DTM Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 30, 2010

16-CA-027094 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 30, 2010)

JD(ATL)–11–10
Fort Worth, TX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DTM CORPORATION
and CASE 16–CA–27094
SECURITY, POLICE, FIRE
PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 48
Becky Mata, Esq., and
Sharon L. Steckler, Esq.,
for the Government. 1
Scott Kamins, Esq.,
for the Company.2
Lloyd A. Tyson,
Union Representative,
for the Union.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves the
Company’s promulgating and maintaining alleged unlawful rules in its collective bargaining
agreement restricting employees’ ability to handbill, ability to leaflet and ability to engage in
work actions that constitute protected, concerted activities. I heard this case in trial in Fort
Worth, Texas on April 28, 2010. The case originates from a charge filed on October 26, 2009
by Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America, Local 48 (Union). The prosecution of the
case was formalized on January 26, 2010, when the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 of
the National Labor Relations Board (Board), acting in the name of the Board’s General Counsel,
issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Complaint) against DTM Corporation (Company).

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government and General Counsel as the
Government.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for the Respondent as Counsel for the Company and shall refer to the Respondent as
the Company.
3 I shall refer to the Charging Party as the Union and to its Representative as Union Representative.
JD(ATL)–11–10
2
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the Complaint, denied having violated the Act
in any manner alleged in the Complaint.
The three allegations litigated are that since September 21, 2009 the Company has 5
promulgated and maintained an unlawful rule in its collective bargaining agreement that
restricts employees’ ability to handbill, ability to leaflet and ability to engage in work actions
that constitute protected, concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act).
10
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross–examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the demeanor of
the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record, the post trial briefs, and the
authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and
find the Company violated the Act as alleged in the complaint.15
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status and Agency Status.
20
The Company is a Washington corporation engaged in the business of providing security
solutions, facility management and automation resources throughout the United States including
the FAA ARTCC site in Fort Worth, Texas. During the past fiscal year, a representative period,
the Company performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of
Texas. The parties admit, and I find, the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within 25
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit and/or do not dispute, and I find, the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
30
Company Chief Operating Officer Margo Briggs is a supervisor and agent of the
Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act. Captain Chad Riley is Site
Supervisor for the Company and Lloyd Tyson is Vice President of the Union.
II. The Facts 35
The Company provides security services for the Federal Aviation Administration
(ARTCC) at its Fort Worth, Texas site (site), 24 hours per day 7 days per week. Specifically,
the Company provides security service for the air traffic controllers at the Dallas/Fort Worth
Airport. The security officers control the access gate, check identification badges of those 40
entering and leaving and for automobile parking decals. The security officers escort vendors
and visitors on the premises as well as patrol the site and prepare daily activity reports for the
site. The Company and Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement, effective by its
terms, from September 21, 2009 to September 30, 2012. Although the representative status of
the Union was not alleged in the complaint, the Company, in the collective bargaining 45
agreement, recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative “for all of its full–
JD(ATL)–11–10
3
time and part–time security guards employed at [the site]”, but excluding Officers and Directors
of the Company; all office clerical, all managerial and supervisory employees and all other
employees who are not security guard employees, [and] all employees who are not regularly
scheduled to work at the site as part of their normal work duties.” There are approximately 11
guards in the bargaining unit.5
Union Vice President Tyson testified that at some point in October 2009 the Union’s
acting site steward prepared and sent to Company management, and others, a “Notice” type flyer
addressed “To Whom It May Concern” advising of certain action the Union would be taking.
The Notice reads as follows:10
On November 02, 2009 at or about 1100, the Security Officers working for DTM
Corporation will be performing an Informational Picket and/or Strike in front of the
FAA/ARTCC in Fort Worth, Texas. This is due to DTM Corporation’s lack of dealing
with the SPFPA, Local # 48 in good faith.15
On October 1, 2008, DTM Corporation was awarded this contract at this location and has
yet to pay anyone of the Security Officers everything that was stated in the CBA that the
FAA handed to them and DTM Corporation agreed to.
20
October 1, 2009 started a new pay raise, stated in the current CBA and none of these
Security Officers even know what they are being paid, due to DTM Corporation’s efforts
to keep all information away from these Security Officers, as well as not following the
CBA.
25
Thank you,
SPFPA, Local #48
Vice President Tyson thereafter spoke by telephone with Site Supervisor Captain Riley
about the Union’s notice to engage in informational picketing and “told him that I did not like 30
the language in the notice about the strike because I believed the strike according to our CBA
[Collective Bargaining Agreement] was unlawful. But we planned to do an informational picket
across the street on public land by non–duty officers.” Tyson told Riley he was concerned for
his officers and for the operations of the facility and he “would in no way allow any activity that
would endanger the safety of either the officers or the operations of the facility.” Site 35
Supervisor Riley said he spoke several times with Tyson about the notice “just to confirm that it
was legit and, you know, and should I be concerned”. Riley asserted it “never came clear” to
him that the security officers were not going to strike.
On October 21, 2009 Company Chief Operating Officer Briggs prepared a letter to the 40
Security Officers at the site regarding “SPFPA Union Contract Update CBA Contract Ratified.”
The letter states:
Dear Security Team:
45
DTM Corporation has been informed that there has been some misinformation circulating
around the security facility relating to the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
JD(ATL)–11–10
4
As you are aware, a new CBA was ratified between DTM Corporation and the
International Union Police Fire Professionals of America and Amalgamated Local #48.
DTM has been diligently working with the Union and its members to work through any
issues coming to the attention of the Company, or the Union.5
With the ratification of the new CBA, officers can expect to receive an increase in their
hourly wage. The new wage rate is $19.67, plus health and welfare. Officers can expect
to see the increases effective November 1, 2009.
10
DTM fully understands that there may have been some questions relative to this new
agreement. If anyone has any questions relative to the new agreement, or needs
clarification on any issues, please do not hesitate to share your concerns with your site
supervisor, Captain Chad Riley. He, in turn, will either resolve the issue, or forward the
information to the DTM Corporate Office for resolution.15
A copy of the new CBA is on site, in the hands of Captain Riley.
DTM wishes to thank all of the fine officers working at the FAA/ARTCC for their efforts
in making the FAA facility a model place to work, and one that DTM can be proud of.20
Respectfully,
/Margo H. Briggs
Margo Briggs
Chief Operations Officer25
Site Supervisor Captain Riley distributed a copy of Briggs letter and a paper copy of the
parties’ collective bargaining agreement to each of the unit employees. Union Vice President
Tyson testified the Company did not have any meetings with the unit employees to notify them
not to picket. Tyson said the unit employees did not picket because the collective bargaining 30
agreement reflected if they did they could be discharged. Tyson said quite a few of the unit
employees considered their job as their primary source of employment “and they were afraid of
losing their jobs” if they picketed. Tyson testified that according to the collective bargaining
agreement there was no time or place where the unit employees could leaflet, at no time conduct
informational picketing or hand bill nor any time where they could engage in any other work 35
stoppage for any reason.
Site Supervisor Captain Riley testified unit employees have scheduled break times
during their shifts and their actives during break times are not regulated. The employees’
activities before and after work times are not regulated and the employees could discuss 40
whatever they desired and could distribute materials related the Union. Riley explained the
Company does not regulate employee activities or restrict distribution in the parking lot. Riley
explained the collective bargaining agreement has not been strictly enforced that the agreement
only states the employees need permission for certain activities. Riley stated that in fact the
employees could engage in such activities so long as it did not interfere with the FAA’s 45
business.
JD(ATL)–11–10
5
It is undisputed that no strike or informational picketing ever occurred at the site herein.
Union Vice President Tyson testified he, on October 28, 2009, found in the access gate
guard house a printed copy of an e–mail with attachment dated October 27, 2009 from Company
Vice President Elliot W. Gibson. Tyson made a copy of the e–mail and attachment because it5
contained a copy of the Company’s plan of action in case the unit employees engage in
informational picketing. Site Supervisor Captain Riley testified employees were not allowed to
remove documents from the guardhouse without permission and added Tyson did not obtain
permission to remove the copy of the e–mail with attachment he took from the guardhouse.
10
Tyson fully realized the e–mail and attachment he took were not addressed to him. The
e–mail was, in fact, addressed to certain FAA officials, among others; and the attached letter was
addressed to the Contracting Officer for the FAA/ARTCC site setting forth the Company’s Plan
of Action regarding the Union’s proposed job action announced for November 2, 2009. In his
letter Gibson explains what actions the Company was planning if a strike occurred noting the 15
allocation of personnel as well as obtaining and training supplemental workers to ensure the
security of the site. Gibson indicated in his letter the Company would be pro–active in working
with the International Union to negate any type of job action. Gibson summarized the
Company’s plans stating in part:
20
Since the inception of the contract award (contract #DTFASW–09–R–00002), DTM
Corporation has understood its duty and responsibility to provide safety and security at
the FAA facility, in Fort Worth, Texas. Moreover, DTM has also understood its
responsibility to ensure that its employees understand that any kind of Union job action,
(strike, sick–out, blue flu, work slowdown) will not be tolerated.25
DTM sent a copy of its CBA to its employees at the FAA/ARTCC informing them that
strikes violate the contractual agreement between the Union and DTM Corporation.
Further, DTM aggressively continues its work behind the scenes to work a viable 30
settlement with the Union on any provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that
may be in dispute.
The technical aspects of this plan will still move forward to ensure that any proposed
threats of a job action will not compromise the safety and security of the Federal Aviation 35
Administration.
The parties Collective Bargaining Agreement at Article IX, “No Strike and No Lockout”
reads as follows:
40
The Employer agrees not to cause, permit, or engage in any lockout of its employees
during the term of this agreement. The Union agrees that neither it nor the employees it
represents covered by this Agreement will, during the term of this Agreement, cause,
permit, or take part in any strike, including sympathy strike, picketing, leafleting,
informational picketing or any other work action that has the purpose or effect of slowing 45
down or interfering with work. It shall be a violation of this Agreement, and it shall be
cause for discharge in the event an employee refuses to enter upon any property involved
in a labor dispute involving other employee organizations or refuses to go through or
work behind any picket lines involving other employee organizations at the Employer’s
JD(ATL)–11–10
6
place or places or business. The Union and Employer agree to take all steps possible to
ensure that the site is properly secured and protected in the event of labor disputes
involving other employee organizations at the site.
Article XXI, Miscellaneous, Section 4 reads:5
Union representatives shall not conduct Union–related business with any employee
during the time the employee is on duty, nor shall any employee conduct Union–related
business during the time he/she is on duty without permission. Employer property,
equipment and office facilities shall not be used to conduct any form of Union–related 10
business. Employees who violate this section will be subject to disciplinary action.
Article XXIII, Access, reads:
One Union Business Representative, or any duly authorized representative of the Union, 15
shall have admission to the establishment of the Employer only after giving a minimum
of seventy–two (72) hours advance written notice of his desire to be on the premises to
the Employer’s Project Manager or duly authorized designee, except in cases of
emergency making such advance notice impossible, in which case as much advance
notice as is possible must be given. While on the premises, the Business Representative 20
or any duly authorized union representative shall only be allowed to meet with bargaining
unit employees for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not this Agreement is being
observed by the parties hereto or for assisting in the adjustment of grievances. Any
meetings can only take place in non–work areas, during non–work time. Such visits shall
not interfere with the orderly and efficient operation of the Employer’s business. There25
shall be no Union business or solicitations during work time and/or in work area of either
the person doing the soliciting, or the person being solicited, unless such solicitations are
expressly permitted under the terms of this Agreement.
III. Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions30
It is helpful to consider certain court and Board precedents in deciding the issues herein.
The Board in Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F. 3rd 52 (D.C. Cir.
1999) set forth the standard for determining whether the mere maintenance of certain work rules
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, noting, “the appropriate inquiry is whether the rules would 35
reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” In determining
whether a challenged rule is unlawful the Board does not read phrases in isolation nor does it
presume interference with employee rights. Id. at 825 and 827. The Board in Lutheran Heritage
Village–Livonia 343 NLRB 346 (2004) set forth a two part inquiry for determining whether an
employer’s maintenance of a work rule violates the Act. First, if the rule “explicitly” restricts 40
Section 7 activities it is unlawful. Where, however, the rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7
activities, the Board looks for a showing of one of the following: “(1) employees would
reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in
response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7
rights.” Id. at 646. The mere presence of a rule that has the effect of chilling employees exercise 45
of their Section 7 rights can be a violation of the Act and “the finding of a violation is not
premised on mandatory phrasing, subjective impact, or even evidence of enforcement, but rather
on the reasonable tendency of such a prohibition to coerce employees in the exercise of
JD(ATL)–11–10
7
fundamental rights protected by the Act.” Radisson Plaza Minneapolis, 307 NLRB 94, 94
(1992), enfd. 987 F.2d 1376 (8th Cir. 1993).
From the facts herein, this case came about as a result of the Local Union not being fully
informed of the terms or aware of the fact that the International Union and the Company had 5
finalized a collective bargaining agreement covering the employees herein. Those concerns
prompted the Union’s acting steward to prepare and send to Company management a “Notice”
type flyer “To whom it May Concern” advising the Company, in part, that the Union at 11 :00
A.M. on November 2, 2009, would: “be performing an Informational Picket and/or Strike in
front of the FAA/ARTCC in Fort Worth, Texas”. 10
Union Vice President Tyson and Company Site Supervisor, Captain Riley thereafter
spoke several times about the Notice with Tyson telling Riley he did not like the language in the
notice regarding a strike which he believed was unlawful but that the Union only planned to
conduct an informational picket across the street on public land with non–duty employees. 15
Thereafter, on October 21, 2009, Company Chief Operating Officer Briggs, sent a letter to,
among others, the unit employees concerning any “misinformation circulating around the
security facility relating to the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Briggs attached a copy
of the new collective bargaining agreement to her letter. Company Site Supervisor Riley,
distributed a copy of Briggs letter and the new collective bargaining agreement to each unit 20
employee. Union Vice President Tyson explained the unit employees did not engage in the
planned picket because of language in the new collective bargaining agreement that reflected if
they did they could be discharged. Tyson said the employees were, “afraid of losing their jobs.”
Tyson testified that according to the collective bargaining agreement there was no time or place
where the unit employees could conduct informational picketing, leafleting or hand billing nor 25
could the employees engage in any other work stoppage for any reason.
I turn now to that portion of the language in the parties collective bargaining agreement at
issue herein. Article IX, “No Strike and No Lockout” in part reads:
30
The Union agrees that neither it nor the employees it represents covered by this
Agreement will …cause, permit, or take part in any strike, including sympathy strike,
picketing, leafleting, informational picketing or any other work action that has the
purpose or effect of slowing down or interfering with work.
35
The first question is whether the contract language at issue “explicitly” restricts activities
protected by Section 7 of the Act. If it does, the provision is unlawful. I find the language
unlawfully over broad and ambiguous. There are no limitations to the rule. There are no
exceptions or explanations regarding when or under what circumstances the rule will be applied.
An employee reading the rule would reasonably understand he or she could not engage in, for 40
example, informational picketing, even while off duty and on public property without possibly
running afoul of the rule and it consequences, namely discipline. That portion of the rule stating,
“that has the purpose or effect of slowing down or interfering with work” only adds confusion
and ambiguity to the rule and does not limit the rule’s application. Ambiguities are resolved
against the promulgator of the rule rather than those required to obey it. The challenged rule 45
clearly chilled the unit employees’ exercise of their protected Section 7 rights in as much as they
JD(ATL)–11–10
8
chose not to engage in the scheduled November 2, 2009 informational picketing because they
feared losing their jobs.
The challenged rule clearly and explicitly bans and/or prohibits the distribution of
literature (leaflets and hand bills) without limitation. Such an overly broad rule against the 5
distribution of literature for or against a union or in support of other concerted protected activity
coerces employees in exercising their Section 7 rights. The Supreme Court in NLRB v.
Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322 (1974) found a ban on distribution in an agreement to be invalid
because it stifled the organizational rights of employees which rights are at the core of the
representation and bargaining provisions of the Act. The Court in Magnavox made it clear that 10
banning the distribution of literature was not a right that could not even be bargained away by
the union. The Supreme Court in Magnavox further noted:
The place of work is a place uniquely appropriate for dissemination of views concerning
the bargaining representative and the various options open to the employees. So long as 15
the distribution is by employees to employees and so long as the in–plant solicitation is
on nonworking time, banning of that solicitation might seriously dilute Section 7 rights.
For Congress declared in Sections 1 of the Act that it was the policy of the United States
to protect ‘the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self–organization, and
designation of representatives of their own choosing.’ 29 U.S.C. Section 151.20
The rule herein placed no limitation on its application. More specifically it did not limit,
for example, the ban on leafleting to actual working times, thus the ban would include
employees’ break or lunch times. Simply stated the Company never in any manner conveyed a
clear intent to the employees that the rule was in any way limited in its application. The 25
Supreme Court in Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 491 (1978) stated: “We have long
accepted the Board’s view that the right of employees to self–organization and bargain
collectively…necessarily encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another
regarding self–organization at the job site.” Accordingly, any ban that is overly broad and
precludes employees from distributing information at any time or place on the job site, as the 30
case herein, has the stifling effect of explicitly preventing employees from exercising their
Section 7 rights.
The Company failed to present valid evidence that the challenged rule in the collective
bargaining agreement was necessary for compelling and/or legitimate business justifications. 35
Specifically, the Company failed to demonstrate any legitimate business reason or justification
for attempting to interfere with or prohibit its unit employees from engaging in informational
picketing for one day with off–duty employees on public property.
The defense of waiver is not available to the Company because, as noted elsewhere 40
herein, the parties can not waive or bargain away core Section 7 rights guaranteed to employees.
Other selected provisions of the parties collective bargaining agreement does not explain,
clarify or establish justification for the Company’s promulgating and maintaining the challenged
overly broad rule. While Article XXI Miscellaneous, Section 4, and Article XXIII Access,45
outlines rights, and some restrictions, for union representatives and employees in conducting
union related business on the Company’s premises the Articles do not provide clarification of the
JD(ATL)–11–10
9
challenged rule nor provide additional rights or privileges with respect to other protected Section
7 rights.
I specifically reject the Company’s contention that the limitation on leafleting and
handbilling is simply part of the lawful no–strike provision of the challenged rule. While it is 5
clear no strike provisions in collective bargaining agreements may be lawful, NLRB v. Magnavox
Co., 415 U.S. 322 (1974), no reasonable reading of the challenged rule herein could lead one to
conclude that the prohibition against leafleting and handbilling is inextricably intertwined with
the no–strike portion of the challenged rule.
10
Finally, the fact the rule may not have actually been enforced is no defense for the
Company for a number of reasons. First, the very existence of the rule chills employees’
exercise of their Section 7 rights and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Second, although the
Company took no action against the employees regarding their stated intention to engage in
informational picketing it is clear the employees never, in fact, picketed. Third, the failure of 15
the Company to enforce the challenged rule does not somehow extinguish the existence of its
overly broad and ambiguous rule. The fact the Company provides the employees and Union
access to, and use of, a bulletin board does not demonstrate the employees should have known
they could leaflet or handbill without running afoul of the challenged rule.
20
In summary, I find the Company has promulgated and maintained a rule in its collective
bargaining agreement that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to handbill, ability to leaflet
and ability to engage in work actions that constitute protected concerted activities and that such
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company, DTM Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
30
2. Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America, Local 48 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Company and Union have been the parties to a collective–bargaining
agreement, effective by its terms, from September 21, 2009 to September 30, 2012, for all full–35
time and part–time security guards employed at the Company’s FAA/ARTCC Fort Worth,
Texas site.
4. By, since on or about September 21, 2009, promulgating and maintaining a rule
in its collective bargaining agreement restricting employees ability to handbill, restricting 40
employees’ ability to leaflet and restricting employees’ ability to engage in work actions that
constitute protected, concerted activities the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The Company’s unfair labor practices specified in 4 above, affect commerce 45
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
JD(ATL)–11–10
10
REMEDY
Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order the Company to cease and desist there from and to take certain action 5
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Company is to rescind those
portions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article IX, “No Strike and No Lockout” that
unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to handbill, unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to
leaflet and unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to engage in work actions that constitute
protected, concerted activities and notify the employees in writing that this has been done.10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended4
ORDER15
The Company, DTM Corporation, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
20
Promulgating and maintaining a rule in its collective bargaining agreement
unlawfully restricting employees’ ability to handbill, unlawfully restricting employees’ ability to
leaflet and unlawfully restricting employees’ ability to engage in work actions that constitute
protected, concerted activities.
25
In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.30
a) Rescind those portions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article IX,
“No Strike and No Lockout” that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to handbill, unlawfully
restricts employees’ ability to leaflet and that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to engage in
work actions that constitute protected, concerted activities and notify its employees in writing 35
that this has been done.
b) Post at its Fort Worth, Texas FAA ARTCC location copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 16 after being signed by the Company’s authorized representative shall be posted by 40

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
5 If this order is enforced by a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read:
POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
JD(ATL)–11–10
11
the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency
of these proceedings the Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the 5
Notice, to all employees employed by the Company on or after September 21, 2009.
c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director
for Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board a sworn certification of a responsible
official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Company has taken to 10
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 30, 2010.
15
____________________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge
JD(ATL)–11–10
12
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us
to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain a rule in our collective bargaining agreement that
unlawfully restricts our employees ability to handbill, that unlawfully restricts our employees ability to
leaflet and that unlawfully restricts our employees ability to engage in work actions that constitute
protected, concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind those portions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article IX, “No Strike and
No Lockout” that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to handbill, unlawfully restricts employees’
ability to leaflet and that unlawfully restricts employees’ ability to engage in work actions that
constitute protected, concerted activities.
DTM CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated: _______________________ By: _________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret–ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
819 Taylor Street, Room 8A24, Fort Worth, TX 76102–6178,
(817)978–2921, Hours: 9:15 a.m. to 5:45 p.m.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (713) 209–4885