Clinton Corn Processing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 622 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NAI()NAL LABOR RELATI()NS BO()ARD
Clinton Corn Processing Company, a Division of
Standard Brands Incorporated and American
Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO
I)aniel Construction Company, a Division of Daniel
International Corporation and American Feder-
ation of (;rain Millers, AFL-CIO. Cases 3-
CA-9115 1, 3-CA-9361, and 3-CA-9115-2
December 8, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MFNMBtIRS
JlNKINS ANI) P NII ItO
On July 31, 198X(), Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and Clinton Corn Processing Company, herein Re-
spondent Clinton, filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. Subsequently, Respondent Daniel Construc-
tion Company, a Division of Daniel International
Corporation filed cross-exceptions and a brief in
support thereof and in answer to the General
Counsel's exceptions and a motion to strike certain
portions of the General Counsel's brief.
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,' find-
ings, 2 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 Respondent Clinton Corn Proc-
i Respondent Clnton's motion to strike certai portions of the (eneral
Counsel's brief Io the Admilli straltit LaW. Judge is hereby d'iied be-
u;use he Admnlistrative l.iu Judlge e ffecivel disposed if Iht malter
See fn 2 of his I)ecision.
(Clilrary to the coltelltiolrlS of Rcrspondent (Iiton, the Admrnnlsratise
L.aw Judge did not err by perrilillng Ihe comprlplainl to be amenilded ut the
hearing to allege that aid Resplinll tirlton lrairt;ailel iri Ililtlwful
nio dltrlbultOll rule Mreover, the rigilial comriplaint contained all lle-
gatrlon that Respolndent maintarined all Irunlawful Tio-slohiciation rule W'e
agree with the Admiinlratise I a Judge that the amelldnlleit is closely
related to the rio-soliilation rule andrl thlt the iue s as fully litigated
Accordingly . we find Responldenlt (lirlltl as not denied duc prosess ir
preudiced by the amendment
TIlhi General C(olunsel and Respondenl ( linlonl hase excepted to lcr-
ltir credihility fitdings made hb the Adilistlrative l.al Judge It is the
Bllard's established polic nol to ovecrrule ail a.Idmiiiitrative law Iljudges
resolullonis vllh respect to credibility unless the lear preponlderance iof
all Of the rle illlt vrdelce cosll rces us that the resolutiori are incor-
rectl Standurd i)rv Wall Pndu(tr. I, )I NIR 544 (lqSl)), cn(dl 188
I 2d 362 (d CIr 1951) We hta.lc careful examired the recorl illrd tfind
no basis for rversling his findings
253 NLRB No. 84
essing Company, a Division of Standard Brands,
Incorporated, Syracuse, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except
that the attached notice is substituted for that of
the Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS I:UR'HER ORI)t-RII) that the complaint in
Case 3-CA-9115-2 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NorliF To EMPI.OIio'iS
tOosI 1I1) BY ()ORI)R OF I fIF
NATIO()NA LABOR RI.AI IONS OARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has rdered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WI: Will I NOT give effect to rules contained
in the employee handbook and the addendum
which prohibit the employees from engaging
in the following:
Bring on to company property or use news-
papers, magazines, pictures, pamphlets,
books, drawings or other material not spe-
cifically authorized.
Solicitation or any other form of disturbing,
or intimidating, employees during working
hours on company property.
WI; Wii. NOT punish our employees by is-
suing written warnings in an attempt to en-
force the above rules.
WI. Wll I NOT ill any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
Wli wit.l expunge from our records the
written warning contained in Theodore R. Ki-
jowski's evaluation of September 28, 1979.
WtI will rescind the above rules from the
employee handbook and addendum and advise,
622
CILINt()N C()RN PR()CISSING( C()MPANY
in writing, each employ to whom we have
given such handbook that said rules have been
rescinded.
ClINTON CORN PRO('CLSSIN(; COMPA-
NY, A DIVISION OF: STANI)ARI)
BRANI)S, INCORPORATIEI)
DECISION
STA'I MN I )OF IT I CASF
GtOR(,I. NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me on December 18 and 19. 1979,
in Syracuse, New York. It is based on unfair labor prac-
tice charges filed by the American Federation of Grain
Millers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, against Clin-
ton Corn Processing Company, a Division of Standard
Brands, Incorporated, herein called Respondent Clinton,
and Daniel Construction Company, a Division of Daniel
International Corporation, herein called Respondent
Daniel, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
A consolidated complaint issued on June 26, 1979., al-
leging that Respondent Daniel violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by terminating Jeanne Good (Case 3-
CA-9115-2). Respondent Clinton was also charged with
violating Section 8(a)( ) and (3) because it allegedly
"caused" that termination (Case 3-CA-9115-1). There
were also allegations of independent 8(a)( ) violations
against Respondent Daniel and Respondent Clinton,
through interrogation and creating the impression of sur-
veillance.
On November 20, 1979, Case 3-CA-9361 was consoli-
dated with the above cases. The latter case alleged that
Respondent Clinton issued a written warning to one of
its employees, Theodore Kijowski, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3), and further that Respondent Clin-
ton's solicitation-distribution rule violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
Respondents' answers denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices as alleged in the consolidated com-
plaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 3 on
November 20, 1979.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to argue orally. The General Coun-
sel and Respondents filed briefs which have been careful-
ly considered. 2
Upon the entire record, including my consideration of
the briefs and my careful observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, I make the following:
I Daniel filed a motion to sever prior to the hearing hut the monion
had not been ruled on. At the hearing the motion was granted and Cast
3-CA-9361 as severed from Cases 3-CA-9115-I and 9115-2 How'eser.
confusion arose over the scope of this severance when counsel for the
General Counsel rested her case against Respondent Daniel, hut refused
to rest as to Case 3-CA-9115-1 against Respondent Clinton. Whereupon.
Respondent Daniel requested permission to withdraw the motion to
sever. Permission was granted
2 By motion dated Fehruary 3, 19 80 the General Counsel moved to
strike portions of the General Counsel's brief and to amend the ranscripi
and reopen the record. That morion was opposed by Respondents D)anil
and Clinton. I hereby deny the motion.
FININ(,S () FAC( I
I. JURItSI)C I( ION
Respondent Clinton has offices and plants at Clinton,
loss a. and its corporate headquarters at New York. Ne,
York. It has various other plants, places of business,
sarehouses, and facilities throughout the United States,
inel(iding a plant, place of business, and facility located
at Montezuma. New York, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of corn products, in-
cluding sweeteners, animal feed, and related products. In
the course and conduct of its business operations, Re-
spondent Clinton purchases. transfers, and delivers to its
Montezuma, New York, plant goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials
are transported to said plant directly from States of the
United States other than the State of New York.
Respondent Daniel is a corporation with its headquar-
ters, the Daniel Building, in Greenville, South Carolina,
and a plant, place of business, and other facility located
in Montezuma, New York, where it is continuously en-
gaged at said plant in the business of providing and per-
forming construction, maintenance, and related services.
Annually, Respondent Daniel purchases, transfers, and
delivers to its Montezuma, New York, plant goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States
other than the State of New York.
Respondents Clinton and Daniel are now, and have
been at all times material herein, employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
It. HI I . OR ORG.ANIZATION
American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THI Al IGE) UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
The Facts
Respondent Clinton's Montezuma plant started operat-
ing in December 1978. In January and February 1979,
Respondent Daniel began providing Respondent Clinton
with construction and maintenance services. Respondent
Daniel has delegated to its superintendent, Paul Elliott,
complete responsibility for the day-to-day operations in
Montezuma. Among his job duties are coordinating the
work which Daniel performs for Respondent Clinton,
maintaining and implementing manpower and work
schedules, insuring that the necessary tools, equipment,
and supplies are on hand, and directing Respondent Dan-
iel's supervisors. Superintendent Elliott has final and
total authority over Respondent Daniel's labor relations
at Montezuma.
Respondent Daniel has a very small, one-room office
at Montezuma. Respondent Clinton's personnel do not
work in that office. Superintendent Elliott occupied that
office along with employee Jeanne Good, who has been
referred to as clerk-timekeeper or office manager.
Among her duties were maintaining the personnel files of
h23
I)4ICISI()NS OF) NAII()NAl. I .A()R RELI.ATIONS H()ARD
Respondent Daniel employees, payroll functions, answer-
ing the telephone, and receiving and sorting mail.
Good was hired by Respondent Daniel on Monday,
May 14, 1979, to work in Respondent I)aniel's office. In
the beginning Good was involved in compilation of Re-
spondent Daniel's employees' daily time and wage rates,
which was then sent to Respondent Daniel's South Caro-
lina office so that the weekly paychecks could he prc-
pared and sent to the Montezuma plant. Good has previ-
ously held jobs which involved confidential personnel in-
fiormation such as wage rates. She testified that she as-
sumced that the payroll information she worked with was
also confidential.
On the evening of May 17, 1979, Good went to the
VFW hall in Montezuma, New York, to meet her hus-
band and to pick up her daughter from a brownie meet-
ing which she was attending at that hall. She entered.
joined her husband and "the regulars" and ordered a
drink. While there she learned that the Union was hold-
ing a meeting for Respondent Clinton's employees in an
upstairs room. The Union was not attempting to organize
Respondent Daniel's employees. Good was not aware
that a union was attempting to organize Respondent
Clinton's employees until told by "the regulars" and her
husband that she could get a free drink if she went to the
union meeting, which by then had been moved to a
downstairs room behind the bar. Good went to the meet-
ing, received the free drink, made some remarks, and re-
joined her husband and the regulars at the bar when the
meeting ended. Shortly thereafter a fight broke out, and
Good left VFW hall.
Good testified that at the meeting she raised a question
as to whether the Union could do anything for Respond-
ent Daniel's employees, answered a question directed at
her as to her own wage rate, and had a short conversa-
tion with John Andry, union representative, at the end of
the meeting as to whether employees of Respondent
Daniel would be included in a union election.
On the morning of May 18, 1979, Good mentioned to
her supervisors, Elliott and Ivey Jarman, that she had
witnessed a fight at the VFW on Thursday night (the
night before). They asked her if she had gone to the
union meeting. She answered she had gone to get a free
drink. Good also testified that during the morning Elliott
asked if she had signed any card and she answered that
she had not because the Union could not help her
anyway.
At the end of the workday that Friday, Dave Peart
from Respondent Clinton telephoned Elliott to advise
him that Respondent Clinton had heard that Good dis-
closed Respondent Daniel's confidential wage and salary
information at the VFW the previous night. In that con-
versation, Peart and Elliott also discussed work schedul-
ing and related matters. Following the phone conversa-
tion, Elliott called Jarman out of the office and discussed
Peart's telephone call with him. They decided to ask
Good if she disclosed confidential information as report-
ed to them by Peart.
Both Elliott and Jarman testified that when Good was
asked whether she had disclosed confidential information
at the meeting, she replied "Yes." On the other hand,
Good testified on direct examination on being asked
whether she ever admitted to Elliott and Jarman that she
had revealed confidential wage rates, "No, I did not.
When Mr. Elliott confronted me with that, my mouth
fell open and a thousand things went through my head.
And I said, I'm sorry." Good was also asked if she ever
denied revealing any confidential wage data to either E'l-
liott or Jarman. Her response was "No, I believe I said I
don't remember saying anything about it." Good ad-
mitted knowing what Respondent Daniel's wage rates
were, and when asked whether the wage rates were uni-
form her response was "Yes." Elliot gave Good a choice
of resignation or termination." She resigned.
Good's version
According to Good, at the end of the afternoon on
May 18, 1979, as she came in from running an errand,
Elliott asked her to sit down and then told her "I'm
going to have to let you go." Good replied, "You're kid-
ding." Elliott responded, "No I'm perfectly serious. I
just got a phone call from Clinton Corn saying that you
were down at the VW plastered and shooting your
mouth off about salaries and rates of pay. They told me
to get rid of you." Good said "They can't do that." She
said he then gave her a choice of resigning or being ter-
minated, and she chose to resign. She stated further that
while Elliott made out the termination slip, Jarman con-
firmed the call from Clinton. Jarman then walked Good
out to the gate and told her he was sorry they had to let
her go, but if it had happened to Jarman, they would
have let him go because Clinton did not want a union
down there. Good testified that she admitted that she
had disclosed her own rate but never admitted disclosing
other wage rates, and, in fact, had not disclosed other
wage rates at the meeting.
International Union Representative John Andry testi-
fied that he made a presentation at the union organizing
meeting at the VFW hall. He said while at that meeting
he met Jeanne Good. Andry did not recall when Good
entered the meeting or when she left. He did recall talk-
ing to her after the meeting. He stated that because of
the confusion at the meeting he was not aware of any
statements that Good made concerning wage rates.
Elliott's version
Elliott testified as follows:
On the morning of Friday, May 18, 1979, Good
came in and stated that she felt bad; that she had
had too much to drink the night before. She said
she had been to the VFW, that they had a union
meeting there. She said that they had three drinks
and that someone was smoking marijuana and there
was a fight. She also said that someone slugged a
lady. Around 4:15 p.m. that day I received a phone
call from a Clinton Corn official who stated that he
had a pretty reliable source that said that he had
heard that Good revealed Daniel's wage structures
at the union meeting the night before. I thanked
him for the information and hung up. I then called
Ivey Jarman, my general foreman, out of the room
and told him the information that I had heard and
624
CLINTON CORN PROCESSING COMPANY
we talked about approaching Good and investigat-
ing to see if what I was told was true. We went
back into the room and I asked Good if she re-
vealed the wage structure at the meeting. She said
she did. She said as the night progressed she didn't
know what all she did say.
Elliott denied stating to Good that "[t]hey told me I
have to get rid of you." Or that "Clinton told me I have
to get rid of you." He denied asking Good if she signed
the union card; denied asking her who else attended the
union meeting or the names of the people who attended
the union meeting. He denied asking her the identity of
the union organizers or their names or when the next
union meeting was to take place. He said that no union
had ever attempted to organize the Daniel employees on
the Montezuma job. Elliott also denied ever stating to
Good that Daniel knew the names of the people who
were in attendance at the meeting. He said that no em-
ployee of Respondent Clinton ever directed, instructed,
or ordered him to terminate any Daniel employee.
Ivey Jarman's testimony corroborated the substance of
the testimony of Paul Elliott. Elliott and Jarman both
testified that they never asked Good if she signed a
union card, attended a union meeting, the names of
anyone at the union meeting, whether Daniel enployees
attended the union meeting, etc., nor did they hear each
other ask such questions. Good's testimony did not con-
tradict the testimony of Elliott and Jarman in any materi-
al respect, except she signed a card.
I credit Elliott and Jarman and conclude that the Gen-
eral Counsel has failed to meet the burden of proof that
Respondent Clinton or Respondent Daniel violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne
Good or violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interroga-
tion, or creating the impression of surveillance.
Although I find that Jeanne Good was entitled to the
protection of the Act, Respondent Daniel terminated
Good for the sole reason that she disclosed confidential
information. Farlow Rubber Supply, Inc., 193 NLRB 570
(1971); Vitronic, Incorporated, 183 NLRB 1067, 1076
(1970); Clearwater Finishing Company, 100 NLRB 1473
(1952), enfd. in pertinent part 203 F.2d 938 (4th Cir.
1953).
Theodore Kijowski and the no-solicitation rule
Theodore Kijowski, an employee of Respondent Clin-
ton, engaged in the Union's organizing campaign at Re-
spondent Clinton's Montezuma plant by soliciting union
authorization cards from early July through September
28, 1979. Kijowski solicited only during his free time,
coffeebreaks, lunchtime, and before or after work. He
testified that as he approached his fellow employees and
talked to them he did not stop anyone from working, al-
though he did not know whether these employees were
on a break at the time.
Respondent Clinton's employee handbook
Respondent Clinton's employee handbook dated Sep-
tember 1976, provides under the paragraph "Solicitation
and Notices," as follows:
Posting of Notices and other written material on
company property without prior written approval is
prohibited. General circulation or posting requires
the approval of the supervisor and the plant man-
ager. Circulation or distribution of literature in
working area or on working time and solicitation or
any other form of disturbing emplovees during working
prohibited. [Emphasis supplied.]
On December 5, 1979, Respondent Clinton distributed
the following to its employees under the title "Employee
Manual Addendum," and under II thereof it reads,
"Other employee conduct that is caused for disciplinary
action up to and including discharge, includes, but is not
limited to":
2. Bring on to company property or use newspa-
pers, magazines, pictures, pamphlets, books, draw-
ings, or other material not specifically authorized.
* * * * *
4. Solicitation or any other form of disturbing, or
intimidating, employees during working hours on
company property.
5. In case of misunderstanding or difference in in-
terpretation of the above rules, the decision of the
Plant Manager is final.
Kijowski testified that when the addendum was given
to him, Thomas Bas, director of human resources, read it
out loud to a meeting of employees and asked if there
were any questions. But Kijowski indicated that he did
not ask any questions. Respondent Clinton stipulated that
by the issuance of the addenda no change in the no-so-
licitation rule was affected.
On September 28, 1979, Kijowski was given his 3-
month evaluation. That evaluation contained, after the
words supervisor comments, "Idle time could be utilized
more efficiently. Several times employee has been in
other work areas visiting and interrupting the work of
others. Further acts of this nature will result in disciplin-
ary action in the form of probation leading to and in-
cluding discharge." That evaluation was dated Septem-
ber 28, 1979. At the time he was given his evaluation Ki-
jowski was interviewed by his leadman, Bob Smith, who
signed the evaluation, and Smith's supervisor, Dave
Chandler. No comments were made concerning the por-
tion of the evaluation quoted above. Kijowski testified
that, during that interview, either Smith or Chandler told
him that he should not "cut them short and try to get
the Union in." Neither Smith nor Chandler denied telling
Kijowski to keep quiet about the evaluation and not to
cut them short, but Chandler denied any mention of the
Union. After receiving his evaluation, Kijowski stopped
soliciting on behalf of the Union.3
W ' ilh respect Io the denial h Chandler and Smith that the Union as
mentioned during the ealuation interview, I credit Kijowski 'who was
consislent, or good memory, and posilive in hi, testimony
625
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Clinton's no-solicitation rule
The wording of Respondent Clinton's no-solicitation
rule is too broad in that it refers to "working hours" as
opposed to "working time" and is therefore presumptive-
ly unlawful. Fayetteville Industrial Maintenance, Inc., 218
NLRB 888, 889 (1974).
The use of the words "working hours" renders a rule
susceptible to the interpretation that solicitation is pro-
hibited during all business hours, and therefore unduly
restricts employees' Section 7 rights. Although an am-
biguous rule can be cured by showing that the rule was
communicated to employees in such a way as to convey
clearly an intent to permit solicitation during breaktime
or other periods when employees are not actively at
work, no such showing has been made herein. Essex In-
ternational. Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974); McBrides of
Naylor Road, 229 NLRB 795 (1977). The testimony ad-
duced on behalf of Respondent Clinton is not sufficient
to overcome the presumption of the unlawfulness of the
rule. It does not show that Respondent Clinton commu-
nicated the rule to its employees in such a way as to
convey clearly an intent to permit solicitation during
breaktime or other periods when employees are not ac-
tively at work. Furthermore, with respect to Kijowski,
the testimony is that he did not receive any "clarifica-
tion," but that he engaged in solicitation on behalf of the
Union only during his lunchtime, breaktimes, and before
and after working hours, and he was charged with vio-
lating the rule.
Accordingly, I find that the warning contained in Ki-
jowski's evaluation, even though Kijowski received a
raise in pay following that evaluation, was an unlawful
punishment inflicted by Respondent Clinton in an at-
tempt to enforce an unlawful rule in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. See Stoddard-Quirk Manujac-
luring Co., 138 NL.RB 615 (1962).
Kijowski's testimony that he stopped soliciting after he
was given a warning although he was soliciting only on
his own time and not on company time is an indication,
at a minimum, that Respondent Clinton did not commu-
nicate to all of its employees that soliciting was permit-
ted on breaks, lunchtime, and before or after work. Ki-
jowski testified that Respondent Clinton's addendum, re-
ferred to above, was read to a general meeting of em-
ployees without explanation. The addendum not only
fails to clarify the rule, but indeed broadens the rule by
specifically prohibiting the bringing of any books, news-
papers, etc., on company property. This is not restricted
to work areas, and, thus, constitutes unlawful a no-distri-
bution rule. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211
NLRB 870 (1974). find, therefore, that the maintenance
of the no-solicitation and no-distribution rule in this case
violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Stoddard-Quirk Man-
ufacturing Co. upra.
CONCLUSIONS o01 LAW
1. Respondents Clinton and Daniel are employers
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Clinton violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act by maintaining in effect an unlawful no-solicitation/
no-distribution rule.
4. Respondent Clinton has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by issuing a written warning to employee
Theodore Kijowski in an attempt to force the unlawful
no-solicitation/no-distribution rule.
5. Respondent Clinton has not violated Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne Good.
6. Respondent Daniel has not violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne Good.
7. Respondent Daniel has not violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by interrogation or creating the impression of
surveillance as alleged in the complaint.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) aid (7) of the Act.
THE REMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent Clinton has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having
found that Respondent Clinton maintained a "no-solicita-
tion/no-distribution rule, which is too broad, and there-
fore unlawful; and having found that Respondent Clinton
unlawfully punished Theodore Kijowski in an attempt to
enforce that unlawful rule, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent Clinton cease giving effect to the no-solicita-
tion/no-distribution rule and to expunge from its records
the written warning contained in employee Theodore R.
Kijowski's evaluation dated September 28, 1979.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 4
The Respondent, Clinton Corn Processing Company, a
Division of Standard Brands, Incorporated, Montezuma,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining in effect the following rules contained
in the employee handbook and addendum which prohibit
employees from engaging in the following:
Bring on to company property or use newspapers,
magazines, pictures, pamphlets, books, drawings or
other material not specifically authorized.
Solicitation or any other form of disturbing, or in-
timidating, employees during working hours on
company property.
I4 n the eent rio exceptions are filed as provldld h Sec' 1)2 46 ofr he
Rules arid Regulations of he National abor Relalions Itoard, the find-
ings, c(ncluslonrs, and recommended Order herein shall. as prosided in
Sec 12 48 o the Rules and Regulaionr,, he adopted by the Board and
becorm Ii, finldings, conclusions. aid ()rder, ad all objectians thereto
shall he dleened aied for all purposes
626
CLINTON CORN PROCESSING CO()MPANY
(b) Punishing any employee by written warnings in an
attempt to enforce the above rules.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the fllowing affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Expunge from its records the written warning conl-
lained in Theodore R. Kijowski's evaluation, dated Sep-
tember 28, 1979.
(b) Rescind the above-quoted rules from the employee
handbook and addendum, and advise, in writing, each
employee to whom it has given such handbook that said
rules have been rescinded.
(c) Post at its plant in Montezuma, New York, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in he notice reading "P'lsted hy
said notice on frms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respondent,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof.
and be maintained by it for 60() consecutive days hereaf-
ter, ill conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, within 2() days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
3. All allegations of the consolidated complaint not
specifically found to be violations are hereby dismissed.
()rdr of Ihe Nauional l.ahor Relations Board" shall read lPo'ed P'ursu-
anl to a Judgment of the Illrted Sates Court of Appeals t-nforcing an
()rder of the Natronal I abor Re;allions HBoard"
627