Cascade Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cascade Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , UAW. Case 9-CA-5461-1-2
October 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On June 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Josephine H. Klein
issued her Decision 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 the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision accompanied by a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Cascade Corporation, Springfield, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend-
ed Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN, Trial Examiner: This case was tried
in Springfield, Ohio, on April 15, 1970, on a complaint
issued against Cascade Corporation, Respondent, on
February 4, 1970, pursuant to charges filed on December 22
and 29, 1969,' by International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca, UAW (the Union or UAW). The complaint alleges
' Except where otherwise indicated, all dates referred to herein are in
1969
2 National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519,
unlawful maintenance and enforcement of a rule restricting
distribution of union literature by Respondent's employees,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.2
Upon the entire record, observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses, and consideration of the oral argument on
behalf of Respondent and briefs on behalf of Respondent
and the General Counsel, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
A. Respondent , an Oregon corporation , is engaged in
the manufacture of hydraulic cylinders at its plant in
Springfield , Ohio. During the past calendar year, a
representative period , Respondent , in the course and
conduct of its business , manufactured and shipped goods
and products valued in excess of $50 ,000 from inside Ohio
directly to points outside Ohio. Respondent is now , and has
been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
B. The Union is, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
On the morning of December 18, employees Jack Whited
and Robert King entered the plant at about 6:10 a.m. and
proceeded to hand union leaflets to arriving employees
until about 6:50 a.m., 10 minutes before the start of the first
shift. Approximately 125 first-shift employees arrived
during this time. Whited and King were standing about 5 or
6 feet inside the building, next to a railing, about 3 feet high,
which runs parallel to the entrance door at a distance of 6
feet.3 The railing is approximately 5 feet long and is joined
perpendicularly by a similar railing about 12 feet long. The
"L" shaped railing thus marks off an entrance area about 6
feet by 5 feet and an aisle about 3 feet wide and 16 feet long,
running along an inner wall which is perpendicular to the
outer wall. The timeclock is on this inner wall, about 10 feet
from the building entrance. On entering the building,
employees normally proceed along the aisle, punch the
clock, and then go through a doorway to the right, into the
men's locker room. To the left of the entrance hall and
railing above described is the shipping and receiving area.
The employee entrance is off a loading dock, which
extends roughly 12 feet to the left of the employee door.
Also on the loading dock, to the left of the employee
entrance, is an overhead door which provides access to the
shipping and receiving area. To the left of the loading
platform are two parallel truck wells, each about 14 feet
wide and 52 feet long, with loading ramps at the rear.
Spanning the truck wells and ramps is a movable 5-ton
overhead crane.
29 U S C Sec 151 et seq )
3 A diagram of the premises , based on an exhibit in the record, is
attached hereto as Appendix A
186 NLRB No. 7
CASCADE CORPORATION
Usually trucks are loaded and unloaded while in the
truck wells. Rigs are loaded and unloaded from the rear, by
the overhead crane, which is operated by one man.
Sometimes two men are used in loading or unloading.
Material unloaded from rigs is moved toward the
inspection area and scales, to the rear of the building.
Materials are sometimes stored for relatively short periods
of time in the shipping and receiving area inside the
overhead door adjacent to the entrance way and railing
When the truck wells are occupied, smaller vehicles are
sometimes loaded or unloaded at the overhead door on the
loading platform. But, at least during the winter season, the
overhead door is opened not more than two or three times a
week.
The shipping and receiving department does not begin
work for the day until 8 a.m. On the morning of December
18 there was a truck in one of the truck wells. The rig had
arrived during the second or third shift of the previous day
and had then been wholly or partially unloaded. Although
the evidence is somewhat unclear, it appears that some of
the unloaded material was on the floor in back of the well
awaiting removal by shipping employees due to arrive at 8
a.m. There is no evidence that any working employees were
in proximity to the employee entrance between 6 and 7 a.m.
As previously stated, around 6.10 a.m. employees Whited
and King started to pass Union leaflets to arriving
employees. Shortly thereafter Jack Elberfeld, third-shift
foreman, after calling Plant Superintendent Frank D.
Warien, ordered Whited and King to leave the building.
When the employees refused, the police were called. Two
policemen arrived. When Whited and King still refused to
leave, the two policemen and Elberfeld stood in the
entrance area as Whited and King passed union leaflets to
the remaining first-shift employees as they arrived. At
about 6:50, their distribution completed, Whited and King
clock ed in and went to work. No charges were pressed or
arrests made.
Later on December 18 Respondent posted on the bulletin
board a notice reading in pertinent part as follows:
THE SUBJECT OF DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION LITERATURE
HAS AGAIN [4] ARISEN.
ALL EMPLOYEES ARE REMINDED OF THE LONG-STANDING
COMPANY RULE IN THIS REGARD.
1. ALL EMPLOYEES ARE FREE TO USE THE COMPANY
PARKING LOT OR AREAS SURROUNDING THE BUILDING AT
ANY TIME FOR THIS PURPOSE.
2. ALL WORKING AREAS INSIDE OF THE BUILDING,
BECAUSE OF OBVIOUS HOUSEKEEPING PROBLEMS &
PROBLEMS OF MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE & MATERIAL, ARE
OFF-LIMITS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANY LITERATURE.
That afternoon Whited and King, accompanied by their
chosen union representatives,5 were called to the bulletin
board, where Frank D. Warren, plant superintendent, had
them read the posted notice and informed them that "any
further action on their part would necessitate further
reprimand and could lead to termination."
On December 19 the Union filed the first charge in the
' Use of the word "again" stems from the fact that the election
campaign then in progress was the third in which the employees chose
between the UAW and an independent union
5 At the time the employees were still represented by the independent
union Apparently Whited and King chose to be accompanied by a union
33
present case and sent a telegram in connection therewith to
Respondent The Company countered by posting a
responsive memorandum , to which it attached a copy of the
Union's telegram . Respondent 's memorandum referred to
the area in question as "a working area (next to the time
clock)." It stated that the foreman had suggested to the
distributors that " if they were going to pass out literature,
they do it in the parking area ." It continued , in part, as
follows:
OBVIOUSLY TWO MEN TRYING TO PASS OUT
CONTROVERSIAL LITERATURE IN A NARROW AISLE] WITH
SOME 130 MEN SCHEDULED TO CLOCK IN WOULD NOT
ONLY DELAY MEN'S ACCESS TO WORK BUT VERY POSSIBLY
LEAD TO MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES . IN ADDITION,
LESS SERIOUS , BUT STILL A PROBLEM IS THE RESULTING
LITTERING OF A WORK AREA.
The memorandum also stated that Respondent does not
have any rule against "soliciting union support during non-
working hours" and that employees are "free to engage in
union activities during non-working hours on or off
company property."
Around 3 p.m. on Saturday , December 20, employee
Whited , this time accompanied by employee Robert
Goodfellow , again stationed himself in the entrance way to
the plant He passed to departing employees a handbill
reproducing the Union's telegram of the day before to
Respondent and proclaiming that "EMPLOYEES HAVE THE
RIGHT TO CAMPAIGN FOR OR AGAINST THE UNION OF THEIR
CHOICE DURING NON-WORKING HOURS AND ON COMPANY
PROPERTY !" Nobody was then working in the shipping and
receiving department. A leadman ordered Whited and
Goodfellow to leave, but they refused to do so , maintaining
that they had the legal right to distribute union literature
where they were. They completed their distribution in
about 10 minutes.
On Monday, December 22, Whited was summoned to the
office of personnel supervisor Amen . When Whited
acknowledged that he had deliberately violated orders not
to distribute in the entrance area of the plant , asserting
what he had been advised was his legal right, he was
suspended for "insubordination ."6 The Union' s second
charge in this proceeding followed
B. Discussion
1. Enforcement of the prohibition
There is no disagreement concerning the basic rule that
employees have a statutorily protected presumptive right to
distribute union literature on nonworking time in nonwork-
ing portions of the employer's premises and that the
presumption can be overcome only by the employer's
affirmatively showing the existence of special circum-
stances or conditions which require prohibition or restric-
tion of such activity. See Cone Mill Corp., 174 NLRB No.
151, and cases cited in In. 2 thereon.
Respondent advances the essentially factual contention
steward who had shifted his allegiance to the UAW
6 The suspension was originally imposed for 3 days It was effective for
the second 4 hours of work on December 22 and all of December 23
December 24 was a holiday and Whited was paid therefor Thus the actual
suspension lasted 1-1/2 days
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the entrance areaway in which it prohibited distribu-
tion is a working area. However, the evidence is clear that
the entrance way and aisle from the door to the timeclock
and thence to the locker room are clearly separated from
any working area. That the area in question is marked off
from the shipping and receiving area only by a single railing
does not indicate an essential continuity of the two areas
but rather reflects the fact that the area of actual shipping
and receiving operations is sufficiently remote from the
entrance passage to obviate the necessity of sturdier
barriers between the two areas. Only on infrequent
occasions, when the truck wells are occupied, are loading
and unloading performed at the portion of the loading dock
and plant adjacent to the employee entrance. Only small
trucks, with relatively light, small freight, are loaded or
unloaded in the shipping and receiving area rather than in
the truck wells. All material is loaded and unloaded on and
from the back of the trucks, away from the entrance to the
building. On the occasions that material is temporarily
stored in the portion of the shipping and receiving area
adjacent to the employee passage, it is beyond the railing.
There was no evidence that material was ever stored in the
entrance area or in such manner as to constitute an
obstruction or impediment to free movement of employees
between the timeclock and the entrance door
Respondent suggests that the movable crane and forklift
trucks used in the shipping department may create some
hazard. However, there was no evidence to support such a
conclusion. The crane is separated from the entrance area
by the shipping and receiving department, some 25 to 30
feet wide. And loading and unloading operations at the rear
of the truck wells are about 60 feet back and 50 to 60 feet to
the left of the employee entrance. There was no evidence
that forklift trucks ever come near the rail in a manner
creating any hazard or threat to arriving and departing
employees.
Further, the evidence was undisputed that the distribu-
tion of literature in the entrance area did not cause
employees to tarry and congregate in the entrance way.
Indeed, the only suggestion of such a condition came in a
conjecture by foreman Elberfeld that "[w]hen they got
close to seven [o'clock], then they started to gang up and it
was going to cause quite a commotion." (emphasis supplied)
Whited and King testified, without contradiction, that there
was no backup of employees attempting to enter the
building during the distribution on December 18. The only
evidence of any possible difficulty concerned some
inconvenience to the employees passing the congregation of
the two policemen, Foreman Elberfeld and employees King
and Whited in the entry way. But King and Whited were
able to pass leaflets to all the employees, apparently
without incident.
To support its position, Respondent relies on Patio Foods
v. N.L.R.B., 415 F.2d 1001 (C.A. 5), reversing 165 NLRB
446. Even if the Trial Examiner were free to follow the
court's rather than the Board's decision in Patio Foods, it
would not be controlling in the present case. In Patio the
distribution was being made in the shipping and receiving
area. The Trial Examiner, whose decision was adopted by
the Board, held, in effect, that the employees were entitled
to distribute in that working area because it was also used
for employee ingress and egress and because the distribu-
tion itself did not actually interfere with any work being
performed. In reversing, the court said:
.. . an employer's legitimate interest in keeping his
employees' work stations free of the disruptive influence
of handbilling justified the prohibition of union
literature distribution in work areas where employees are,
in fact, working. [emphasis supplied.]
The court did not hold that employees could be prohibited
from distributing in nonworking areas adjacent to working
areas. In the present case the area involved was set apart
from any work area and the path of the employees' ingress
and egress did not traverse any work area. See I U.E Local
806 (SNC Manufacturing Co.,) v. N.L.R.B, 434 F.2d 473,
(C.A.D C.), where the court upheld employees' right to
distribute union literature in nonworking areas such as
passageways.
Additionally, in Patio there was evidence that working
employees were actually distracted by the disagreement
which arose concerning the prohibition of distribution. In
the present case no employees were distracted and, so far as
appears, no working employees were present to be
distracted. Cf. Gustin-Bacon Manufacturing Co., 173 NLRB
332, 336-337.
In its brief Respondent adds the further contention that
"The distributions were taking place on work time." It may
be assumed, as Respondent asserts, that the plant was in
operation at the time. But neither the distributors nor the
distributees were on working time on either occasion here
involved. One cannot reasonably dispute Respondent's
statement "that prompt reporting of the next shift is at all
times essential to [the plant's] smooth and continuous
operation." But there is not the remotest basis for finding
that the union distribution on December 18 was actually or
potentially interfering with employees' reporting promptly
for the first shift, scheduled to start at 7 a.m. Foreman
Elberfeld, acting on instructions from Superintendent
Warren, apparently recognized the absence of potential for
delay when he "suggested" that the distribution operation
be moved outside the door. The distribution would hardly
be more time consuming outside than inside. And the
distribution on December 20 was being made to departing
employees, after they had clocked out.
On all the evidence, the Trial Examiner finds that the
distributions in question were being performed on nonwork
time in a nonwork area. As said by the court in Patio Foods,
supra
To prohibit the distribution by employees of union
literature in nonwork areas on nonwork time in the
absence of special circumstances has long been
recognized to be an unfair labor practice... .
Since the prohibition of distribution in the entrance area
was unlawful, the threat to discipline employees for a
repetition of such conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. Similarly, the suspension of employee Whited
for distributing union literature in disobedience to the
unlawful prohibition was violative of Section 8(a)(3). See
SNC Manufacturing Co., 174 NLRB No. 31, enfd. in
pertinent part, supra
CASCADE CORPORATION 35
2. The posted rule
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by-
... Unlawfully enforcing and maintaining . . . the
following rule .. .
All working areas inside of the building, because
of obvious housekeeping problems and problems
of movement of people and material, are off limits
for distribution of any literature.
The quoted provision of Respondent's rule is not invalid
on its face . Absent special circumstances , not present in this
case , an employer may prohibit employee distribution of
material in working areas . However, in Respondent's
posted rule an express prohibition of distribution in
working areas within the plant was coupled with an
affirmative statement that distribution was permitted in the
parking lot and other outside areas of Respondent's
premises. From these two provisions in juxtaposition one
would naturally infer that distribution was permitted only
outside the building , with all interior areas being deemed
working space.
This natural inference from the wording of the posted
rule was underscored by Respondent's conduct.
Respondent did prohibit distribution in a nonworking
area inside the building. On the two occasions when that
prohibition was imposed , the employees involved were
ordered or instructed to go outside of the building to
distribute . Although Respondent maintained at the hearing
that the employees were at liberty to distribute in
nonworking interior areas such as the locker room and
cafeteria , it was conceded that they had never been
informed of this right.
Viewed in the context of its adoption, including the
actual prohibition of distribution in a nonworking area, the
posted memorandum concerning distribution is invalid in
impliedly limiting permissible distribution to the premises
outside the building . See IUE, Local 806 (SNC Manufactur-
ing Coj v. N. L. R. B., supra.
C. Conclusion
It has been found that the no-distribution rule posted by
Respondent on December 18 was invalid as written and as
enforced in that it prohibited employee distribution of
union literature in nonworking areas of the plant during
nonworking time. Since the complaint does not specifically
allege that the promulgation of the rule was violative of the
Act, the Trial Examiner refrains from determining whether,
as maintained by Respondent, the written rule as posted
was merely a continuation of an unwritten rule already in
effect for a considerable time. No finding is made
concerning the promulgation of the rule as such.
The General Counsel presented some evidence that the
rule had been discriminatorily enforced in that some
distribution had been made on behalf of the independent
union in the entrance hall. However , since no such
allegation was made in the complaint , no findings or
conclusions are here made in that connection.
At the hearing Respondent maintained that even if the
entryway of the plant should be found to be a nonworking
area , Whited was properly disciplined for insubordination
because Respondent was guilty , at most , of an honest and
reasonable mistake and efficient plant operation requires
that employees not be free to decide for themselves the
propriety of plant rules which are not patently invalid. In
effect , Respondent was contending for an adaptation of or
analogy to the "obey now, grieve later " principle estab-
lished in arbitration law. But such principle is unavailable
to shield an employer from the consequences of infringe-
ment upon employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act. Good faith is not a defense to such an infringement.
N.L.R.B. v. Erie Resistor Corp ., 373 U.S. 221, 229-230, In. 8.
In its brief , Respondent contends that the complaint
should be dismissed because "any adverse effect of the
Employer's rule has been de minimis. " The evidence does
not support this contention . It is clear that the incidents
here involved represent a direct dispute between Respon-
dent and the Union as to the extent of the employees'
rights. Respondent acknowledges that Whited acted in
complete good faith in exercising what he understood to be
his rights . The plant superintendent indicated that he
considered this a direct challenge by the Union . The Union
and Respondent had forcefully placed their positions
before the employees . The conflict was then submitted to
the Board for resolution . In this posture , effectuation of the
policies of the Act requires that the decision be fully
implemented and that the employees be afforded and
informed of their statutory rights.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing a rule prohibiting
employee distribution of union literature in nonworking
areas of Respondent 's building since December 18, 1969,
Respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
4. By suspending Jack Whited from employment for
distributing union literature in Respondent 's plant on
December 20, 1969 , Respondent committed an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will also be recommended that Respondent be required
to make Jack Whited whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered as a result of his suspension , with interest in
accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act, it is hereby recommended that the following order
be issued:
ORDER
Respondent, Cascade Corporation, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, UAW, or any other labor
organization, by suspending or otherwise discriminating
against any of its employees as to hire, tenure, or other
terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Maintaining in effect or enforcing any rule that
prohibits off duty employees from distributing union or
other self-organizational literature in any nonworking areas
of the plant, including the employee entrance area, locker
room, and cafeteria, as well as the parking lot and other
outside areas.
(c) Threatening employees with disciplinary action for
distributing union literature during nonwork time in
nonwork areas of the plant.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other
concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Revise its posted rule concerning distribution in a
manner to make clear that during nonwork time employees
may distribute union literature on any nonworking portion
of Respondent's premises, including the entrance area and
the aisle therefrom to the entrance to the men's locker
room, as well as the locker room and lunch room, in
addition to the parking lot and other outside areas.
(b) Make Jack Whited whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by him, in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy".
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board, or its
agents, upon request, for inspection and reproduction, all
payroll records, timecards, personnel files, and all other
records necessary to analyze, compute and determine the
amount of backpay to which Jack Whited may be entitled
under the terms of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
(d) Post at its plant in Springfield, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice, marked "Appendix B" 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for the
Region 9, after being signed by a representative of
Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the date hereof, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing
an order of the National Labor Relations Board "
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
^rql
i
I
dw4
"I 3M
.V.3- ► 9rnAI .E VNidd,W '
X.
^nr^iaas2r
awvy
ONrdd4NS
t
wo021 bs W"°l 3.N'-
W oo d A-i9 W3 ss v
39vbo15 a9wtl-1
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby revise paragraph I of our memorandum
concerning distribution of election literature, dated
December 18, 1969, to read as follows
1. All employees are free to use the company parking
lot or areas surrounding the building at any time
for this purpose and all nonworking areas within
the building, including the employee entrance
area and passageway to the men's locker room, as
well as the locker room and lunchroom, during
the nonwork time of the employees.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rule which
prohibits distribution by employees of union literature
during the nonwork time of the employees in nonwork-
ing areas of the premises, including, inside the building,
the employee entrance area and passageway to the
men's locker room, the locker room and the lunchroom,
as well as the company parking lot and areas
surrounding the building.
WE WILL NOT discipline or threaten to discipline any
employees for distributing union literature in nonwork-
ing areas of the premises during the nonworking time of
the employees.
WE WILL pay Jack White the amount of pay, with
interest, which he lost when we suspended him in
December 1969 for distributing union literature in the
entrance area of the plant.
Dated By
CASCADE CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Room
2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main St. Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.