges, at some point that day informed his father
that he was laying Hoendorf off His father replied,
"Fine, go ahead" John Taylor testified that when his
son came to him, the president had told him that the
reason for the layoff was because Hoendorf was not co-
operating with his fellow employees.
W. Taylor thereafter had Hoendorf come to his office,
where he told him he was laying him off. When Hoen-
dorf asked why me, W. Taylor told him that, "We don't
have any work down there and we had to select some-
body and when we reviewed three people there of full-
time personnel, you're it." When Hoendorf asked again
why he had been selected, the president testified as fol-
lows:
And, I said, "Jack, your attitude in this company
has been awful for a long, long time. His response
to me was—is that, "Well, I didn't have any prob-
lem working for Bill Southam."
And, I said, "Well, perhaps you didn't have any
problem with Bill Southam. But, your attitude
within the company, both before Bill Southam—or
when Bill Southam was your supervisor and after-
wards, you have created a lot of friction in the
company." I mentioned—well, that's what I said
then. I said, "You have created a lot of friction in
the company. There are a lot of people in this com-
pany that you have alienated, including me."
And, he said, "Well, what do you mean?" So, I
relayed a number of things that I felt that—one I
had received second and third hand and some of
my direct experiences with Jack, which included—I
had heard that Jack confronted Paul Logan in the
service department in front of other people con-
cerning Saturday overtime. I said, "Jack, if you
want to talk to him about it you don't get at him
right in the middle of things, when other people are
on the phone with customers and whatever. I had
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heard that second or third hand—I believe Bill
Southam had told me that Jack had confronted Paul
Logan in the customer service department about
wages and review time—"When are you going to—
We want to know when we are going to get our
reviews."
And, I told him then—I said, "You're handling it
the wrong way. You're—You're creating a problem
in front of everybody in the—the customer service
department." I mentioned to him that his relation-
ship with Curt Couch was awful. And, I'm sorry.
But, Curt Couch, in my opinion, is a very good em-
ployee for Dayton Typographic Service.
W. Taylor also told him that his incident with Tom
Alexander almost cost him his job at that time. The
president then gave him his check and told him that he
would be carried on the Company's medical plan for
several months, but not to count on coming back.
F. Post Layoff Events
On the morning following Hoendorf s termination,
Wava Runck, who was the first service representative to
come in each morning, asked Logan what to say to cus-
tomers who asked for Hoendorf. Logan in turn discussed
this with Alexander, and the sales manager advised him:
"Let's tell them we're reorganizing," as he did not want
to tell customers that "we're really slow." Logan then
advised Runck to say that there had been a major reor-
ganization at Dayton Typographic and that Jack Hoen-
dorf did not fit in the reorganization, so he had been ter-
minated.
One of several customers who inquired about Hoen-
dorf was John Voight, who was the art director of the
Valvoline Company, in Ashland, Kentucky. Following
this phone conversation, Voight wrote to John Taylor in
a letter dated February 16, General Counsel's Exhibit 3.
In this letter Voight pointed out to the chairman of the
Board that Valvoline spends about $60,000 a year for
type from the Respondent. The art director stated that
he was surprised at the termination of Hoendorf, as he
regarded him as "one of your best service employees."
Voight went on to write that:
I have known Jack for many years and have never
spoken with a more pleasant person. I felt that
while talking with Jack concerning copy, that I
could rest assured that he would deliver the quality
material that I expected.
Voight concluded his letter by stating that he hoped
the Respondent would reverse its decision as to Hoen-
dorf.
By letter dated February 24, Chairman of the Board
Taylor replied to the Valvoline letter, General Counsel's
Exhibit 4. J. Taylor, after giving a brief history of Hoen-
dorf s employment with the Company, obliquely ex-
plained to Voight why the Company had terminated
Hoendorf:
The independence that goes with free thinking is
most welcome here—everyone can have their say
and will be listened to but when management decid-
ed to restructure and reorganize the entire sales and
service departments, he could not accept their plan-
ning. His unhappiness was well known throughout
the Company. I felt that I could not ignore the rec-
ommendation of department heads and management
and agreed with his leaving.
In the chairman's final paragraph he stated that he
deeply regretted, and was somewhat hurt because Hoen-
dorf had not come to his office and said goodbye.
Hoendorf received copies of both letters from Voight,
and then went to see Chairman Taylor in late February
or early March. After a few pleasantries were ex-
changed, Hoendorf asked if there were any chance of his
coming back to work. The chairman advised him that
any call back decision was up to W. Taylor, but did say
he would give Hoendorf a good recommendation for an-
other job.9
Paul Fugate testified without contradiction that
"Shortly after Jack left the Company," the Respondent
hired two new employees, Herman Rose and Debbie
Rife. Fugate knew Rose to have long experience in type
and type setting as the two men had previously worked
together at the Standard Register where he had been a
work-up man. He did not know Rife's background nor
was it otherwise set forth in the record. As to Rose,
Runck testified that "he does do customer service on the
overloads since we are shorthanded," and that Rose
seeks advice from the other three service representatives
when he does such work.
Alexander admitted that the Company placed adver-
tisements in the Cincinnati and Dayton newspapers for
service representatives. However, he contended that
Rose was hired to be a librarian, which was "a new
function that we created" He further testified that
during the period that Rose was learning the duties of a
librarian he was given "a little bit of training in the serv-
ice department so that he could help out in emergency
situations." W. Taylor also admitted that Debbie Rife did
some service representative work, but only as an experi-
ment. When asked why, if the Company were
overstaffed, it needed more help, the sales manager an-
swered, "We were getting busier, sir."
G. Discussion and Conclusion
Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right
to "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion" and Section 8(a)(1) forbids an employer "to inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7." Thus, if Hoendorfs
activity is of the type contemplated by Section 7, and if
he was discharged for having engaged in it, then the
Company violated Section 8(a)(1).
9 Respondent objected to the admission of the Valvoline letter of Feb-
ruary 24, 1981, G C Exh 3, asserting that It was not a business record
That it clearly was a business record is shown not only by Chairman
Taylor's swift reply to it, but also by other company action Both letters
were shown to Alexander, and to placate this substantial customer, Alex-
ander and another company representative, Bill Shipley, were sent to
Valvoline to explain Hoendorfs dismissal to Art Director Voight
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE 1211
1. Concerted activity
The General Counsel contends that Hoendorf, Fugate,
Long, and Runck were engaged in concerted activity in
November 1980 when they jointly presented their com-
plaints to Southam, and that when Hoendorf continued
to press the complaint about overtime work on Saturday,
he continued to be engaged in concerted activity and
was entitled to the protection of Section 7. Respondent
in its brief, vigorously denies that Hoendorf was engaged
in concerted activity, and further argues that even if he
were, the Respondent had no knowledge that he had en-
gaged in such activity. Respondent contends that Hoen-
dorf was terminated for various lawful reasons.
The record is crystal clear that the four service repre-
sentatives engaged in concerted activity when they held
a meeting in November with their supervisor, Southam,
to expressly present their complaints. While Fugate led
off in reciting their grievances to their supervisor, all em-
ployees joined in the conversation. They all wanted
relief from Couch's demeaning and antagonistic treat-
ment, they all wanted the physical condition of their
office improved. Also, the three full-time employees,
Hoendorf, Fugate, and Long, expressed their disagree-
ment with the procedure then used by the Company
when service employees worked on Saturdays, and made
it plain to Southam that they did not want to work on
Saturdays, unless they received some form of compensa-
tion for so doing.
Thereafter, Southam did secure for them some im-
provement as to the condition of their office. As to their
feud with Couch, the record shows no run-ins with him
after that November meeting. However, as November
passed, they received no word whatsoever as to their
complaint about working on Saturdays for no compensa-
tion.
Thus, on December 21 at Hoendorf s breakfast confer-
ence with Logan, when Hoendorf brought up the matter
of Saturday overtime, he was continuing to express the
group grievance that had originally been presented in
November to his previous supervisor, Southam. Again,
in early January, when, as Logan described it, he had a
confrontation with Hoendorf in the plant, Hoendorf was
continuing to express a grievance over a matter of im-
portance to all three full-time service employees. Logan
himself plainly recognized that Hoendorf was speaking
for the other full-time service employees, when he pro-
tested to Hoendorf that the decision he had to make
about Saturday overtime was going to affect three other
people. Then, a few days later, when Logan told Hoen-
dorf and Fugate that he had not made up his mind as to
which employee would work on Saturday, the supervi-
sor clearly recognized that he had a problem involving
not one employee, but a group of employees. Hoendorf
once again pressed the same argument that the service
representatives had jointly made a month and a half pre-
viously, that they wanted some compensation for work-
ing on Saturdays.
Respondent in its brief states correctly there was no
evidence that the employees met and elected Hoendorf
as their spokesman. But such is not the test as to whether
an employer is engaged in concerted activity. The brief
also sets forth testimony of Long and Fugate that they
did not ask or authorize Hoendorf to speak for them.
However, when Wava Runck was asked if she ever au-
thorized Hoendorf to speak for her, she replied that she
had not, but to this she added, "What concerned one of
us concerned all of us at this point." Certainly Runck's
statement shows that she regarded Hoendorf s protests as
protests of the service employees as a group.
Thus, not only did Hoendorfs repeated complaints
about Saturday overtime meet the Board's criteria for
concerted activity" but they also meet the criteria of
the Sixth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals,
several of whose decisions are cited by the Respondent
in its brief. The Sixth Circuit, in a case cited by Re-
spondent, Jim Causley Pontiac v. NLRB, 620 F.2d 122
(1980), in its turn, quotes favorably one of its own deci-
sions concerning concerted activity, NLRB v. Guernsey-
Muskingum, 285 F.2d 8 (6th Cir. 1960). In this latter
case, the Sixth Circuit set forth the criteria it found nec-
essary to prove concerted activity as follows:
Pit is sufficient to constitute concert of action if
from all of the facts and circumstances in the case a
reasonable inference can be drawn that the men in-
volved considered that they had a grievance and
decided among themselves, that they would take it
up with management.
Certainly the evidence is clear that Hoendorf, Fugate,
Long, and Runck considered that they had grievances
with the Respondent, and decided among themselves to
take them up with management. They were thus engaged
in concerted activity in November as was Hoendorf
when he pressed their grievances about Saturday over-
time in December and January.
Employer Knowledge
Respondent argues in its brief that neither W. Taylor
nor Alexander had knowledge in January, when W.
Taylor discharged Hoendorf, that the employees had met
with Southam in November, and complained about not
receiving compensation for working on Saturdays.
Therefore, argues Respondent, it had no knowledge that
Hoendorf ever engaged in what it apparently admits was
concerted activity. This argument falls for several rea-
sons. The first is that Southam's knowledge of Hoen-
dorf s activities is imputed to the employer by law. Pelle-
grim Bros. Wines, 239 NLRB 1220 (1979); Red Line
Transfer & Storage Co., 204 NLRB 116 (1973). Likewise,
Logan's knowledge of Hoendorf s continued complaints
about Saturday overtime December and January is im-
puted to the employer.
In addition, I find it incredible that Southam did not
tell W. Taylor about the multiple grievances registered
by the four employees in November. W. Taylor testified
that Southam informed him that Hoendorf had confront-
ed Logan about Saturday overtime 10 days before Hoen-
dorf s layoff. W. Taylor also admitted that Southam had
1 ° Chemical Laboratories, 201 NLRB 734 (1972) It is well established
that the decisions of the Board are binding on administrative law judges,
until they are overruled by the Supreme Court, or until the Board
changes its position
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told him that Hoendorf confronted Logan in the custom-
er service department about raises and evaluations. Cer-
tainly, if Southam reported to the president two confron-
tations of one employee with one supervisor, it strains
credulity that he would not have reported the November
meeting to the president, and outlined the multiple griev-
ances presented to him by those four veteran employees.
Southam was still working for the Respondent at the
time of the hearing as a high supervisor, yet he was not
called to testify I therefore draw the inference that Re-
spondent's unexplained failure to produce this witness
was for the reaon that the witness' testimony would have
been adverse to the Respondent. G. C. Murphy Co., 223
NLRB 604 (1976), enfd. 550 F.2d 1004 (4th Cir. 1977).
I also do not credit Alexander's testimony that it was
not until late January that he learned from Logan that
there was a problem about Saturday overtime pay. Alex-
ander, by W. Taylor's own testimony, knew about it
prior to Hoendorf s discharge, as Alexander discussed it
with the president in a bar As W. Taylor testified, when
he asked what the problem about overtime was between
Logan and Hoendorf, Alexander informed him that "Oh,
that was just Jack getting at Paul."
Finally, W Taylor's testimony as to his conversation
with Hoendorf at the exit interview shows clearly that
the president knew Hoendorf was engaged in concerted
activity. When Hoendorf asked W. Taylor what he
meant by his statement that he had a bad attitude, W.
Taylor told him that he should not have confronted
Logan about Saturday overtime in front of the other em-
ployees, and that his confrontations were creating a
problem in front of everybody in the customer service
department.
2 The General Counsel's proof
In applying the teachings of Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), I find that the General Counsel has sus-
tained his burden of establishing a prima facie case that
Hoendorfs concerted activities motivated Respondent's
decision to discharge him.
The evidence as set forth above clearly establishes that
Hoendorf was engaged in concerted activities that were
protected by Section 7 of the Act, from the time of the
employees' meeting in November with Southam, through
his December breakfast meeting with Logan, and includ-
ing his several confrontations in the customer service de-
partment with Logan in January.
The record is also equally clear that the Respondent
Employer had knowledge of Hoendorf s concerted ac-
tivities, as Supervisors Southam and Logan knew about
it, as well as Sales Manager Alexander, and also the
president himself, William Taylor. Not only did Re-
spondent, through its supervisors, have knowledge that
Hoendorf was engaged in concerted activity, they also
knew that he was the most vocal and aggressive spokes-
man of the four customer service representatives. The
company officials knew that it was Hoendorf who kept
alive and kept bringing up the group's November com-
plaint, that the service department employees wanted
some form of compensation for working on Saturdays.
W. Taylor particularly resented Hoendorf bringing up
the grievance on Saturday overtime as he showed in the
exit interview when he told Hoendorf he had been
wrong to bring up Saturday overtime in front of custom-
er service employees.
The record is uncontested that Hoendorf was a com-
petent service representative. Long, a veteran with 15
years with the Company, who with Runck was a most
sincere and credible witness, testified that Hoendorf was
very knowledgeable, a very good worker who made few
mistakes. Runck, the other most credible witness, had 11
years of service as a service representative, 4 with the
Respondent and 7 with a competitor. She testified that
Hoendorf was "extremely good," that he helped her
when she needed help, his technical skills were good,
and he had a good rapport with the customers. Not one
of Respondent's witnesses criticized Hoendorf s skills as
a service representative. As to the one "messy" job on
which Alexander stated that Hoendorfs attitude was
bad, Hoendorf not only did this job, but was compli-
mented by Alexander for his work.
The record also indicates that the Company had a re-
laxed policy as to the discharge of an employee. As
Chairman of the Board Wilson wrote to Voight, only 10
nonunion employees had been discharged in the prior 50
years.
3. Respondent's reasons for the discharge
I turn now to the reasons offered by the Respondent
for Hoendorf s discharge, to rebut the General Counsel's
case. W. Taylor testified that it is the practice of the Re-
spondent for the various departments to prepare a budget
for the current quarter and year. When budget figures
started coming in, in the first week of January 1981, it
was obvious to him that there had been a tremendous
swing in costs versus revenue in the customer service de-
partment. The president then determined that "Business
was so bad," that it was necessary to reduce the force in
the service department ' 1 It was at this point that W.
Taylor decided to lay Hoendorf off.
Thus, the evidence shows that Respondent's basic
reason for terminating Hoendorf was because its reve-
nues had gone down in the customer service department
in the first week of the first quarter and, as forcefully
stated by the president, "Business was awful."
Sales Manager Alexander supported the president's
contention that business was bad by pointing out an
equally bleak picture. He testified that in August the
Company's markets were not only going down but
dying. Then he testified that in, apparently, September,
"We were down very, very badly and had been down
really, for—for quite a while."
I do not find that Respondent's stated reasons for
Hoendorfs discharge stand scrutiny. Although W.
Taylor testified that business was so bad he had to dis-
charge an employee, Respondent produced absolutely no
records to support this contention. By the president's
own testimony there were quarterly budgets and annual
budgets. In addition, such an old, established corporation
" W Taylor admitted that the book department was working over-
time and that Couch was looking for employees to hire in the composing
room
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE 1213
would have had numerous financial records such as
annual statements, profit-and-loss statements, and tax
records to substantiate the oral statements of W. Taylor
and Alexander that business was awful. This failure of
the Respondent to submit such documentary evidence
causes me to believe that its financial records would not
have supported its claim that revenues were down, costs
were up, and business was bad.12
Respondent's running of advertisements in newspapers
for service representatives following Hoendorf s dis-
charge, and the hiring of two new employees, does not
square with W. Taylor's and Alexander's claims that
business was so bad it required the layoff of a service
representative. While Respondent claimed that Rose was
used as a librarian, he was also admittedly used for over-
load service representative work, as was the other newly
hired employee, Rife. Alexander justified the hiring of
these two new employees by stating that the Company
was getting busier. However, this simply bears out
Runck's testimony that the business was subject to slack
periods.
It is also to be noted that the Respondent gave shifting
and inconsistent reasons for Hoendorf s discharge. As
Chairman Taylor testified, his son told him that the
layoff was because Hoendorf would not cooperate with
his fellow employees. Chairman Taylor in turn informed
Art Director Voight that it was because Hoendorf was
unhappy since he could not accept the Company's plan-
ning for reorganization.
The original reason that President Taylor gave Hoen-
dorf for his discharge, because "we don't have any work
down there" has been reviewed above and has been dis-
credited. W. Taylor's further remarks to Hoendorf un-
derpinning his basic reason, also do not stand scrutiny.
As to Hoendorf s attitude, the Company's salesman from
Toledo told Alexander that "We have constant battles
with the service department as a whole." As to not get-
ting along with Couch, all three other service representa-
tives testified vehemently of their troubles with and dis-
like of Couch.
Finally, I find it incredible that President Taylor
would wait from the spring of 1980 to January 1981
without telling Hoendorf that he did not like his attitude.
According to W. Taylor, he had made his mind up in
April, May, or June 1980, that he was going to let Hoen-
dorf go, after he was uncooperative on a big job. Yet,
prior to the date of discharge, he never expressed any
dissatisfaction to Hoendorf, even though "sales were ter-
rible" at the time Hoendorf was uncooperative. This fail-
ure to give any warning to Hoendorf is further evidence
that the discharge was pretextual. Chicago Perforating
Co., 147 NLRB 583 (1964).
From the foregoing I conclude that Respondent's
stated reason for Hoendorf s discharge was a pretext, and
that Respondent sought to disguise the true motive.
When the asserted motive is not reasonable as I have so
12 If evidence, such as business records, is within the party's particular
knowledge and control, and such evidence would strengthen the party's
case if offered into evidence, that party is expected to introduce such evi-
dence. The failure of the party to introduce such evidence raises an ad-
verse inference. Calip Dairies, 204 NLRB 257 (1973), Capriccios Restau-
rant, 249 NLRB 685 (1980).
found herein, then that fact is evidence that the true
motive for discharge is an unlawful one, which Respond-
ent seeks to conceal."
Finding that the alleged reason for Hoendorf s dis-
charge was false, I infer that the true motive was be-
cause he was the principal spokesman for the service
representatives in demanding compensation for working
on Saturdays. W. Taylor himself touched on this reason
at the exit interview when he told Hoendorf he had cre-
ated a lot of friction in the Company. When asked what
that meant, the president expressly pointed out that
Hoendorf had "confronted Paul Logan in the service de-
partment in front of the other people concerning Satur-
day overtime." Section 7 of the Act gives Hoendorf the
right to press that grievance with his supervisor. Ac-
cordingly, I find that Respondent's discharge of Hoen-
dorf for engaging in protected concerted activity violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Farmland Soy Processing
Co., 263 NLRB 237 (1982).
H. The 8(a)(1) and (4) Allegation"
The Facts
In the summer of 1981, after the charge was filed,
Fugate was interviewed by a law student from the office
of Respondent's counsel, and had given him a statement.
On April 29, 1982, 5 days prior to the date of this hear-
ing, Respondent's attorney Chester E. Finn came to the
Company's conference room and met with Fugate. The
attorney informed Fugate that he was representing the
Company in the Hoendorf case, and that he was prepar-
ing for the trial. The attorney then reviewed with
Fugate, the statement he had given to his law clerk in
the previous summer. The attorney then asked Fugate if
he had been interviewed by any representatives of the
National Labor Relations Board. Fugate informed the at-
torney that he was interviewed by Schlectman of the
NLRB, and that he had given her a written statement.
Finn then asked Fugate if he would be willing to pro-
vide him with a copy of that statement. Fugate testified
as follows:
I asked you if it was legal. You said, "Sure." I
said, "Well, is it also legal if the NLRB wants a
copy of the statement I gave to the company?"
And you said "Sure, there's nothing wrong with
that."
Fugate did not have a copy of his affidavit at this
April 29 meeting, and agreed to bring it in the next day,
and have a copy made for Finn. On May 4, 1982, Finn
again came to the plant. Here, Fugate responded to
Logan's call, and took a copy of his affidavit to the
office. After Finn and Fugate exchanged greetings,
Fugate gave the attorney a copy of his copy of the affi-
davit, and the meeting then ended with no further con-
13 Shattuck Denn Mining Corp v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966);
First National Bank of Pueblo, 240 NLRB 184 (1979).
14 This allegation was not contained in the original complaint but was
added by amendment, during the course of the hearing, when the Gener-
al Counsel learned that Paul Fugate had given a copy of his affidavit to
Respondent's counsel.
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
versation. Fugate, when asked if the attorney made any
threats to him as to anything that might happen to him if
he did not give a copy of his statement to Finn, replied,
"Absolutely not." He further testified that he was willing
to give the attorney a copy of his affidavit.
Discussion
The General Counsel contends that when the Re-
spondent's attorney interrogated Fugate on April 29, and
secured a copy of his affidavit on May 4, 1982, it violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act, because it failed to
comport with the criteria set forth in Johnnie 's Poultry
Co., 146 NLRB 770 (1964), in that its attorney did not
assure Fugate that there would be no reprisals. Respond-
ent, in its brief, candidly admits that no warnings were
given to Fugate that there would be no reprisals against
him for his actions. Respondent also correctly points out
that the testimony shows that at both meetings of Fugate
and Finn, the Company's attorney was pleasant and
courteous at all times to Fugate.
The General Counsel basically relies on Board law as
set forth in Johnnie 's Poultry. In the recent case of Kyle &
Stephen, 259 NLRB 731 (1981), the Board once again
spelled out its long-held principles as to such interviews:
Johnnie 's Poultry requires that when an employer
has legitimate cause to inquire into matters concern-
ing an employee's Section 7 rights, such as in pre-
paring the employer's defense in an unfair labor
practice proceeding, the employer must follow spe-
cific guidelines in questioning the employee to
avoid incurring 8(a)(1) liability. Among other re-
quirements, an employer must tell the employee the
purpose of the questions, assure the employee free-
dom from reprisal, and secure the employee's vol-
untary participation. These safeguards are designed
to minimize the coercive impact of employer inter-
rogation and, contrary to the Administrative Law
Judge's suggestions, are applicable irrespective of
the employer's intent to coerce, the extent of ques-
tioning or number of employees so interrogated, or
the remoteness of the interrogation to alleged un-
lawful conduct.
Since the attorney did not adhere to the guideline of
assuring Fugate that he would be free of reprisal, I must
find that the Respondent's interrogation of Fugate by its
attorney, and the attorney's request for a copy of the af-
fidavit that Fugate had given to the Board, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act."
15 Respondent in its brief relies mainly on the case of Anserphone, Inc
v NLRB, 632 F 2d 4 (6th Or 1980) When this case was before the
Board, the Board found that the company had not observed the safe-
guards set forth in Johntue's Poultry, when that employer had interrogat-
ed an employee, and asked an employee for a copy of the affidavit she
had given to a Board agent The Board thereupon found that the compa-
ny had violated the Act On appeal, the Sixth Circuit did not find the
Employer's conduct to be violative of the Act, and refused the enforce-
ment of this portion of the Board's decision As previously stated admin-
istrative law judges are bound by decisions of the Board, until the Su-
preme Court reverses it Respondent also cites the Board decision of
United Merchants & Mfrs, 223 NLRB 689 (1976), as supporting its posi-
tion It is to be observed that in adopting the decision of the administra-
tive law judge in that case, the Board noted that it did so pro forma, in
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dayton Typographical Service, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Jack A. Hoendorf on January 19,
1981, because of his engaging in protected concerted ac-
tivities, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By interrogating Hoendorf concerning matters relat-
ing to a pending unfair labor practice case without ob-
serving necessary safeguards, and by asking for a copy of
the affidavit he had given to the Board, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
The Respondent having unlawfully discharged Jack A.
Hoendorf, I find it necessary to order it to offer him re-
instatement and make him whole for lost earnings and
other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date
of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less
any net interim earnings, in accordance with F. W Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as comput-
ed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See gen-
erally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, Dayton Typographical Service, Inc ,
Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging any employees because they engaged
in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection.
(b) Asking its employees for copies of statements given
by them to the National Labor Relations Board or inter-
rogating them concerning any other information relating
to pending unfair labor practice charges in a manner
interfering with their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) 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.
the absence of exceptions to the administrative law judge's finding that
interrogation in that case did not violate the Act
i6 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
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE

1215
(a) Offer Jack A. Hoendorf immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of the Decision.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the dis-
charge of Jack A. Hoendorf on January 19, 1983, and
notify him in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of this unlawful discharge will not be used as a
basis for future personnel action against him.
(d) Post at its plant in Dayton, Ohio, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
' 7 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT ask employees for statements given by
them to the National Labor Relations Board, or interro-
gate them concerning matters relating to any pending
unfair labor practice case, without observing necessary
safeguards.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for engaging in
concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Jack A. Hoendorf immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job, or if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his former seniority or any privileges previously
enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the
disciplinary discharge of Jack A. Hoendorf, on January
19, 1981, and WE WILL notify him that this has been
done and that evidence of this unlawful discharge will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against
him.
DAYTON TYPOGRAPHICAL SERVICE, INC.