Campbell Chain Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 420 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Campbell Chain Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW. Cases 4-
CA-8758-1, 2 and 4-CA-9110
August 11. 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS PENELLO. MUtRPY'. ANI) TRtIISI)AI.1
On April 13, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Max
Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Campbell Chain Com-
pany, York, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hb the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policv not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con.inces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drn iFall Products, Inc, 91
NL RB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
MAX ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all
parties represented, this case was heard before me in York.
Pennsylvania, on February 16, 1978, upon a complaint
filed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and an answer interposed thereto by Campbell
Chain Company, herein called the Respondent. At issue is
The complaint, which issued on January 19. 1978., is based upon charges
filed and served in Case 4-CA 8758 1 on June 27. 1977. charges filed and
served in Case 4 C(A 8758 2 on June 28, 1977. and charges filed and served
whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain con-
duct to be detailed below. Briefs have been received from
the General Counsel, the Union, and Respondent, which
have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, includ-
ing the briefs submitted to me, and upon my observation of
the demeanor of each witness while testifying, I hereby
make the following:
FlNI)IN(,S OF FAC I AND CON( LUSIONS
1. it BU;SINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of welded steel chain at its facility in York,
Pennsylvania. During the annual period material to this
proceeding, Respondent sold goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II HllIF ABOR ORGCANIZAIION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
herein called the Union. is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III TIIE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTIC ES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining a rule prohibiting access
to its nonworking areas by off-duty employees to distribute
union literature during all times relevant to this proceed-
ing: by preventing employees on June 16, 1977,2 from dis-
tributing union literature in the employees' parking lot at
Respondent's plant; and, by giving written warnings to em-
ployees Woodrow Lentz. William Mittel, Roger Rand, Jer-
ry Bradley, and Daniel Beck, on June 23, for distributing
union literature in the employees' parking lot while said
employees were off duty. The complaint further alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by the
issuance of the warning notices to the aforesaid employees
on June 23, and when, on June 23, it accorded to employ-
ees Daniel Wampler and John McWatters a I-week sus-
pension from work without pay for having distributed
union literature in the parking lot while off duty. Respon-
dent denies the commission of any labor practices pro-
scribed by the Act.
The facts giving rise to this litigation are not in essential
dispute and I find them to be as follows:
As heretofore chronicled, Respondent manufactures
welded chain products at its plant located in York, Penn-
sylvania. In the course of its operations, Respondent em-
ploys approximately 700 individuals, of whom 550 are in-
in ( Case 4 ( A 9110 on D)ecember 14. 1977.
l Unless otherxise indicated. all dates herein fall In 1977
237 NLRB No. 77
420
CAMPBELL CHAIN COMPANY
volved in production and maintenance work on a 3-shift.
24-hour-a-day basis. The plant here involved is self-con-
tained, i.e.. its offices, cafeteria, and production areas are
under one roof. As a rule, the employees gain access to
their work areas by driving their cars into an unfenced
parking lot and entering the production confines through
one of two doors from the lot.
For at least 10 years prior to this proceeding. Respon-
dent has maintained plant rules which ban off-duty per-
sonnel from entering or remaining on company premises
when they are not scheduled to work. and the parties stipu-
lated that these rules were applicable to the parking lot. On
March 14, Respondent appended the following notice on
its bulletin boards:
Although Campbell has had a long standing polico
regarding solicitation, distribution of literature, and
rules prohibiting employees from entering the plant,
there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding them.
Therefore, notwithstanding any prior understanding
relating to such rules whether in writing, printed, or
oral, we are stating below the Rules and Regulations
referring to this subject in order to correct any misun-
derstanding existing:
I. There can be no solicitation of any kind in the
working area on working time.
2. There can be no distribution of literature in the
working area at any time.
3. Employees not scheduled to work are prohibited
from entering the plant without special permission
of the Industrial Relations Department.
4. Employees, upon completion of their shift, must
leave the plant and are prohibited from returning
until their next scheduled shift, unless granted per-
mission to do so by the Industrial Relations [)epart-
ment.
5. Employees are prohibited from loitering on Com-
pany premises before and after work shifts.
Any violation of these rules will result in strict discipli-
nary action, including discharge.
It should be fully understood that these rules must be
enforced fairly and impartially in order for the Com-
pany to comply with various federal laws. It should
also be noted that such rules serve not only to protect
the Company, but the employees as well, since they
will prohibit undue harrassment of employees.
Dale Hess, Respondent's manager of industrial relations
and personnel, testified and I find that, commencing in
April, the United Steelworkers of America embarked upon
a drive to organize Respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees by distributing handbills at the entrance
to the parking lot. This foray was matched in early April
by a campaign of the Union to enlist the collective support
of Respondent's personnel through similar means. Hess
further testified that these organizational efforts quickly
came to Respondent's attention.? Indeed, on April 8. em-
'Respondent's Supervisor C h;rlraes cliahon also teslfed hat li he head
received a letter about this time from his industrial relatio,,n depaliment te
the effect that the I nited Steelworkers of Ameriica :ind the t llon hald been
ployees Daniel Wampler and John McWatters received
disciplinary warnings from Respondent's Manager of Op-
erations William Gauntlett for having distributed union lit-
erature in the plant on the preceding day.
It is undisputed and I find that, on the evening of June
16, employees John McWatters, Daniel Wampler, Daniel
Beck. Jerry Bradley, William Mittel. Woodrow Lentz. and
Roger Rand. all of whom toiled on the das shift which
extended from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., entered Respondent's
parking lot about 11:30 p.m. for the purpose of distributing
union literature during the shift-change scheduled for mid-
night. All of these individuals wore either T-shirts embla-
zoned with the legend "UAW" or large UAW badges.
Upon their arrival. Wampler, Bradley. and Lentz stationed
themselves approximately 6 feet from the cafeteria en-
trance to the plant and handed out union leaflets to the
midnight shift employees as they entered that door. Mc-
Watters, Beck. Mittel, and Rand positioned themselves at
the door to the personnel office and engaged in the same
activity as employees entered and departed from the plant.
After Wampler. Bradley, and Lentz had handbilled at
the cafeteria entrance for approximately 15 minutes, Re-
spondent's production supervisor, Arlie Nafziger, ap-
proached the portal at which the group was handing out
the literature. Wampler's testimony is undenied and I find
that. during his stay, Nafziger "asked if we were a little
early for our shift. .... He stood there for a few seconds
and said, 'did you fellows see the notice on the board'"
relating to the plant rule forbidding off-duty employees
from returning to Respondent's premises. 4 At approxi-
mately the same time, Respondent's Supervisor Charles
McMahon came to the door of the personnel office where
McWatters. Beck. Mittel, and Rand were distributing
union literature. When he arrived, he recognized McWat-
ters and Mittel as employees and instructed the men to "hit
the street." by which he meant that the men were being
ordered to leave the parking lot and congregate on the
public thoroughfare. When McWatters protested that the
employees possessed the right to circulate the leaflets. Mc-
Mahon left the scene to report the incident to Operations
Manager Gauntlett. Gauntlett instructed McMahon to
summon the police, an instruction which the latter there-
upon followed. McMahon returned to the personnel office
door and informed the group that he had called the police.
He then remained standing in the doorway for several min-
utes while the four men continued to hand out the union
literature. McWatters testified without contradiction and I
find that, because of McMahon's presence, the midnight
shift employees appeared reluctant to take the handbills
which were offered to them.
Following their conversations with Nafziger and McMa-
hon, the two groups of employees left the area outside the
building entrances and moved to the public street adjacent
to Respondent's parking lot. While they assembled there, a
police officer arrived, spoke to them, and entered the plant.
handbillinig the plant
N.alziger .as noIt summoned as a witness in this proceeding I iherefore
find. hased upon the content of Warnmpler's undisputed testimony. and the
f;lac hit aiitampler had l orked under Nalfziger for oser a sear. that Respon-
denl as.s fulli aiare thai the handhiller, at the cafeteria entrance were
emnploees rliher than stranger,
421
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When he emerged from the facility, the officer announced
that he had been asked by McMahon to order the employ-
ees off the parking lot. In compliance with the officer's
order, the men left the area. The following night, several of
the union adherents returned to the plant and attempted to
circulate the literature on the public thoroughfare outside
the parking lot. It is undenied and I find that their efforts
in this regard were impeded by the fact that they had to
solicit employees seated in moving vehicles, a method of
distribution which they deemed to be so hazardous that
they did not venture to pursue it after dark.
The parties stipulated and I find that, on June 23, Re-
spondent enforced its rule banning access to its premises
by off-duty employees by disciplining all employees who
were involved in the June 16 incident. Thus, Lentz, Mittel,
Rand, Bradley, and Beck were given written warnings re-
garding their conduct, and Wampler and McWatters were
meted out I-week suspensions without pay.
In Tri-Counry Medical Center, Inc.,5 the Board addressed
itself to the recurring question regarding the right of off-
duty employees to engage in union activities on property
owned or controlled by their employers in the face of no-
solicitation, no-distribution rules. There, an off-duty em-
ployee was arrested and fined by the local police, at the
behest of the employer, for trespassing on company prop-
erty when he distributed union literature in the employer's
parking lot in defiance of a no-solicitation, no-distribution
rule which banned access to the employer's property by
off-duty personnel. In an attempt to strike a balance be-
tween the rights of employees under Section 7 of the Act to
engage in protected, concerted activities, and the concern
of employers to maintain their properties in a manner con-
sistent with sound and secure business practices, the Board
formulated guidelines to assess the legality of nonaccess
rules concerning off-duty employees. The Board therein
announced that such a rule would henceforth be deemed
valid only if it:
1. Limits access solely with respect to the interior of
the plant and other working areas:
2. Is clearly disseminated to all employees;
3. Applies to off-duty employees seeking access to the
plant for any purpose and not just to those employ-
ees engaging in union activity.
Finally, the Board declared that "except where justified for
business reasons, a rule which denies off-duty employees
entry to parking lots, gates, and other outside nonworking
areas will be found invalid."
On the basis of the record made before me, I am not
convinced that Respondent has sustained its burden of
proving justifiable business reasons for the maintenance
and enforcement of the nonaccess rules here involved.
When called as a witness in this proceeding, Respondent's
Manager of Industrial Relations and Personnel Dale Hess
was asked by his counsel for the "reason why this rule was
instituted-these rules were instituted." Hess replied, "Be-
cause of the problems with theft of employee's personnel
property from automobiles in the parking lot areas as well
as theft within the plant." Hess was then asked whether
'222 NLRB 1089 (1976).
"this is the only reason," and he replied in the affirmative.
To support this narrow claim of business justification, Re-
spondent introduced into evidence a list of 22 incidents
which had occurred on its premises during the period from
1975 to the time of the hearing. The incidents of theft in
the parking lot upon which Respondent relies to justify the
maintenance of its nonaccess rule numbered only 8, a rath-
er insignificant figure for a 3-year span involving a plant
which employs approximately 700 individuals. Moreover,
while initially claiming that the rate of theft had fallen off
as a result of the maintenance of the no-solicitation, no-
distribution rules, Hess ultimately confessed that the
incidence of thievery actually escalated, despite the rule.
Furthermore, although the nonaccess rule was assertedly
designed to inhibit employee theft, the record fails to estab-
lish that any' of the incidents of theft about which Hess
reported were attributable to Respondent's employees. In
sum, I am not persuaded that Respondent's desire to elimi-
nate thievery on its parking lot during nonworking hours
by off-duty employees had been buttressed by any demon-
strated special business circumstances which would justify
the intrusion upon its employees' Statutory rights to com-
municate with other employees in furtherance of an objec-
tive of securing collective representation. 6
I have found that Respondent, at all times material
herein, maintained a rule barring access by off-duty em-
ployees to its parking lot for the purpose of distributing
handbills to further the Union's organizational campaign,
and has failed to support this denial of entry by any cogent
or persuasive business considerations. I therefore conclude
that, by the foregoing conduct, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I have found that, on June 16, Respondent, by the en-
forcement of its invalid, nonaccess rule, prevented its em-
ployees from distributing union literature on its parking
lot. By this conduct, I conclude that Respondent has of-
fended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The parties stipulated and I have found that, on June 23,
Respondent enforced its invalid, nonaccess rule by issuing
written warnings to employees Woodrow Lentz, William
Mittel, Roger Rand, Jerry Bradley, and Daniel Beck for
their conduct in distnbuting union literature on its parking
lot during the evening of June 16, and by suspending Dan-
iel Wampler and John McWatters for I-week without pay
for engaging in the same conduct. By doing so, I conclude
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
IV THF EFFE(T OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close and inti-
mate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening commerce and the free flow thereof.
I(one ;t/li ('orp nori n, Ihire Oua Plant. 174 NL.RB 1015 (1969).
U nited States Steel ('orporatiun. 223 NL.RB 1246 (1976).
422
CAMPBELI CHAIN COMPANY
V THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent, by maintaining and en-
forcing an invalid nonaccess rule, thereby preventing off-
duty employees from distributing union literature in its
parking lot. has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them un-
der Section 7 of the Act, and thereby vsiolated Section
8(a)(1) of the legislation. I shall therefore order that Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom. In this connection. I
have found that, in the enforcement of that rule. Respon-
dent issued written warnings to employees Woodrow
Lentz, William Mittel. Roger Rand. Jerry Bradley., and
Daniel Beck for distributing union literature in its parking
lot. To remedy this violation, I shall order that Respondent
expunge such warnings from the personnel files of said em-
ployees.
I have also found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by suspending employees Daniel Warnm-
pier and John McWatters from work, without pay, for a
period of I week, through the enforcement of the nonac-
cess rule heretofore found invalid. As a remedial measure,
I shall order that Respondent rescind all written personnel
actions pertaining to such suspensions, and make said em-
ployees whole for any loss of pay which they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
them. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed
in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in :'. K.
Woolworth Companr,. 90 NLRB 289 (1950). with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 7
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions, and upon the entire record made in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CON(I ULSIONS OF LAW:
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the purview
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing a nonaccess rule which,
in the absence of cogent business considerations, forbids
off-duty employees from distributing union literature in
the employees' parking lot, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By preventing employees from distributing union lit-
erature in its parking lot while off duty. without justifiable
business reasons therefor, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
5. By issuing disciplinary warning notices to off-duty
employees, and suspending them from work without pay,
in the enforcement of an unjustified nonaccess rule, for
distributing union literature in its parking lot, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
6. 1The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent. Campbell ('hain Company. York.
Pennsslvania. its officers, agents. successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining and enforcing a nonaccess rule which,
absent compelling business considerations, forbids off-
duty employees from distributing union literature in the
employees' parking lot.
(b) Preventing employees from distributing union litera-
ture in its parking lot while off duty, without justifiable
business reasons therefor.
(c) Issuing disciplinary warning notices to off-duty em-
ployees, and suspending them from work without pay. in
the enforcement of an unjustified nonaccess rule, for dis-
tributing union literature in its parking lot.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I deem is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Expunge from the personnel files of Woodrow
l.entz. William Mittel, Roger Rand. Jerry Bradley. and
Daniel Beck all written warnings issued to them for viola-
tions of Respondent's invalid, nonaccess rule, and rescind
the suspensions accorded to Daniel Wampler and John
McWatters.
(b) Make whole Daniel Wampler and John McWatters
for any loss of pay they mayv have suffered as a result of the
discrimination practiced against them by their I-week sus-
pension from work without pay, in the manner set forth in
the section of the Decision entitled "The Remed's."
(c) Preserve and. upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents. for examination and copying. all pa'-
roll records, social security records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due herein.
(d) Post at its plant in York. Pennsylvania, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." '9 Copies of said no-
tice. on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
In Ihe e.en nt o xccpllt, i arc filed a. proilded in Se 10246 of ihe
Rule andl Reiul, ti,n .of the Nallwnlll I ihrbo Rclaition B.oard. the findings.
c.llcltulnls, ai.itd recoirllnended Order herein shdll. a, provided in Sec
111 48 of the RKule and Rcgulnllon, be aId.ptedl h the Roard and he.ime
ItS firiin oilgh u ..t..iulln Ind ()rder and all ohlectlins thereto shall hbe
deenmed a. ,,cd folr all ptlrpl.ec
In the eclit lh.l hia Order i, enforced bh .a udeiment of .a I ntied State.
,urt iof ppca.ls the uords n flhe nontic re.adintg "'.sled hb Order of the
Nation.ml Il.abor Rclah.nl.lwi Bard"l shal read "Poted irPrxuan.l o a Judg-
nient of the I itlled Sl.at.r (, tirl f \ppe.ll, [ nforclng ali Order of the
Nation al I.thor Relatwri, Board;,l"'See. generallyl. .I. Plumbing & I1thltrng (C. It NI R16 Iht 19lh1
423
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NoriCE To EMPLOYEES
PosI ED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELAIiONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILl. NOT maintain or enforce a nonaccess rule
which, absent compelling business considerations, for-
bids our off-duty employees from distributing union
literature in the employees' parking lot.
WE WIi.i NOT prevent our employees from distribut-
ing union literature in our parking lot while off duty,
without justifiable business reasons therefor.
WE WIL. Nol issue disciplinary warning notices to
off-duty employees. absent justifiable business rea-
sons, for distributing union literature in our parking
lot.
WE WILL nor suspend off-duty employees from work
without pay for distributing union literature in our
parking lot without proof of valid business reasons for
doing so.
WE WILL. NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL make Daniel Wampler and John McWat-
ters whole for any loss of pay which they may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination practiced
against them by suspending them from work for I
week without pay for distributing union literature in
our parking lot.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming orremaining, members of any labor organiza-
tion.
CAMPBELL CHAIN COMPANY
424