Firestone Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 826 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of Fire-
stone Tire and Rubber Company and Local 174, In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Argricultulal Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 7-CA 15811
September 4, 1979
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding. the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MlMIRS JENKINS
ANI) PNEi.I.()
Upon a charge filed on November 29, 1978, by Lo-
cal 174, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), herein called Local 174, and duly
served on Firestone Steel Products Company, a Divi-
sion of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. herein
called Respondent, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7, issued a complaint on March 16,
1979, alleging that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(a)( ) and 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that Respondent violated
the Act by refusing, on November 6, 1978, to allow
Local 174 to distribute to Respondent's employees in
nonworking areas during nonworking time at its Riv-
erview, Michigan, plant various leaflets espousing the
merits of various individuals running for office in the
statewide election of November 7, 1978, and threat-
ening employees with "unspecified" discipline if they
attempted to distribute copies of the said leaflets in
the nonworking areas of the plant during nonworking
time. In its answer dated March 29, 1979, and its
amended answer dated April 3, 1979, Respondent ad-
mitted all of the basic factual allegations of the com-
plaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices, and prayed that the complaint be dis-
missed.
On April 24, 1979, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment with exhibits attached. Subsequently, on
May 3, 1979, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of the
transfer and in opposition to consideration of sum-
mary judgment, requesting the Board to deny sum-
mary judgment and reset the case for an evidentiary
hearing.
In its answer, Respondent admits that on or about
November 6, 1978, it refused to allow its union-repre-
sented employees to distribute various leaflets to its
employees in nonworking areas during nonworking
times at its Riverview, Michigan, plant and that it
advised the union representatives that if employees
attempted to distribute the various leaflets, they
would be subject to "unspecified" disciplinary ac-
tions. In light of Respondent's admission, the facts of
this case are not in dispute: the Union requested per-
mission, and Respondent refused to allow its employ-
ees to distribute the leaflets in question. Thus, the
only question for resolution is whether Respondent's
refusal to allow the distribution interfered with its
employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act.
The distribution of literature by employees in an
employer's plant during nonworking times and in
nonworking areas has long been recognized as a pro-
tected concerted activity provided that the literature
sought to be distributed falls within the scope of the
"mutual aid or protection" clause of Section 7 of the
Act. It is also clear that the mutual aid or protection
clause is to be interpreted with regard to the relation-
ship the employees' concerted activity bears to the
improvement of the employees' working conditions.
In its decision in Eastex, Inc.,2 the Supreme Court
noted, however, that "some concerted activity bears a
less immediate relationship to employees' interests as
employees than other such activity," stating that it
was the task of the Board initially to delineate the
boundaries of the mutual aid or protection clause on
a case-by-case basis, and cited with approval our de-
cision in Ford Motor Company,3 wherein we held that
"purely political tract[s]" were sufficiently removed
from the employees' interests as employees so as to
remove such distribution from protection under the
mutual aid or protection clause.
An examination of the leaflets in issue herein
clearly establishes that they are purely political
tract[s]. Both relate to the November 7, 1978, state-
wide election in Michigan. The first supports the can-
didacies of two individuals running for election to the
I Eastex. Inc. v N.L.R.B., 437 U.s. 556 (19781.
2 Supra at 567, 568. and fn. 18.
3221 NLRB 663 (1975). enfd. 546 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1976).
244 NLRB No. 148
826
FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO
Michigan Supreme Court. The second supports the
candidacies of two other individuals, one running for
Governor of the State of Michigan and the other run-
ning for United States Senator from the State of
Michigan. In neither case can the leaflets he found to
relate to employee problems and concerns as employ-
ees. In light of these facts, we find that the leaflets
sought to be distributed at Respondent's premises on
November 6, 1978. are not protected, and Respon-
dent's refusal to allow their distribution is not viola-
tive of the Act.4
Accordingly, we shall deny the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment. Inasmuch as there is
no other matter before us for resolution, it is clear
that the complaint should be dismissed. Respondent,
however, did not file a cross-motion for summary
judgment. In Vallev Ford Sales, Inc., dhba FriendA
Ford, 211 NLRB 834 (1974), the Board,5 in a similar
situation, noting that no party had requested that the
complaint be dismissed, issued a Notice To Show
Cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.
Here, we have before us in Respondent's answer a
request that the complaint be dismissed, and we be-
lieve that this is sufficient to justify the grant of sum-
mary judgment in favor of the nonmoving party
4 Ford Motor Cornmpaqv supra.
I Then-Member Fanning and Member Jenkins dissenting on the merits.
where it is clear as a matter of law that a judgment
should be entered in that party's favor. Obviousl,, if
the moving party is actively prosecuting or defending
an action, it is that party's desire to secure a judgment
in its favor. In such a circumstance, we see no reason
unnecessarily to burden parties with the firmalities of
highly techincal rules of pleading in order to secure
that to which they are entitled. and such a procedure
is in full accord with the accepted practice of the Fed-
eral courts in granting summary judgment to non-
moving parties."
Accordingly, we shall. sua sp)onW. grant summar
judgment in favor of Respondent and dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10c) of the National l.abor
Relations Act, as amended, the National I.abor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
6 See Judge Medina's opinion n L.,c I .33. Inririlatlll /l*d (i .rr.r
Budding and Common laborers' niion of .4mric v Mason lT'ndl r Deir I
Council of Greater Ne. rk. etc. 291 F 2d 496, 505 2d ('ir 1961) Sec al.so
3 Barron and Holtzoff "Federal Practice and Procedure" 1239 I\ right Fd
1958): and Pitrr v. Knowles. 339 FSupp. 1183. 1186 C 9ts,. 1972). aflld.
without opinion 478 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 19731 In these circumstances. we do
not pass on Respondent's motion for reconsidera.on ir the trantler of this
case to the oard.
827