Armco Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1179 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION 1179
nizations, to join or assist the above Union , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act , as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
UNITED STATES PRINTING INK CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614
National Newark Building , 744 Broad Street ; Newark , New Jersey , Telephone No.
Market 4-6151 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Armco Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO and Armco Employees Independent Federation,
Inc., Party to the Contract . Case No. 9-CA-818. Septem-
ber 21, 19611
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Respondent' filed exceptions to the Deci-
sion and supporting briefs and the Respondent filed an answering
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
'On June 25 , 1964, the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint herein on the
ground that a decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on June 12, 1964, which denied the Board's petition for a temporary Injunction
against the Respondent rendered the subject matter of the present complaint , rea Judicata.
The General Counsel filed a statement in opposition to the motion.
Under our Act the Board is empowered to make the initial determinations as to whether
violations of the Act have occurred Secondly , the I injunction proceedings are In
In nature and a decision thereon does not constitute a binding decision on the
merits Accordingly , the motion to dismiss is denied.
148 NLRB No. 126.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
,,.2tion with the modifications noted WON -
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts, as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Armco
Steel Corporation, Middletown, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action 'set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order as modified below:
1. Insert in paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, after the word "premises" the language "on behalf of the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, except Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.,"
and conform paragraph 1 of the notice I accordingly, after the words
"or any other labor organization."
^. Insert in paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order after the
Words "labor organization" the words "except Armco Employees In-
dependent Federation, Inc.," and conform paragraph 2 of the notice
accordingly.
2 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion that the suspension of Collier
was discriminatorily motivated . Collier was suspended for his failure to obey a plant
guard 's order to leave a bundle of papers he was carrying at the guardhouse . Inasmuch
as Collier had previously represented the AEIF, the independent union, as a grievance
man and there is nothing in the record to indicate that this particular plant guard had
any knowledge of Collier 's more recent activities on behalf of the Steelworkers ' Union, we
conclude the suspension was not discriminatorily motivated . Further, in view of Collier's
failure to disclose the true nature of his papers , i.e., that they were Steelworkers pam-
phlets, we do not find that the enforcement of the no -distribution rule as to Collier, in
view of his past association with AEIF, amounted to a violation of Section 8(a) (1).
In light of Member Jenkins ' view expressed in General Motors Corporation ( Buick-
Oldsmobile -Pontiao Assembly Division ), 147 NLRB 509, in which he concluded that_an
incumbent union could not waive its right to distribute literature on its own behalf, he
would find it unnecessary to modify the Recommended Order and notice.
4 The new address of Regional Office 9 is Room 2023, Federal Office Building , 550 Main
Street, Cincinnati , Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed March 20, 1963, by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Steelworkers , against Armco Steel Corporation , herein
called Armco, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called the Board , by the Acting Regional Director for Region 9, issued his com-
plaint dated September 27, 1963, alleging that Armco had engaged in and' was
engaging in unfair -labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61
Stat 136, herein called the Act. Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.,
herein called AEIF, was designated in the complaint as Party to the Contract:
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION 1181
Armco's answer to the complaint I denies the allegations of statutory violation
therein. AEIF filed an answer defending the validity of its contract with Armca
alleged by the complaint to contain unlawful provisions. Copies of the com-
plaint, the charge, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
Pursuant to said notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Thomas N.
Kessel at Middletown, Ohio, on November 13, 1963. All parties were represented
at the hearing by counsel or other representative. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence was afforded all
parties. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and Armco filed briefs
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
Imake the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
Armco's answer admits the allegation of the complaint that it is an Ohio corpo-
ration with its principal office at Middletown, Ohio, and its operating plants in Mid-
dletown and New Miami, Ohio, for the manufacture, fabrication, and sale of steel
and related metal products; that during the year preceding issuance of the complaint
it had a direct outflow in interstate commerce of products valued in excess of
$500,000 which it ships from its places of business to points outside the State of
Ohio. From the foregoing facts, I find that Armco is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that the purposes of the Act will be ef-
fectuated by the Board's assertion of jurisdiction in this case over its business.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Steelworkers and AEIF are labor organizations which admit Armco's em-
ployees to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Principally at issue is the alleged illegality of a clause in Armco's current contract
with AEIF which, in substance, forbids the distribution or posting by employees of
literature anywhere at any time on Armco's premises without its approval. AEIF
is the certified collective-bargaining representative of a unit comprising all of Armco's
production and maintenance employees at its Middletown and Hamilton, Ohio,
plants. The complaint alleges that Armco violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining and enforcing the foregoing provision in such manner that employees
were prohibited by it from soliciting membership or distributing or posting any
literature on behalf of a labor organzation other than the AEIF. Two instances
of threats by Armco agents to employees for distributing Steelworkers literature
are alleged as violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint further
alleges several interrogations in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of employees by
Armco's supervisors concerning their resignations from AEIF, coupled, in one in-
stance, with encouragement of an employee to reinstate his membership.
Armco's answer and brief asserts the legality of the contract strictures against
distribution and posting of literature. As to the alleged interrogations, Armco,
defends on the ground that they were not coercive and in any event the complaint
should be dismissed as to them because they were isolated. As noted, the answer by
AEIF merely supports the legality of the challenged contract provision.
There are approximately 5,920 employees at the several plants in the represented
unit. Of these about 4,800 work at the Middletown plants and the rest at Hamil-
ton. AEIF was first certified as the representative of Armco's production and
maintenance employees in 1944. Since then there have been two representation
elections won by AEIF with the Steelworkers on the ballot. The latter organiza-
tion maintains a continuous campaign to win the support of Armco's employees, and
has adherents among the employees represented by AEIF who continue to propa-
gandize fellow employees by distribution of Steelworkers leaflets at Armco's several
plants.
1 Amendments to the complaint were allowed at the hearing Armco's amended answer
received by me after the close of the hearing is made an exhibit in the case and marked
"General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1(h)."
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The term of the current AEIF collective-bargaining contract with Armco is from
July 1, 1962, to April 1, 1964. The provisions attacked in this proceeding are con-
tained in article VI, section F, entitled "Bulletin Boards." Armco agrees in these
provisions to furnish bulletin boards on which may be posted notices concerning
AEIF recreational and social affairs, elections and election results, meetings, and
appointments. Other notices may be posted if agreed upon by AEIF and Armco.
The number and location of the bulletin boards in each plant are to be determined
by agreement between AEIF and Armco. Having stated the foregoing conditions
the section concludes with the following paragraph:
4. There shall be no other distribution or posting by employees of literature
upon company property except as approved by the Company.
This last recited provision is the nub of the case.
Armco stipulated that it at all times material enforced the foregoing contract
provisions by prohibiting employees from distributing union literature on its premises
during nonworking time in nonwork plant areas, including parking lots and at plant
gates, or by posting on bulletin boards any literature on behalf of a labor organization
other than AEIF.
In view of the foregoing stipulation there is no need to recite at length the un-
denied testimony of the several witnesses for the General Counsel who related their
thwarted attempts to distribute organizational handbills and leaflets on Armco
property in behalf of the Steelworkers. I shall relate only the credited testimony
from which it may be implied that Armco's agents threatened reprisal against those
employees who attempted the distribution of the banned literature, and which may
further imply that Armco enforced the quoted contract provision to prevent orga-
nizational activities by its employees on behalf of the Steelworkers.
Employee William Jones, Jr., testified that in September 1963 he was a candidate
for the AEIF presidency. On September 13, while distributing campaign leaflets
to employees on the parking lot of the Hamilton plant, he was ordered from Armco's
property by a guard. However, after the guard read one of the leaflets he apologized
and invited Jones to distribute throughout the entire plant. The guard explained
that the CIO handbilled employees each year at that time. Evidently, the guard
had stopped Jones' distribution in the mistaken belief that he was passing out Steel-
workers literature. Jones further testified that he had posted on a plant bulletin
board a paper commenting about an increase in dues to AEIF. Apparently the
comment was critical of this action. When Plant Superintendent Piarott noticed
the paper he attempted to remove it from the bulletin board and remarked to
Jones who was standing nearby, "If I catch a man putting a piece of literature up
he's sent home."
Employee Gilmore P. Mays related that in March 1963 he left Steelworkers
leaflets on a table in the food-service building of the Hamilton plant where em-
ployees buy food and refreshments. Later he was asked by Foreman Richard
Sauer who had placed the leaflets there. Sauer remarked that "we've been told to
watch and whoever is putting this in here it would be too bad for them." Sauer
then tore up the leaflets which he had confiscated.
Employee Arthur T. Mays was ordered by a guard in May 1963 to cease dis-
tribution of Steelworkers leaflets at a plant gate. Mays testified the guard had.
told him he was on plant property. Mays' description of the exact spot where
he was distributing leaves some doubt that he was on Armco or public property.
There is too much uncertainty in his testimony to permit a conclusion that he was
on public rather than plant property when he was ordered by the guard to stop his
activity. In any event the guard took his department and clock number.
Employee Jesse Tuggle was distributing Steelworkers literature in January 1963 at
an entrance to the Middletown plant. In the presence of a guard another employee
inquired about the treatment by AEIF of an employee named Mamie Shotts. After
Tuggle gave his explanation the other employee expressed his desire to resign from
AEIF and asked Tuggle for the necessary forms to submit for this purpose. Tuggle
not only offered these forms but others for membership in the Steelworkers. The
guard thereupon notified Tuggle that he would have to turn him in. Tuggle never
thereafter heard about the incident from management.
Employee James L. Collier was an active supporter of the Steelworkers. He also
held elective office in March 1963 in AEIF as a "grievance man." As he came to
work on March 20 he carried a roll of Steelwcrkers leaflets. After leaving the guard-
house and entering the plant a guard shouted to him and directed that he leave with
him the papers he was carrying. Collier informed the guard the papers were "per-
sonal" and refused to hand them over. Collier was followed to the lockerroom by
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION 1183
the guard who tried to take the papers and was prevented from doing so by Collier
who still claimed they were personal. Shortly after Collier was at his work station
a sergeant of the guards arrived and questioned him about his refusal to surrender
the papers. Collier still insisted they were personal, whereupon the sergeant declared,
"I'll go to any lengths to punish you," and sent Collier home until further notice.
Collier was notified to attend a meeting at the plant the next morning. Present at the
meeting were two AEIF officials, a plant superintendent, and the chief of plant pro-
tection. A second meeting was held in the afternoon of that day attended by the
same persons. Collier was charged with refusing to obey a plant watchman. He
acknowledged that in the course of the meeting he was not asked to state, nor did he,
the precise nature of the papers he had carried into the plant. He did tell the chief
of plant protection that his membership in the Steelworkers was well known and
that he would continue to be a member. He stressed that in the past while serving
as an AEIF grievance man he had never been stopped or questioned about the griev-
ance papers he carried in or out of the plant. The discussion ended with the chief's
pronouncement of a 3-day suspension for Collier's offense and an admonition to him
in the future to leave his papers in his automobile.
Collier recounted an incident on May 15, 1963, when he was distributing Steel-
workers literature at one of the Middletown plant gates. In the course of this
activity he was at times on plant property in the parking lot. A guard, Blazier, read
one of the leaflets and declared to Collier he could have him arrested and jailed
for handbilling on plant property. Collier told him he would continue with his
distribution.
Concerning Collier's 3-day suspension, counsel for Armco stated the discipline
was for his refusal to obey the guard's order not to enter the plant with the literature
in his possession. Counsel asserted Armco's agents did not know what was contained
in the literature carried by Collier but conceded he was disciplined because the con-
tract forbade him to carry papers into the plant. Collier conceded that despite his
status as an AEIF grievance man he did not invoke the grievance machinery of the
governing collective-bargaining contract by filing a grievance. It is implicit in his
testimony that Collier was aware of the grievance procedures in the contract.
Relevant to the allegations of unlawful interrogation of employees, there is the un-
denied testimony, which I credit, of employees Oca Manning, Robert Hutchins, Jr.,
and Wellar J. Dalton that having submitted their resignations from membership in
AEIF and having notified Armco to rescind their dues checkoff authorizations to
that organization they were questioned by supervisors concerning these actions and
encouraged to reconsider them . In March 1963 Manning was interrogated by Super-
intendent Smithson concerning the reasons for his resignation . In the same month
Hutchins was similarly interrogated by Smithson. The latter expressed belief
Hutchins had done the wrong thing and indicated he would be pleased if Hutchins
were to resume his membership with AEIF. He volunteered to obtain the assistance
of an AEIF official for this purpose. About November 1962 Dalton was questioned
by Foreman Ellison about his resignation. When Dalton indicated he had resigned
in resentment over a name he had been called by an AEIF trustee, Ellison told him,
"You're to reconsider, he's retired, and join back up."
Relevant to its defense that the foregoing interrogations were isolated incidents,
Armco established that it employs 356 full -time operating and maintenance super-
visors and 125 part-time supervisors who spend 15 percent of their time in supervision.
Concerning the no-distribution provision of the contract, Armco adduced proof
that the first contract negotiated with AEIF in 1944 contained substantially the same
provision and that this provision has continuously appeared in all contracts since then.
The 1944 contract also provided that employees failing to abide by its no-distribution
requirement were to be disciplined by Armco. This was deleted from the 1947 con-
tract and did not thereafter appear in succeeding contracts.
Armco presented for the record excerpts from the collective -bargaining contracts
of 17 well-known employers with various major labor organizations, including two
with the Steelworkers. These excerpts contain provisions limiting distribution of
literature on employer premises substantially like those in Armco's contract with
AEIF here attacked.
To show that the no-distribution provisions of the contract do not unduly restrict
the organizational activities of employees, Armco introduced in evidence location
drawings of its Middletown and Hamilton plants revealing the 10 gates through which
employees are required to enter and leave. Included on the drawings are statistics re-
flecting the number of employees passing through these gates. The maximum at any
gate is 660 employees. The drawings further reveal that there are public areas near
the gates where distributors of literature can contact the employees reporting to or
departing from work.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Further, to demonstrate reasonable opportunity to communicate with employees
despite the limitations of the contract, Armco presented evidence that of 4,809 em-
ployees at the Middletown plants, 3,214 reside in the city of Middletown 1,462 reside
within 3 to 15 miles of the city, 113 reside 20 to 25 miles away, and 20 at points dis-
tant 25 or more miles from the city. Of the 447 employees at the Hamilton plant,
218 reside in the city of Hamilton, 209 within 5 miles of the city, 17 within 10 to 25
miles, and 3 reside 25 or more miles away. There are also radio and TV stations
which service the areas of residence of these employees and AEIF and the Steel-
workers have utilized the Middletown radio station to reach employees with appeals
for support. The Steelworkers have also used a Dayton, Ohio, TV facility for this
purpose. Middletown. is near Dayton and ostensibly is within the area serviced by
this TV station.
As indication that the appeals of the above-named labor organizations have effec-
tively reached employees in past representation elections and stimulated broad partici-
pation therein, Armco presented evidence that in the 1944 election over 91 percent of
the employees voted, that in the 1947 election it was over 94, and that in the 1962
election it was over 95.
Further supporting its claim that the contract does not seriously hamper effective
campaigning by labor organizations or dissemination of their propaganda among em-
ployees, Armco established that there are several meeting halls available in Middle-
town. Moreover, Armco does not prohibit discussions in its plants among employees
concerning union solicitation or membership so long as they do not interfere with
production. There are opportunities for such discussions during lunch periods, coffee
breaks, and the occasional free time when employees wait for machines to be repaired.
Armco's supervisor of personnel relations, James R. Sexton, described his em-
ployer's continuous concern with safety measures. The Armco program stresses good
housekeeping as a safety measure with emphasis on the avoidance of litter on its
premises. About $600,000 annually is spent on labor for cleanup work. Although
Sexton claimed that in the enforcement of the no-distribution provision of the con-
tract Armco prohibits distribution of literature of any kind, he conceded there is a
Red Cross and also a civic charity and welfare drive in the course of which leaflets
and pamphlets are distributed to the employees at the plants. There is also an Armco
"News Letter," apparently a monthly two-page document, distributed to the em-
ployees at the plants.
The Board declared in Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, that a
rule promulgated by an employer prohibiting distribution of union literature during
nonworking time in nonwork plant areas is presumptively invalid. In its recent deci-
sion, Gale Products, Div. of Outboard Marine Corp., 142 NLRB 1246, the Board
applied this principle in determining that a contract clause in the collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated by an employer with the labor organization representing its em-
ployees was invalid because the contract clause broadly prohibited distribution of
union literature during nonworking time in nonwork plant areas. The employer in
that case was held by the Board to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
enforcement of the contract clause to prohibit employee activity on behalf of a labor
organization rivaling the incumbent union. The General Counsel maintains that
Gale Products is controlling precedent for a finding that the contract clause in the
instant case is invalid and that the maintenance and enforcement of that clause by
Armco to forbid distribution of literature by employees on behalf of the Steel-
workers during their nonworking time and in nonwork plant areas was violative of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Armco insists that Gale Products does not compel that
result, and, instead, regards the Board's holding in that case as authority for a finding
that the instant contract clause is valid and its enforcement lawful.
The Armco brief stresses the Board's recognition in Gale Products of the salutary
principle that concessions yielded by parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
should not be disturbed even where these concessions may involve a waiver of em-
ployee rights guaranteed by the Act. The brief argues that the no-distribution
clause of the instant contract should, consistent with this principle, be upheld by the
Board as a concession obtained through collective bargaining and that the statutory
right of its employees to distribute union literature should yield to the contract
waiver of this right. But the Board in Gale Products, faced with a similar argument,
declared that the validity of a contractual waiver of employee rights must depend
upon whether the interference with the employees' statutory rights is so great as to
override any legitimate reasons for upholding the waiver. Applying such test to the
circumstances of that case the Board was satisfied that the waiver should not be up-
held. The Board concluded in Gale Products that the unlimited contractual prohibi-
tion against distribution would unduly hamper the employees in exercising their
basic rights under the Act. The "only legitimate basis for the prohibition in ques-
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION 1185
tion," said the Board , "would be to eliminate interference with production." No
such basis was established by the employer in that case . Accordingly , the contractual
waiver was held to be without warrant.
I must, in light of the Board 's holding in Gale Products, find that the contractual
prohibition in Armco's contract with AEIF broadly prohibiting distribution by em-
ployees of union literature during nonworking time in nonwork plant areas is in-
valid . The presumption of invalidity is not overcome by the fact emphasized by
Armco that its employees may effectively be reached through other communications
media. This is not a relevant argument in a case where the statutory rights of em-
ployees, as distinguished from nonemployees , are affected by a no-distribution rule.
See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra, at 622 . Nor has the presumption
been overcome by Armco's proof of concern with plant safety. No evidence has
been presented to establish the necessity of a rule against distribution of literature in
Armco's nonworking areas to maintain production or discipline . The evidence pre-
sented by Armco to prove such necessity as a means of accident avoidance amounts
to no more than a "mere assertion" which the 'Board , in Stoddard-Quirk, rejected as
short of the proof required to establish necessity . Armco's assertion in this respect
falls even further short of the mark in view of its admission that it permits distribu-
tion of literature in the plant for charity drives and also distributes a plant newsletter
to employees.
As in Gale Products, I am here satisfied that the contractual prohibition against
distribution of union literature exceeds the permissible limits for accommodating
Armco 's interest in the elimination of interference with production with the organi-
zational rights of its employees under the Act. The contractual waiver is, accord-
ingly, without warrant in the circumstances of the case.2
Having found that the contract clause is invalid insofar as it prohibits any dis-
tribution of literature during nonworking time in nonwork areas as an unwarranted
interference with the Section 7 rights of employees, I find that Armco's admitted en-
forcement of the clause to prohibit distribution of literature by employees in behalf
of the Steelworkers during their nonworking time in nonwork plant areas is violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . I further find that the comment to employee Gilmore
P. Mays by Foreman Sauer that it would be "too bad" for employees caught placing
leaflets on a table of the food -service building ( a nonworking area), that a guard's
taking of employee Arthur T. Mays' department and clock numbers because he dis-
tributed Steelworkers leaflets at a plant gate, whether on plant or public property,
the notification to employee Tuggle by a guard that he would have to turn him in for
passing union withdrawal forms to employees at a plant entrance , and the remark of
a guard to employee Collier that he could have him arrested and jailed for distribut-
ing Steelworkers leaflets on plant property are coercive threats of disciplinary punish-
ment or reprisal for engaging in statutorily protected activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I further find that the interrogations by Superintendent Smithson of employees
Manning and Hutchins concerning their reasons for resigning from the AEIF coupled
with encouragement of Hutchins to rejoin with an offer to assist him in this purpose
were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find Foreman Ellison 's inter-
rogation of employee Dalton concerning his resignation from the AEIF coupled with
advice to rejoin was violative to Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. These unlawful inter-
rogations are not in my view so minimal that they should be dismissed as isolated.
They were not the acts of minor supervisors . Nor do they have the appearance of
casual inquiries about union activities . They reasonably create the impression of
employer concern about AEIF disaffection and a desire that this organization con-
tinue its incumbency as bargaining representative . Employees may reasonably be
expected to hesitate about future withdrawals of membership which , as made clear
by the interrogations , displeased their employer's supervisors . This is serious enough
restraint of protected activity to warrant the finding of violation hereinabove made.
Armco also violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act by the suspension of employee
Collier . Concededly this action stemmed from Armco 's enforcement of the, no-
distribution clause of the contract hereinabove found invalid . Notwithstanding
Collier's admitted refusal to turn over or failure to display the papers he carried into
the plant to Armco's guards , I infer they suspected he carried Steelworkers literature
and sought to confiscate the papers for this reason . Obviously, they did not believe
2 That numerous contracts , as shown, between employers and labor organizations con-
tain no -distribution clauses of the sort here involved provides no legal defense to the in-
validity of Armco ' s contract . This circumstance is a policy matter more appropriate for
the Board 's consideration.
760-577-65-vol. 148-76
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they were personal papers, as he had claimed, unrelated to the Steelworkers. I do
not believe they suspected he carried AEIF literature, for he was a known Steel-
workers' supporter. The only reasonable inference from the circumstances is that
they suspected that he carried Steelworkers literature which they anticipated would
be distributed in the plant to employees. The conceded discipline of Collier for his
refusal to' comply with the demand to surrender the papers was an act of restraint
and coercion in the exercise by him of Section 7 rights. It was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
It appeared from the complaint and at the hearing that the General Counsel was
contending that the contract clause in question was invalid to the extent that it also
prohibited posting by employees of notices in behalf of the Steelworkers on the plant
bulletin boards reserved by the contract for AEIF notices to employees. The General
Counsel's brief does not mention this conduct as a basis for a finding of statutory
violation. I assume the General Counsel does not seek such a finding. Whether he
does or not I would not find the exclusive reservation of bulletin boards for AEIF
use to be a violation of the Act. Provision by contract for use of plant bulletin
boards by an incumbent union is a concession accorded by an employer in collective
bargaining. Neither employees nor the union which represents them has a statutory
right to use such boards, and when the concession is granted by an employer for the
use of these boards there may be provided such regulations for their use as the em-
ployer deems proper. Employees have been deprived of no statutory rights by the
failure of the employer to give carte blanche authority to them to use the boards for
any purpose they may desire including the posting of notices for a rival union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Armco set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Armco has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Armco Steel Corporation is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Armco Employees Independ-
ent Federation, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing the clause in its collective-bargaining contract
with AEIF which prohibits employees from distributing union literature on non-
working time in nonwork plant areas, Armco has violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with discipline and by imposing discipline upon an
employee because he attempted to distribute union literature in behalf of the Steel-
workers in nonwork plant areas, Armco violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By interrogating employees concerning their reasons for withdrawal of mem-
bership from the AEIF Armco violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this proceeding,.I recommend that the Respondent, Armco Steel Corporation, Mid-
dletown, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining and enforcing the clause in its collective-bargaining contract with
AEIF which prohibits employees from distributing union literature in nonworking
areas of its plant premises.
(b) Threatening employees with discipline or imposing discipline for attempting
to distribute union literature in behalf of the Steelworkers, or any other labor orga-
nization, during nonworking time in nonwork plant areas.
- ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, 1187
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their reasons for withdrawal of member-
ship from AEIF.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its plants in Middletown and Hamilton, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by Armco, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Armco to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply therewith.4
I In the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by
a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
* In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within
10 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps Armco has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce the clause in our collective-bargaining
contract with Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc., prohibiting our
employees from distributing union literature in behalf of United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, during their nonworking
time in nonwork areas of our plants.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discipline or impose discipline
because they attempt to distribute union literature in behalf of United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, during their
nonworking time in nonwork areas of our plants.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their reasons for with-
drawing from membership in Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity
with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization except to the extent above stated.
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting„
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate with the Board 's Regional Office, Transit Build-
ing, Fourth and Vine Streets , Cincinnati , Ohio , Telephone No. 381-1420 , if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Texaco , Inc., Petitioner and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers:
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-RM-482. Septem-
ber 01, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mil-
ton.Fischer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a 3 -member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em -
ployees of the employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9 ( c) (1) and 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Employer operates a terminal for the storage and sale of petro-
leum products in Dearborn , Michigan . No union has ever been cer-
tified by the Board as the exclusive representative of any of the em-
ployees at the Dearborn terminal . However, since the construction
of the Dearborn facility in 1954, the Union has represented a terminal
unit described in the most recent contract as consisting of "all truck-
drivers, warehousemen , loaders-gaugers , assistant warehousemen,
cashiers , clerks, yardmen , watchmen, car washers and greasers, tele-
phone operators , and auto mechanics" and excluding supervisors..
The most recent contract covering the employees in question expired
on January 1, 1964. In support of its petition , the Employer con -
tends that the clerical employees who are the subject of this proceed -
ing are office clericals, and that notwithstanding any bargaining his-
tory, they should be in a separate unit.
There are approximately 50 employees in the unit covered by the
expired contract . In issue are 10 clerks in various categories , to wit :
2 cashiers , 2 order clerks, 1 overflow desk clerk , 1 equipment clerk, 1
telephone operator, 1 stock order clerk, 1 bulk stock clerk , and 1 stock
package-handling clerk.
148 NLRB No. 122.