Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 855 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY 855
Ford Motor Company (Romeo Tractor & Equipment
Plant) and Alfonso S. Badalamento and Interna-
tional Union, United' Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), Party to the Contract. Case 7-CA-12105
February 11, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On October 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding; Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting 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 brief
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
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, Ford Motor Company (Ro-
meo Tractor & Equipment Plant), Dearborn, Michi-
gan, its officers,- agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in said recommended Order.
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain
facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied
allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practic-
es.
At the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent
were represented by counsel. The Party to the Contract,
although served with copies of all pleadings, did not ap-
pear. All parties were given full opportunity to examine
and cross-examine• witnesses, and to file briefs. Oral argu-
ment was presented by Respondent, but waived by the
General Counsel. On October 14, 1975, briefs were re-
ceived from both the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of
counsel, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its pnn-
cipal office and place of business in Dearborn, Michigan,
maintains many offices and plants throughout the United
States. At the Romeo Tractor & Equipment Plant, located
in Romeo, Michigan (herein Romeo plant), scene of the
dispute in question, the Respondent is engaged in the man-
ufacture, sale,` and distribution of tractors, replacement
parts, and related products. During the last calendar year
preceding issuance of the complaint the Respondent's pur-
chases of steel and other materials exceeded $1 million, of
which amount materials valued in excess of $500,000 were
delivered to the Romeo plant- from outside the State of
Michigan. During the same period, the Respondent sold
and distributed from that plant products valued in excess
of $1 million, of which amount products valued in excess
of $500,000 were shipped from that facility directly to
points located outside the State of Michigan. Upon the
foregoing facts the Respondent concedes, and it is now
found, that the Ford Motor Company (Romeo Tractor &
Equipment Plant) is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law-Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judges resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard on September 16, 1975, in Detroit, -Michigan,
pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a com-
plaint issued on July 30, 1975. The complaint presents
questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section
i The charge was filed on June 13, 1975.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, _ United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called UAW, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent and UAW have had a nationwide col-
lective-bargaining agreement for many years . Throughout
this period UAW has been the bargaining agent for a unit
made up of the production and maintenance employees at
the Romeo plant, as well as for similar units at numerous
other plants of the Ford Motor Company throughout the
United States.
222 NLRB No. 138
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alfonso S. Badalamento, the Charging Party, is an em-
ployee of the Respondent's Sterling plant, located at War-
ren, Michigan, where he is a toolmaker. In addition to
being a member of UAW, Badalamento is president of Lo-
cal I of the International Society of Skilled Trades (herein
ISST), a labor organization that seeks to establish craft
units for the skilled trades employees at all plants of the
automotive industry. In connection with its organizational
efforts the ISST publishes a newspaper, The Craftsman,
which extols the desirability of craft unionism.
B. The Facts
The Respondent has maintained at all times material
various rules for employees at the Romeo Plant. ,In its an-
swer, the Respondent conceded that the preface to these
rules reads as follows:
ROMEO TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT PLANT
General Plant Rules and Regulations
The following rules and regulations are applicable to
all employes of the Romeo Tractor and Equipment
Plant. Violations of these rules may subject an em-
ploye to disciplinary action. These rules are not in-
tended to be complete and appropriate action may be
taken toward other forms of misconduct. If and when
additional rules or regulations are required, bulletin
boards will be used to announce them so that all em-
ployes will have the opportunity of knowing of their
existence.
Some of the conduct prohibited by the foregoing rules is
set forth in Rule 31, the text of which appears below:
Campaigning, speech-making or distribution of print-
ed or written literature of any type on Company prop-
erty without permission of the Industrial Relations
Department.
In its answer the Respondent conceded that this rule,
inter alia, was promulgated, and maintained in effect,-pur-
suant to article IV, section 5 of its collective-bargaining
agreement with UAW which provides:
The right of the Company to make such reasonable
rules and regulations, not in conflict with this Agree-
ment, as it may from time to time deem best for the
purposes of maintaining order, safety, and/or effective
operation of Company plants, and, after advance no-
tice thereof to the Union and the employees, to re-
quire compliance therewith by employees, is recog-
nized. The Union reserves the right to question the
reasonableness of the Company's rules or regulations
through the Grievance Procedure.
On or about June 12, 1975, Badalamento arrived at the
employee parking lot of the Romeo plant 2 where he began
the distribution of the current issue of The Craftsman and
a flyer attached to it. The latter was addressed to "Fellow
Tradesmen" and solicited help from the Romeo employees
2 The Romeo plant and the Sterling plant are approximately 24 nules
apart.
in distributing the paper. It was signed by Badalamento
and a fellow officer of the ISST. Earlier that morning Ba-
dalamento had carried out his distribution of ISST litera-
ture at the employee parking lots of the Ford vinyl plant
and the Ford paint plant, both of which were in the general
vicinity of the Romeo plant. At neither of these other loca-
tions had Badalamento encountered any interference from
the management.
After Badalamento had distributed about 200 newspa-
pers and flyers at the Romeo lot by affixing them to the
windshield wipers on the employees' cars, he was stopped
by Lester Thrash, security section supervisor at that plant.
Thrash asked to see Badalamento's identification card as a
Ford employee. At the time, Badalamento was in layoff
status and had been required to turn in his identification
card when he was laid off.3 Badalamento sought, without
success, to establish his identity as a Ford employee by
showing his payroll stubs and his driver' s license . Thrash
then inquired as to whether Badalamento had secured per-
mission from the Respondent to distribute any literature.
When the latter answered in the negative, Trash told him
that he would not be permitted to distribute anything fur-
ther without permission from Henry Wells, a supervisor in
the labor relations section.
Badalamento thereupon accompanied Thrash to the se-
curity office, where the latter telephoned his superior. After
completing this call, Thrash told Badalamento that he
would not be permitted to place any more literature on car
windows or windshields in the employees' parking lot, but
that he could distribute literature at the gate which was
between the parking lot and the plant. Badalamento ob-
jected to this suggestion on the ground that he would meet
few, if any, employees at that location since he was not
there at a shift change. Thrash then told Badalamento that
he could resume placing his printed material on car wind-
shields. About 10 minutes later, however, Thrash informed
him that John Roberts, industrial relations manager for the
plant, had ordered that this activity cease immediately. Ba-
dalamento thereupon left the premises and filed the unfair
labor practice charge which resulted in the issuance of the
complaint in the instant case.
At the hearing Badalamento testified that there are ap-
proximately 100 automotive plants in the Detroit area,4 so
that when these plants are operating at full capacity on a
three-shift basis there are approximately 300 shift changes
a day. According to Badalamento, if the ISST is prevented
from distributing its leaflets at the plant parking lots and
required to reach the employees solely at the plant gates
when they are coming to, or leaving work, its organiza-
tional burden will be greatly increased, if not insurmounta-
ble. Supervisor Thrash testified that the employee parking
lots must be kept under surveillance to prevent thefts and
vandalism, but the Respondent offered no evidence to es-
tablish that the rule against distribution, as applied to the
parking lots, was necessary to maintain production, disci-
pline, or security.
9 Although on layoff status at the time in question, at some point prior to
the hearing, Badalamento was recalled to full-time employment at the Ster-
ling plant.
These are the plants of not only Ford, but also General Motors and
Chrysler.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 857
There was evidence that members of the incumbent
union did not encounter Badalamento's difficulty in secur-
ing permission to distribute organizational pamphlets. Lo-
cal 400 of UAW represents the employees at the Romeo
facility and at some eight other Ford plants in the Detroit
area. Thrash conceded that in May 1975, and prior to an
election for officers in that local, one Tony Pizano, a candi-
date for the post of recording secretary, who was not an
employee of the Romeo plant (although a Ford employee),
secured permission from the Respondent to pass out cam-
paign literature. He further testified that during the same
period others who were not working at the Romeo plant,
but who were Ford employees, passed out campaign flyers
in the employee parking lot. Supervisor Henry Wells ac-
knowledged that during the aforesaid UAW election cam-
paign other employees were given permission similar to
that accorded to Pizano.
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(I); Findings and
Conclusions in Connection Therewith
Plant Rule 31, set forth earlier, forbids employee solicita-
tion or distribution even in nonwork areas and on nonwork
time without the permission of the Industrial Relations De-
partment. A similar rule at the Sterling plant was found
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in another Board
case in which Badalamento was the Charging Party. Ford
Motor Company (Sterling Plant); (Unreported, Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision, Case 7-CA-10867, issued June
21, 1974)_ At the hearing in the instant case, counsel for the
Respondent stated that the Company plans to revoke Rule
31. Nevertheless, it was still in effect at the time of the
hearing. On its face, the rule is overly broad. Essex Interna-
tional, Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974); Republic Aviation Corpo-
ration, 324 U.S. 793, 803, footnote 10 (1945). By maintain-
ing and enforcing this rule the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Of course, it is no defense that the bar-
gaining agent did not object to this conduct. Magnavox
Company of Tennessee, 415 U.S. 322 (1974).
In its brief, the Respondent contends that the real issue
in this case is not whether Rule 31 is invalid, but whether
Badalamento, an employee of the Sterling plant, had a
right to enter upon the property of the Romeo plant to
distribute literature. Thus, the Respondent would limit the
distribution and solicitation rights of employees to the spe-
cific plant at which they are working.
It is clear from the record that Badalamento was distrib-
uting literature at the Romeo plant to secure support for
the ISST goal of severing the craft employees from the
existing nationwide production and maintenance bargain-
ing unit. At all times material he was an employee of the
Ford Motor Company.5 As such he is a member of the
nationwide bargaining unit for which UAW has been the
bargaining agent for many years. His contractual rights as
5 As found earlier, when the incident occurred at the Romeo plant he was
an employee on layoff status but at some point prior to the hearing he had
been recalled and was working full time. Although Security Officer Thrash
questioned his employee status, at the hearing the Respondent did not dis-
pute Badalamento's claim to status as a Ford employee at all times in ques-
tion
a Ford employee are set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement which the Ford Motor Company and UAW
have negotiated periodically on behalf of the nationwide
unit. Consequently, it is now held that Badalamento's orga-
nizational rights as a Ford employee to solicit support and
to distribute material in furtherance of the ISST objective
of severing the skilled trades from the nationwide unit are
not limited solely to the Sterling plant where he is currently
working.
In its brief the Respondent reties on GTE Lenkurt, Incor-
porated 204 NLRB 921 (1973), wherein the Board held that
a nondiscriminatory rule forbidding access to the premises
for any purposes to off duty employees is presumptively
valid if not disparately applied against protected activities.
In that case a Board majority held that it was not a viola-
tion of the Act when the nondiscriminatory application of
such a rule operated to bar an off duty employee from
soliciting or distributing union literature. The Lenkurt case,
however, differs from the present situation because the Re-
spondent herein does not have an existing rule which bars
from the plant premises all off duty employees. Further,
and apart from the fact that, as found above, Rule 31 is
invalid, it is clear that it was discriminatorily applied. As
found earlier, during a recent UAW election campaign,
Pizano, as well as other non-Romeo plant employees, was
authorized to enter the premises and engage in campaign
activities during an election contest that involved the in-
cumbent union. On the other hand, when Badalamento
sought to engage in organizational activity on behalf of the
ISST, a manifest rival of the UAW, the plant official con-
cerned denied him that permission.
Badalamento was not a "stranger" who appeared at the
Romeo plant premises, but an employee temporarily on
layoff status. Since the rule whereby the Respondent
sought to prevent his access to the employee parking lot
was invalid and in the recent past had been discriminatori-
ly interpreted to support the campaign activities of the in-
cumbent union, it is now found that the Board's decision in
Lenkurt is not applicable here. Consequently, it was a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) not only for the Respondent to
maintain Rule 31, but also to apply it discriminatorily so as
to bar Badalamento from distributing literature on behalf
of the ISST. Cf. Litho Press of San Antonio, 211 NLRB
1014 (1974); Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Tampa Di-
vision, 199 NLRB 783, 787-788 (1972).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and UAW
is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that the Respondent's Rule 31 has been
maintained and enforced in contravention of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respon-
dent be ordered to cease and desist from maintaining and
enforcing said rule to prevent employees from entering or
remaining on its premises during their nonworking time for
the purpose of distributing union literature in nonworking
areas.
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:
ORDER6
Respondent Ford Motor Company (Romeo Tractor &
Equipment Plant),. Dearborn, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing any rules
that prohibit employees from distributing literature to or
soliciting, other employees in nonworking areas of the
Respondent's plants and premises on nonworking time for
self-organizational or other purposes under Section 7 of the
Act, or that require employees to obtain permission to en-
gage in such distribution or solicitation.
(b) Warning, or otherwise penalizing employees who en-
gage in, or fail to obtain permission for, such distribution
or solicitation.
(c) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind and cease giving effect to Rule 31 of the
General Plant Rules and Regulations for the Romeo Trac-
tor & Equipment Plant.
(b) Post at its Romeo plant in Romeo, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), after being duly signed
by one of its authorized representatives, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings ; conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by 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
WE WILL NOT maintain, give effect to, or enforce any
rules that prohibit you from distributing literature to,
or soliciting, other employees in nonworking areas of
the company plants or premises on nonworking time
for self-organizational or other purposes under Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and we will not
require you to obtain permission to engage in such
distribution, or solicitation.
WE WILL NOT warn you, or otherwise penalize you
for engaging in, or failing to obtain permission for,
any such distribution of literature or solicitation.
WE WILL NOT discourage you from engaging in any
such distribution of literature or solicitation, or from
becoming or remaining members of any union, by
warning or penalty or other discrimination in condi-
tions of employment imposed upon you because you
engage in any such distribution of literature or solici-
tation.
WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to
self-organization, mutual aid, or other rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY