Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

FORD) MOTOR COMPANY
Ford Motor Company and John Ellis. Case 7 CA-
13486
November 30, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEI.I.O, MURPHY AND TRUESDAL F
On August 15, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
George F. Mclnerny issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed
in its entirety.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's 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 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we find it unnec-
essary to reach the question of whether, as suggested by the Administrative
Law Judge, certain demonstrations are so inherently disruptive that even in
the absence of any evidence of interference with production such should be
inferred. In this connection. we note that, as found by the Administrative
Law Judge, credited testimony established interference with production here.
In reaching our decision herein. we also find it unnecessary to rely on the
several cases cited by the Administrative Law Judge which involved whether
publication of false statements or inflammatory propaganda constituted pro-
tected concerted activity.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE F. MCINERNY. Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed on November 5. 1976, by John Ellis. an
individual, the Regional Director for Region 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein referred to as the
Board, issued a complaint on November 17. 1978, alleging
that the Ford Motor Company. herein referred to as Re-
spondent, or the Company, had violated the National La-
bor Relations Act. as amended, herein referred to as the
Act. by suspending its employees John Ellis. Robert Par-
sons. John Abbott, and Claude Williams because they en-
gaged in concerted activities protected under the Act. Re-
spondent has denied the commission of an, unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice contained in the complaint a hearing
was held in Detroit, Michigan. on April 12. 1979. at which
the parties presented evidence, examined and cross-exam-
ined witnesses, and were given full opportunity to argue
orally. Following the close of the hearing. Respondent and
the General Counsel filed briefs, which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record, including my observations of the
witnesses and their demeanor. I make the following:
FINI)INGS ()F FA(I
I. HE BUSINESS OF RESP()NDENI
The Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation
which maintains its principal office and place of business in
Dearborn, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture. sale, and distribution of automobiles, trucks, automo-
tive parts, and other related products. During the year end-
ing December 31, 1976. which is representative of its
operations at all times material to this case, Respondent
shipped from its Dearborn. Michigan, location products
valued at more than $500,000 directly to points outside the
State of Michigan. The complaint alleges. the answer ad-
mits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. Itt L.ABI)R ORGANIZAIION INNOI.V l)
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Local 600, International Union, United Automobile. Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.
herein referred to as the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE AI.EGE) UNFAIR LABOR PRA('I('iS
A. Background
In this case. to a greater extent than usual, the back-
ground facts and circumstances extend forward into the
substantive aspects of the current situation. Indeed, I am
urged by the General Counsel to base a finding of discrimi-
natory intent in this case upon the findings and conclusions
of the Board in a prior case involving this Respondent. this
plant. and these alleged discriminatees.' Despite Respon-
dent's contrary view, there is nothing to prevent me from
taking judicial notice of this prior proceeding, which I do.
N.L.R.B. v. American Art Industries. Inc., 415 F.2d 1223
(5th Cir. 1969).
In the Rouge Complex case there was a finding that the
Union and the Company have maintained a collective-bar-
gaining relationship for many years. The decision noted
that in the spring of 1976. in response to Respondent's pro-
Flord Motor Compnlp (Rouge Conmplho. 233 NL.RB 698 (1977). herein
referred to as the Rouge (omplex case
246 NLRB No. 107
671
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed increase in its production rate, carrying with it the
possibility of substantial layoffs of employees, and in frus-
tration over the Union's response to this company action, a
group of individual employees including Robert Parsons,
John Abbott, John Ellis, and Jerry Fuqua2 formed an or-
ganization named "Time to Unite."
Thereafter, these employees engaged in distributing lit-
erature to, and soliciting signatures among, other employ-
ees. They were disciplined by Respondent for violation of
its no-solicitation, no-distribution rules, which had been ac-
ceded to by the Union.
The Board held that the employees had engaged in con-
certed activities protected by Section 7 of the Act; that any
waiver by the Union could not effectively abrogate these
rights; that the Company's rule prohibiting solicitation and
distribution with respect to union matters on company
premises was invalid; and that the Company had violated
the Act by enforcing that rule through the suspensions of
Parsons, Ellis, Abbott, and Fuqua, and by threatening Fu-
qua that he and the others would suffer discharge if they
continued these activities.
On the basis of the Company's conduct, found by the
Board to be violative of the Act, the General Counsel
wishes me to find that Respondent has a "pre-established
intent to silence 'Time to Unite.'"
Following the events which gave rise to the Rouge Com-
plex case the employees who had coalesced into the Time to
Unite organization also became affiliated with what was
described as a "nationwide rank-and-file auto workers
group" called Auto Workers United to Fight in 1976. Aside
from their concern with speedup of production, discussed in
the Rouge Complex decision, these groups became involved
in the spring of 1976 with the upcoming automobile indus-
try collective-bargaining negotiations. The record is not
particularly clear in delineating either the specific objectives
desired, or actions taken, and there is no evidence at all
concerning the fundamental purposes or ultimate goals of
Time to Unite or Auto Workers United to Fight in 1976.
However, there was testimony that they participated in, or
at least were active around, the March bargaining conven-
tion of the UAW at Cobo Hall in Detroit, in March 1976.?
They also had formulated a list of demands which, among
other unspecified things, concerned the speedup and the
expansion of the right to strike during the duration of the
collective-bargaining agreement. They circulated literature
explaining their views and distributed T-shirts which bore
an illustration of an auto worker bursting out of chains
labeled "UAW International" and "Big Four," and bearing
the legends "A Time to Fight," and on the back "No Sell-
out in '76," "Autoworkers United to Fight in '76."
In the period prior to the expiration of the then-current
collective-bargaining agreement on September 14, 1976, at
midnight, these activities continued. About 3 days before
September 14. Ellis, Parsons, Abbott, Fuqua, and another
employee, Claude Williams, determined that they would
2 Fuqua is referred to throughout the record in the instant case as "Fe-
kua." Fuqua was named in the charge along with Ellis and the others. Hie
was not named in the complaint because, as admitted by the General Coun-
sel, and as stated in the record, he had been found to have involved himself
in the demonstration engaged in by the alleged discriminalees while he
should have been working.
All dates herein are in 1976.
lead a demonstration in the plant during their lunch hour,
which is the incident involved here.
B. The Plant
The Dearborn Stamping Plant, a part of the Company's
River Rouge Complex, is a two-story building containing
over a million square feet. On the second floor are the
stamping operations where about 1,200 people are em-
ployed. The first, or ground, floor houses the assembly op-
erations together with support facilities such as repair and
maintenance, washrooms, and five employee cafeterias. The
first floor is divided by a main aisle 20 feet in width which
runs the entire 1,000-foot length of the building. The aisle is
located in the eastern third of the building which is oriented
on a north-south axis, with the two-thirds of the building to
the west of it devoted to manufacturing, and the portion to
the east of the aisle used for support services and the em-
ployee cafeterias. At the south end of the aisle, the first floor
is pierced by a four-lane roadway, road number 4, which is
one of the main thoroughfares within the Rouge complex.
The second floor extends over and beyond this roadway.
and the first floor continues on the other side, leaving a
space which is variously referred to in the record as the
"underpass," "tunnel," or "viaduct." There are a number of
doors leading from the first floor to the roadway, or more
properly to a sidewalk which abuts the roadway, and there
are numerous stairways on both sides of the roadway lead-
ing from the first floor to a mezzanine, which houses admin-
istrative offices, and the second floor production area.
The main aisle is the heaviest traveled aisle on the floor.
It is used by all the employees on that floor to travel from
one part of the floor to another, to fetch tools from the main
tool crib which is located in the aisle, or to get from the
production area to the cafeterias and washrooms located on
the other side of the aisle. The aisle is also heavily used by
vehicles of various kinds transporting materials from one
part of the floor to another. Aisles and passages open up
from this main aisle leading into the production areas to the
west. There is some conflict in the testimony as to the dis-
tance of the work areas on the west side of the aisle from
the aisle itself, but it is clear that, for at least some portions
of the aisle, the work areas are close to or directly on the
aisle. In addition, there are some work areas occupied by
scrap handlers, material handlers, and others located east of
the aisle.
There was testimony that the first floor of the Dearborn
Stamping Plant is not a very noisy place as industrial plants
go. The heavy stamping machinery is located on the second
floor and the noise level, at least in parts of the first floor, is
low enough so that employees could hear, or be attracted
by, unusual noises coming from the main aisle.
Of the 2,000 production employees employed by Respon-
dent on the third shift, from 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m., about
1,200 worked on the second floor, and the remaining 800 on
the first floor. The lunch breaks for these employees were
staggered, with those working on the second floor going to
lunch between 8 and 8:30 and the first floor from 8:30 to 9.
Since the lunchrooms, or cafeterias, were all located on the
first floor, the second floor employees would have to de-
scend to the first floor to buy and eat lunch. There is no
evidence that there were any areas set aside for this purpose
672
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
on the second floor, even if employees brought their own
food and drink.
It is difficult on the basis of this record to evaluate the
mood in the plant that night. Parsons testified that the
mood was anticipatory. some people looking forward to the
strike, which appeared at that time to be inevitable. while
others were not. There is no further indication that the at-
mosphere was tense. or highly charged, or merely reflective
of dull resignation to the course of events, or at some inter-
mediate emotional point.
C. 7Thi Deon.traltion
It was with this background and in this setting that there
occurred the events which the General Counsel claims con-
stitute protected concerted activity and, because of which.
he further claims. the employees named in the complaint
were wrongfully disciplined by Respondent.
All of those employees, Ellis, Parsons, Abbott. and Wil-
liams, worked on the third shift. from 4 p.m. to I 2:3( a.m.
As noted above, these four, together with uqua. had
planned a demonstration to take place on the night of Sep-
tember 14. the last night before the expiration of the con-
tract between Respondent and the Union. Thus, when the
second floor lunch hour began at 8 p.m. that night. Parsons.
Abbott.4 and the others, wearing the T-shirts described
above, descended to the A-I cafeteria.' There they met oth-
ers of like mind, about 20 or 30 employees, and commenced
their demonstration. The initial assembly took place inside
one entrance to the A-I cafeteria. proceeded through the
room, and then out the other door and into the main aisle.
The marchers proceeded north tip the aisle. chanting slo-
gans and gesturing to others to join them. The slogan ini-
tially chanted was "Auto workers time to unite. '76 contract
is the time to fight." They also chanted "Lets' make this a
real strike, '76 contract is the time to fight," and "Come on,
lets' go." As the demonstration progressed up the aisle it
grew in numbers, estimated variously between 50 and 80
people, and the chant became a repetitive "lets' go," despite
the efforts of the organizers to revert to the original slogans.
The demonstration proceeded up the aisle, into and out
the other two cafeterias until they reached the north end of
the aisle, then came about and returned heading south
down the aisle, this time without detouring into the cafete-
rias but continuing to chant "lets' go" and gesturing to em-
ployees on both sides of the aisle to join them.
In the meantime Supervisor of Labor Relations Frank
Drabek and the plant's industrial relations manager, Louis
Cecchim, who had remained on duty beyond their normal
hours of work because of information that there was "going
to be a walkout-on the night of the 14th," were advised of
the fact that a demonstration was in progress, left their of-
fices on the mezzanine, and arrived at about the half-way
point in the main aisle at a time when the demonstration
had turned south and was headed back toward the point of
beginning. As the demonstrators approached, Cecchini in-
structed Drabek and General Foreman Fred Perdue to
stand in the aisle, hold their hands up, and tell the demon-
'These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Parsons and
Abbott. the only witnesses who testified on this aspect of the demonstration.
5 This is located at the south end of the main aisle on the first floor. just
north of the evil to road number 4
strators that they were participating in an illegal work stop-
page, and. i they continued. the would be subject to disci-
pline up to and including discharge. The demonstrators
paid no attention to these admonitions but continued.
chanting, around the two officials toward the A-I cafeteria.
'There is no evidence of any conversation or verbal ex-
changes as the group flowed past l)rabek and Perdue.
When they reached the cafeteria, half or more of the
demonstrators left the group and went into the lunchroonl
25 or 30 continued to the south end of the building and out
the door leading onto road number 4. across the road, and
into the other section of the building.' Cecchini wvas told bh
some one that the demonstrators had gone upstairs. Drabek
was dispatched upstairs, but found no trace of the demon-
stration up there.
What had happened is that the demonstration had taken
a turn into another cafeteria located in the other part of the
plant located south of road number 4. come out again. re-
crossed the road, and gathered on the sidewalk outside the
door the: had used to leave the main part of' the plant.
Cecchini had stayed inside that door for an unstated period
of time. and then, about 8:20 or 8:22. went outside to the
sidewalk.
At this point there is a sharp difference in the vers0ion of
events supplied me by the General Counsel and Respon-
dent.
Abbott testified that there were about 25 or 30 demon-
strators gathered there on the sidewalk together with an-
other smaller group composed of supervisors and union of-
ficials.' Abbott testified that he addressed the assembl.
pointing to the union and management representatives, and
stating that "they" thought the employees were going to
walk out, but that the demonstrators had something much
more important on their minds. which was what they had
accomplished that night and that they were going out at
12 that night to make this a real strike. trulN representing
the demands of the rank-and-file. He referred to the demon-
stration as a "big step forward" in building up the unity of
the workers in the plant toward their demands and toward
the strike. He indicated that there were a "couple of
chants" and then the group dispersed and went back to
work.
Parsons' testimony differed somewhat from that of Ab-
bott in that he mentioned that Williams also spoke. but
generally his account of the end of the demonstration is
corroborative of Abbott's.
Cecchini, on the other hand, apparently was present only
for a part of this event. He testified that he did not hear
Abbott's speech (Abbott did not recall that anyone from
labor relations was present), but he did state that the speak-
ers he did hear were urging the group to march down the
road to gate 10. He identified first Williams and then Par-
sons as having said this, adding also that they stated that
they would "march them out the gate." Then someone from
I Up to this point there is no substantial disagreement between the testi-
mony of Abbott and Parsons on the one hand, and Drabek and Cecchini. on
the other.
Under the then-current collective-bargaining agreement, the Union was
entitled to have full-lime representatives in the plant whoi had no assigned
work duties other than the representation of employees Thus the presence of
union officials at this lime would not mean that these people had left their
work stations
673
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inside the plant came out and spoke to them. The entire
group went back inside the plant and dispersed.
In any event, there is no dispute that the dispersal was
complete and all the participants were hack at work by
8:30, and that the whole incident took place between 8 and
8:30, the lunch period fr the second floor employees.'
D. The Sspen.sions
In the aftermath of the demonstration, at 9 o'clock that
night, Abbott was called in to the labor relations office
where he met with Perdue and Drabek. The meeting as
reported bh Abbott was inconclusive. Perdue and Drabek
accused Abbott of instigating a work stoppage and Ahhott
in return asked them if they had heard his speech at the end
of the demonstration, and pointed out that it was "crystal
clear exactly what out intentions were." Nothing was set-
tled at the meeting and Abbott was told after 5 or 10 min-
utes to go back to his job.
At midnight the strike began. Ellis, Abbott. Parsons, Wil-
liams, and Fuqua, and possibly some others met in front of
the A-I cafeteria where they unfurled a banner, which Par-
sons had brought with him, hearing the legend "76 contract
is the time to fight" and walked out of the plant, took a
right turn on road number 4, and proceeded to gate 10
where they commenced picketing.
At the end of the strike, the employees reported back to
work on October 14. In the interim, Frank Drabek had
conducted a sort of investigation' of the incident. As a re-
sult it was determined that the leaders, or "instigators." of
what Respondent's witnesses described as an "attempted
walkout" would be suspended, and others of the marchers
who could be, or were, identified would be given written
warnings. A total of 17 employees were thus scheduled for
discipline. On their return to work at 4 p.m. on October 14.
Abbott, Parsons. Ellis, and Williams were called to the la-
bor relations office.
Abbott was ushered into the presence of Labor Relations
Representative Sopher (or Solpher). Also present were Dra-
bek and three union committeemen, identified only as Car-
lini, Shine. and Richardson. Sopher told Abbott that he was
being suspended forthwith because of an incident which
had occurred on the night of September 14. He said that
Abbott would be given a hearing, but he would furnish no
further information on the nature of the offense or the time
of the hearing. The union committeemen joined Abbott's
protest at all this but, as Abbott put it, "it was one of those
things where you go around and around." Following the
meeting Abbott left the plant.
Parsons testified that he also was summoned to labor re-
lations within a couple of minutes after reporting to work at
4 p.m. on the afternoon of October 14. He stated that
Sopher was there, and also committeeman Carlini, but no
others, and, further, that Sopher told him only that he was
being suspended and that he would be notified when his
The record does not tell us whether Fuqua participated during his lunch
period, or whether he left for lunch early or returned late.
I9 use this term advisedly, because it nowhere appears that he talked to
any of the demonstrators, or to other employees in the plant. in order to
determine the purposes or effects of the demonstration. In response to my
question Drabek indicated that the results of his investigation were con-
tained in several documents. Counset for Respondent stated for the record
that he had such documents available but, despite my suggestion, nothing of
the sort was placed in evidence.
disciplinary hearing would be held. Parsons, like Abbott.
remonstrated, but to no avail. He too left the plant.
Neither Ellis nor Williams testified but, on the basis of
the credible testimony of Abbott and Parsons concerning
these incidents, I infer and find that Respondent followed
much the same script in dealing with them. As it happened.
all four, together with Fuqua, met in the parking lot where
they discussed the fact that all had been suspended.
Four days later, on October 18, the promised disciplinary
hearings were held. The employees involved arrived about
3:30 p.m.. along with 20 or 25 angry shouting fellow em-
ployees from the plant. °0 The hearings were held by Sopher
and abor Relations Representative eonard [Haney, the
former acting as company representative in Abbott's and
Williams' cases, and the latter in Parsons' and Ellis' cases.
Sopher conducted Abbott's hearing alone. with Shine
and Richardson present for the Union. Abbott's version of'
this session' was somewhat rambling, but essentially he
stated that Sopher asked questions dealing with Abbott's
role in organizing the demonstration, whether it was
planned or spontaneous, and whether its purpose was to
encourage the employees to walk out of the plant. Abbott
responded that the demonstration was planned. that he had
helped to plan it, and that it was a part of what his group
was trying to do in support of the imminent strike. Beyond
this, the hearing became a dialogue in which Sopher took
the position that "a couple of people" had left the plant as
a result of the demonstration, and that his only interpreta-
tion of the demonstration was that it was designed to insti-
gate a walkout. Abbott. in turn. asked for some evidence in
support of these assertions, pointing out that the group nev-
er made any "motion" to leave the plant. or indicated that
they were actually walking out. After some repetition, all in
the same vein, Sopher told Abbott that he was being sus-
pended for 2 weeks, concluding with the statement that he
was lucky he did not try to leave the plant because in that
case he "probably would have been fired."
At the same time Parsons was being interviewed by La-
bor Relations Representative Haney with the union com-
mitteeman, Frank Carlini.' 2 Haney began the interview by
telling Parsons that he was being disciplined for attempting
to instigate an illegal work stoppage. During the discussion
which followed, Parsons denied that there had been a work
stoppage and, in response to "a lot of real direct questions"
by Parsons, Haney admitted that the cause of the disciplin-
ary action was the demonstration: that neither Parsons nor
anyone else left the building; that neither Parsons nor any-
one else missed any work: and that there was no work stop-
'There is no indication as to whether this group in any way interfered
with the scheduled hearings, or what. if anything. the Company did about it.
Respondent presented no evidence concerning these post-strike events.
" Abbott's testimony on this incident is credible and, since no one else
testified about it. I generally accept this testimony as an accurate representa-
ion of what happened. However, I cannot credit Abbott's statement that
Sopher admitted that no production time had been lost. Such a statement is
totally inconsistent with Sopher's prior statement, which I do credit. that
people had left the plant and that the demonstration was responsible for
that
12 There is very little testimony other than that of Parsons on this incident
Thus. while I believe that his memory of events is molded to some extent by
the intensity of his ideological convictions, I have no reason to discredit his
overall version of events. Haney's testimony on one brief phase of the meet-
ing is not definite enough to require that I choose between that testimony
and that of Parsons.
674
FO()RI 10)M O()R (COM ()P \N'
page in the plant.' I'he then discussed vhat Parsons could
or could not do on his lunch hour. with [lane;I maintlaining
that he could not participate in a demonstration during that
time. and Parsons taking the position lhal he ould do an -
thing he wanted on his own time so long as he did not
interfere with production.
The discussion continued for some time. centering on the
same basic themes and concluded '.ilh Parsons hbeing gti'en
a 2-week suspension. It is reasonable to assume that llis
and Williams went through much the sanie process. and it
is admitted that the'. too. recei\ed 2-week suspensions tor
their roles in orgliani/ing andi participatiIng in the dellonslr i-
tion.
'I: .'Jlla /V.5j ,//ihJ ( ,'Ul/Ii ',/i \
At the outset, I do not find that Responldelnt h;rbhorcd
any lasting hostility or aninus toward lI ime to I nite or the
employees belonging to or engaged In activities on behall of
that organization. Ihe onl,, es idence of such feelings ton the
part of Respondent deri'es from the 130aId's tildinlgs in the
Rouge ('o)hpl'x case that one (iacilno warned I uqua that
he and his associates ould he discharged if the\ continued
distributing literature in hat the companl belieed. mis-
takenly as it turned out, as all improper manlner, at ili-
proper times and places. here is no e, delnce in the instant
case that seenled to ile to carry o er from the earlier case.
no evidence of further animus or hostility and no eidence
that these employees were treated in any wvas dlfferentl1
from other employees similarly situated. he difference he-
tween the suspensions meted out to Ahbott. Parsons. llis,
and Williams and the warnings given to others represented
the difference in degree from organizing the demonstration,
which the, admitted, and mere participation. which the
others had done. Thus, I cannot ind that either the decision
in the Rouge (omplces case or the evidence on the record in
this case warrants a conclusion that Respondent swas iotIl-
vated b considerations apart froml the organization and
conduct of the demonstration on the night of Septemher 14
Turning then to the demonstration, there is no question
that it involved concerted activil.ty The issue, then, is
whether it is also protected bh the law.
If the demonstration had been confined to the cafeteria,
where it started, or if it had taken place in a locker room, or
in a parking lot (as was the case with two of the incidents in
the Rouge Complex case). I would have no problem in de-
ciding that the activity was protected."4 The demonstrators,
however, did not remain in the first cafeteria, but moved
into the main aisle of the first floor of the plant. There is
considerable testimony that this aisle is used by employees
who are working, either going to get tools, or operating
materials handling equipment, or going from one work sta-
tion to another, but it is also used by employees wsho are not
working, going to or from the restrooms or locker rooms.
or, on their own time, going to or from the cafeterias lo-
cated on the east side of the aisle. The demonstrators then
J) Parsons' testminon) In response to a leading questilon b the General
Counsel that Haney stated there was no loss of production is not credited
'" There is no question but that the aims and objectives of Time to tlnite.
insofar as those aims and objectives are catalogued in Abhhbott's testimony,
pertain to conditions of employment, particularly the right to strike oer
grievances during the term orta contract. and would thus e protected hy the
Act
were perfectly within their rights while alking in the aisle
during their lunch hour. hilt since the aisle also partakes of
the naliure of a work area, and because of the aclt that
approinmatel, 8(X( emploees. whose lunch period did not
begin until 8:30 p.m., were located ait sxork stations on the
w.est side of the aisle. or engaged in the course of their work
in using the aisle itself. I must take into account the impact
of thle demonstration on these emploees.
Io aid in this consideration I must consider the record
evidence concerning the dellonstration. and from this de-
termine, if possible, its effect on the orgalniers, who are
alleeed here to be discriminatecs: on Respondent's officials:
and o1 the 800) first floor enmploees.
he recird e idence. h er, leaves much ti be desired
in re ;ealing the reasons \ h!\ each group actedl or did n ot
act, as the'y did. For example, the orga nizers of the denlon-
stration at no point testified that the solidarit\ of employees
in the coming strike \,as the sole purpose otf the ldenlonstra-
tion as planned several days in ad\ance. As in Ahbotl's
testimon' concerning the aims and objecti es of lime to
I nite, the testimon\ of both Abbott and Parsons seems to
me to ca refulI avoid an\ clear and unambigiuou statement
ot purpose in their organization of. and participation in. the
demnonstra tion. Particularly striking in this regard is their
testimony concerning their disciplinary hearings, here
their efforts seem to) have been directed at contfrontlng and
confounding mana gement and where, at no point in their
uncontradicted testimony, did either directl\ den' to the
management representatives present that the'. intended to
instigal te a walkout on September 14. In these circulm-
stances I could infer that the demonstration was planned as
a multipurpose vehicle, with its ultimate destination back
into the plant or out the gates, to be determined bh the size
and enthusiasm which it met among the 2,0(X) employees of
the Dearborn Stamping Plant. Moreoser, it is evident from
the march along the aisle from one cafeteria to the others,
and then, uninterruptedly, straight down the aisle and out
the door onto road number 4 the beckoning gestures ad-
mittedly made both toward the east and west sides of the
aisle: and the rhythmic and Irnperative chant "let's go."
that the purpose of the leaders was to seize the attention of
all within earshot, to attract as large a following as possible
and to creat as great an impression as possible on the em-
ployees and on management. It would be idle to speculate
on what might have happened if the demonstration had
attracted 500 to 800 employees intead of the estimated 50 to
80 who constituted its greatest membership. I.ikewise I can
make no inferences or findings that the alleged discrimi-
natees in this case in fact attempted to lead a walkout of the
plant during the demonstration. But in iew of the state of
the record, I do not believe that the General C(tunsel has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the sole
purpose of the demonstration was to whip up support for
the strike objectives of the Union, or of ime to Unite.
From the Company's side, both the evidence and its brief
show that its officials were convinced that the demonstra-
tion was merely the prelude to a walkout which would ha.ve
constituted a violation of the collective-hargaining agree-
ment. In the view of the Company, the actions of Ahbott,
Parsons, and the others in organizing the demonstration
were in themselves iolations of article V of the collective-
bargaining agreement, thus giving the C(ompan, the right to
h75
I)('CISIONS OF NA'IIONAI. LABOR REILA'l'IONS BOARI)
discipline the offending enployees. he only evidence ap-
pearing in the record in support of this conclusion is a state-
ment by [)rabek that management had heard rumors of an
attempted walkout on the night of September 14. and a
statement by Cecchini that he heard either Williams or Par-
sons urge the group to walk out." Drabek did state that an
investigation had been conducted, and that memoranda
containing the results had been compiled and were avail-
able. Neither those memoranda, or any other evidence as to
the investigation itself; as opposed to the conclusions de-
rived from them was offered in evidence. But even if the
Company were wrong in its judgment as to the purpose of
the demonstration, it was correct in its identification of the
leaders and organizers."
Consideration of the impact of the demonstration on
those first floor employees who were on working time from
8 to 8:30 that night is also hampered by a want of evidence.
No one, either employee or supervisor, who was in that part
of' the plalnt west of' the aisle was called upon to testif'. 7
Ilouever, both Drabek and Cecchini testified that they saw
people leasve their ork stations, )rabck stating that he saw
several employees whose names he did not know join the
march, and ('ecchini noting that he saw 8 to 10 people
leave their work stations and walk over to the aisle to see
what was going on. A couple of' these joined the march for
a few fet. While Abbott and Parsons disagreed with this.
they did not deny that it was possible. Parsons in fact ad-
mitted that the demonstration had passed beyond the con-
trol of the leaders in that the chant of' "let's go" had sup-
planted other slogans which he would have preferred they
use. lie was admittedly concerned lest the C(ompany con-
clude that the demonstration waits. indeed, an attempt to
walk out the plant." In these circumstances I credit the
testimony of Drabek and Cecchini and, as noted above I
have not credited the statements of Abbott and Parsons
that they were told during their disciplinary hearings that
no production time was lost due to the demonstration. But
even if there were no testimony that employees left their
work stations. or that production time was lost. the inherent
probabilities of the situation are so strong as to warrant the
inference, and I conclude that this demonstration, com-
posed of 50 to 80 employees, chanting slogans and gestur-
ing in invitation to join them, moving up the aisle and re-
turning its full length while 800 employees were working in
the same area, had the inevitable effect of interfering with
the work of those employees whose work areas were within
eyeshot or earshot of the aisle, and was inherently disrup-
tive and disorderly. As a result of these conclusions I find
that this demonstration constituted activity unprotected by
the Act.
It is the function of the Board to work out adjustments
between the right of employees to organize, to bargain col-
15 I do not credit this statement. I do not, in so finding. feel that this was a
conscious untruth, but in view of the confusion of the evening's events, and
the lapse of time between those events and the hearing. Cecchini may have
thought he heard what he reported. It is apparent from all the facts that if
there ever was an intent to lead a walkout by the organizers of the demon-
stration, that idea had been abandoned by the time it broke up on the
sidewalk beside road number 4.
I Consideration of the respective contractual rights of the parties here is
best left to another forum.
7 The testimony of Robert Smith is wholly unreliable and is not consid-
ered. Smith, in any event, was not a first floor employee.
1S Which the Company, of course, did.
lectively. or to disagree with their employer or their collec-
tive-bargaining representative. But this right must he
weighed against "the equally undisputed right of employers
to maintain discipline in their establishments." Republic
A vialion (orporalion v. .. R.B.. 324 U.S. 793 (1945). The
institutional rights of the employer cannot be ignored. but
must he balanced against legitimate rights and aspirations
of, employees. even where the exercise of' those rights is dis-
tasteful both to the employer and the union. F;,rd Motor
('oml/t ' (Rouge C('omplex). ti)rl. Ihe protection f the law
may be. and has been, extended to employees conducting a
demonstration in an orderly and disciplined manner, even
though that dtemonstration proceeded through work areas
and was accompanied b loud talk aimong the demonstra-
tors, (hlrv.ler (orportin,m. 228 NlRB 486 (1977). he in-
stant case is distinguishable from ('hrv/ lcr ('lr rawiorn in
that there is evidence of' lost production time: there is no
question that the demonstration in this case. composed of
5(0 to 80 marching. chanting gesturing men, proceeding up
and down the aisle for 20 minutes during a time when 800()()
other employees were working in immediately adjacent
areas was "so disrespectful of' the employer as seriously to
impair the maintenance of' discipline." ¥.L .R.B. v. Blue
Bell, nc.. 219 F.2d 796. 798 (5th ('ir. 1955): Mtart/,l Dr-
dock ('ompae' v. '.L.R.B., 183 F.2d 538 (4th (ir. 1950):
Indiana (ear Works. a Dirision of/lhe Buehler (Corporation v.
N'.L.R.B., 371 .2d 273 (7th Cir. 1967): Southweiern Be/ll
Telephone ('ompanl'. 200 NLRB 667 (1972): l.:'snied Parcel
Sernice, Ine.. 230 NLRB 1197 (1977).
I thus conclude that, by organizing and leading the dem-
onstration in the Dearborn Stamping Plant on the night of'
September 14. Abbott, Parsons. Ellis, and Williams ere
not engaged in protected activity, and the action of Respon-
dent in disciplining them for their role in this activity, even
though Respondent may have been mistaken about the pur-
pose of' the demonstration, was not violative of the Act.
(')N( II sI()NS ()I LAW
I. Ford Motor Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local 600, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of' Amer-
ica, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. The disciplining of the employees herein did not con-
stitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER'9
It is ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
' 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.
h76