General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC. 509
sumed to have special knowledge . No such special knowledge existed
here. The source of the Employer 's representation with respect to the.
rates of the other companies came from the published contracts of the
other companies , and indeed , the contracts were readily available to
the Petitioner for possible refutation of the Employer 's claims since
the contracts had been negotiated by UAW locals.
Furthermore , we are of the opinion that the Petitioner had an effec-
tive opportunity to reply. ' The letter and chart were distributed on
December 31, 1963, and the election was not held until January 3,
1964. Only 34 employees were involved in the election and all lived
in the same small towns/It would not have consumed much time for
the Petitioner to have communicated with each employee , if it seriously
believed that the Employer had materially misrepresented some matter
of special significance in the preelection campaign, particularly as the
Union's president also maintained an address in the same town as the
34 employees . Finally, we cannot view the Employer 's statement as
a material misrepresentation within the intent of Hollywood Ceramics
even if the campaign literature were susceptible of the interpretation
placed on it by the Regional Director , for it is clear that the employees
knew enough about the Employer's rates to have realized that no such
meaning was intended.
For the reasons hereinabove set forth we do not adopt the Regional
Director's recommendation that objection No. I be sustained. Ac-
cordingly, as we have overruled objection No. I, as no other objections
of the Petitioner were sustained by the Regional Director , and as the
tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner failed to receive a majority
of the votes cast , we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Local
Union No . 1119, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that - this labor or-
ganization is not the exclusive representative of the employees em-
ployed by Ralston Purina Company , in the unit found appropriate.]
General Motors Corporation (Buick-Oldsmobile -Pontiac Assem-
bly Division) and Eddie Adams
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO [General
Motors Corporation] and Eddie Adams. Cases Nos. 21-CA-5298
and 21-CB-2156. June 18, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Eddie Adams, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re=
147 NLRB No. 59.
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gional Director for the Twenty-first Region, on October 2, 1963, issued
a consolidated complaint against Respondent General Motors Corpora-
tion (Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assembly Division) and Respondent
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (General Motors Corpo-
ration). Copies of the charges, the consolidated complaint, and notice
of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Re-
spondents and the Charging Party. In substance the complaint al-
leged that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union violated
Section 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, respectively, by main-
taining, in effect, a collective-bargaining agreement containing a pro-
vision unlawfully restricting the right of employees to distribute or-
ganizational material upon the Employer's property. The complaint
also alleged that Respondent Employer maintained, in effect, "Shop
Rules and Regulations" which unlawfully restricted the employees'
right to engage in solicitation. or distribution of union literature, and
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Respondent Employer's answer admits the jurisdictional and factual
allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices. Respondent Union sent a letter to the Regional Di-
rector for the Twenty-first Region, stating that it had decided not
to answer the complaint and waiving all participation in the case.
On February 27 and 28, 1964, a hearing was held before Trial Ex-
aminer Howard Myers. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties,
except for Respondent Union, filed a motion to transfer the proceeding
directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
decision and order. The motion stated that the parties thereto waived
further ruling upon motions by a Trial Examiner, the making of
findings of fact and conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the
issuance of a Trial Examiner's decision. The Board granted the
motion to transfer the case directly to the Board. The General Coun-
sel and Respondent Employer filed briefs.'
The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in the
case, and based thereon hereby makes the following :
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The business of Respondent Employer
Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assembly Division is an unincorporated
division of Respondent Employer operating a plant at South Gate,
California. Respondent Employer is a Delaware corporation, with
its principal offices in Detroit, Michigan, and with various manufactur-
1 Respondent Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and
briefs adequately present the issues raised herein.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC. 511
ing and assembly plants and other business establishments in the vari-
ous States of the United States. Respondent Employer- is, and at all
times material herein has been, engaged in the manufacture of auto-
mobiles and automobile parts at the above-named plants, and during
the past 12 months has shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to firms located outside the State in which Respondent manu-
factured said goods. During the same period, Respondent Employer
purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which it caused to be
transported to its plants from States other than the States in Which the
plants or business operations were located. Respondent Employer
admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. .
B. The labor organization involved.
Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
,and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Gen-
eral Motors Corporation ), is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.'
C. The unfair labor practices
Since January 11, 1963, and at all times material herein, Respond-
ents have maintained u collective -bargaining agreement containing,
inter alia , the following provisions :
(92) The plants covered by this Agreement will erect bulletin
boards which may be used by the Union for posting notices
approved by the Local Managements and restricted to:
(a) Notices of Union recreational and social affairs.
(b) Notices of Union elections.
(c) Notices of Union appointments and results of Union
elections.
( d) Notices of Union meetings.
(e) Other notices concerning bona fide Union activity
such as: Cooperatives ; Credit Unions; and Unemployment
Compensation information.
(93) The number, location and size of such bulletin boards in
each bargaining unit'under this Agreement shall be decided by
the Local Management and the Shop Committee.
2A11 findings made by the Board with respect to Respondent Union are based upon the
allegations of the complaint which, pursuant to Section 102.20 of the Board 's. Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, are deemed admitted by virtue of Respondent Union's
failure to respond to the complaint . See also Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors
Corporation, 144 NLRB 862.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(94) There shall be no other general distribution, or posting
by employees, of pamphlets, advertising or political matter, no-
tices, or any kind of literature upon Corporation property other
than as herein provided.
Until October 23, 1963, Respondent Employer had the following
shop rules posted on the employee bulletin boards :
Committing any of the following acts will be sufficient grounds
for disciplinary action ranging from reprimand to immediate dis-
charge, depending upon the seriousness and frequency of the of-
fense in the judgment of Management.
k
22. Unauthorized soliciting or collecting contributions for any
purpose whatsoever on Company premises.
23. Unauthorized distribution of literature, written or printed
matter of any description on Company premises.
We find, for the reasons stated in our decision in Gale Products,
Div. of Outboard Marine Corp.,' that Respondent Employer and
Respondent Union violated Section 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the
Act, respectively, by maintaining, in effect, a contract provision pro-
hibiting the distribution of union literature during nonworking times
and in nonwork areas insofar as the contract prohibition extends to
labor organizations other than the Respondent Union.
We further find for reasons set forth in our decision in Chevrolet
Motor Division, General Motors Corporation,4 that Respondent Em-
player violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by maintaining, in effect,
shop rules 22 and 23.
II. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth above have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among and
between the several States and tend to lead to industrial strife burden-
ing and obstructing commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. General Motors Corporation (Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac Assem-
bly Division) is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Gen-
eral Motors Corporation) is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3142 NLRB 1246.
1 Supra.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ETC. 513
3. Respondent Employer, by maintaining, in effect; shop rules 22
and 23, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent Employer and Respondent Union, by maintaining,
in effect, a' collective-bargaining agreement prohibiting the distribu-
tion of union literature during nonworking time in nonwork areas
of the Employer's property insofar as said agreement extends to
labor organizations other than Respondent Union, violated Section
8(a) (1) and8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, respectively.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union
violated Section 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, respectively,
by maintaining, in effect, a contract provision prohibiting the dis-
tribution of union literature during nonworking times and in non-
work areas, we shall order that they cease and desist from main-
taining, giving effect to, or enforcing said provision. However, we
believe that in the circumstances of this case it will not be necessary
in order adequately to remedy the aforesaid unfair labor practices
that Respondents be required to post the customary notices. Cf.
General Dynamics, infra. '
We have also found that Respondent Employer's shop rules 22 and
23 violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, in light of Re-
spondent Employer's rescission of those rules on October 23, 1963,
following our decision in Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors
Corp., supra, we do not believe that the policies of the Act require
a remedial order in this respect.5
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders Re-
spondent General Motors Corporation (Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac
Assembly Division), its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and
Respondent International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (General
Motors Corporation), its officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns, shall :
Cease and desist from :
Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing any collective-bargaining
provision which prohibits employees from distributing union litera-
ture on nonworking time and in nonwork areas of company prop-
5 General Dynamics , Fort Worth, a Division of General Dynamics Corp., 145 NLRB 752.
756-236-65-vol. 147-21
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,erty, on behalf of any labor organization other than the labor organi-
zation which entered into such provision.
MEMBER JENKINS, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I concur in the majority's finding that Respondent Employer vio-
lated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by maintaining, in effect, shop rules
'22 and 23, and I agree that a remedial order in this respect is unneces-
sary. I also concur in the majority's conclusion that an agreement be-
tween an incumbent union and an employer cannot prohibit organiza-
tional activity on the employer's premises by employees who are
adherents of a rival union (and, presumably, by opponents of any
union). I would, however, go further and hold that such a con-
tractual prohibition of organizational activity is also invalid as ap-
plied to employees who are members or supporters of the contracting
- union.
It is, of course, clear that by the contract clause in issue the contract-
ing parties have attempted to limit the organizational rights of em-
ployees. In Gale Products, supra, the Board stated that "an unlimited
contractual prohibition against union distribution and solicitation
would unduly hamper the employees in exercising their basic rights
under the Act." With this general proposition, I am in agreement.
• But I cannot accept the further holding in Gale, reiterated by the
majority here, that such a contractual provision can legitimately limit
those "basic rights".of employees who choose to support the incumbent
union. Apart from the anomalous situation this holding of Gale
creates, I think that that holding, and the position, of the majority
here, fails to give those "basic rights" the recognition the Act
commands.
Protection of organizational rights of employees is expressly de-
clared in Section 1 to be a primary purpose of the Act, and by Sec-
tions 7 and 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) these rights are expressly se-
cured to the employees. These rights, in my view, are so fundamental
that I am unwilling to hold- that they can be waived or bargained
away by a union for the employees generally or for any specific group
of employees. Except where legitimate reasons for interference with
those basic rights have been established-and none is present here-
I think employees have, and should have, the right to assist and sup-
port labor organizations of their own choosing irrespective of whether
the labor organization is an incumbent or a rival one. The purposes
of the Act, in my view, are not furthered by the denial to any em-
ployees of their basic statutory rights. .
For the foregoing reasons, I would find the contract clause in issue
unlawful not only as it applies to employees who favor a rival labor
organization, but to those who choose to support an incumbent one as
well.
FASSETTS BAKERY 515
MEMBER LEEDoM, dissenting in part :
Because I adhere to my position in the dissenting opinion in Gale
Products, Div. of Outboard Marine Corp., supra, I would find, con-
trary to my colleagues, that the _ Respondent Employer and the Re-
spondent Union did not violate Section 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act, respectively, by maintaining, in effect, a contract provision
prohibiting the distribution of union literature during nonworking
times and in nonworking areas. I would, therefore, dismiss these al-
legations of the complaint. In view of the foregoing, I would also,
-unlike my colleagues, not find 8 (a) (1) in the Respondent's maintain-
ing, in effect, shop rule 23 relating to the distribution of literature.
However, because shop rule 22 relates to solicitation which is not
covered by the existing agreement, I join my colleagues in finding
.8(a) (1) in the maintaining of that rule; and, like them, I would not
require a remedial order in this respect since this rule was rescinded
on October 23,1963.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
Estate of Nathan Gladstone d/b/a Fassetts Bakery and New
England Joint Board, Retail , Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4319. June 181196!
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
147.NLRB No. 54.