Eastex Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 271 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

EASTEX INC.
Eastex Incorporated and United Paperworkers Inter-
national Union , Local 801. Case 23-CA-5085
December 4, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On September 5, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER-
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, Eastex Incorporated, Silsbee, Texas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me in Beaumont, Texas, on July 23, 1974.
The charge was filed May 2, 1974, and amended June 4, by
United Paperworkers International Union, Local 801 (herein
called the Union). The complaint issued June 4, 1974, was
amended at the trial, and alleges that Eastex Incorporated
(herein called Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act. Posttnal briefs were filed for
the General Counsel and Respondent.
I ISSUES
The issues are whether Respondent
1 At all relevant times maintained no-solicitation and no-
posting rules violative of Section 8(a)(1).'
271
2. By prohibiting distribution of a union-sponsored circular
on company premises in March-April 1974, violated Section
8(a)(1).
11 JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Texas corporation headquartered in Sils-
bee, Texas , where it is engaged in the manufacture of paper
products . It annually purchases and causes to be shipped into
Texas , directly form outside the State , goods and materials of
a value exceeding $50,000.
Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
Ill LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The No-Solicitation and No-Posting Rules
1. The evidence
Respondent and the Union have had a bargaining relation-
ship concerning Respondent's production employees since
1954. The unit consists of about 800 people. The latest bar-
gaining agreement , in effect at all relevant times until its
expiration August 1, 1974, contained these provisions:'
Plant Rule 14:
No peddling or soliciting shall be allowed on the prem-
ises without permission of the Production Manager. Pe-
titions which are approved by both Management and the
Union will be considered for payroll deductions on an
individual basis.
Plant Rule 15:
Notices shall not be posted anywhere in the mill except
on company designated bulletin boards which are pro-
vided for either general notices or union notices. Ap-
proval for posting any notice, except union notices desig-
nating time and place of union meetings, must be
obtained from Management. All boards must be kept
neat and orderly.
The same rules, with slight, nonsubstantive variations in lan-
guage , appeared in all earlier agreements between Respond-
ent and the Union. The General Counsel contends that their
maintenance by Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
Rule 14, according to the uncontroverted testimony of
Respondent's personnel director, i°onard Menius, has never
been applied "to prevent the Union from soliciting people for
union membership or from attempting to collect union dues,
I Counsel for the General Counsel makes no reference in his brief to the
no-posting rule alleged in the complaint to be unlawful There being no
express abandonment of that allegation , this decision assumes it still to be
in the case
2 It is unknown if a successor agreement has been negotiated or, if so, it
contains these provisions.
215 NLRB No. 58
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assessments, or any other amounts of money due to the Un-
ion." Menius continued' that the rule is intended to control
"people wanting to sell thing or peddle things on the prem-
ises," not union solicitations. Apart from whatever inference
might be drawn from this statement of rule 14's intent, the
record is silent whether it contemplates or even has been
invoked regarding solicitations unrelated to the Union but
still protected by Section 7 of the Act. Nor is there evidence
that Respondent ever communicated to the employees that
union solicitations are exempt from the rule's prohibition; nor
evidence of overriding considerations of production or em-
ployee discipline to be served by the rule, however applied.
Except that which can be divined from its terms, there is
no evidence of the purpose and application of rule 15.
2. Analysis
Plant Rule 14. Rule 14 prohibits "soliciting . . . on the
premises without permission of the Production Manager."
Application of the rule is not limited by its terms to working
time, for "working time" as that notion is used in the context
of no-solicitation rules does not connote all time on company
premises, only "the period of time that is spent in the perfor-
mance of actual job duties";' nor do its terms exempt solici-
tations coming within the scope of Section 7 of the Act.
Indeed, a fair reading of the rule suggests a contrary, all-
inclusive purport on both counts. It follows that the rule is
presumptively improper. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962). See also Hyland Machine Co.,
210 NLRB 1063 (1974), WIPO, Inc., 199 NLRB 649 (1972);
Gooch Packing, Inc., 187 NLRB 351 (1970); General Indus-
tries Electronics Co., 138 NLRB 1371 (1962).
The question becomes, then, whether there is evidence
overcoming the rule's presumed illegality. There is no evi-
dence that it is necessary to production or employee disci-
pline, so that defense is out. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., supra at 621-622 It is no defense, moreover, that the
Union agreed to rule 14 by consenting to its incorporation in
bargaining agreements. A union cannot waive the Section 7
solicitation rights of the employees it represents. N.L.R.B. v.
Magnavox Company of Tennessee, 414 U.S. 1109 (1974).
That leaves Respondent's principal line of defense, namely,
Menius' disclaimer that the rule was meant to apply to union
solicitations, coupled with an absence of evidence that it has
been invoked for that purpose.4 In answer to that defense,
there is no evidence that such an exemption ever was com-
municated to the employees; and no evidence that such an
exemption covers all manner of Section 7 solicitations, not
just those which are literally "union." Even resolving the
latter imponderable favorably to Respondent, we still have a
presumptively unlawful rule which, unknown to the em-
ployees, is not enforced in an unlawful manner. Nonenforce-
ment does not overcome the adverse presumption. As the
Board stated in The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company,
162 NLRB 1182, 1184 (1967)•
[W]e reject the Respondent's argument that the rule
could have had no coercive effect since it was not en-
3 Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974)
4 Respondent 's refusal to permit distribution of the union circular, dis-
cussed below, was not grounded on rule 14
forced. -It is well established that the mere existence of
an unlawful no-solicitation rule makes it susceptible to
application to employees and this factor alone tends to
coerce, restrain, and interfere with their right to engage
in self-organizational activities.
See also Leece-Neville Co., 159 NLRB 293, 298 (1966)
It must be concluded, therefore, that rule 14 is in violation
of Section 8(a)(1).5
Plant Rule 15. While Section 7 is read to bestow upon
employees the right to solicit or distribute literature on com-
pany premises in certain circumstances, it does not bestow
upon them a right to use company bulletin boards or other
plant surfaces for the posting of information Nugent Service,
Inc., 207 NLRB 158 (1973). The inclusion in the labor agree-
ment of rule 15, concerning limited use of company bulletin
boards, therefore did not constitute an invalid union waiver
of a statutory right within the principle of N.L.R.B. v. Mag-
navox Company of Tennessee, supra, but rather an extraction
through the bargaining process of a concession Respondent
lawfully could have withheld. That being so, there being
nothing on the fact of rule 15 indicative of illegality,' and
there being no evidence of an improper application of the
rule, it is concluded that rule 15 does not violate the Act.
B. The Prohibition Against Distributing the Union's
Circular
1. The evidence
In March 1974 the Union's president, Boyd Young, and its
executive board decided to distribute this circular among
Respondent's employees:
NEWS BULLETIN TO LOCAL 801 MEMBERS
FROM BOYD YOUNG-PRESIDENT
WE NEED YOU
As a member , we need you to help build the Union through your
support and understanding Too often members become disinterest-
ed and look upon their Union as being something separate from
themselves Nothing could be further from the truth
This Union or any Union will only be as good as the members
make it The policies and practices of this Union are made by the
membership-the active membership If this Union has ever missed
its target it may be because not enough members made their views
known where the final decisions are made-The Union Meeting
It would be impossible to satisfy everyone with the decisions that
are made but the active member has the opportunity to bung the
majority around to his way of thinking . This is how a democratic
organization works and it's the best system around
Through participation you can make your voice felt not only in
this Local but throughout the International Union
A PHONY LABEL-"nght to work"
Wages are determined at the bargaining table and the stronger the
Union, the better the opportunity for improvements The "right-to-work"
5 Mallory Plastics Co., 149 NLRB 1649 (1964), cited by Respondent
urging a contrary conclusion , not only is factually distinguishable from the
present case in certain respects, but is of doubtful current validity in light
of intervening Board decisions
6 The requirement in rule 15 that most notices must be approved by
management does not by itself invalidate the rule Cf Gooch Packing,
Inc, 187 NLRB 351 (1970).
EASTEX INC. 273
law is simply an attempt to weaken the strength of Unions . The mis-
leading title of "right -to-work " cannot guarantee anyone a job . It simply
weakens the negotiating power of Unions by outlawing provisions in
contracts for Union shops. These laws do not improve wages or working
conditions but just protect free riders. Free riders are people who take
all the benefits of Unions without paying dues . They ride on the dues
that members pay to build an organization to protect their rights and
improve their way of life. At this time there is a very well organized
and financed attempt to place the "right to work" law in our new state
constitution. This drive is supported and financed by big xusiness namely
the National Right-To-Work Committee and the National Chamber of
Commerce. If their attempt is successful, it will more than pay for itself
by weakening Unions and improving the edge business has at the bargain-
ing table. States that have no "right-to-work" law consistently have
higher wages and better working conditions . Texas is well known for its
weak laws concerning the working class and the "right-to-work" law
would only add insult to injury. If you fail to take action against the
"right-to-work" law it may well show up in wages negotiated in the fu-
ture. I urge every member to write their state congressman and senator
in protest of the "right-to-work" law being incorporated into the state
constitution. Write your state representative and state senator and let the
delegate know how you feel.
POLITICS and INFLATION
The Minimum Wage Bill, HR 7935, was vetoed by President Nixon.
The President termed the bill as inflationary. The bill would raise the
present $1.60 to $2.00 per hour for most covered workers.
It seems almost unbelievable that the President could term $2.00 per
hour as inflationary and at the same time remain silent about oil com-
panies profits ranging from 56% to 280%.
It also seems distrubing , that after the price of gasoline has increased
to over 50 cents a gallon , that the fuel crisis is beginning to disappear.
If the price of gasoline ever reaches 70 cents a gallon you probably
couldn't find a closed filling station or empty pump in the Northern
Hemisphere.
Congress is now preceding with a second minimum wage bill that hope-
fully the President will sign into law. At $1.60 per hour you could work
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year and never earn enough money to sup-
port a family.
As working men and women we must defeat out enemies and elect our
friends. If you haven' t registered to vote, please do so today.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
In Union there is strength , justice, and moderation:
In disunion , nothing but an alternating humility and insolence.
COMING TOGETHER WAS A BEGINNING
STAYING TOGETHER IS PROGRESS
WORKING TOGETHER MEANS SUCCESS
THE PERSON WHO STANDS NEUTRAL, STANDS FOR NOTHING!
On about March 26 Hugh Terry, an employee of Respond-
ent and a vice president of the Union, asked Respondent's
assistant personnel director, Herbert George, if it would be
all right to distribute the circular in "clock alley" at the plant,
enabling each employee to get a copy upon clocking in or
out.' Terry explained that the Union preferred this proce-
dure to mailing because of the high postage rates.8
George replied that he doubted Respondent would allow
the Union to "hand out propaganda like that," but that
he would check with "higher management ." George pres-
ently did check with Leonard Menius , the personnel
director, who confirmed that it would not be permitted.
George conveyed that message to Terry on about April
1. He did not give Terry any reason for Respondent's
position.
On April 22, Union President Young, accompanied by
Terry and another employee, raised the matter with
George. Young asked if it would be permissible for
employees to distribute the circular, on nonworking
time, anywhere on Respondent's premises-if not in clock
alley, then on an outside walkway or in the parking lot.'
George initially responded "no," then said he would be
glad to "doublecheck" with Menius, which he did.
Menius was of the same view, and George informed
Young that permission would not, be granted. George
added, "We feel that you have other ways to com-
municate with your membership."
Young testified that the Union requested permission
for the sake of its "good relationship" with Respondent,
not out of any sense that permission was required by the
labor agreement or otherwise. The reason for the circu-
lar, he testified, was this:
We were going into negotiations , and . . . we was
trying to reorganize our group into a stronger group.
We were trying to get members, ' people that were
working there who were nonmembers, and try to
motivate or strengthen the conviction of our mem-
bers, and it was to organize a little.
Respondent concedes there was no requirement in the
labor agreement that permission be obtained, expressly
disavowing the applicability of plant rule 14 to the situa-
tion. Menius testified that he would not have withheld
consent, in clock alley or elsewhere, had the circular been
confined to the material under the "We Need You" and
"Food for Thought" captions. He objected to the balance
of the document, however, testifying, "I didn't see any
way in which that was related to our association with the
Union.""
In times past, Respondent has distributed literature con-
cerning its periodic safety contests from a table in clock alley.
The record also tells of instances when politicians and an auto
dealer distributed literature on the premises, but Menius in-
8 The record suggests that the Union's usual past practice was to use the
mails when making large-scale distributions, and that Respondent unfail-
ingly provided names and addresses of unit employees for this purpose.
9 George testified: "It was testified here earlier today that a request was
made for employees to pass it out. I did not get that impression. My impres-
sion was that Boyd Young, himself, wanted to pass out the material, for
whatever that is worth." George's "impression" notwithstanding, Young is
credited that his request was couched in terms of employees. Young himself
is a longtime employee of Respondent, on leave of absence to serve as union
7 Clock alley is a passageway 6 or 7 feet wide, flanked on either side by president.
administrative offices. In addition to time clocks, the area contains an em- 10 Further to this point, Respondent notes that while the commentary in
ployee bulletin board and benches and chairs for those waiting to transact the circular under "Politics and Inflation" deplores the presidential veto of
business in the offices. Clock alley is physically discrete from the production a bill raising the federal minimum hourly wage to $2.00, the lowest hourly
areas of the plant. wage among Respondent's employees is $3.68.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sists that Respondent never approved of those activities and
stopped them upon detection. In addition, Respondent's
supervisors have solicited in the plant in furtherance of
charity (United Appeals) and bond (U.S. Savings) drives, and
a campaign protesting the expansion of Big Thicket National
Park. This apparently consisted of seeking signatures on
pledge cards or petitions; there is no evidence that literature
was distributed. Finally, information is posted on a bulletin
board in clock alley telling the employees how to participate
in the Time-Life Books program at a reduced rate."
2. Analysis12
The Board stated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 210
NLRB 280 (1974):
As in any case which concerns an employer's restraint
of employees' efforts to distribute literature upon their
employer's plant premises, the first question we must
answer is whether the distribution is pertinent to a mat-
ter which is encompassed by Section 7 of the Act.
If that pertinence does not exist, there are no restraints in the
Act on the employer's power to ban distribution.
Menius, although having no objection to distribution of
two sections of the Union's circular, prohibited distribution
because he "didn't see any way in which that [the other two
sections] was related to our association with the Union." That
articulation is not the true test of the requisite Section 7 tie-in.
Rather, to quote from G & W Electric Specialty Company,
154 NLRB 1136, 1137-38 (1965):
[T]he protection afforded by Section 7 is not strictly
confined to activities which are immediately related to
the employment relationship or working conditions.
... [A]lthough the mandatory subjects of collective bar-
gaining designated in Sections 8(d) and 9(a) relate only
to working conditions and the employment relationship,
Section 7 provides that employees shall have the right,
inter alia, to engage in "concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection." [Emphasis supplied.] To construe this provi-
sion as protecting only activities directly and immedi-
ately involving the employment relationship would
therefore be to read the phrase "or other mutual aid or
protection" out of the Act.
Illustrative of the reach of this reasoning, the Board found
unlawful an employer's ban against on-premises implementa-
tion by its employees of their union's plan to collect money
for grape workers attempting to organize in Delano, Cali-
fornia (General Electric Co., 169 NLRB 1101 1968); a circuit
court found unlawful the discharge of a union president/em-
ployee for promoting an employee resolution condemning the
employer's posture relative to a strike of another employer's
employees [N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates
11 Respondent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Time, Incorporated.
12 Although most of the cases cited by Respondent on this issue are not
mentioned in this decision , they have been considered . If not distinguishable
from the present case in their fundamental facts, they embody circuit court
repudiations of Board law . Board law, not that of the circuits , is binding in
this proceeding. E.g., Bricklayers Local Union No. 1, 209 NLRB 820, fn. 1
(1974).
Co., 130 F. 2d 503 (C.A. 2, 1942)]; and another circuit court
noted that "mutual aid or protection " in Section 7 includes
the "appearance of employee representatives before legisla-
tive committees ." Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,
114 F.2d 930, 937 (C.A. 1, 1940).
Looking at the two sections of the Union 's circular on
which Menius based Respondent 's refusal , one dealt with
Texas's so-called right-to-work law , commenting among
other things:
The "right -to-work" law is simply an attempt to weaken
the strength of Unions .. . . It simply weakens the nego-
tiating power of Unions . . . . If you fail to take action
against the "right-to-work" law it may well show up in
wages negotiated in the future . I urge every member to
write their state congressman and senator in protest of
the "right-to-work" law being incorporated into the
state constitution.
Union security being central to the union concept of strength
through solidarity , and being moreover a mandatory subject
of bargaining in other than right -to-work states , it is plain
that this commentary is "pertinent to a matter which is en-
compassed by Section 7 of the Act" as the Board and courts
see it . Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N.L.R. B., supra, indi-
cates that this conclusion is in no way negated by the cir-
cular 's advocacy of political means to the desired end.
The other section on which Menius ' refusal was based,
dealing with the Federal minimum wage law and inflation
and urging the election of legislators favorable to a higher
minimum wage , also is pertinent in terms of Section 7, even
though Respondent 's employees receive well over the sought-
after minimum wage. The minimum wage inevitably influ-
ences wage levels derived from collective bargaining, even
those far above the minimum . Beyond that, as the Board
observed in General Electric Co., supra at 1103, concern by
Respondent's employees for the plight of other employees
"might gain support for them at some future time when they
might have a dispute with their employer."
So it is that the sections of the Union 's circular cited by
Respondent to support its refusal were entitled to those distri-
bution privileges the act allows , no less than the circular's
other portions . But even if they were not, even if Respondent
were correct that only portions of the circular bore Section
7 pertinence , Respondent would not thereby have been justi-
fied in denying its distribution . Thus, in Samsonite Corpora-
tion, 206 NLRB 343 , the Board adopted the decision of Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Taplitz containing this statement:
The fact that some of the articles in the newsletter con-
tained gratuitous remarks or "social comment" matters
does not detract from the conclusion that the distribu-
tion . . . was a concerted activity [protected by Section
7].
It being established that the Union's circular was entitled
to those distribution privileges allowed by the Act, the ques-
tion remains whether Respondent, by banning distribution by
employees anywhere on its premises, impinged upon those
privileges in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The Board, recogniz-
ing inherent differences between solicitations and distribu-
tions, permits greater restrictions on Section 7 distributions
EASTEX INC.
than solicitations. While a no-solicitation rule generally must
be limited to working time, a no-distribution rule properly
can extend to working areas even on nonworking time. A
no-distribution rule that obtains on nonworking times in non-
working areas, however, is presumptively invalid. See gener-
ally Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615
(1962).
As previously noted, the term "working time" for this
purpose "connotes the period of time that is spent in the
performance of actual job duties, which would not include
[for instance] time allotted for lunch and break periods."
Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974). The term
"working areas" embraces only those portions of a plant
where production tasks actually are performed and does not
include separate time-clock areas (Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 211
NLRB 487 (1974)), much less parking lots and other areas
outside the plant.
It is clear , notwithstanding the greater latitude given no-
distribution rules, that Respondent's refusal to permit distri-
bution of the Union's circular anywhere on the
premises-in clock alley, the outer walkway, or the parking
lot-went beyond working time and working areas, and so
violated Section 8(a)(1) absent special circumstances. Of the
latter, there is neither argument nor proof."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining a plant-rule contract provision which
prohibits employees from soliciting during nonworking time
concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7
rights, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By prohibiting employees from distributing literature on
nonworking time in nonworking areas concerning matters
relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent did not otherwise violate the Act in the
manner alleged.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record," and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
13 "Accordingly," as the Supreme Court said in N.L.R.B. v. Magnavox
Company of Tennessee, supra, "this is not the occasion to balance the availa-
bility of alternative channels of communications against a legitimate em-
ployer business justification for barring or limiting inplant communica-
tions."
In concluding that the prohibition against distributing the Union's circular
violated the Act, it is deemed unnecessary to consider the charity and bond
drives, the campaign concerning Big Thicket National Park, Time-Life
Books, and the distributions from clock alley about Respondent's safety
contests. Disparate treatment is relevant only in the case of a colorably
lawful no-distribution rule, or to show that an employer's stated justifica-
tions for a presumptively invalid rule are pretextuous. Further, the charity
and bond drives, the Big Thicket campaign, and Time-Life Books were more
akin to solicitations than distributions, so would not show disparate treat-
ment in any event. Cf. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra at 620, fn.
6.
14 Errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
15 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by
ORDER15
275
Respondent, Eastex Incorporated, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:,
1. Cease and desist from:
a. Maintaining a plant rule or contract provision which
prohibits employees from soliciting during nonworking time
concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7
rights.
b. Prohibiting employees from distributing literature on
nonworking time in nonworking areas concerning matters
relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
a. Post at its plant copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
b. Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
That portion of the complaint found without merit is dis-
missed.
Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board, the findings, conclusions, 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.
16 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 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
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The trial held in Beaumont, Texas, on July 23, 1974, in
which we participated and had a chance to give evidence,
resulted in a decision that we had committed certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and this notice is posted
pursuant to that decision.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or suport unions
To bargain as a group through a representative they
choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In recognition of these rights , we hereby notify our em- WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from distributing lit-
ployees that : erature on nonworking time in nonworking areas con-
WE WILL NOT maintain a plant rule or contract provi - cerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section
sion which prohibits employees from soliciting during 7 rights.
nonworking time concerning matters relating to the ex- EASTEX INCORPORATED
ercise of their Section 7 rights.